Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

It's sort of the stereotypical "sacrifice a woman to move the plot" thing, though.  Everyone's sad because her personality was basically appealing, with no human flaws.  Even Snape was attracted to her!  She makes Snape sympathetic!  She makes James into less of an ass!  Then she dies for her little boy.  It's just so... stereotypical.  Harry's past is dominated by seven men (Marauders, Snape, Voldemort, Dumbledore) and in all of that Lily's main role seems to be to sacrifice herself.  She isn't an active player, like the others.  She's off on the side "wearing the white muslin dress."  I would have really liked to see more of her, get to know her and so on.  Not just as a sacrifice-in-a-box/McGuffin.

Did we really learn much about James, either?  Seems fairly balanced to me.  Yeah, it's a solid trope... but it's easy to fit any character into a trope that isn't well-developed but is influential in a story.

As for Molly, I'm a bit disappointed that we never get to see her as anything but a mother.  That's who she is.  She's a mother.  She isn't anyone or anything else, except for the part where she takes down Bellatrix Lestrange at the end, and that felt tacked on to me even before I found out about Rowling's setup.  Hobbies?  Interests?  Tastes?  I just never get a sense of who this person is outside of being an overworked mom.

Once again, this is highly realistic.  My mom is a mother of four who dropped out of college when I was born.  She was so swamped with responsibilities when I was growing up, that I hardly knew anything of her beyond her qualities as a mother until I was getting into young adulthood.  That's just who she was.  She didn't have time to be anything else.  I think it's a credit to Rowling that she was able to portray a character in this situation with as much humanity as she did.  She was able to believably show off her skillful presence and willpower, her warmth, and her vulnerability.  I think it's also worth noting that my mom is a huge fan of this character, and was positively glowing for at least a week after reading the final confrontation with Bellatrix.

It also sort of felt like that stereotypical sitcom setup.  Momma hen (a chicken) pecks and annoys her far-more-sympathetic husband, who just wants to tinker around with his toys in the garage.  That's not the most generous portrayal for men, either...

I actually don't agree with this at all.  I felt she did a great job avoiding the stereotypical distribution of sympathies here.  The only reason the Weasley's dad got sympathies is because he was in a position to have more interaction with the story, and got hurt in the process.  In the family situation, all he had going for him was a charming awkwardness, in a style that any honest, full-time working dad who has to come home exhausted to a busy home environment that he's not as familiar with as he'd like to be can relate to.

It's not so much a disappointment with Ginny not being uber-powerful.  It's that I'd like to see another strong female character from Harry's generation, and she looked like a spectacular candidate.

I'll also say that I'm pretty disappointed that our local Jesus-figure seems to have never figured out quite how to see women as his equals, in that case.

True to both.

[ChairmanPoo]

Ive read some articles in spanish about them. Apparently they intend to become a political military force akin to the ultra-right paramilitaries in colombia10 years ago

[Vector]

I'll cede Molly (etc.) to you, but am going to agree with folks elsewhere that perhaps Neville would have been better suited to take down Lestrange =)

On the other hand, one woman vs. 7 dudes really does not feel balanced to me.  At all.  I really felt kind of sore about that bit.

[Virex]

And, presumably, that feminist felt that disabled people were being attacked by the work, so the blogger spoke up about it.

Yes, but I seriously doubt any disabled person would be offended by it. Just to put it in context, this was a badass cyborg war hero sacrificing himself to save his entire civilisation and way of life. And I just don't like the idea that authors should be trying to be PC rather than trying to write a good story.

Oh, authors can be as rude as they like for all I care. They just need to realize that if they chose the wrong targets they're roughly on the level of the GOP in terms of 'positive' influence. Now, there could be writers to whom this doesn't matter, but I don't think we should value their oppinion's too highly.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't trying to offend disabled people.
Also the books are Philip Reeve's Mortal Engines Quartet, and the "review" is here http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/12/23/talking-down-disability-while-talking-down-to-young-people Not as negative as I remembered, but still whiny.

Just read that, and you may note that it's from a site with the catrchphrase 'FWD (feminists with disabilities) for a way forward'. I think in this case the disabled part trumps the feminist part...

[Vector]

Did a little more poking around.

Scroll down to Chally, the author of the essay.

Two chronic illnesses.  Hm.

[SalmonGod]

Neville would have been better suited to take down Lestrange =)

Avenging his parents?  On the subject of cliches, the books had already been written to indulge that one to an extreme

[Reelyanoob]

@lemon10: Well, I have not attempted to look for any other articles on this topic, basically I'm not sure it's such an interesting story in it's own right, and all the information we have comes from a single article in a US paper who got all their information from a single source - the Mexican government. I also note you do not cite any other sources either, so that point is moot. Neither of us has looked for other sources, so whether or not other sources would agree/disagree is a moot point.

I've shown that the Mexican Government has made very similar claims in the past against other groups who speak out against them. And the Zapatistas have widespread international support from NGO's.

US media is not known for fact-checking what US-friendly Hispanic governments tell them to print. In fact, that's a large part of the criticism of US media's coverage of the US federal government - printing verbatim what the state department say.

e.g. in 1983 the state department claimed Vietnam was making "Weapons of Mass Desstruction" and this was printed in the media as the truth . Samples of a "chemical" found on leaves were tested world-wide, and found to be nothing but BEE SHIT. Even by the US armies own labs.

The US state department, on the other hand, had their own sample tested - they contained a cocktail of 7 deadly poisons. Obviously here you had the US state department deliberately contanimnating samples.

This information comes from a UN scientist involved. I have the original print article in a copy of Scientific American from 1983 my dad gave me.

[Virex]

This information comes from a UN scientist involved. I have the original print article in a copy of Scientific American from 1983 my dad gave me.

You mean the same UN that put Iran in charge of their committee for woman's rights? Talking about dubious sources, are we?

[SalmonGod]

I second the motion to read some Chomsky on the U.S. media bias in central/south american politics.  He uses a ton of raw information to support his arguments.

[Reelyanoob]

@Virex: That's a pretty bizarre straw man you're pulling there.

Plain and simple the Americans contaminated samples from Vietnam to make WMD claims in 1983.

This comes from a major US publication BTW, Scientific American. Article authored by one of the principal scientists involved in the international investigation.

and I HAVE the original article in print, in the original magazine. 1983. Remember this was under REAGAN, a republican, and many of the IRAQ WAR WMD CLAIM people were also in the REAGAN administration.

Same old tricks.

(The supposed "WMD" in Vietnam was called the "yellow rain". When it was tested around the world and found to be bee poo, the US State department started claiming that the Vietnamese Milk Bees of their poo as part of the WMD creation process. LOL)

[Vector]

Neville would have been better suited to take down Lestrange =)

Avenging his parents?  On the subject of cliches, the books had already been written to indulge that one to an extreme

Hehehe.  Well, that's how it goes.

[Virex]

@Virex: That's a pretty bizarre straw man you're pulling there.

Just pointing out that you can't automatically trust anything with the UN stamp on it. Neither can you trust Scientific America or any of the other major scientific magazines since they have a very limited set of peer reviewers whom themselves have vested interests in what is and is not published. However, if the facts as presented in the article stand up to scrutiny (and especially the statistics, since they're usually used to sneak crap past the radar), then I guess you're right, though you'd be safer off if you'd replicate the results of the article yourself with the raw data the researchers collected, to make sure they didn't filter out any 'anomalies' (read 'inconvenient data').

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I second the motion to read some Chomsky on the U.S. media bias in central/south american politics.  He uses a ton of raw information to support his arguments.

I always call him om nom noam chomsky. Don't even know why. Doesn't detract from him being incredibly awesome in a number of different fields, I think he wrote something on language aquisition at some point, which was initially why I knew the name.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Well this is now making rounds on all the popular internets - "How To Get Ready For A Date".

Horribly, cynically offensive and hilarious? Of course I recommend it.

Also worth noting - coming from a 24 year old with background:

Suffolk University, BS Psychology Boston University, Masters in Sport Psychology and Counseling

[G-Flex]

The problem is that when an artist portrays, say, a sexist world in her books without condemning it, people will assimilate the ideas presented by the book, often without the proper amount of critique. To some extend, writing about a sexist or racist world means you're actively supporting that world view, by presenting it as normal. Showing people that what the book portrays is actually an abomination is the least one could ask from anyone, but apparently some are willing to help the GOP set us back to the dark ages in the name of litterary freedom...

If I write a book, it isn't my moral obligation to condemn every single thing in the book's world that I happen to think is wrong. Hell, if that were the case, I wouldn't be able to write a book taking place in the real world at all without bogging it down with so much moralization that the entire thing would be destroyed.

In fact, I feel that it does a great disservice to art that people feel the need to impose their morals upon absolutely everything no matter what it is. Believe it or not, it's possible to write a novel taking place in the American South circa 1950 without incorporating any sort of anti-racism message, nor is one always necessary. I find it rather condescending and intellectual dishonest how, for instance, the protagonist of a work of fiction tends to be so morally and culturally sympathetic by the standards of the author/audience even if they're separated by extreme amounts of time and geography.

What's important is for the controversial elements to be portrayed realistically. It's okay if a character in a book is racist or sexist. It's not okay for his racism or sexism to be glorified by the author (although it may well be by other characters/groups in the book), or for it to be validated by unrealistic/stereotypical or unsympathetic treatment of the group that is the target of that injustice. Characters, groups, and other entities (fictional or not) can have bad points, and it's not the obligation of every single narrative work to condemn every single one of them.