HBP Chapter Fourteen: "Felix Felicis"

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

* First up, I’m not sure what the name “felix felicis” is about. It’s Latin for “happy of happy”, but that makes no sense whatsoever. If I were in a particularly cynical mood, I might suggest she looked up happy in a Latin dictionary, found felix felicis, and didn’t realise that the second word was just the genitive singular of the first.

* Ron correctly points out that Harry’s lessons with Dumbledore aren’t actually teaching him anything useful, although once again we’re probably expected to judge him for his lack of blind faith in whatever his superiors say ought to be done.

* Hermione’s defence, that the lessons help to find out Voldemort’s weaknesses, might be more convincing if Harry ever actually uses something from Voldemort’s childhood against him.

* I’m not sure why Harry’s so averse to attending Slug Club meetings. Yeah, Slughorn’s a bit obsequious, but not so bad as to justify Potter’s constant attempts to avoid him.

* This scene perfectly captures Ron and Hermione’s dynamic: Ron sneers at Hermione for being better than him, and Hermione puts Ron down and makes him feel jealous. If this is JKR’s idea of romance, I’d hate to be her husband.

* Still, at least Harry’s got his priorities right: how will he be affected if they start going out?

* “Under the influence of Butterbeer” makes it sound like an alcoholic drink, but I’m pretty sure we’ve seen no-one (or at least no-one human) get drunk off it before, and there’s never been any indication of an age limit for drinking it. Oh dear, continuity.

* Seamus slams his books and looks sour when Dean gets a place on the team instead of him. For all that fandom has Slytherins down as the Hogwarts drama queens, I think that Gryffindors are definitely the most stroppy.

* I can’t imagine where the rest of Gryffindor house gets the idea that Harry plays favourites from. Except perhaps from the fact that he chose his best friend Ron two years in a row, despite the fact that Ron always goes to pieces whenever there’s a game on. Perhaps that has something to do with it.

* Still, it’s a pity JKR had to resurrect nervouskeeper!Ron. Not only was it tedious enough in the last book, its inclusion here just makes the Quidditch scenes in Phoenix seem even more pointless, and Ron even more needlessly pathetic.

* Ginny, of course, looks even better than usual in this scene: not only does she score most of the goals against Ron (which is probably meant to increase his emasculation – even his little sister is better than him), but she also makes Harry laugh with her sassy put-downs. When she and Harry get married they can both bond over their mutual enjoyment of other people’s discomfort.

* And… here comes the chest monster! Honestly, Harry and his chest monster must be the second-worst romance I’ve ever read (the first, of course, is Ron and Hermione).

* We know Ginny’s going to be awesome in this scene when she begins by “tossing her long red hair and glaring at Ron”. Somebody kill me now.

* What’s with all this “let’s get this straight once and for all” business? Ginny’s choice of words seems to imply that Ron keeps prying into her love life, but we’ve never been given any indication that this is the case.

* I presume the thing Ron doesn’t want people calling Ginny is “slut”? I wish they would. Not because I think it’s true, but because Ginny’s just so irritating that anything which would annoy her is OK by me.

* Ginny has a go at Ron for not having enough experience. Because obviously, modern society isn’t nearly sexualised enough, we need a series of popular books telling children that anybody who hasn’t had enough sexual experience is pathetic.

* Man, Ginny’s just a total bitch in this scene. Yes, Ron was rude to her, but her response is really disproportionate and uncalled-for.

* It’s odd, but Ginny seems to get most worked up about the way Ron tries to get Fleur’s attention. She sounds rather like a spurned lover here. Hmm, maybe all that Weasleycest fic isn’t quite so out there as I’d assumed.

* No, Harry, don’t stop Ron from cursing her! Let Ginny get zapped for once!

* So Ginny flounces off, leaving Ron behind. I suppose he should count himself lucky she didn’t whip out her wand and perform a super-sassy Bat-Bogey Hex on him.

* “She’s Ron’s sister, Harry told himself firmly. Ron’s sister. She’s out of bounds.” Even though Ron practically threw her at him at the end of the last book. Plot-induced amnesia strikes again.

* Harry feels “dazed and confused” the next morning. So do I, after trying to make sense of this book.

* Hermione’s feeling “hurt and bewildered” by Ron’s “icy, sneering indifference”. If this was a semi-believable book, I’d say that Ron had finally had enough of Hermione’s constant passive aggressiveness and undermining, but as it is I think we’re supposed to assume he’s just upset at finding out Hermione had snogged Krum two years ago.

* Incidentally, why is this supposed to be such a big and shocking revelation? Surely when two teenagers go out, the natural assumption is that they’ll end up snogging?

* Luckily for Ron, he’s got no need to worry: Hermione’s just getting her necessary practice in to hone her technique for her true man.

* FOR GOD’S SAKE ROWLING SHUT UP ABOUT THAT SODDING BAT-BOGEY HEX GINNY IS COOL AND SASSY WE GET IT ALREADY STOP RAMMING IT DOWN OUR THROATS AAARGH… *takes deep breaths*

* Lavender’s trying to make Ron feel better. Keep away from him, you hussy! Ron doesn’t need a nice, friendly girlfriend, he needs a scornful and contemptuous one to keep him down in his rightful place.

* Well, at least the Slytherins are sensible enough to have substitute players.

* Harry gets his hand crushed by the Slytherin captain, and I seem to recall Flint used to do the same thing to Oliver Wood. Is hand-crushing a typical Slytherin trait then? Maybe all their parents told them about the importance of a good firm handshake, and they just take it a bit too far.

* Harry dislikes Zacharias heartily… presumably because he can just sense the latent evil in the boy, even though he hasn’t done anything yet which would merit such dislike. If anything, surely Harry ought to feel friendly towards a fellow DA member?

* Ginny scores four of Gryffindor’s six goals. Colour me shocked.

* The game goes pretty much unremarkably: Gryffindor score a few goals, and then Harry’s broom wins the game, rendering everything which came before totally pointless.

* “Oi, Harper! How much did Malfoy pay you to make you come on instead of him?” I’d say that distracting an opposing seeker like this was a very Slytherin thing to do, were it not for the fact that we hardly ever see Slytherins actually doing cunning and sneaky things like this.

* Not that playing on superior brooms and deliberately psyching out opponents makes the Gryffindors any less chivalrous, you understand.

* Ginny flies into Zach for his insufficiently fawning commentary, placing the crowning turd on the mountain of raw sewage that is this Quidditch game.

* “I never said you couldn’t [save goals]!” No, Hermione, you just implied it really, really strongly, such that nobody could miss that that was what you were thinking.

* Ron “looks like he’s eating [Lavender’s face],” unlike Ginny, who daintily glues herself to her boyfriend’s mouth.

* Unfortunately Ginny’s probably right: most first romances in these books seem to be for people to “refine their technique” before moving on to their true love.

* Hermione seems rather surprised that Ron got tired of her hectoring and decided to hook up with somebody who actually respects him instead. Maybe she’s been getting all her dating advice from The Game or whatever the wizarding equivalent is.

Comments

[600ants.livejournal.com]

People don't usually hold the lack of balls against a woman, do they? :-) I know technically the word is neutral and can be used on anyone, but I couldn't think of another example at that moment, and let's face it, you really rarely see a woman insulted as a "weakling". (Outside HP I mean. :p) And anyway, you know very well what I meant. :-) That even around here some groups of people enjoy more protection than other groups.

As in you're white, so what are you complaining about? I don't believe in this. Equality for everyone.

[oryx_leucoryx]

As I suspected, the word 'wimp' is not sexist and has nothing to do with having or lacking balls. It may have had racist origins, but this isn't clear.

Wiktionary gives the following etymology:
Contraction of "whimper", a sound a wimp might make. The term is rumored to have come from "Wimps", a group of French Roma who were kicked out of France, then moved to England and were kicked out again, then moved to the United States. The term was understood in the United States by the 1930s, as it was incorporated into the names of two famous media characters known for living up to that name: The devious but cowardly Popeye supporting character called "J. Wellington Wimpy", and the soft-spoken character "Wallace Wimple" from the radio show Fibber McGee and Molly.

The discussion about Teddy's paternity had me confused for several rounds, I must admit. When I finally caught on I should have said something.

At this point I'll quote Pratchett:
Lord Vetinari seldom had balls. There was a popular song about it, in fact. But now it
was going to be balls all the way.
--Guards! Guards!


As for equality, when people are starting from unequal positions there can't be equality without first leveling the field. A racist comment against a white person is bad, but it doesn't have the impact of the ever-present oppression that many black people experience.

[600ants.livejournal.com]

As with "bastard", I recommend you consult reality. "Slut" used to mean "slovenly", too. In retrospect, I should have used THAT as my argument. :)

I suppose I could parrot you a bit and say that despite it technically being neutral, in our macho-crazed (lol!) society men will be more offended by this word than women, but I simply don't believe sexist sh*t.

All people start from the womb, seems pretty equal to me.
Since when are YOU the judge of that impact?!
We're not all living in America, you know. There's one nation that used to be rather racist in history indeed, but there has never been black slavery in the whole of Europe, Australia and most of Asia, for example. I get it that it's the fashion these days for Americans to whip themselves for something that ended 150 years ago, but kindly don't blame the whole race for some select people's failures.
Perhaps black people are "constantly opressed" where you live (my guess being the USA), but other countries do NOT and never did tolerate racism in any shape or form, and you have no right to imply the opposite. There are, on the other hand, places where white people are discriminated and treated different because of their color. But I don't suppose that would fit into your narrow worldview.

I wonder if you've ever been subject (or indeed witness) to some sort of actual discrimination, or if you just really enjoy fighting windmills.

[annoni-no.livejournal.com]

We're not all living in America, you know. There's one nation that used to be rather racist in history indeed, but there has never been black slavery in the whole of Europe, Australia and most of Asia, for example. I get it that it's the fashion these days for Americans to whip themselves for something that ended 150 years ago, but kindly don't blame the whole race for some select people's failures.

Quoi? Did you conveniently forget that it was theEuropean colonial powers (Portugal, Spain, Great Britain, etc...) who were the primary drivers of the Atlantic Slave Trade? American slavers placed very low on that list in terms of raw volume of slaves trafficked. At the time of the industrial revolution slavery was ~5% of Great Britain's GDP. There's a long history of African slaves in India (which is part of Asia), and even rumors of African slaves in Japan. Australia might not have a significant history African enslavement per se (though it was also a colony of Great Britain), but there was widespread enslavement of Pacific Islanders, also People of Color.

This took me all of 5 minutes to google. It's not hard.

Perhaps black people are "constantly opressed" where you live (my guess being the USA), but other countries do NOT and never did tolerate racism in any shape or form, and you have no right to imply the opposite.

Which countries are these? Name names, please. Because quite frankly I doubt you can come up with a single one completely free of racism and discrimination. The ascendant Golden Dawn party in Greece is a neo-Nazi group with a plank of racial purity. There are widespread problems of discrimination in hiring and wages throughout the Western hemisphere at large - against Muslims in France, people of African and Afro-Caribbean descent in Britain, etc....

In the US a white man convicted of a felony has an equal chance of gaining employment as a black man with no criminal record whatsoever when all other qualifications are held equal. And this is somehow not indicative of a racist society? Racism ended with The Civil War 150 years ago, we have nothing more to address? Evidence, please.

There are, on the other hand, places where white people are discriminated and treated different because of their color. But I don't suppose that would fit into your narrow worldview.

When did anyone here ever say there weren't? Discrimination is wrong regardless of who's on the receiving end, but the fact remains that in the Western world (where most contributors here are from) whites are not discriminated against in any meaningful way, while people of color and other marginalized groups, such as women and the disabled are. Using language that relies on those power imbalances for its meaning (insult) contributes to that societal oppression.

I wonder if you've ever been subject (or indeed witness) to some sort of actual discrimination, or if you just really enjoy fighting windmills.

Why do I need to experience something personally to know its wrong and harmful? There have been many, many studies showing that racism, sexism, etc... are real and inflict real harm on real people. There are thousands, millions of people sharing their stories of pain and discrimination in every country, in every venue. Where are you that you've never seen this?

Since when are YOU the judge of that impact?!
Since when are you?

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

I've got a feeling this is pointless, but I have to say something anyway.

Europe and Australia ban racism now, but have horribly racist pasts.

I am Australian. In my home state, Aboriginal people were forced off their land into controlled settlements and forced to work for free (their wages stolen by the government) until the 1970s, and what is that if not slavery? That is a well documented fact which the government does not dispute. Aboriginal people did not have freedom of movement, let alone the vote, within living memory. Then there were the massacres and dispossession during colonisation - while there are arguments about the details like just how many people the overall picture is indisputable. For other examples we have the treatment of the Kanakas and Chinese. Such outrages are now banned, but prejudice exists today, though it is no longer widely acceptable. The Cronulla riots of a few years ago are a visible example.

As for Europe, not only were European countries the founders of openly and proudly racist colonial systems and the transatlantic slave trade itself, but the Nazi extermination of Jews and Roma (among other 'undesirables') is the very definition of attempted genocide. Really, one could go on and on.

That's not to single the West out as especially racist, now or in the past. Racism exists in all societies. And things are changing for the better. Racism is generally seen as unacceptable in Europe and Australia today, as well as the USA.

To claim that only the USA has a racist past and that other countries have never tolerated it, though, is not just wrong, it's ludicrous.

To use that as part of an argument that sexist or racist language shouldn't bother anyone (I think that was your point?) is irrelevant as well as it being factually wrong.