I feel a rant coming on.

[lierdumoa]

ETA 5/10/10: I've locked comments in this post, because seriously? This post is three years old. I just don't give a fuck about your opinions regarding a fandom I left three years ago. And I'm sure neither do most of the people who published comments when this journal entry was originally posted.

I read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows when a friend managed to procure me a bootlegged version of it.

Never have I been so glad I did not spend money on something. This was one of the most offensive works of fiction I have ever read in my life.

First I will address the subject of queerness as it is, frankly, the least of what is wrong with this book and I prefer to start small.

It's not so much that she refused to include any offhand references to homosexuality in any way shape or form. It's that, as goluxexmachina pointed out to me, she saw fit to include an offhand reference to goatfucking with regards to Aberforth, and then on top of that, refused to include any offhand references to homosexuality in any way shape or form. "Oh, you want alternative sexuality? Have some bestiality. It's all the same to me, and now you freaks can't say you didn't get represented in my book."

Thanks, J. K. Rowling. Thanks ever so.

Of course, it's not just the homosexuals who are written out of the book. They were merely written out more quietly than any other minority group. Tonks and Remus die. Fred dies, and the freakishness of being one half of a pair of twins dies with him. Snape, the recluse dies. Dumbledore, the genius. Creepy Creevy, the artsy kid. Dobby, the unhappy slave. In fact, the only freaks alive at the end of the books are Loony Luna and slow, bumbling Hagrid—as permetaform pointed out, the relatively helpless freaks. Aren't they endearing? Why no one could kill such adorable puppies. Look at those eyes!

Now, the epilogue.

Of course it is clear that the epilogue was a pile of publisher pleasing heteronormative cat piddle. Again, that is the least of what I think was wrong with it. What truly disappointed me about the epilogue was the fact that twenty years later, all the main characters were, essentially, still in high school.

Everyone married their high school sweethearts. Ron was congratulating himself for getting away with cheating on tests. Nobody's careers were mentioned, as apparently everyone made careers out of repopulating the wizarding world with red haired children. Slytherin house was still full of shady buggers, and all the old rivalries remained in place.

Didn't Hermione want to change the world? She started a political movement when she was twelve, and then it fizzled. Ron, the master strategist, defeated the genius Dumbledore's chess set at the age of eleven. The most notable thing he ever used this talent for was ... playing chess. At the age of eleven. All of these children had amazing potential, and Rowling actually wrote it into the canon that none of this potential was ever realized, that these children never grew up. Two decades later all they're doing is congratulating themselves on the good old days.

I'm sure you can guess my opinion of thirty-six year olds who think their years spent in high school were the best years of their life and continue to behave like petty teenagers even when they have children to raise. Suffice it to say, my opinion of them is not high.

Of course, Rowling is nothing if not consistent. She's contended since book one that ambition is a dirty word, a characteristic of a lot of Western literature, and one which I've always found fault with. The only people in the book who attempt to better themselves are either evil or going through an evil phase. Dumbledore's ambition led to terrible consequences and he spent most of his life trying to clean up his mess. Snape was a broken, friendless child, and he died a broken, friendless adult. The only reason Harry survived emotionally is because friends fell into his lap on his first day of school, without him having to go looking for them.

Rowling puts forth a very consistent message that people can only be bettered by fortunate circumstances, that freaks who are too traumatized to make friends during childhood will remain freakish and friendless thereafter, that the only way they can contribute to society is by sacrificing themselves for the good of the normals.

I grew up in a very dysfunctional home. I was unusually intelligent, the kind of intelligence that meant I could be as lazy as I wanted to be and still pull A's and score in the 99th percentile in most standardized tests. I was friendless in the seven grade. I made friends in high school. I did not accidentally trip on friends. I made friends. I left high school. I did the same all over again in college, and then with fandom. I'm working to be a professional artist. If I had been a character in this book, I would have died a martyr, because according to this book, that's the only thing a broken freak like me is good for.

Of course, I was written out of this book, along with the rest of the queers.

I'm somewhat horrified that Rowling actually thinks Ron and Hermione would be good parents. I mean, seriously? It's as if Lisa Simpson married Homer Simpson. That is, if Lisa Simpson were a completely insane control freak who wiped her parents brains and packaged them off to another country, supposedly for their own good.

Really, Hermione? Their own good?

Clearly Ron and Hermione's children are going to develop eating disorders and/or go into therapy by the age of twelve.

But I digress.

Another point of contention is the plight of Petunia. She hated the wizarding world out of jealousy. As goluxexmachina pointed out to me, if Rowling had taken it upon herself to make Petunia a real person, instead of a cardboard cutout, Petunia could have had a perfectly valid reason for hating the wizarding world.

After all, the wizarding world secreted her sister away at the age of eleven, got her pregnant before the age of twenty, and then killed her before the age of twenty five. I don't see how she could not hate the scary cult that killed her baby sister.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all was how Rowling treated the subject of slavery. I, and I know many other fans assumed that the purpose of the house elves in the books was to make a commentary on the flaws inherent in a society dependent on slavery and illustrate how it leads to said society's stagnation and how the system is ultimately self-defeating. But no. Apparently Rowling thinks slavery is great, so long as the slaves are predisposed to enjoying their servitude. The last chapter before the epilogue ends with Harry wondering to himself "whether Kreacher might bring him a sandwich." After all, he's "had enough trouble for a lifetime."

Rowling finds nothing at all wrong with Harry having Kreacher's sandwich. And eating it too, I'm sure.

Dobby's last words, mere seconds before his death are, "Dobby is free." Yes, Dobby is free to die. For wizards. He is even honored with a shallow grave and a pile of rocks. And some tears too, of course. Here lies Fido Dobby. He was a good dog elf. No one could fetch like old Dobby.

I pointed this all out to permetaform who then pointed out to me that, clearly, when Hermione created S.P.E.W., Rowling really did mean spew. She was essentially equating Hermione with a PETA fanatic.

No, I do not dislike this book as a fan, because my fic got Jossed. I do not dislike this book because I think it is a bad story. I dislike this book because I think J. K. Rowling is a bad person. Because she wrote out people like me in this book. Because she killed off people like me in this book—

—so that Harry Potter could enjoy his sandwich in peace.

Comments

[agarttha.livejournal.com]

word. ranty, but word!

[toft-froggy.livejournal.com]

THANK YOU. The more I think about DH, the more angry I feel about it. Yes.

[amalthia]

I try not to think about the book much because it gives me headaches.

[alasandalack.livejournal.com]

i got linked here by a friend, and i must say, you're right. painfully right. it's painful that you're right, in fact (not because it's you, but because... DH. yeah).

we have not bought the book- and won't. my partner is boycotting any future JKR books, as well as the movies. i am seriously considering following their example.

augh.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

It's as if Lisa Simpson married Homer Simpson. That is, if Lisa Simpson were a completely insane control freak who wiped her parents brains and packaged them off to another country, supposedly for their own good.

And if Homer Simpson was a "master strategist" who "defeated the genius Dumbledore's chess set at the age of eleven."

only people in the book who attempt to better themselves are either evil or going through an evil phase

So what's all that studying Hermione does?

I'm impressed by you thinking Fred dying means JKR has it in for twins.

I agree that the epilogue would have been more satisfying if the stuff she said in an interview (like Harry being a top Auror, Hermione being a lawyer) had actually been in the book. And the house-elves are disturbing. Though I thought they were meant to be.

[lierdumoa.livejournal.com]

Actually, Homer Simpson was brilliant as a small child. He had the most beautiful and angelic voice of all the choir boys up until his voice broke. He was a star pupil. Apparently the Simpson males have a genetic predisposition to grow up to be losers. There's an entire episode revolving around it.

--> watched the show religiously as a child.

The point I was attempting to make, though, was not with regards to Ron's talents, but his personality, his laziness in non life-threatening situations, his general immaturity, his irrationality, his short temper, etc. When it comes to marriage and fatherhood, maturity carries a great deal more weight than brilliance. Ron certainly wasn't behaving as a master strategist when he was congratulating himself for cheating on a driving test and getting away with it.

As for Hermione, her boggart is failure, and in fact it's the one test she completely fails to pass in defence class, which would very strongly imply that self-improvement is not her main motivation for studying, but fear of failure. The one time she does something with all her studying where the end goal isn't either helping The Cause or getting A's, JKR equates her with a PETA fanatic, so. Make of that what you will.

I think Fred and George are the freaks of the Weasley family. They are the only ones not to finish school. They are the entrepreneurs. They are a single entity. FredandGeorge. They're also assholes, but that's besides the point. I think killing one half of them is in a sense killing everything that made FredandGeorge a force to be reckoned with at their tender ages.

I'm sure I could have worded that section of my post better, but well, I wasn't exactly trying to convince anyone of anything, just get some things off my chest.

And you are of course free to tell me I am full of crap. I'm not trying to tell you I'm not full of crap, as I may very well be, merely that I have thought this through further than this single ranty post might imply.

If I had intended a professional quality criticism, this post would have been about three to four thousands words longer. I'd like to think if I'd written such a post, it would have been better argued, but maybe it would just have been even more full of crap.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Hmm, reasonable reply.

I'm in the camp that enjoyed the books, thought they were fun reads, even creative in handling the Boy Wonder and the Dark Lord plots, and not bothered by whether everyone's minority was duly represented. The "one of the most offensive works" camp, which you're hardly alone in, just strikes me as alien, and out to read the worst into everything.

Like, as I said, the epilogue was kind of meh. But that scene wasn't a time for showing off master strategy, but for familial joking around and reassurance. Self-congratulation fit.

A (gay) friend pointed out that there are a lot of characters with unspecified sexuality in the books, but snarks that they're not hot. And of course there's Dumbledore, who's never mentioned as having known the touch of woman and had an interestingly intense relationship in his youth. "Gandalf is gay!" Heck, Voldemort seems non-hetero (asexual?) as well, not that anyone wants to claim him.

"We're not represented!" just seems weird to me, especially when it goes past griping into taking major offense. Though I developed a bit more sympathy when I realized these aren't just any novel, but a huge popular pillar of pop culture to be included in. OTOH, the author may still feel at gut that they're just her novels, not something she has to perform a public service with. If none of her characters felt gay to her, then she wouldn't force them to be gay. Lots of authors talk about their characters taking on a life of their own, in the author's head. You might grumble about the kind of society that doesn't inspire the author to imagine gay wizards in high school, but blaming the author seems... off.

[(Anonymous)]

"The point I was attempting to make, though, was not with regards to Ron's talents, but his personality, his laziness in non life-threatening situations, his general immaturity, his irrationality, his short temper, etc."
You're judging somebody based completely off how they were in middle school and high school? Honestly, I'd think the books were even worse had all the characters been written with great maturity, rationality, work ethic, etc. Thankfully, people aren't condemned to forever remain like they were as kids.

"When it comes to marriage and fatherhood, maturity carries a great deal more weight than brilliance. Ron certainly wasn't behaving as a master strategist when he was congratulating himself for cheating on a driving test and getting away with it."
The wizarding world as a whole doesn't have all that much regard for muggles, and given the examples provided by Arthur Weasley I'm really not surprised that Ron wouldn't think much of fudging his score a little bit. You seem to long for a perfect world where nobody breaks rules or acts out of line, but thankfully Rowling's a bit more realistic than that.

As for the original post:
"Rowling puts forth a very consistent message that people can only be bettered by fortunate circumstances, that freaks who are too traumatized to make friends during childhood will remain freakish and friendless thereafter, that the only way they can contribute to society is by sacrificing themselves for the good of the normals."
What about Neville? He was a huge loser throughout the first few books, and ends up being the sole remaining leader of Dumbledore's Army, doing a lot of good.

I didn't like the book very much, but I'm not self-absorbed or paranoid enough to see it as an attack on me or mine. The human brain is remarkable in its ability to make connections and pick out patterns, even when none exist. If you're looking to be offended, you can make it happen pretty easily.

[lierdumoa.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your input. I respectfully disagree.

[lierdumoa.livejournal.com]

Oh, there's also an episode where Homer gets a crayon removed from his brain that's been embedded since he shoved it up his nose as a child. He spends a few weeks as a super genius. He comes up with a mathematical formula to prove God doesn't exist. Then he decides he's miserable this way and shoves another crayon up his nose.

Simpsons canon contradicted itself a lot.

[(Anonymous)]

this is pretty wanky.

[lierdumoa.livejournal.com]

Well. I did call it a rant in the subject line.

[(Anonymous)]

Ron defeated McGonagall's chess set, not Dumbledore's.

Just wanted to point that out.

[dianaprallon.livejournal.com]

And Hermione was 15, not 12.

[perivates.livejournal.com]

Offhanded comments about alternative sexuality were not limited to goatfucking, but also to pedophilia (in Skeeter's book, and when Ron was asked just how close to him Dumbledore was). I do not think these were intended in the slightest to be social commentaries beyond acknowledging that people will make offensive comments about anything, so long as it gives them the upper hand or some sense of superiority, truth of the insinuation aside. Would you want an offhand reference to homosexuality/bisexuality/etc. in this sort of context? I know I certainly wouldn't.

There is a huge difference between representation and integration. For all we know, any of the characters could be bisexual or homosexual. Just because orientation is not mentioned does not mean that you or anyone else is being purposefully oppressed--it just means that these characters' sexualities were not important to the plot. For all we know, Dumbledore could well have been gay, or McGonagall and Trelawney and Luna could have been lesbians, but the fact of the matter is no one knows, save for the author, and that's assuming that she even bothered to create a sexual identity for them at all. I'm not surprised that the epilogue entailed so many couplings, since one of Harry's core desires is for a family. And yes, both of the main pairs married their "high school sweethearts," but you seem to be ignoring one critical factor: they all went through a fucking war together. Situations like that do tend to pull relationships closer together, or at least result in marriages (though they were often "good-bye marriages" in situations like WWII). It's not so strange that after all they've gone through together that they'd end up, well, together. As for Remus and Tonks, who's to say that Remus didn't have romantic feelings for Sirius, or even a full-fledged relationship with him? Again, just because something is not mentioned does not mean that it absolutely does not exist. For all we know, part of his desire to run off with our young heroes could have been guilt not only for putting Tonks in a socially undesirable situation for marrying a werewolf, but also guilt for not mourning Sirius's death longer before romantically moving on. Of course, this is all assumption and not canon in the least.

What I don't understand is your apparent need for validation through the canon of a novel series. Why does J.K. have to write about sexual identities? Why does she have to write about anything at all? Fact is, she doesn't; she does not need to cater to any of her audience's whims, and it's preposterous to impose your own desires on an author like that. You have what she has written, and you are free to make suppositions as you please from that; you are free to read into as much subtext as you want, and to make extrapolations from where things are not quite spelled out.


(Sorry, reposted due to html error.)

[(Anonymous)]

Here. Have an internet from some random mouse. :)

[lierdumoa.livejournal.com]

Truthfully, Rowling went out of her way to make sure people of color were included in her book. Blaise Zabini is black. The Patil sisters are Indian. She didn't have to include people of color. Their race is not relevant to the story or to the personalities of these characters. I can only think she did this because she felt some sort of social responsibility.

Rowling has made numerous comments to that effect as well. She knows that children around the world are reading her stories, and was upset to think that children might be inadvertently stumbling upon sexually explicit fanfiction. She knows what kind of impact her books have had on the world.

Hence, when I say that she failed to include queerness in her novels, I am not saying that as a writer she is obligated to represent me or validate me. She is, in fact, the one who decided it was her responsibility to write about people in the depths of poverty as well as people in the higher echelon. She is the one who decided it was her responsibility to make sure people of African, Middle Eastern and Asian descent were represented and validated in her novels.

The fact that she went so out of her way to represent every minority group *except* homosexuals reeks of exclusion.

Simply put, her books are bigger than her, and she knows it, and she's known it for years. She's written the bestselling book since the Holy Bible. She's created an entire world with her stories, and populated it with every sort of person she could think of, except this one particular type of person. The fact that the only offhand references to non-heteronormative sexuality are pedophilia and bestiality means something in this context.

It means something very disturbing.

[(Anonymous)]

WHAT ABOUT LATINAMERICAN PPL?? YOU ARE BEING *SO* RACIST TOO BY EXCLUDING US FROM THIS PARTICULAR POST.

See? I'm sorry but JKR does not have to cater to everyone's wishes, and that doesn't mean that she thinks homosexuality or having any non-white skin colour is bad. Get a life. Really.

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, upon reading Deathly Hallows, I got the *distinct* impression that Albus Dumbledore was gay and that he and Elphias Doge had been involved in a long-term relationship (after the breakup of Dumbledore and the other person whose name escapes me - Grendel?). Nothing specific, but that's the way those scenes read to me.

He wasn't the only character that I thought might be/was homosexual, but he was the most prominent. There are quite a few others that are possible.

While any work of art should be questioned, I have to say that I disagree with the OP's conclusion here. This was not a work that specifically excluded homosexuals and/or bisexuals, in my opinion. If you wanted to argue that she should have been more definite about her definitions, that's another story.

[blacksquirrel.livejournal.com]

Ugh. There were moments that I loved in book 7, but you're so right about all of this.

The plight of House Elves was probably my biggest interest in the series, and although I did appreciate that the elves rebelled at the end, the fact that they apparently did so in the name of Regellus and not for their own freedom is absurd. That and after we saw Dobby's inherent elf magic, it made no sense for the rebelling elves to use cleavers rather than spells - a point which only further reinforces their feninized status - and reinforces the degradation of feminized skills vis-a-vis masculine ones (cleavers versus spells, in this case, but clearly the tasks elves perform aren't valued in general - they do work considered degrading, which in RL would be considered "women's work")

After the build up with the magical brethren fountain, I really expected a complete social justice revamp at the book's conclusion, not "happy" hetero land, and I'm feeling rather disgruntled about that. If anything sums up my feelings about JKR, it's that she doesn't know how to deliever a payoff after building incredible potential. Please let there be fan fic.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, I know you don't want to hear pedantic corrections from some random anonymous lurking the internet, but actually, Dobby's last words were not "Dobby is free". That really wouldn't make sense, even, as Dobby was freed in the second book. IIRC, his last words were "Harry Potter".

Also, did you miss the Ron/Hermione sucking-face scene? Not trying to be an ass, just asking.

Everything else has already been mentioned. Needless to say, I don't agree with your interpretation of the books in the slightest.

[lierdumoa.livejournal.com]

I apologize for my approximation. Correction: Dobby's last words before he sustains a mortal wound from Bellatrix are, "Dobby has no master! Dobby is a free elf, and Dobby has come to save Harry Potter and his friends!"

I'm not sure how Ron/Hermione sucking face is actually relevant to anything mentioned in my post, but yes, I do recall the scene.

I of course, have no expectations of agreement. This post is a rant, after all. If I'd been in the mood to change people's minds, there would have been a lot less sarcasm, fewer abstract references, and more direct quotations.

Your perspective is noted.

[mattador.livejournal.com]

If I believed JK Rowling had done what you say she has done, I would agree with you. However, as far as being a freak goes- I feel that your list is incomplete. Neville, the shy boy with the insane parents, is in no way a freak? I'd say he is, and he's far from harmless. Kreacher's a freak, and he's not dead. If Dumbledore is a freak for being a genius, why, then so's Hermione. She lived. The twins, at school, had an almost celebrity-level of popularity, and that was because of their behavior, not because they were twins. They are not freaks- or if they are, then so are Padma and Parvati, who lived through the book.

No, the book didn't show any homosexual relationships. How many pieces of mainstream fiction do? Do you expect them to? I'm disappointed that they don't, but I find it ridiculous to claim that every book that does not contains deliberate prejudice and should be different.

On the topic of Kreacher, I think you're right on. I've got absolutely no issue with that.

Die-Hard Rowling Fan Here, Couldn't Resist...

[(Anonymous)]

Ok, so, what you're saying is: There are no gay characters in the books, so JKR thinks that all people who are homosexual are trash?

............

Did it ever occur to you that the fact that she didn't have any homosexual characters never crossed her mind? Perhaps she just didn't think anything of it? There are also no dancers, firemen, cross-dressers, actors or actresses in the books, so surely she thinks they are all dirt as well?

Hermione wiped her parents brains and moved them to Australia so they wouldn't be tortured and killed for information. Ummmm. I would rather live in Australia for a year than be tortured and killed.
...OH MY GOD YOU MUST HATE PEOPLE FROM AUSTRALIA!

Anyway. Jo DID NOT kill off all of the--how you so kindly put it-- "freaks" in the books. Neville and Luna, the biggest un-cool teens in the series, both survived. Fred was popular and Jo always showed him in a positive light, I do not know how you gather that he was a "freak".

On to another subject.
Ron and Hermione's talents went to waste?! Oh, contrare.
Ron became an auror, or dark-wizard catcher. Strategy is going to be vital! I honestly can't think of a job where strategy would be more important, unless your saying a professional chess player is the only career Ron can succeed in...?
Hermione's compassion for the house-elves turned Kretcher (sp? sorry,) into a happy character whose loyal personality was greatly appreciated when he and the other house-elves came to fight Voldemort and the Death Eaters in the chapter 'A Flaw in the Plan'. No, she did not persue a career in it, but perhaps her obsessive house-elf love was a stage? Perhaps she chooses to be kind to all house-elves, but not try to lead a war?

Also, house-elves are most definitely not the same thing as slaves. Yes, they preform a slave-like job. However, they like it. That's what they enjoy doing. As shown in GoF, when Winky is sacked; she is a mess. She completely loses her sense of purpose. It would be cruel to tear them away from what they enjoy.

As for the epilogue: OF COURSE, they all married their high-school sweethearts! She has spent the last 17 years of her life writing out their teenage lives, love included. What, do you think she's going to say: "Oh, sorry folks, Harry decided he really doesn't like Ginny and went for Mary over here instead. Yeah. Oh, PS: Ron, being 'immature', cheated on Hermione for this playboy woman over there. Hermione, being a 'control freak' couldn't forgive him. Now they live on opposite sides of the world. Ah, also, the whole quartet stopped being friends. They just sort of drifted apart. Sorry if I dissappointed you!"

Meh, maybe the epilogue was a bit cheesy; I say get some nachos and eat it up.xD

And you are 'somewhat horrified' that Jo thinks that Ron and Hermione would become great parents? Hmmm. Yes, Ron is slightly immature, but he is also loyal to a fault, brave, he comes from a big family, and caring.
He is even reckless at times, but that's why him and Hermione make such a wonderful match.
Hermione is brilliant, compassionate, and quite obviously courageous, ("GRYFFINDOR!"... enough said). Her 'mania for upholding rules' evens out Ron's recklessness. Ron's sense of humour and adventure even out her constantly worrying nature. Both of their caring personalities and loyalty will definitely be good for kids.
Yes, clearly all of their kids will be druggies or be in therapy at age 12. *rolls eyes*

Ok--Petunia next. Did Jo ever say that her reasons for hating the wizarding world are not justified?! The whole series is from Harry's POV. They treated Harry like crap. Of course Harry isn't going to see her as a tortured soul! He sees her as the aunt who made his life horrible for eleven years.

If your looking for a way to be offended, then-- OH MY GOD THAT LAMPSHADE OVER THERE ISN'T RAINBOW-COLORED I'M SURE MY PARENTS HATE ALL HOMOSEXUALS-- sorry, what was I saying?

Re: Die-Hard Rowling Fan Here, Couldn't Resist...

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed. I'm afraid this is a book for the kiddos, shouldn't look too deep into it, because you aren't going to find anything there.

Also to the OP?

tl;dr

[jezebel-haddo.livejournal.com]

Kudos, kudos, kudos! My girlfriend and I are convinced Rowling is a sociopath. That is, she is incapable of guilt or fear. We always wondered why she could write a sociopath like Sirius so well... And Lily turned out to be one, too. Using magic to intimidate the sister she supposedly loved. Classy. Pushing her best friend aside once she had "cooler" friends. How admirable. Blaming him for his problems, letting him choke while she's on her high horse, ending their friendship the first time he stands up to her, and refusing his repeated apologies. What a great gal. So deserving of his undying love.

The epilogue was so hypocritical. These people once fought against House and blood bias. Now they are promoting it in their children. What little respect Harry deigns to show -- to the memory of Snape -- is patronising and superficial. Why not say, "Don't ever speak that way about Slytherin again! You were named after a Slytherin and he was the bravest man I've ever known. He gave his life to help me, and he cared for my mother very much. And if things had been a little bit different, he might have been your grandfather." That's what I would've said. Then again, I'd have done more than a middle name to honour Snape. And why couldn't Draco even name his son Severus? Unless it's to create a plot for another series where Al Potter and Scorpius Malfoy butt heads... *cringes at the thought*

I have a lot to say about how Eileen's character was smeared, but I'm afraid I must save it for one of my own LJ rants. It's too much to write here.

I also think it's safe to say that now that Kreacher grovels before Harry, Harry's exact phrasing will be, "Bitch, go make me my dinner!"

Incredibly bored, may as well rant XD

[rett-chan.livejournal.com]

Um, I really don't get your claims of Lily being a sociopath. Have you never held something over a sibling, even though it might not be strictly considered 'fair'? I don't think that makes you an oh so horrible!!! person who never cared for your sibling at all.

And you're definitely missing the point of the end of her and Sevvy's frindship. He didn't just "stand up to her". He called her a Mudblood! In HP, that's a disgusting, racist word. That's like calling your supposedly best friend who happens to be of a darker skin tone a nigger. It's nasty and hurtful and not something that Lily could be expected to just cast aside.

Besides which, the defining trait of a sociopath is that they care for no one else. They view everyone - their family, 'friends', lovers - as expendable tools, means to an end. Someone like that wouldn't give up their own life just to save a baby, theirs or otherwise.

As for the way you would speak to your son about the guy who didn't get your Mum... Think about that for a second.

Do you really want to think about the man who was your least favorite teacher for six years, no matter how brave he was towards the end, fucking your Mother?

As for why Draco didn't name his son Severus, um, ever hear of originality? I'm fond of certain people, but that doesn't mean I'm planning on naming my children after them. I want to give my children ORIGINAL names, yeah?

And you really think Harry would talk like that to an elf?

...

I don't see it.

Re: Incredibly bored, may as well rant XD

[jezebel-haddo.livejournal.com]

Let me just say first off, that post was my girlfriend's. She forgot to log in on her own account. That said, I agree with her 100%. And so I will give you a piece of my mind.

1. There is a difference between holding something over a sibling and going out of your way to torment her, but still, no. I love my sister. She's my best friend. People have treated her that way and they've had to answer to me. She deserves better than that.

2. I suppose you have never blurted out nasty words whilst being tortured and humiliated, even to those trying to help you? I've never used racist words, but I have said pretty much every other filthy word and even hit the people I care most about under extreme duress. I felt horrible as soon as I did and apologised once I got my wits about. I am usually forgiven, just as I have forgiven those who have done the same to me, which tends to be much worse than the things I've done.

3. No, there are plenty of sociopaths who do care about other people, just not as much as they should. The actual defining trait of a sociopath is the lack of a conscience. Protecting your own baby with your life is not necessarily a big deal to a sociopath -- they are incapable of fearing the danger they put themselves in. Rather, it's a rush. And besides, when it's your own child, you are serving your own interests. But saving the disobedient brat of the woman who ripped your heart out and the bully who made your life hell... I must say I find that way more impressive. If it were me, I'd say let him rot.

4. Excuse me! You might think of that as mere "fucking," but Snape was in love with her from childhood until his dying day. Marrying someone, spending your life with them, and having a family with them warrants a little more than being summed up in one tawdry act. Would Harry, in turn, think of James as the guy who fucked his mom?

5. Um, I didn't notice Harry being very original with his kids' names. Just saying.

6. When it boils down to it, Harry might as well have said that to Kreacher. For all that high and mighty crap about Dobby, he just saw Kreacher as something disgusting, then later he was just a servant. Maybe Kreacher deserves to be freed? Maybe he could bother asking if he would like to be free? No, he just wants him to make a bleedin' sandwich! I'm sure Wilberforce would have done the same!

...

That's too bad, because it's painfully clear to me.

[mogguy.livejournal.com]

Who are you to decide what Rowling meant? Just because you interpreted something one way doesn't mean that's the way it actually is. You have no right to assume any of this is what she meant, especially when the author is still alive.

And yes, I've seen the other comments that people have left. They are ither from your friends, or people who got linked to it from a site, so basically people who share fairly common interests, so naturally they're either gonna agree with you for the sake of agreeing or because they were linked from a site that looks way too into these things anyways.

And, as a twin, I am offended to be called a freak.

[(Anonymous)]

lol you really need to get a life. jk didn't mention any Sikhs in her books, CLEARLY SHE HATES THEM.