Magical Magic Creature Spotlight: Kappa

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

Alright, this creature is the shizznit for anyone out there who knows or cares anything about Japanese culture.

Kappa

MOM Classification: XXXX

The Kappa is a water-dwelling creature from Japan. The closest description the book gives us (sorry, “often said to look like”—what, you expect us to believe that the author hasn’t actually seen one? What years of research and globetrotting to get up-close and personal with all the adorable little magical animals?) is that of a monkey with scales instead of fur, and a hollow on top of its head which has water in it. If the Kappa is tricked into bowing this water spills out, thus weakening the Kappa. It is also noted that the Kappa feeds on human blood, but it won’t harm someone if it is tossed a cucumber with the person’s name on it. Actually, in Japanese mythology Kappa were evidently assumed to do everything from pulling pranks to raping women (depending on the myth), the former of which brings to mind Rowling’s depiction of the Imp. Riiiight. What Rowling does not mention is the tendency of Kappa to keep their promises owing to their sense of honor.

Kappa has also provided the basis for many lovable anime characters, such as in video games.

Incidentally, when the book mentions that Kappa are Japanese, Harry’s added some notes: “Snape hasn’t read this either.” I do remember a scene in which Snape makes the claim that Kappa are from Mongolia; my question is, why wouldn’t Snape know where Kappa are from? Because Snape is supposed to be very smart. My guess is that either Rowling didn’t know at the time that Kappa were a Japanese thing, or else she wanted to make Snape look bad to make Harry feel more justified in hating him, in however illogical a context.

Those scales? All done by hand, all in MS Paint. You're welcome!

Comments

[granatapfelrot.livejournal.com]

I LOVE this description of Harry!
Thank you :)
Hm, I never saw Scarlett as a Mary Sue. As the quintessential 'feisty girl', that was quite annoying at times, yes.
But I read that book decades ago, as a very young teen and in a translated version and discussed it with nobody but my mother.
We both agreed, that Scarlett was a bit of a moron, beside being rather bitchy and selfish. I also know next to nothing about Mitchell or what she thought about the character herself. I always felt, that the text acknowledges that Scarlett was very flawed and the author never tried to make her out as some sort of paragon. She also didn't reward her with a 'Happily Ever After' or a war hero memorial and an evil wizard proof infant.
In contrast, in HP characters are written as Scarletts (Ginny, Lily), but I get the impression, I'm supposed to read them as Melanies, who I thought was actually a Sue, with her overdone sainthood, but that was at least not only an informed attribute, like with Lily or Hermione.
I like flawed characters and can enjoy a book even with an annoying protagonist, if I and the other
characters in the book aren't supposed to admire said protagonist as the best thing since sliced bread.
If Hermione, for example had lost her prefect-ship as a punishment and had admitted, that mutilating Marietta's face was an awful thing to do, I would have forgiven her and felt empathy with her. As it is, I'm just angry and disappointed and scenes like Bella torturing her in DH leave me completely cold.
Those Laurie R. King books sound awful. Never heard of her before and google showed me, that she studied theology, which always scares me off anyway. If the protagonist being married to Sherlock Holmes(!) hadn't done the trick. Sounds like Stephenie Meyer light. Creepy and abstruse.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Maybe I'm not communicating clearly. I certainly didn't mean to imply Scarlett is a Mary Sue; on the contrary, I think she's a narcissistic psychopath on the same level as Dumbledore, only prettier. (I wonder if it would be possible to do a fanfic in which he goes to Georgia and gets lessons from her on how to charmingly con people.) For example, look at the ruthless way she stole her sister's fiance so she could get her hands on his money to save Tara, even though she knew she was condemning her sister to spinsterhood in a society where that would leave her an object of permanent shame and pity. Scarlett is evil. I've often thought GWTW should have been called Today Tara, Tomorrow the World because her attitude towards that plantation is the same as Hitler's toward Germany. They're both in love with a piece of land to the exclusion of any human being and obsessed with creating a perfect society on that land.

What I meant was that the techniques Rowling and King use to make their main characters look good are the same as the techniques Scarlett uses to make herself look good to prospective suitors. The only difference is that Scarlett diminishes herself to appear less threatening to men while JKR and LRK diminish the other characters in their books to make those characters less threatening to their lame protagonist. There's an old feminist saying, "A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality." In the same way, if an author's main character is strong, she can surround that character with strong supporting characters. Not only is the main character not diminished by the comparison; on the contrary, he/she looks better because the supporting characters' strengths give the main character a chance to shine even more. The Percy Jackson books are a good example of this.

King has a Master's in theology and made Russell a theologian. That's a point of similarity with HP because we're frequently told what a "brilliant" theologian Oxford grad Russell is, but in the second book, she's outthought theologically by both me, who cares little about theology, and a woman character who dropped out of high school. That kind of assertion about how great Russell is that's contradicted by the text happens all the time. IOW, along with Rowling, King is another queen of informed attributes. Her biggest IA is calling her characters by the names Doyle gave his, when they bear only the most superficial of resemblances to Doyle's characters. Your reference to SM is correct; in fact, earlier on this forum, there was a discussion about the similarities between JKR, LRK, and SM, particularly how they all think they're saying one thing with their books while they're actually saying the opposite. (It was June 2, 2011.)

[granatapfelrot.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm not communicating clearly
It was most likely me, just not getting it. English is not my native language and I don't recall GWTW in any kind of detail. But now that you mention it, Scarlett really is a psychopath and insanely attached to that plantation, where she doesn't even live most of the time, iirc.
But I don't think, Albus needs any help in the con business. He does fine by himself.(That would be an unholy alliance.*shudder)
And now I look up that discussion. Thanks for mentioning it.