This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The wiki article claims that to be pure-blooded, no parents nor grandparent can be Muggle, Squib, or Muggle-born. The last term indicates two Muggle parents, not just one. (and note that "Squib" means this isn't just about blood). Harry, thus, with a muggle-born mother, is not pure-blood, nor will his children be regardless of mother.
As for Draco attempting to befriend him... Harry Potter's a legend, "The Boy Who Lived". Malfoy is, quite reasonably for a Slytherin, attempting to enlist him on his side. Overlooking his parentage is just realpolitik.
My impression is that isn't really a formal definition of the term. It's not as if there are laws that label people in one category or the other. In practice I suspect that there are central cases of pure-bloodedness (i.e. both sides of the family are magical nobility going back to generations), and central cases of muggle-ness (just as obvious), and that everywhere in the middle there's some room for negotiation.
Harry has good breeding on his father's side, but his mother's is questionable. James Potter was presumably seen as slumming it or as being a little scandalous, by the standard of the old families, by marrying a muggle-born. However, if Harry behaves well, wins the respect of the old families, and also marries well, that could be overlooked - especially if there is political advantage in having Harry on-side, since he is generally perceived as a hero. His mother's muggle-born status is probably not enough by itself to use against him, if he moves well in pure-blood circles, but if he does not behave well (as he does not canonically), then you start whispering about how that muggle blood on his mother's side is telling.
In practice I suspect a lot about blood purity is post hoc - if your ancestry is mixed (and almost all wizards' ancestry is mixed; 100% pure-bloods are a small, incestuous elite, and muggle-borns are rare), it's up to what you or those judging you choose to emphasise.
I agree. The Harry Potter series is more about plot and relationships than about world-building. Which is fine, it would be extremely difficult to construct a magic school story which is entertaining, lengthy, and takes place in a detailed and consistent universe. Perhaps Bran Sanderson could pull it off.
Sanderson could have never made Harry Potter. His magic systems are tight and limited in scope by necessity. He could make a magic school story, but it would be much more like an engineering academy or military school, where people try to push magic to its limits, than it would be the whimsical Hogwarts.
I basically agree with this. And different people have different preferences, of course. I myself enjoyed Harry Potter but I did find some of the magical contrivances to be annoying, especially time travel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I honestly think the Sanderson approach is overrated. You do not have to write a novel series as if you're writing an RPG sourcebook. Vampire: the Masquerade needs to define exactly how vampire powers work; Interview with the Vampire does not.
I'd agree that Harry Potter as a series would be improved if the magic was less obviously ad hoc, and if there were less in the way of magical powers that appear only once, could obviously solve whatever problems the heroes run into in the future, and yet are rapidly forgotten, but I suppose I think that's more of a plotting issue than a worldbuilding issue. We don't need to know exactly how the magic works for the sake of the story.
I think it's a matter of taste, basically how nerdy the reader is.
For me, it's definitely a negative, with time travel being the worst offender. That being said, another poster pointed out that in many ways, Harry Potter really is about world building, it's a beautiful world, you just have to squint a bit.
I myself prefer the Honor Harrington series.
Wasn't that me?
Yes, I thought that was an insightful comment. I should have linked it but I was too lazy.
In that case, thank you for the compliment!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link