Main
THE MAIN RULE: ALL TEXT POSTS MUST CONTAIN "MAIN" OR BE ENTIRELY IMAGES (INLINE OR EMOJI)
(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)
A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!
Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!
State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership
Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources
Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)
Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with
Main Source for Feminism for Babies
Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide
Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow
view the rest of the comments
Been a long time since I read but IIRC:
This shit was gripping when you were younger but if you step back and view the series with a wider critical eye it has a lot of gaping problems. Rowling basically introduced several incredibly important McGuffins crucial for resolving the entire series in the last book and retroactively tied them in with earlier events and foreshadowing. Voldemort's final defeat was certainly thematically appropriate (he was so arrogant and unable to comprehend he was mortal he refused to listen to an honest attempt to warn him he was wrong) but Harry basically wins on a technicality. A better series, if it really wanted to end this way, would have spent a lot of time in the series setting up these McGuffins and the ambiguity of the language regarding ownership of the McGuffin. But it's thrown in at the last minute like an Ass Pull.
Wait so, holy shit, no wonder it didn't make any fucking sense to me. None of it was defined beforehand and it was revealed like all of her other sudden twists that explained everything but actually were held together with glue and spit in other plots of the other books too. The entire series is just fucking M. Night Shyamalan all the way the fuck down.
Alan Moore said that Rowling used ill-defined magical principles but you laid out precisely why he said that. He was written off as a crank for saying it, but he's absolutely correct.
The seventh book very obviously ran into the dilemma of "oh god oh fuck i have so many loose ends and my protagonists are in such deep shit there is no way i can tie this all together". AKA the Kojima/Lost dilemma. Deathly Hallows was an admirable effort but the cracks in foundation are extremely visible
The love protection magic seeming like such a rare and little known about thing always made me think that the HP universe was full of unfeeling callous lizard people for whom the thought of sacrificing themselves for others would never even cross their minds. With all the evil wizards running around murdering innocent people you'd think there'd be way more cases of people having the instakill spell bounce off them just by sheer probability. Then again, the series is set in Britain
Right that seems like such a fucking gaping loophole. Out of the thousands that Voldemort killed not a single one actually loved their child until the Potters?
It’s this elitist fantasy where even love is a commodity able to be enjoyed by a select few “good and smart” people of the caliber of the Potters. Disgusting
The "love protection spell" at the end was Harry Potter bluffing. If I remember correctly, after Neville showed his badassedness, Harry slipped on the invisibility cloak and ran through the battlefield casting shielding/reflecting spells while he went looking for Voldemorte and Ron and Hemione.
I'm pretty sure you're not remembering correctly, the love protection thing was real.
There's what he said when he faced up against voldemort....
and then there's what he did.
And that's just from some quick googling. Pretty sure there were a couple more shield charms in between the two. Harry may have been protected by the Love spell, like during the crucio stuff, but the thing protecting his friends at the end was him.
I thought it was both, like he was protecting them AND they were shielded from all the Death Eaters, but maybe he didn't realize in the moment that he didn't need top protect them. Because why would Harry lie there? To psych Voldemort out? He's about to die anyway because of the Elder Wand owner thing. IDK, it's sloppy writing on Rowling's part, some editor needed to tell her that it wasn't clear at that part.
lmao, no argument there.
In order to destroy a horcrux, it has to be obliterated in such a way that it could never be brought back. If the horcrux is a living thing, you can just kill it by any method because magic can't bring the dead back to life. So if Voldemort had killed Harry, he would have destroyed the unintentional horcrux he created.
I think technically speaking he did kill Harry, but the remnant of Lily's protection saved him from dying all the way, and that's what caused him to meet Dumbledore in limbo or wherever.
I think it's fair to say that this plot point was kind of contrived and not really set up in universe, and although the specific magic that allowed it wasn't set up, it was a recurring plot point throughout the entire series that Harry never asked to be the chosen one and didn't like it, so the moment with Dumbledore represented him being "reborn" as a hero by choice rather than by random chance.
Honestly I don't get why every leftist wants me to hate the Harry Potter books. JK Rowling may be a piece of shit, but that has literally nothing to do with the content of the books. It doesn't matter if you're the most despicable Nazi ever to Hitler, if you write a book that captures the imagination of millions of kids and doesn't contain your ideology in it, you've written a good book. Hating everything associated with someone doesn't mean you hate them more.
edit: ok, I don't mean the book has to "not contain your ideology," that's impossible. What I mean is it has to not serve as a vehicle for your ideology, and it has to not contain so many problematic themes as to set it apart from other media in the same cultural context, which I believe applies to the HP series. I acknowledge the serious flaws in the books, but I think they should be looked at completely ignoring Rowling's stated political views, which people clearly are not doing.
You're not wrong about a lot of the hatred of the books being overblown, but they ABSOLUTELY contain Rowling's ideology in them
b a n k i n g g o b l i n s
Her book is neoliberal as fuck though
Sure, but so is most media. The Lion King is pro absolutist monarchy, and it's still a good movie.
Well yes, but that wasn't the point you were making, at least I thought. You said that what made the book good was that it captured the imagination of millions of kids and it doesn't contain your ideology. I was saying it does contain her ideology, which is why there was no real revolution or anything in it, and Voldemort lost on a technicality.
Yeah I kinda put my point wrong in that comment, I put an edit at the end since then.