Re: O_o
![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
[I thought some of the big points were "love is the best virtue", "down with racism", "unpleasant people can be on the side of good", "good people can have big flaws", "choice is important", and "redemption is possible"]
Well, those are supposed to be the intended big points, except Rowling shows us the opposite. The person who talks most about love has no idea what it means to love someone, definitely not someone who is alive and accessible and who needs him. The person who is supposed to have the power of love in large quantities only shows it to a select few, and his relationship with even his closest friends are hopelessly tilted (what does Harry know of Hermione's life? how much does he care about Hermione or even Ron, other than wanting them to be available to him?); he treats Neville, Luna and Ernie like pets, anyone who doubts him like villains and anyone he dislikes like scum or worse - to the point that he ends up torturing an enemy.
The anti-racism message doesn't work because of the attitude to Muggles, which is adopted even by a Muggle-born witch. (And it is diminished further by the interviews if we accept them, because according to the interviews the Potterverse racists are correct - Muggleborns really do have magical ancestors and Muggles can do some kind of disastrous magic with stolen wands. Another reason to ignore interviews.) If we apply Rowling's version of anti-racism it would be analogous to saying members of group X are inferior to members of group Y and deserve to be treated as less than humans by the Ys, except for those who are born to X parents but can pass for Ys.
Choice - not really, choice only tells the world what you were already since before you were born. (Or before you turned 11.) That is the meaning of what Twinkles says in COS.
And the only redemption she offers is death, which is no redemption at all.
Well, those are supposed to be the intended big points, except Rowling shows us the opposite. The person who talks most about love has no idea what it means to love someone, definitely not someone who is alive and accessible and who needs him. The person who is supposed to have the power of love in large quantities only shows it to a select few, and his relationship with even his closest friends are hopelessly tilted (what does Harry know of Hermione's life? how much does he care about Hermione or even Ron, other than wanting them to be available to him?); he treats Neville, Luna and Ernie like pets, anyone who doubts him like villains and anyone he dislikes like scum or worse - to the point that he ends up torturing an enemy.
The anti-racism message doesn't work because of the attitude to Muggles, which is adopted even by a Muggle-born witch. (And it is diminished further by the interviews if we accept them, because according to the interviews the Potterverse racists are correct - Muggleborns really do have magical ancestors and Muggles can do some kind of disastrous magic with stolen wands. Another reason to ignore interviews.) If we apply Rowling's version of anti-racism it would be analogous to saying members of group X are inferior to members of group Y and deserve to be treated as less than humans by the Ys, except for those who are born to X parents but can pass for Ys.
Choice - not really, choice only tells the world what you were already since before you were born. (Or before you turned 11.) That is the meaning of what Twinkles says in COS.
And the only redemption she offers is death, which is no redemption at all.