Philosopher's Stone Chapter Eleven

[urbanman1984.livejournal.com]

PS Chapter Eleven – Quidditch

 

*Magnificent title.  In this chapter JKR tries and fails to emulate school sports as they are depicted in the British Boarding School genre.

 

*I wonder if Hagrid ate the animals whose skins he wears?

 

*Gryffindor is all set to move up to second place in the House Championship.  Just don’t ask how, JKR’s maths wouldn’t stand it.

 

*Harry is officially the secret weapon, but that should read “the only player of any significance.”

 

*Well where were those useless mattress carriers?  I ask you.  We never saw them during the game did we?

 

*Hermione is Harry’s friend as long as she does his homework for him...!  Poor girl.  Does she actually believe that Harry counts as a friend or has she realised that he is the centre of the Potterverse and is latching onto him for that reason?

 

*The A5 Quidditch Through the Ages is about Harry’s reading level, I know, I read it too.  Deathly Hallows contradicts everything it says about flying with magic.

 

*Seekers get the worst injuries, because they are the only players that the beaters need to bother about. 

 

*No no, Hermione was a stickler for other people obeying the rules, she was always relaxed about breaking them herself!

 

*Hermione lent Harry a library book because he was too lazy to take it out himself?

 

*That’s the spirit Ron!  I always liked his witty aspersions, delivered in the true Gryffindor character.

 

*Yeah why should Hermione let the boys copy her work?  She should just keep doing it for them to save them the trouble.

 

*Harry sees a horrible sight – Snape and Filch are alone and Snape has his robes pulled up.  I wouldn’t want to see Filch in that position either. 

 

*Yeah clear off Potter, this isn’t a peep show.  Snape must think he is as voyeuristic as James was about seeing Snape without his pants.

 

*So for a teacher to deduct points, the pupil has to hear them say it?

 

*Harry’s mind can only hold the one question; “what is the dog guarding.”  Without that question, his mind would be completely empty.

 

*Is Seamus trying to rub it in, or is this a compliment delivered in the Gryffindor fashion?

 

*Harry can remember who Dean is because of the association of his supporting West Ham.  Random historical fact – Rasputin’s memory was so bad that he could only remember his friends by making nicknames for them.  Should Harry have tried this more often?  Dean is “the West Ham Fan.”

 

*The banner says “Potter for President”?!  President of what?

 

*Wood’s speech is taken from a muggle context – but he is not muggleborn, since he didn’t know about Basketball.  I suppose he must have heard it from a muggleborn and thought it sounded cool. 

 

*Flint may have troll blood in him, that would explain his shortcomings – his ancestry is impure.  Are we sure JKR does not have a nationalist or neo-nazi type of mindset?

 

*”What an excellent Chaser Angelina is – and rather attractive to...” That Lee Jordan, he fails to keep the commentary impersonal as badly as Zach Smith failed at doing so.  Oh well.  IOIAGDI!

 

*Why bother commenting on the Chasers?  Their work is completely superfluous.  It’s the Seekers who matter, with their catching of the shiny object. 

 

*In this chapter the narrator jumps around a lot.  Normally it follows Harry, but now it suddenly distances itself from Harry and settles on Ron and Hermione amidst the spectators.  Oh no, Hagrid is here...

 

*Wood had a talent for stating the obvious.  All Harry needed to know was “catch the small object that moves suddenly.”  Even a cat could comprehend Harry’s role in the game.  Which sadly, is the only role that matters.

 

*The Twins had a taste for the tacky even here.  Harry sees them flashing their wristwatches ostentatiously.

 

*Does Higgs have as expensive a broom as Harry has?

 

*Flint blocks Harry from winning the game!  Really Flint, that would only be Okay If A Gryffindor Had Done It.

 

*Dean would rather be watching a football match.  Boring as they are, at least the rules are logical!

 

*Hagrid suddenly considers Quidditch too brutal now that Harry’s playing it...?  But surely he always knew that the beaters hit solid iron balls at all the other players?  Perhaps he believes the rules should only be changed so that no one should attempt to knock Harry out of the air.

 

*But then no one, not even Lee Jordan, makes aspersions about the bludger nearly hitting Harry on the head.

 

*Interfering with a broomstick is powerful Dark Magic.  No, the definition of Dark Magic will not become any clearer as the series progresses.

 

*Hermione changed her view on Snape very quickly.  I suppose she must have taken Ron’s word earlier in the chapter, that he wouldn’t put anything past Snape.  In the film we get to see Quirrell acting very nearly as suspiciously as Snape was (he was gazing at Harry and being unnaturally still). 

 

*The referee is useless.  Oh well, Flint is a cheat.  Scoring in a surreptitious manner should only be Okay If A Gryffindor Does It.  I have no doubt that everyone agrees.

 

*Hermione knocks Quirrell over by accident...! Lame.  In the film it is Snape who knocks Quirrell by giving a start when he realises he is on fire.  That looks better, although it leaves the question of why he didn’t just punch or knock Quirrell to stop him casting his hex.

 

*Really Neville isn’t acting like a Gryffindor here.  He should relish the sight of danger!  No wonder Malfoy taunted him about not being in the right house.

 

*Well since Harry was not unconscious, he won the game.  This is actually better than JKR’s original idea of Hedwig catching the Snitch for him...!  Oh for the days when the editors still did their job ;)

 

*The narrator rejoins Harry and does not leave him again during this book.

 

*Did Hagrid win Fluffy in a game of cards?

 

*Egodore giving Hagrid important information was just a way of ensuring that it would be leaked to the trio.  He would not even have needed to tell Hagrid to leak it to them, Hagrid’s incompetence is his only reliable quality.

 

 

Comments

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Takes it with a wobbly lip that her Master chews her out or blames her for his own failings./

And yet frequently berates and harasses the boy that she’s supposed to be in love with to the extent of sending dangerous birds to attack him when he dares to go out with a girl who isn’t her. Yet there are people who believe that *Ron* is abusive or would be abusive to Hermione and that Harry/Hermione is the pairing where Hermione would be with her true equal?

Your comparisons are interesting, though, considering how I’ve seen people call Ginny Weasley “Harry’s personal Bellatrix.”

/She is, in short, the Potterverse Ideal Woman (no disgusting leaky eyes or wet kisses from her, but pure devotion to Harry)./

She may never give Harry ‘wet kisses,’ but Hermione does cry a lot (and for some reason, we’re not supposed to view *her* as a crybaby, unlike Cho). I think that in certain passages (can’t remember which ones), her eyes are indeed described as “leaking,” which, to be fair, repulses Harry as much as Cho’s crying does.

[urbanman1984.livejournal.com]

It was in Deathly Hallows soon after Harry's wand was broken.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Oh, well, that's okay then. If she was crying because she harmed Harry in some way, or didn't protect his interests adequately, then it's all right to cry. But it's not all right to cry for anyone else.

I think she also cried when she mind-raped her parents, but it's been pointed out she appeared to be crying for herself in that case, not them.

[oryx_leucoryx]

But the sum of all her crying incidents probably doesn't add up to 20 minutes (except for that time in 1st year when she cried all afternoon, but that was before she became part of Team Harry) so it's OK.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Hermione is the Gryffindor Bellatrix LeStrange. She latched onto her 'Master' ("I'm just chopped liver, but You're a Great Wizard, Harry!") does everything he wants, including breaking rules, breaking the law, disfiguring a schoolchild, lead a woman to her rapists, lie, steal and cheat, all the while singing his praises. Takes it with a wobbly lip that her Master chews her out or blames her for his own failings. Abandons all she cares for or believes in (including family) to be with him and even though he doesn't appreciate her nor her devotion to him, marries one of her fellow sycophants but makes no secret of the fact that her Master is more important to her than her lover/(future) husband and/or her family. Oh, and she is a psychopath.

This is brilliant. I hadn't thought about it, but you're absolutely right.

Typical Rowling's Informed Attributes. Rowling will tell you something about a character and will then consistenly SHOW the complete opposite, and yet you can't object to that character's misbehaviour because you were TOLD how this is simply not true. Argh!

But that's typical of narcissists and their acolytes. They tell you how wonderful they are, so they are wonderful, regardless of their actual behavior, let alone how they treat others. Because others don't matter. If someone is being abused by a narcissist and/or their lackeys, they must deserve it, or the narcissist and lackeys wouldn't be abusing them. If someone opposes a narcissist and lackeys for any reason, that's also proof they're horrible people: Since the narcissist has already been defined as Ultimate Good, anyone who opposes hir must therefore be Ultimate Evil. Only if the the opponent turns out to actually be on the narcissist's side can s/he be considered good, but only because s/he has been redeemed by hir proximity to/submission to/acknowledgment of the narcissist's goodness. There. Doesn't that all make perfect sense?

*Hermione lent Harry a library book because he was too lazy to take it out himself?

Harry is just training for the day he has a personal House Elf to make him sandwiches and bring him library books.

LOL!

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Well said. It's kind of funny how I used to take Rowling at her word that Hermione was clever, compassionate and such a stickler for rules, even when that wasn't really what the text told me. The discrepancy didn't even enter my mind until years afterwards. I wonder if this is how a lot of people are still rabid fans of this series- if they don't question the narrative, it's easy to see things the way JKR wants them to. I occasionally wonder if this has ruined my ability to enjoy things now though- I'm told that I overanalyze things and ought to just sit back and enjoy. Do any of you guys get this too?

[sunnyskywalker]

Yeah, I hear a lot that analyzing things makes them not fun. BS, I say. I find analyzing fun in itself, for one, and why is that a less valid form of entertainment? For another, even if the text supports a more depressing reading than the author seems to have intended, that's still interesting. Kind of like playing with legos and dolls all at once, you know? Plus, you can stumble on things that can be interpreted better than the "authorized" reading dictates, which is a happy surprise when it happens. I also don't find the idea that just accepting whatever the author tells me as particularly fun, especially when that amounts to letting myself be bamboozled into ignoring or laughing at things that are actually hurtful to people in the real world, since I know that it's possible that the author and other readers might find it unremarkable or funny in fiction because they also find it so in the real world (I'm sure a lot of us have had the experience of happily reading something and suddenly being jolted by a "girls are stupid" type comment in the narrative, and connecting that to similar experiences in real life). It just feels icky.

Also, I've found - and I don't think I'm the only one - that a lot of the time, the "over-analyzed" reactions I have are actually quick and instinctive, even if I can reason them out to support them after the fact, so the "problem" is actually just that I don't agree with the person who is "just enjoying it." And how weird is it that if you disagree, the way to invalidate the other person's reaction is to say they're thinking too much, anyway? Even if you do change your mind after thinking about something... why is that a bad thing?

[oryx_leucoryx]

If it is all about accepting what the author says then why bother with the story aspect? just let the author write a bullet-pointed pamphlet:
- Racism is bad, okay?
- Girls should study, kick ass and avoid frivolous stuff, right?
- Bravery! That's what makes people good. (Though not enough to be heroic.)
- Don't enslave sentient beings. Even if they are pathetic.

Coming up with a list like that isn't all that hard. Sticking to whatever values while writing a story that is also interesting - that's a challenge. And reading critically to see if the author did so successfully is more interesting then just reading for entertainment at the surface level of the story.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Since I'm on a roll of Pratchett quotes, here's from 'The Wee Free Men':

The stories never said why she was wicked. It was enough to be an old woman, enough to be all alone, enough to look strange because you have no teeth. It was enough to be called a witch. If it came to that, the book never gave you the evidence of anything. It talked about "a handsome prince"... was he really, or was it just because he was a prince that people called handsome? As for "a girl who was as beautiful as the day was long"... well, which day? In midwinter it hardly ever got light! The stories don't want you to think, they just wanted you to believe what you were told...

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

I'm told that I overanalyze things and ought to just sit back and enjoy. Do any of you guys get this too?

The only time I hear that is when somebody is trying to exploit or con me, and my analyzing is getting in the way of their nefarious plans. So I become instantly suspicious when I hear that. Besides, as sunnyskywalker says, for those of us with analytical minds, that's automatic, instinctive behavior. We can't turn it off. And as a fan of Sherlock Holmes since I was 11, I would be disgusted at myself if I even wanted to--not that I ever have.

For me, analyzing a story makes it more interesting. For example, I realized from the first chapter of PS/SS the HP saga was severely messed up, and Dumbledore was probably a bad guy. Part of the fun in reading the books thus became finding examples of the screwedupness and exclaiming, "Oh, my God, that is so sick! I can't believe they did that!"

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Wow, you figured it out from the very beginning? The treatment of muggles had always bothered me when I was a kid, mainly because I was afraid that I was one myself (selfish, right?), but I was willing to ignore stuff like that for the sake of having a good time. I think it finally started to get to me when I finished the last book and realized that JKR seemed to consider it a happy ending, despite almost nothing changing about the world. The muggles were still treated with disdain, Slytherin was still the supposedly bad house, and yet "all was well". This bothered me for a while, but until I found this group I always thought that I was just the weird one who couldn't enjoy something fun. Glad to know I'm not alone, you know. It's almost like a support group, right? ;-) I guess we have to have one, considering the terrifying zealousness of many HP fans. I will be happy when the hype about the series finally dies down. You do think that it will, right? One can only hope.

Also, may I ask how old were you when you first started reading the books? If you were still a kid then you must have been much more astute than I was.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

I first read them in March and April of 2009, when I was 50. However, based on other incidents in my past, I think it's extremely likely I would have been somewhat uncomfortable even if I'd read them as a kid, even if I hadn't been able to define exactly what it was I didn't like. I've always been exceptionally astute that way. (As Sherlock Holmes said, "I cannot agree with those who rank modesty among the virtues. To the logician, all things should be seen exactly as they are, and to underestimate one’s self is as much a departure from truth as to exaggerate one’s own powers.")

The reason I was able to pick up on the sickness of the books so quickly and easily is because the Potterverse functions exactly like my own family. You've got the designated good guys who can do no wrong and the designated bad guys who can do no right, never mind that their behavior often contradicts their designation; the elder who is designated as good but is actually evil, but who must be worshipped because to not do so is indicative of evilness; the sexism and misogyny; the relentless abuse and malignant neglect that are often treated as jokes or dismissed as unimportant; the addiction and mental illness that are ignored until they become impossible to overlook; the designated hero who is really quite ordinary, but who has praise and privilege heaped on him (and it's always a him), while far more talented people are ignored or even beaten down as worthless scumbags. The only thing my family doesn't have is the cruelty to animals. Nobody in my family would find vanishing kittens or shoving fireworks down a lizard's throat funny.

People have asked how I became suspicious of Dumbledore in the first chapter of PS/SS. It was two things: (1) Too much attention is paid to him. As I read, I kept thinking, "I thought this was the Harry Potter series. Why are we hearing so much about this Dumbledore guy? Shouldn't we be hearing a lot more about Harry in this first chapter?" (2) McGonagall tells Dumbledore he's "too--well--noble" to use Dark magic. Any time somebody tells me how good somebody else is, I get suspicious, particularly in a novel. If somebody is really good, show me, don't tell me. If you have to tell me somebody is good, I start wondering, "Well, if this person is so good, why do I have to be told that? Why can't I be allowed to figure it out for myself?" It feels like a preemptive strike is being made to influence my thinking before I have the chance to form my own opinions.

Later in that same book, I noticed how mean, dishonest, spiteful, and manipulative he was. For example, his telling Harry Snape owed James a life debt just felt wrong to me. I never believed it. It sounded like the kind of thing you'd say to an orphaned kid to indirectly flatter him. ('Your dad was such a great guy, and you're just like him, so you must be great, too.") Then there was his gratuitous awarding of house points to Gryffindor, which led to the gratuitous humiliation of the Slytherins at the leaving feast, not to mention the way he allowed all kinds of dangers at a school, when the first duty of any teacher is to keep the students safe.

There's one other big red flag (and many small ones) regarding Dumbledore. We keep hearing that Dumbledore is the only person Voldemort feared. Obviously, we're supposed to believe that's because he's so virtuous. The problem is, anybody who's familiar with psychopaths--which I am--knows psychopaths never fear anybody except other psychopaths who are even more evil than they are. This is because one of their salient characteristics is their absolute conviction that everybody else is just like them, i.e., utterly evil and selfish. When they use words like "love," "compassion," "forgiveness," etc, they're lying, and since they are incapable of empathy, they think when other people use those words, we're lying, too. They are therefore incapable of even believing other people are good, let alone fearing goodness. For them, goodness does not exist. Ergo, if Voldemort fears Dumbledore, it must be because he thinks Dumbledore is even more ruthless and evil than he is. And given what we know of Dumbledore's early plans for muggle torture and enslavement, Voldemort was right.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Wow, good catch there. I am not actually sure if I would have caught on so quickly, even if I had been an adult when I first started reading the books.

The reason I was able to pick up on the sickness of the books so quickly and easily is because the Potterverse functions exactly like my own family.

I'm sorry to hear that.

If somebody is really good, show me, don't tell me. If you have to tell me somebody is good, I start wondering, "Well, if this person is so good, why do I have to be told that? Why can't I be allowed to figure it out for myself?" It feels like a preemptive strike is being made to influence my thinking before I have the chance to form my own opinions.

You know, now that I think of it, I wonder if Gandalf (who is often compared with DD) is described as being good from the start. I mean, his actions show that he is, but I don't really remember the narrative itself saying it. This also makes me want to go back and check my own writing to be sure that I haven't done this. It's something that I usually dislike, but I was 12-ish the last time I read the first HP book, so I guess I didn't notice it.

For example, his telling Harry Snape owed James a life debt just felt wrong to me. I never believed it. It sounded like the kind of thing you'd say to an orphaned kid to indirectly flatter him.

At the time I saw this as a way of showing how evil and ungrateful Snape was, but you have a good point. I mean, it isn't like Harry really remembered his father, so he could really have said anything about him and he would have believed it. Of course, since everybody Harry likes is just as enamored with James Potter as he is, I guess there is nobody to tell him about his father's less than compassionate nature. Oh, other than that slimy old meanie Snape, but who cares what he thinks, right?

We keep hearing that Dumbledore is the only person Voldemort feared. Obviously, we're supposed to believe that's because he's so virtuous. The problem is, anybody who's familiar with psychopaths--which I am--knows psychopaths never fear anybody except other psychopaths who are even more evil than they are.

You would think that JKR would have thought of this, considering how much time she has spent with these characters. Is it me, or do her constant reassurances that DD is a great and wonderful person in her interviews seem a little forced, like she realized it but didn't want to admit she had accidentally (?) written the kind old mentor as a sociopath? She sort of acknowledges it in the last book, but really doesn't go far enough to make it make any sense.

[sunnyskywalker]

I remember Gandalf walking on state in The Hobbit and marking Bilbo's door so Bilbo would get sucked into an adventure, and I think it mostly stuck to descriptions of his actions and appearance. So he actually came across as a bit of a trickster at first. In LotR, he showed up as an old friend with fireworks iirc, and we didn't find out about his more noble exploits (like exactly what was up with the "Necromancer" back in The Hobbit) until a bit later. And he didn't talk about most of his ages of wandering Middle Earth ever - mostly we just saw what he did during the narrative. I think, anyway! It's been a while.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

You would think that JKR would have thought of this, considering how much time she has spent with these characters. Is it me, or do her constant reassurances that DD is a great and wonderful person in her interviews seem a little forced, like she realized it but didn't want to admit she had accidentally (?) written the kind old mentor as a sociopath? She sort of acknowledges it in the last book, but really doesn't go far enough to make it make any sense.

That presupposes Rowling has the self-awareness to realize how badly Dumbledore comes across. I don't think she does in any meaningful way. Remember also that he's a self-insert of hers, so she can't fully recognize how awful he is, unless she wants to make some ugly realizations about herself at the same time. Ditto for Hermione, that excellent girl's role model, and Harry-he's-not-a-saint. For further remarks on this subject, please see my reply to majorjune below, from 1/4, 4:40 AM.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

True. I guess I had just thought (from my own experience, at least) that one could live with ones characters for that many years without noticing that they weren't the way you originally thought they were. I thought that was part of creative writing. I guess not.

Of course, if your characters are pretty much you, I guess it must be different.