JKR and a little help from "friends"?
david e.g. meijer
Just wondered wether I am the only one who has heard about some
experts suggesting JKR did not write all of HP herself. These
allegations are based primarily on the portrayal of the french and
durmstrang people, who appear to fall out of her very openminded view
on races, sexes andsoforth. (They also seem to have found hints in the
language used) I did not want to believe it at first, but the contrast
between bad slytherins voting pure-blood and stereotyping krum is
pretty obvious.
And I think we do have to come across some nice muggles.
Da"don´t get me wrong, I am a great fan"vid
Sirius Black
> Just wondered wether I am the only one who has heard about some
> experts suggesting JKR did not write all of HP herself. These
> allegations are based primarily on the portrayal of the french and
> durmstrang people, who appear to fall out of her very openminded view
> on races, sexes andsoforth. (They also seem to have found hints in the
> language used) I did not want to believe it at first, but the contrast
> between bad slytherins voting pure-blood and stereotyping krum is
> pretty obvious.
Openminded? no. Politically correct, perhaps, but I thought she was
showing how political correctness was merely a device for maintaining an
aura civility, making it an easy, defenceless, set-up for some master
wizard to overpower the whole wizarding society as Voldemort did in the
past.
I think the authoress has set up a rather intriguing backdrop for the
wizarding society that academically promotes the politically correct ideas
of races and sexes, yet, in fact, recognises the practical brute-force
power as true might and yields to its wielder.
We've seen how Harry breaks the rules "for good", but his becoming
acclimated to rulebreaking and his streak of selfishness and self-pride
seems to be inevitably leading towards his becoming a super-power like
Voldemort. Prof. Dumbledore recognises the potential in Harry, so he is
nice to him, lest he get on Harry's bad side.
What is "good" in the wizarding world? Civil behaviour? Following God's
will? Charity? or Power? Harry's idea of good may be wavering around,
but I think it will end up being Power.
The only possible thing to thwart Harry's climb to power is--Hermione.
She started out with an unblemished record of goodness (in the sense of
Charity), but she has been corrupted into accepting that rulebreaking is
OK, and the more you have proven yourself (through displays of power and
ever-accelerating magical ability), the more OK it is to go a little
farther across the threshold of acceptable behaviour.
Hermione's probably not as open-minded or politically correct as you might
think. I'm trying to figure out what she thinks of Harry's fanciful
interest in Cho (presumably Chinese) when he could be directing his
interest towards a nice Englishwoman--viz., Hermione herself. If I were
Harry, I'd WATCH OUT for the day when Hermione overpowers him; I think she
will be his downfall.
> And I think we do have to come across some nice muggles.
Why? The authoress doesn't have to have a nice muggles just because you
think it would open-mindedly fair to. The truth is, the muggles are just
an undesirable sub-species to the wizards: just as the giants are (except
wizards are a lot more worried about the giants than the muggles).
harry potter
The idea of good is banishing evil (according to harry). Evil is defined by
the destruction of good. It goes around in circles (like chicken came from
the egg, which came from a chicken, which came from an egg...).
Yet evil can be defined as being the destruction of good, and overall power,
that destroys everyone not on the evil side's lives, family, possesions, etc.
Good can be defined as being the banishing of evil, and overall power, that
reclaims all that belongs to the good side from the evil side.
Evil arises from a need for power, and good arises from a need for power.
It's like two major political powers, one or the other, their policys are the
same.
>
>
> The only possible thing to thwart Harry's climb to power is--Hermione.
> She started out with an unblemished record of goodness (in the sense of
> Charity), but she has been corrupted into accepting that rulebreaking is
> OK, and the more you have proven yourself (through displays of power and
> ever-accelerating magical ability), the more OK it is to go a little
> farther across the threshold of acceptable behaviour.
>
> Hermione's probably not as open-minded or politically correct as you might
> think. I'm trying to figure out what she thinks of Harry's fanciful
> interest in Cho (presumably Chinese) when he could be directing his
> interest towards a nice Englishwoman--viz., Hermione herself. If I were
> Harry, I'd WATCH OUT for the day when Hermione overpowers him; I think she
> will be his downfall.
There is this from the last page of Goblet of Fire:
"'Bye, Harry!' said Hermione, and she did something she had never done
before, and kissed him on the cheek"
This suggests that Hermione is still intested in Harry. But does he go out
with Cho or Hermione??? It's his choice. If he chooses Cho, he's gonna get a
lot of s**t from Hermione, as then she'd be jealous, but the if he chooses
Hermione, Cho would be heartbroken, and leave a guilty mark in Harry's
concience about breaking a heart so far away. He won't be popular if he
ditches both, and be looked apon in an unnice way by the girls if he chooses
both. He's in a messy and sticky situation.
>
>
> > And I think we do have to come across some nice muggles.
>
> Why? The authoress doesn't have to have a nice muggles just because you
> think it would open-mindedly fair to. The truth is, the muggles are just
> an undesirable sub-species to the wizards: just as the giants are (except
> wizards are a lot more worried about the giants than the muggles).
Muggles are jealous of witches and wizards as they posess more power than
them. (That's why they were burned at the stake and such). Witches and
wizards find them annoying as they try to kill witchs and wizards, and get in
the way (like a little brother/sister). Giants are feared a bit by wizards
and witches as they maybe posses equal power, what giants loose in magicness,
they make up for in size and strength. Muggles are feeble when compared to
giants as threats to wizards and witches.
Muggles are condsidered by wizards and witches in a similar way to Aborigines
(native australians) are considered by early European settlers: unadvanced and
feeble. (I apologize for any hurt caused by this conparison; it's just the way
a see it)
Sagebrush
david e.g. meijer <monkey...@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:3c80b25d...@News.CIS.DFN.de...
: Hi everyone!
What experts? Please provide citations?
Sagebrush
david meijer
> some
> : experts suggesting JKR did not write all of HP herself.
> These
> : allegations are based primarily on the portrayal of the
> french and
> : durmstrang people, who appear to fall out of her very
> openminded view
> : on races, sexes andsoforth. (They also seem to have found
> hints in the
> : language used) I did not want to believe it at first, but
> the contrast
> : between bad slytherins voting pure-blood and stereotyping
> krum is
> : pretty obvious.
> :
> : And I think we do have to come across some nice muggles.
> :
> : Da"don“t get me wrong, I am a great fan"vid
>
> What experts? Please provide citations?
I am sorry I cannot give you full informations, as my mother was the one to
have attended the "HP Symposion" in Vienna, where Emer O“Sullivan mentioned
this. As she has won the "Award for Outstanding Research" from the
"International Research Society for Children“s Literature", she seemed to be
a pretty good source. I had hoped to find someone, who has heard about this.
david meijer
> > experts suggesting JKR did not write all of HP herself. These
> > allegations are based primarily on the portrayal of the french and
> > durmstrang people, who appear to fall out of her very openminded view
> > on races, sexes andsoforth. (They also seem to have found hints in the
> > language used) I did not want to believe it at first, but the contrast
> > between bad slytherins voting pure-blood and stereotyping krum is
> > pretty obvious.
> Openminded? no. Politically correct, perhaps, but I thought she was
> showing how political correctness was merely a device for maintaining an
> aura civility, making it an easy, defenceless, set-up for some master
> wizard to overpower the whole wizarding society as Voldemort did in the
> past.
Politically correctness helped Voldemort? If you treat black people like a
sub-race, tell girls to be good housewifes and follow salazar slytherins
code of pureblood-rule you can fight the evil more effectively?
I want to talk especially about the last factor. It is very clear, that JKR
shairs no sympathy for the pure-blood idea. She thinks, whoever has magical
abilities, has a right to go to Hogwarts and be accepted as a full
wizard/witch. this concept is not weakening the "good forces" it defines
them. the evil characters are very fond of salzars ideas.
> I think the authoress has set up a rather intriguing backdrop for the
> wizarding society that academically promotes the politically correct ideas
> of races and sexes, yet, in fact, recognises the practical brute-force
> power as true might and yields to its wielder.
recognizes the practical brute force? like power is everything, and there
are people to weak to take it? yeah, that sexactly voldemort. he is the bad
guy.
> We've seen how Harry breaks the rules "for good", but his becoming
> acclimated to rulebreaking and his streak of selfishness and self-pride
> seems to be inevitably leading towards his becoming a super-power like
> Voldemort. Prof. Dumbledore recognises the potential in Harry, so he is
> nice to him, lest he get on Harry's bad side.
What a nonsense. he is not getting accustomed, he thinks before breaking the
urles, and he does not make it easy for himself. he is aparagon for
altruistic behaviour, Dumbledore is not "nice to him", he is a true friend.
> What is "good" in the wizarding world? Civil behaviour? Following God's
> will? Charity? or Power? Harry's idea of good may be wavering around,
> but I think it will end up being Power.
We still talk about HP?
> Hermione's probably not as open-minded or politically correct as you might
> think. I'm trying to figure out what she thinks of Harry's fanciful
> interest in Cho (presumably Chinese) when he could be directing his
> interest towards a nice Englishwoman--viz., Hermione herself. If I were
> Harry, I'd WATCH OUT for the day when Hermione overpowers him; I think she
> will be his downfall.
You are sure, this is HP, not "sirius black"?
> > And I think we do have to come across some nice muggles.
> Why? The authoress doesn't have to have a nice muggles just because you
> think it would open-mindedly fair to. The truth is, the muggles are just
> an undesirable sub-species to the wizards: just as the giants are (except
> wizards are a lot more worried about the giants than the muggles).
the authoress has to, if the muggleworld has to be somewhat realistic. the
only muggles we saw where almost unbearable clichebaddies. the truth is, the
muggles are the predominant species which also were necessary for the
survival of the wizard-world. ron said somewhere.
david meijer
> Muggles are jealous of witches and wizards as they posess more power than
> them. (That's why they were burned at the stake and such). Witches and
> wizards find them annoying as they try to kill witchs and wizards, and get
in
> the way (like a little brother/sister). Giants are feared a bit by
wizards
> and witches as they maybe posses equal power, what giants loose in
magicness,
> they make up for in size and strength. Muggles are feeble when compared
to
> giants as threats to wizards and witches.
which muggles were jealous? the (basically) three we know?
> Muggles are condsidered by wizards and witches in a similar way to
Aborigines
> (native australians) are considered by early European settlers: unadvanced
and
> feeble. (I apologize for any hurt caused by this conparison; it's just the
way
> a see it)
exactly. this view was nothing to be proud of, no need to double it in
fiction.
Swan & Rat
> Openminded? no. Politically correct, perhaps, but I thought she was
> showing how political correctness was merely a device for maintaining an
> aura civility, making it an easy, defenceless, set-up for some master
> wizard to overpower the whole wizarding society as Voldemort did in the
> past.
Interesting contrast between the concepts of 'open-minded' and
'politically correct'. The problem with all such concepts is that, in
practise, they are never as good as in theory. The original idea of open
mindedness was to overthrow old stereotypical thought, to try to see the
world as it IS not as we WANT it to be... but of course that concept got
lost somewhere along the way. Now it is convenient to brand any
openminded trend as "politically correct" as a way to demonise and
diminish it just as fiscally conservative folks are branded "mean
spirited" to attack them. Both sides need to stand back and see what
they are doing.
>
> I think the authoress has set up a rather intriguing backdrop for the
> wizarding society that academically promotes the politically correct ideas
> of races and sexes, yet, in fact, recognises the practical brute-force
> power as true might and yields to its wielder.
Rather like the real world, then.
> We've seen how Harry breaks the rules "for good", but his becoming
> acclimated to rulebreaking and his streak of selfishness and self-pride
> seems to be inevitably leading towards his becoming a super-power like
> Voldemort. Prof. Dumbledore recognises the potential in Harry, so he is
> nice to him, lest he get on Harry's bad side.
I do think that this direction is intentional AND that Harry will have a
very nasty "come-upance" in a future book. When asked what directions
the new books will take, Rowling said "I think that Harry and his
friends will come to learn that the easy choices are not always the
right ones and the right choices are not always easy."
So far, Harry & Co. have been taking easy roads to things in a way,
making choices and breaking rules because it is easier. To think that
they will forever be able to do this is not probably the way to go.
Sooner or later, Harry's 'easy options' may well land him in some VERY
nasty pudding! The rule breaking is a dark stain on Harry's character
and must be dealt with. I have no doubt that JKR knows very well what
she is doing and will be DEALING with this "situational morality"
displayed by the group.
Having studied Magick when I was younger, ( I never really got anywhre
with it) I know that the traditional world of Magick has a VERY strong
ethos and underpinning of dark versus Light and a moral framework that
is unassailable. A person has free choice between good and evil, but
bood and evil are explained and the novice is given tools to discern
which is which. I got OUT of Magick BECAUSE I knew my own inner nature
was too susceptible to temptations and "the easy way out".
> What is "good" in the wizarding world? Civil behaviour? Following God's
> will? Charity? or Power? Harry's idea of good may be wavering around,
> but I think it will end up being Power.
Rowling is showing us Harry as Harry views himself and bound within his
own framework of references at this point. We learn as he does. At this
point, yes, it DOeS look as if Harry will choose Power... but we don't
see the paradigm outside of Harry's own eyes. I think that the ecision
of which way to go will be the focus of Rowling's further works and that
Harry will, in the end, choose differently than seems apparent now.
>
> The only possible thing to thwart Harry's climb to power is--Hermione.
> She started out with an unblemished record of goodness (in the sense of
> Charity), but she has been corrupted into accepting that rulebreaking is
> OK, and the more you have proven yourself (through displays of power and
> ever-accelerating magical ability), the more OK it is to go a little
> farther across the threshold of acceptable behaviour.
Harry may have to deal with the fact that his moral relativism has
affected his friends and that his choices, shared by them, have led to
bad ends. Morality is not only for the safeguarding and keeping of
ourselves, it is for the safeguarding of our friends, family and loved
ones! If my morality affects only myself, why bother? If I want to
transgress, then go for it. But when I know that my moral choices affect
OTHERS, I find that I am more careful and cautious! Harry has still to
learn that. It may well be that the death in Book 5 comes among Harry's
beloved circle and comes as a consequence of Harry's own choices! What a
horrible price to pay, but what better way to strengthen and anneal the
metal of a hero's soul. Harry's ultimate choice of good over evil may
well come at a terrible price.
> Hermione's probably not as open-minded or politically correct as you might
> think. I'm trying to figure out what she thinks of Harry's fanciful
> interest in Cho (presumably Chinese) when he could be directing his
> interest towards a nice Englishwoman--viz., Hermione herself. If I were
> Harry, I'd WATCH OUT for the day when Hermione overpowers him; I think she
> will be his downfall.
Actuaslly, I think that Harry's choices may well be Hermione's downfall
and that it will be she who pays the price for Harry's corner-cutting.
This will be a dreadful blow to the storyline, but would make sense in a
moralistic-tale fashion.
> > And I think we do have to come across some nice muggles.
> Why? The authoress doesn't have to have a nice muggles just because you
> think it would open-mindedly fair to. The truth is, the muggles are just
> an undesirable sub-species to the wizards: just as the giants are (except
> wizards are a lot more worried about the giants than the muggles).
No, I actually think that there will be some form of reconciliation
between them. Why, I don't know, but there is an underlying optimism in
the books that leads me to think that a rapprochement between wizard and
muggle will occur. Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but I think it's true.
Swan
Aris Katsaris
"Swan & Rat" <lab...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3C813F...@NOSPAMpacbell.net...
> Sirius Black wrote:
>
> > What is "good" in the wizarding world? Civil behaviour? Following God's
> > will? Charity? or Power? Harry's idea of good may be wavering around,
> > but I think it will end up being Power.
>
> Rowling is showing us Harry as Harry views himself and bound within his
> own framework of references at this point. We learn as he does. At this
> point, yes, it DOeS look as if Harry will choose Power...
What are you talking about? Harry rejected the idea that there's only Power,
that there's no good or evil. He refused to have Wormtail killed, didn't he?
He gave help to Cedric, didn't he?
What in the world makes you two think that "Power" could possibly be
thought as identical to "Good" by Harry Potter? I don't see how you can
be reading the same books as I.
> > The only possible thing to thwart Harry's climb to power is--Hermione.
> > She started out with an unblemished record of goodness (in the sense of
> > Charity), but she has been corrupted into accepting that rulebreaking is
> > OK, and the more you have proven yourself (through displays of power and
> > ever-accelerating magical ability), the more OK it is to go a little
> > farther across the threshold of acceptable behaviour.
>
> Harry may have to deal with the fact that his moral relativism has
> affected his friends and that his choices, shared by them, have led to
> bad ends.
His "moral relativism"?? I've never seen him act morally relativistic.
Disregard for the rules is not morally relativistic by itself, if he believes
that certain of these rules are bad or unnecessary and certain of them
are good.
Aris Katsaris
Lisa Hicks
If she were much of a researcher, I'd expect her to do a better job of
finding evidence to back up her theories, or at least to read the books
a little more closely. When you find what looks like an inconsistency
in a book or series, should your first thought be "This is by a
different writer!" or should it be, "Hmm, maybe I need to read more
carefully and *think* a little bit and see if I can resolve the apparent
inconsistency"? I lean toward the second option, but that's just me.
As for the stereotyping of the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students:
These kids are British, and lots of British people do tend to have
stereotypes about some other nations--the French, in particular. The
French are snobby, they think they're better than everyone, blah, blah,
blah. And, in HP, the French students are first portrayed as lining up
with those stereotypes. However, later on, some of them turn out to be
pretty nice. Fleur, for instance, seems like a real twit at the
beginning, but she turns out to be willing to show gratitude to people
who help her, and she gets to like Hogwarts so well that she wants to
come back next year. What I think JKR was doing by having the
characters start out acting in accordance with the stereotype and then
breaking out of it is this: She's trying to show that, if you already
have preconceived ideas about how people are going to be before you ever
meet them, they'll generally live up to those ideas because the
behaviour that you expect from them is the only part of their behaviour
that you'll be able to see. Once you start to let go of your
preconceptions, you'll start to see that there's more to the people than
the stereotypes would allow you to notice.
Just a theory. But a theory that, I think, makes a lot more sense than,
"Somebody else wrote parts of Book 4."
Lisa H
Lisa Hicks
Swan & Rat wrote:
>
> Sirius Black wrote:
>
(snip)
>
> > We've seen how Harry breaks the rules "for good", but his becoming
> > acclimated to rulebreaking and his streak of selfishness and self-pride
> > seems to be inevitably leading towards his becoming a super-power like
> > Voldemort. Prof. Dumbledore recognises the potential in Harry, so he is
> > nice to him, lest he get on Harry's bad side.
Selfishness? Harry? I don't see it. Not even self-pride, really; I
see Harry as someone who doesn't think all that much of himself.
> I do think that this direction is intentional AND that Harry will have a
> very nasty "come-upance" in a future book. When asked what directions
> the new books will take, Rowling said "I think that Harry and his
> friends will come to learn that the easy choices are not always the
> right ones and the right choices are not always easy."
I think Harry and Co. have already learned that. All along, most of the
times that they've gotten into dangerous situations were because they
were doing something that a lot of people would have been afraid to
do--the right thing instead of the easy one, to frame it in JKR's
terms. Harry's return of Cedric's body seems to me one of the most
vivid examples of doing what's right instead of what's easy.
> So far, Harry & Co. have been taking easy roads to things in a way,
> making choices and breaking rules because it is easier. To think that
> they will forever be able to do this is not probably the way to go.
> Sooner or later, Harry's 'easy options' may well land him in some VERY
> nasty pudding! The rule breaking is a dark stain on Harry's character
> and must be dealt with. I have no doubt that JKR knows very well what
> she is doing and will be DEALING with this "situational morality"
> displayed by the group.
When do you think Harry has taken the easier option instead of the right
one? I haven't really read any of his actions as doing this. He's done
some things that are wrong (like sneaking out to Hogsmeade), but not
many, and most of those cases haven't been choices of the easy over the
right.
> > What is "good" in the wizarding world? Civil behaviour? Following God's
> > will? Charity? or Power? Harry's idea of good may be wavering around,
> > but I think it will end up being Power.
>
> Rowling is showing us Harry as Harry views himself and bound within his
> own framework of references at this point. We learn as he does. At this
> point, yes, it DOeS look as if Harry will choose Power... but we don't
> see the paradigm outside of Harry's own eyes. I think that the ecision
> of which way to go will be the focus of Rowling's further works and that
> Harry will, in the end, choose differently than seems apparent now.
(snip)
I'm reading the books much differently from the two of you. I've not
seen any evidence that Harry thinks, or is likely to come to think, that
power is the greatest good. I'd say friendship, loyalty, protecting the
weak from those who would hurt them, things like that are all more
important to Harry than power. On my reading, power is, for him, a
means, not an end. And what it is a means to would be, thus far,
keeping people who would wield their power over others from doing that.
Lisa H
Lisa Hicks
Frenchy wrote:
>
> X-no-archive:Yes
>
> "david e.g. meijer" <monkey...@gmx.at> wrote in message
> news:3c80b25d...@News.CIS.DFN.de...
> I don't think she wrote *any* of the HP books, because she's not nearly
> educated enough and made little mistakes here and there that an educated
> person wouldn't have made. Personally, I think Christopher Marlowe wrote
> them.
>
> Or maybe Roger Bacon.
>
> ;)
>
> Frenchy
> (Or maybe Kevin Bacon...)
Snort! *Definitely* Kevin Bacon. I mean, she'd only be (according to
the Kevin Bacon Game site: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/oracle/) three
removes from Bacon:
Maggie Smith was in Harry Potter. She was also in A Room with a View
with Helena Bonham Carter. And HBC was in Novocaine Bacon. So he *has*
to be the real writer of Harry Potter.
Lisa H, who finds this theory not all that much more nuts than the
theory that JKR had someone else write parts of Book 4 ;-)
Richard Eney
david meijer <dazm...@yline.com> wrote:
> ["name snipped by davidmeijer" wrote]
>>david meijer <dazm...@yline.com> wrote:
>> : I am the only one who has heard about some
>> : experts suggesting JKR did not write all of HP herself. These
>> : allegations are based primarily on the portrayal of the french
>> : and durmstrang people, who appear to fall out of her very
There is a fact: general official equality of races, sexes, and so
forth in a UK school, which is contrasted with the actual opinions of
a few old-fashioned characters (the Malfoys).
There is also a typical UK stereotype of "foreigners", and not
only foreigners but specifically the two generic types common to UK
comedy, the French and the Germanic/Middle-European/non-French.
That stereotype is used to distinguish the two competing schools
in HP#4. It is also used to contrast two attitudes toward living,
both of which contrast with the UK/Scotland stereotype portrayed
in Hogwarts. The Beauxbatons style of elegance without apparent strength
(despite the obvious strength of their headmistress) contrasts with the
Durmstrang style of obvious strength without obvious grace or elegance.
However, the heads of both schools are shown to have flaws: the head of
Beauxbatons thinks she is hiding her ancestry by not admitting to what
is obvious to the observer, and she is somewhat graceless in refusing to
admit it. The head of Durmstrang has the flaw of cowardice.
The competing students from the respective schools show that they are not
restricted by the flaws of their teachers. Although Fleur lacked the
strength and knowledge for the underwater test, she was actively trying
to go back in to try again; she also had the grace and strength to thank
Harry. Krum, despite his physical clumsiness on the ground, is graceful
in the air and underwater, was also able to behave well when the truth
came out, thus demonstrating non-physical grace.
"Grace" is a pun as well; physical and social graces can be taken as a
metaphor for spiritual grace. JKR has said in interviews that she is not
writing a simplistic morality tale; she is showing shades of gray in her
characters. Thus, some will be graceful in many ways, others only in
some, while some will be utterly graceless.
None of this has much to do with actual European countries, but it has
everything to do with their traditional (yes, stereotypical) portrayal in
English culture. JKR is using an established standard image to work out
a different message.
>> : I did not want to believe it at first, but the contrast
>> : between bad slytherins voting pure-blood and stereotyping
>> : krum is pretty obvious.
What contrast? Slytherins are every bit as much a stereotype as Krum is!
>> : And I think we do have to come across some nice muggles.
I found a hint of nice muggles in the schoolkids who only ignored Harry
because they didn't want to be attacked by Dudley's gang.
>> What experts? Please provide citations?
>I am sorry I cannot give you full informations, as
> my mother was the one to have attended the "HP Symposion" in Vienna,
> where Emer O巽ullivan mentioned this. As she has won the "Award for
> Outstanding Research" from the "International Research Society for
> Children愀 Literature", she seemed to be a pretty good source.
> I had hoped to find someone, who has heard about this.
This is the first we've heard of it. Will the results of the
Vienna "HP Symposion" be published or posted on the web?
I'd like to read what O'Sullivan actually said. At this point, we have
only second-hand and third-hand reports (your mother's to you is
second-hand, and yours to us is third-hand). Hearsay evidence is
inconclusive.
=Tamar
Swan & Rat
>
> "Swan & Rat" <lab...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3C813F...@NOSPAMpacbell.net...
> > Sirius Black wrote:
> >
> > > What is "good" in the wizarding world? Civil behaviour? Following God's
> > > will? Charity? or Power? Harry's idea of good may be wavering around,
> > > but I think it will end up being Power.
> >
> > Rowling is showing us Harry as Harry views himself and bound within his
> > own framework of references at this point. We learn as he does. At this
> > point, yes, it DOeS look as if Harry will choose Power...
>
> What are you talking about? Harry rejected the idea that there's only Power,
> that there's no good or evil. He refused to have Wormtail killed, didn't he?
> He gave help to Cedric, didn't he?
OK, perhaps I should be more specific and say that I have not yet read
Book 4. It's OK, I'm not afraid of spoilers, but I don't have the
knowlege of #4 yet and haven't seen that choice made. I'll believe you,
then and say that Harry has chosen or begun to choose correctly.
>
> What in the world makes you two think that "Power" could possibly be
> thought as identical to "Good" by Harry Potter? I don't see how you can
> be reading the same books as I.
I'm going on less information than you are so if I am in error, I stand
corrected. When #4 comes out in paperback, I'll be able to read it.
Sorry if I "shot from the lip" on that point.
>
> > > The only possible thing to thwart Harry's climb to power is--Hermione.
> > > She started out with an unblemished record of goodness (in the sense of
> > > Charity), but she has been corrupted into accepting that rulebreaking is
> > > OK, and the more you have proven yourself (through displays of power and
> > > ever-accelerating magical ability), the more OK it is to go a little
> > > farther across the threshold of acceptable behaviour.
> >
> > Harry may have to deal with the fact that his moral relativism has
> > affected his friends and that his choices, shared by them, have led to
> > bad ends.
>
> His "moral relativism"?? I've never seen him act morally relativistic.
> Disregard for the rules is not morally relativistic by itself, if he believes
> that certain of these rules are bad or unnecessary and certain of them
> are good.
>
> Aris Katsaris
Actually that IS moral relativism. Moral relativity means to question
"is this act moral in this circumstance?" and it is closely tied to
situational ethics. These concepts are not bad, in and of themselves,
but can lead to wehat Catholics call a "near occasion of sin" or
circumstances where a bad or wrong choice is *easier* to make than the
better or ethical choice.
Examples of moral relativistic or situationally ethical circumstances
abound. Is it moral to kill? That question may seem to have a definite
answer: No. But consider the word... do we mean kill *anything* such as
beef cow, human child, murderer, chicken or insect? It may seem wrong
to kill an adult man, but what if that man is a mass murderer, a
terminal cancer patient in horrible pain and asking to die or a stranger
coming at you with a knife? There are no absolutes and the simple black
and white world of good versus evil is not a reality. Harry and friends
will learn this.
IMHO, a poor woman, shoplifting to feed her child acts in a fashion that
is not moral, but definitely necessary, if she has exhausted all other
options and avenues toward feeding her child. Has she tried to find
work? Has she approached others to ask them to assist her? Has she tried
to do a 'will work for food' arrangement? et cetera. If all other
options are closed, then stealing to feed her child is an ethically
neutral act. Not good, but better than allowing a dependent creature to
suffer harm thro8ugh inaction. Was what the Enron top brass did moral?
No. In no way could what they did, diverting stock money to their own
accounts, stealing from their subordinates, hiding assets and preventing
others from defending themselves against the coming collapse was WRONG!
It was immoral and evil. Sadly, it is FAR more likely that a poor woman
stealing bread will be jailed than for these fat cats to go to prison.
Theft is theft is theft, but the law looks more kindly upon the wealthy.
This situation is also immoral IMHO.
When I was working for a marginal firm that sold educational materials,
I was made privy to the fact that the top brass intended to "take the
money and run" when the firm closed that weekend. They asked the
employees to please wait until MOnday to receive their paychecks. I
KNEW that Monday would find the office padlocked and the CEO and his
accomplices *gone*! I promptly TOLD the entire staff and we marched in
and worked out a deal where they gave us the office equipment and
suppplies (all paid for) in lieu of payment. While this was going on, I
reported the CEO to the FBI and found that, in fact, he was wanted for
fraud in two states! He is now serving time.
The sAME thing ought to have happened tgo the Enron skunks!
All of life is a matter of choices. Good choices bad choices, every
waking moment we have to decide, in small ways, to be good or evil. To
live a good and moral life the only thing to do is to make choices
consistently to do good and avoid doing evil and before you know it, you
will find that your life is being lived in a good and moral way. "just
this once" doesn't cut it because EVERY 'once' is just this one. Enought
'onces' become a life lived rightly or wrongly in aggregate. That is
the lesson Harry must learn. As JKR said "Good choices are not always
easy and easy choices are not always good."
Swan
Lisa Hicks
Swan & Rat wrote:
>
> Aris Katsaris wrote:
> >
> > "Swan & Rat" <lab...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C813F...@NOSPAMpacbell.net...
(snip)
> > >
> > > Harry may have to deal with the fact that his moral relativism has
> > > affected his friends and that his choices, shared by them, have led to
> > > bad ends.
> >
> > His "moral relativism"?? I've never seen him act morally relativistic.
> > Disregard for the rules is not morally relativistic by itself, if he believes
> > that certain of these rules are bad or unnecessary and certain of them
> > are good.
> >
> > Aris Katsaris
>
> Actually that IS moral relativism. Moral relativity means to question
> "is this act moral in this circumstance?" and it is closely tied to
> situational ethics. These concepts are not bad, in and of themselves,
> but can lead to wehat Catholics call a "near occasion of sin" or
> circumstances where a bad or wrong choice is *easier* to make than the
> better or ethical choice.
(snip)
That's not exactly the way I understand the term "moral relativism," but
I tend to use it as it gets used in contemporary academic moral
philosophy. That version of "moral relativism" is usually contrasted
with "moral realism." The latter view says that there are moral facts
"out there"--that there are, objectively speaking and separate from
people's thoughts on them, real concepts of goodness and justice and all
of that, and that, when we try to act in accordance with goodness or
justice or whatever, we're aiming at living up to the standards set by
these concepts. Plato's Socrates, with his stuff about the Forms of the
Good and the Just, is a good example of a moral realist. Moral
relativism, on the other hand, says that there are no moral facts apart
from human knowledge, that ideas like goodness and justice are social
constructions. This doesn't necessarily make the demands of goodness
and justice any less binding; it just denies that the ideas come from
something external to human thought. It also sometimes allows for more
variations in what counts as good or just; since terms like that are
social phenonmena, it should hardly be surprising that different
societies have come up with different views on them. So what counts as
just in Society A might not count as just in Society B. "When in
Rome..." is a morally relativistic statement.
Based on these definitions, sensitivity to context (which is, in my
view, what Harry shows) could be consistent with either moral relativism
or moral realism. Either a moral realist or a moral relativist could
say, "In this situation, justice (or goodness, or whatever moral concept
is relevant) requires that I take this particular action," and they
could agree on which particular action is the one to take. What they'd
disagree about is where the force of this moral requirement comes from.
On my reading, most of Rowling's "good guys" are moral realists. People
like Voldemort and the Death Eaters are, if they really believe that
there is no good and no evil, moral skeptics and are therefore on a
totally different plane from the realism/relativism debate.
This has been today's lesson in philosophical terminology. You may now
return to your regularly-scheduled discussion. ;-)
Lisa H
Sagebrush
david meijer <dazm...@yline.com> wrote in message
news:a5r4ki$98c7r$1...@ID-50797.news.dfncis.de...
:
: I am sorry I cannot give you full informations, as my
mother was the one to
: have attended the "HP Symposion" in Vienna, where Emer
O´Sullivan mentioned
: this. As she has won the "Award for Outstanding Research"
from the
: "International Research Society for Children´s
Literature", she seemed to be
: a pretty good source. I had hoped to find someone, who has
heard about this.
You are a pretty funny guy.
Sagebrush
Aris Katsaris
"Lisa Hicks" <lhh...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:3C816957...@midway.uchicago.edu...
>
> Swan & Rat wrote:
> >
> > Actually that IS moral relativism. Moral relativity means to question
> > "is this act moral in this circumstance?" and it is closely tied to
> > situational ethics. These concepts are not bad, in and of themselves,
> > but can lead to wehat Catholics call a "near occasion of sin" or
> > circumstances where a bad or wrong choice is *easier* to make than the
> > better or ethical choice.
>
> I tend to use it as it gets used in contemporary academic moral
> philosophy. That version of "moral relativism" is usually contrasted
> with "moral realism." The latter view says that there are moral facts
> "out there"--that there are, objectively speaking and separate from
> relativism, on the other hand, says that there are no moral facts apart
> from human knowledge, that ideas like goodness and justice are social
> constructions.
<nods> That's also how I perceive the terms (though I tend to use
"moral absolutist" rather than "moral realist"). Right and wrong aren't
just social constructs. A deed which would be good to do now,
would also be good to do (under similar circumstances of
course) in a different culture.
I'd guess that it's often quite easy to pass from moral relativism
("A culture's attitude about what is right or wrong isn't any better
or worse than any other culture's.") to the amorality ("there's no
right or wrong, there's only the conflicting desires of individuals.")
that the Death-Eaters represent.
Aris Katsaris
david meijer
> forth in a UK school, which is contrasted with the actual opinions of
> a few old-fashioned characters (the Malfoys).
exactly
> There is also a typical UK stereotype of "foreigners", and not
[snip]
> None of this has much to do with actual European countries, but it has
> everything to do with their traditional (yes, stereotypical) portrayal in
> English culture. JKR is using an established standard image to work out
> a different message.
There is some truth in that. at least till I found the languagebased hints
on another author.
> >> : I did not want to believe it at first, but the contrast
> >> : between bad slytherins voting pure-blood and stereotyping
> >> : krum is pretty obvious.
> What contrast? Slytherins are every bit as much a stereotype as Krum is!
slytherins are bad because of their racist behaviour towards muggle-borns.
krum is basically "bad" to be an example of his nationality.
> >> : And I think we do have to come across some nice muggles.
> I found a hint of nice muggles in the schoolkids who only ignored Harry
> because they didn't want to be attacked by Dudley's gang.
LOL. That´s exactly what I meant. Not everyone likes HP, not in the real
world, not in the wizard world, but in the latter hermione, ron andsoforth
don´t care about crabbe and goyle the way muggles did about dudley.
> >> What experts? Please provide citations?
>
> >I am sorry I cannot give you full informations, as
> > my mother was the one to have attended the "HP Symposion" in Vienna,
> > where Emer O´Sullivan mentioned this. As she has won the "Award for
> > Outstanding Research" from the "International Research Society for
> > Children´s Literature", she seemed to be a pretty good source.
> > I had hoped to find someone, who has heard about this.
> This is the first we've heard of it. Will the results of the
> Vienna "HP Symposion" be published or posted on the web?
> I'd like to read what O'Sullivan actually said.
Me too. That´s the reason posted this. It seems some misunderstood this as
me trying to get you on my personal "HP has two authors/JKR has used
material from unknown sources"-side. I want to get a better view on this
theory and hear what you know.
At this point, we have
> only second-hand and third-hand reports (your mother's to you is
> second-hand, and yours to us is third-hand). Hearsay evidence is
> inconclusive.
So I am going for something written. after all, you could have heard about
tha O´Sullivan and her research-work.
david meijer
> mother was the one to
> : have attended the "HP Symposion" in Vienna, where Emer
> O´Sullivan mentioned
> : this. As she has won the "Award for Outstanding Research"
> from the
> : "International Research Society for Children´s
> Literature", she seemed to be
> : a pretty good source. I had hoped to find someone, who has
> heard about this.
> You are a pretty funny guy.
Thanx. There was no need to tell the whole world. they should already know
by now. perhaps some of them even know more about O`Sullivan or someone else
david meijer
to
> > have attended the "HP Symposion" in Vienna, where Emer O´Sullivan
mentioned
> > this. As she has won the "Award for Outstanding Research" from the
> > "International Research Society for Children´s Literature", she seemed
to be
> > a pretty good source. I had hoped to find someone, who has heard about
this.
> If she were much of a researcher, I'd expect her to do a better job of
> finding evidence to back up her theories, or at least to read the books
> a little more closely. When you find what looks like an inconsistency
> in a book or series, should your first thought be "This is by a
> different writer!" or should it be, "Hmm, maybe I need to read more
> carefully and *think* a little bit and see if I can resolve the apparent
> inconsistency"? I lean toward the second option, but that's just me.
I like this point of view very much. though I still wait for some answer.
> Just a theory. But a theory that, I think, makes a lot more sense than,
> "Somebody else wrote parts of Book 4."
As long as the evidence O´Sullivan seems to have found is still "in the
vagues" (you may have to pardon my poor English), I´m fine with that.
Weird Beard
>> There is a fact: general official equality of races, sexes, and so
>> forth in a UK school, which is contrasted with the actual opinions of
>> a few old-fashioned characters (the Malfoys).
>
> exactly
>
>> There is also a typical UK stereotype of "foreigners", and not
> [snip]
>> None of this has much to do with actual European countries, but it
>> has everything to do with their traditional (yes, stereotypical)
>> portrayal in English culture. JKR is using an established standard
>> image to work out a different message.
>
> There is some truth in that. at least till I found the languagebased
> hints on another author.
>
>> >> : I did not want to believe it at first, but the contrast
>> >> : between bad slytherins voting pure-blood and stereotyping
>> >> : krum is pretty obvious.
>> What contrast? Slytherins are every bit as much a stereotype as Krum
>> is!
>
> slytherins are bad because of their racist behaviour towards
> muggle-borns. krum is basically "bad" to be an example of his
> nationality.
>
What if I said that whites were bad because of their racist behavior
towards blacks. Obviously, this is a stereotype, so why isn't it a
sterotype to say that all Slytherins are racist?
Anyways, *what* did Krum do that was bad, besides curse Cedric while under
the influence of the Imperius curse [and therefore excusable], and talk
with a corny accent?
Aris Katsaris
"Weird Beard" <weird...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Xns91C6673F09...@204.127.36.1...
>
> What if I said that whites were bad because of their racist behavior
> towards blacks. Obviously, this is a stereotype, so why isn't it a
> sterotype to say that all Slytherins are racist?
Slytherins were sent there based on their personalities - saying that
all people with a certain kind of personality have certain similar traits
in their personality isn't a stereotype.
> Anyways, *what* did Krum do that was bad, besides curse Cedric while under
> the influence of the Imperius curse [and therefore excusable], and talk
> with a corny accent?
Exactly - Krum did absolutely nothing evil.
Aris Katsaris
Eric Bohlman
> "Weird Beard" <weird...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns91C6673F09...@204.127.36.1...
>>
>> What if I said that whites were bad because of their racist behavior
>> towards blacks. Obviously, this is a stereotype, so why isn't it a
>> sterotype to say that all Slytherins are racist?
> Slytherins were sent there based on their personalities - saying that
> all people with a certain kind of personality have certain similar traits
> in their personality isn't a stereotype.
I wasn't aware that anti-Muggle prejudice was one of the criteria the
Sorting Hat used; the criterion for Slytherin appears to be
Machiavellianism, which doesn't automatically correlate with, let alone
imply, xenophobia. It's true that the kids of Death Eaters are likely to
get sorted into Slytherin, and are also likely to be xenophobes, but
unless they're the *only* kids who wear green and silver, that doesn't
justify sweeping categorical statements.
Weird Beard
news:a5tkso$dau$1...@usenet.otenet.gr:
>
> "Weird Beard" <weird...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns91C6673F09...@204.127.36.1...
>>
>> What if I said that whites were bad because of their racist behavior
>> towards blacks. Obviously, this is a stereotype, so why isn't it a
>> sterotype to say that all Slytherins are racist?
>
> Slytherins were sent there based on their personalities - saying that
> all people with a certain kind of personality have certain similar
> traits in their personality isn't a stereotype.
>
The problem with this is that the criteria the hat supposedly uses
(ambition, thirst for power, etc.) and the type of people actually picked
don't match up. Why isn't Percy a Slytherin and why aren't Crabbe and Goyle
shoe shine boys?
Aris Katsaris
"Eric Bohlman" <eboh...@omsdev.com> wrote in message
news:a5tlo0$qsr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
> > Slytherins were sent there based on their personalities - saying that
> > all people with a certain kind of personality have certain similar traits
> > in their personality isn't a stereotype.
>
> I wasn't aware that anti-Muggle prejudice was one of the criteria the
> Sorting Hat used; the criterion for Slytherin appears to be
> Machiavellianism, which doesn't automatically correlate with, let alone
> imply, xenophobia. It's true that the kids of Death Eaters are likely to
> get sorted into Slytherin, and are also likely to be xenophobes, but
> unless they're the *only* kids who wear green and silver, that doesn't
> justify sweeping categorical statements.
True. And I don't think there's actually been an official statement that
all Slytherins are anti-Muggle.
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris
> > all people with a certain kind of personality have certain similar
> > traits in their personality isn't a stereotype.
>
> The problem with this is that the criteria the hat supposedly uses
> (ambition, thirst for power, etc.) and the type of people actually picked
> don't match up. Why isn't Percy a Slytherin and why aren't Crabbe and Goyle
> shoe shine boys?
Remember that ruthlessness is also a criterion. Crabbe and Goyle may
have petty ambitions ("Me Like Beat Up People") but they are ambitions
nonetheless. And they are pretty ruthless about them.
Point about Percy. Perhaps it's just that his courage outweighs his
ruthlessness.
Aris Katsaris
Lisa Hicks
My take is that Percy isn't a Slytherin for one of two possible
reasons. Possibility One: His ambition was a late-developing trait so
that, at the time when the Hat Sorted him (i.e. age 11), he valued
"daring, nerve, and chivalry" more than ambition. Later on, ambition
became more important to him. Possibility Two: Ambition is the trait
that Percy displays *most often,* but it's not his *most important*
trait; when all the chips are down, Percy will side with the brave over
the ambitious. Possibility 2, incidentally, is the one that I like
better. We didn't know Percy at age 11, but I'm willing to bet he was
always ambitious. Also, Possibility 2 explains why Hermione is in
Gryffindor even though her "wit and learning" (the Ravenclaw traits) are
the most evident traits most of the time. In a real tight spot, bravery
will be the trait that drives her most strongly.
As for why C and G aren't shoeshine boys. . . Well, boneheads have to
go *some*where; the Hat doesn't have a "none of the above" option.
Maybe the Hat defaults to family placement if the kid is such a dud that
s/he doesn't seem to have any of the sought-after traits. Or maybe it
picks the House where the kid is least out of place. C and G aren't
hard-working, aren't brave, and aren't smart. They don't seem
particularly ambitious, either, but one of the other descriptions that
the Hat gives for Slytherin is "these cunning folks use any means to
achieve their ends." To the extent that their sluggish brains allow, I
think C and G probably do tend to act in an ends-justify-the-means way.
So they fit better in Slytherin than they would anywhere else.
Lisa H
Lisa H
Lisa Hicks
david meijer wrote:
> (snip)
>
> > >> : I did not want to believe it at first, but the contrast
> > >> : between bad slytherins voting pure-blood and stereotyping
> > >> : krum is pretty obvious.
> > What contrast? Slytherins are every bit as much a stereotype as Krum is!
>
> slytherins are bad because of their racist behaviour towards muggle-borns.
> krum is basically "bad" to be an example of his nationality.
(snip)
I don't see Krum as bad--or even "bad." He seems a little standoffish,
but I think by the end Harry figures out that he's a bit shy and that he
has been misunderstanding the nature of Harry's relationship with
Hermione.
Lisa H
The Fabulous Disney Babe
>have petty ambitions ("Me Like Beat Up People") but they are ambitions
>nonetheless. And they are pretty ruthless about them.
Or they could be ambitious and lack the skills to actually get them there.
Fab
http://www.laughingplace.com
Sometimes you eat the bear; sometimes the bear eats you - but always dress for
the hunt! ~Hathaway Browne
Favorite of 100 Mickeys: 006
Salvatore Buttice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 3/2/02, 6:14:08 AM, monkey...@gmx.at (david e.g. meijer) wrote
regarding JKR and a little help from "friends"?:
> Hi everyone!
> Just wondered wether I am the only one who has heard about some
> experts suggesting JKR did not write all of HP herself. These
> allegations are based primarily on the portrayal of the french and
> durmstrang people, who appear to fall out of her very openminded view
> on races, sexes andsoforth. (They also seem to have found hints in the
> language used) I did not want to believe it at first, but the contrast
> between bad slytherins voting pure-blood and stereotyping krum is
> pretty obvious.
1) Most writers bounce ideas off of friends and use them to improve their
books
2) Why does her portrayal of the French and Durmstrang groups change her
openminded view? Perhaps she's using them as a foil to show how
Dumbledore's method of running a school helps the children the most. BUT:
a) Beuxbatons having an obvious half giant as headmistress shows they're
pretty openminded
b) The Beuxbatons champion is a quarter veela, a non human race. That
seems pretty openminded. And, she admits it!
c) The Slytherins vote pureblood because birds of a feather flock
together. No more no less.
d) Krum was stereotyped for a purpose. In the end, he shows how the
stereotype was wrong by dating Hermione when there are LOADS of pretty
girls falling all over him. He also shows he's not like his headmaster
when he talks to Harry. The sterotype was important to the story line in
that it gave a "bad" person to fight against in the tournament, but it
turns out that the guy isn't so bad after all.
> And I think we do have to come across some nice muggles.
We HAVE come across some nice muggles. Hermione's parents are muggles,
and I don't think anyone thinks they're bad people. Justin's parents are
also Muggles since they had him down for Eton. Just because everyone that
we've met at Harry's are pretty bad doesn't mean they all are. Oh, and
the guy at the campgrounds was pretty nice. He was just curious. We
naturally see more wizards and witches in a good light because we're
seeing things through Harry's eyes. He's had a bad childhood with
muggles.
d...@somewhere.edu
> d) Krum was stereotyped for a purpose. In the end, he shows how the
> stereotype was wrong by dating Hermione when there are LOADS of pretty
> girls falling all over him. He also shows he's not like his headmaster
> when he talks to Harry. The sterotype was important to the story line in
> that it gave a "bad" person to fight against in the tournament, but it
> turns out that the guy isn't so bad after all.
I agree with you, but I would phrase it differently.
As JKRowling is often letting us form our own opinions, then turning
the tables on the unsuspecting, she is letting us view our
stereotypes.
One of the features the dementors bring out, that Harry is afraid of
fear, is similar to what I am trying to express. I don't see that
Harry is particularly obsessed with competing with the others, afraid
of looking like a fool, but not as focused with them as with doing
well.
This may be a misconception, or personal interpretation, but I don't
see him engaging in a 'battle' with Krum, or any of the other
champions.
His world is caught up in trying to survive, and come out with friends.
--
When does Book 5 come out? Don't worry. You'll know.
http://www.geocities.com/hpnewsgroup/faqfdq.htm
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=alt.fan.harry-potter
pluther
> We HAVE come across some nice muggles. Hermione's parents are muggles,
> and I don't think anyone thinks they're bad people. Justin's parents are
>
> also Muggles since they had him down for Eton. Just because everyone tha
> t
> we've met at Harry's are pretty bad doesn't mean they all are. Oh, and
> the guy at the campgrounds was pretty nice. He was just curious. We
> naturally see more wizards and witches in a good light because we're
> seeing things through Harry's eyes. He's had a bad childhood with
> muggles.
One thing I noticed when he was receiving various letters and things
at the beginning of GoF, is that while everyone he knows refers to the
Dursley's as "the muggles", he always refers to them as "the Dursleys".
Interesting, in that it implies:
1. He doesn't lump them in with the rest of the muggles.
2. He doesn't seem to consider them his family either. (understandable!)
-Pat
--
Pat Luther -- pluther at usa dot net -- http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~pluther
"What state is Wales in?" - W, to Welsh singer Charlotte Church
Eric Bohlman
> One thing I noticed when he was receiving various letters and things
> at the beginning of GoF, is that while everyone he knows refers to the
> Dursley's as "the muggles", he always refers to them as "the Dursleys".
> Interesting, in that it implies:
> 1. He doesn't lump them in with the rest of the muggles.
No real need for implication; in his first conversation on the train with
Ron in [PS]S, he's very quick to point out that while he regards the
Dursley's as "horrible," not all Muggles are.