the libs are telling on themselves that they’ve truly never read another book
it’s not even hard to reach for something obvious like Dickens or Hugo
Well, I guess Oliver Twist was just a novel about how workhouses and the Poor Laws were the 19th century version of sigma quadrillionaire grindset, and The Chimney Sweeper were just poems about how dying of black lung at four years old was hella rad.
:agony-consuming:
How can everything in one tweet be so wrong.
Apart from the obvious, she treats the Weasley’s like being poor is a fun sentimental thing. She does that insufferable lib class tourist thing of acting like being poor is actually more “real” than having wealth and ignores the hardships alongside it, apart from “Ron has some stuff from his brothers”
“ There’s no glory in greed and want/but there’s none in poverty either.”
“Rowling’s real importance lies in the fact that she is the only writer I have read.”
writing about class struggles is when you acknowledge that poor people exist
Accurately depicting a class-based society with vast wealth disparity is when literally everybody gets to go to wizard Eton/Oxbridge.
Harry goes from the “kid under the stairs” to essentially being infinitely rich as far as the story is concerned. He is instantly a millionaire in Book One. Money is literally never a problem in the books except when it is for no reason whatsoever.
We can’t have a character unable to afford all of the frivolous magic shit. That would create too much character tension and motivation. Who wants to read a story about being poor in a fantasy setting?
As I wrote that, I realized more and more how little thought Rowling put into her created world. He spends time with a poor magic family and they still have things like a family house and land. They don’t show adaptations they have to make while living in poverty like cutting costs on food or luxury items.
There was also a mistake on her part by making the dad obsessed with the nonmagical world, yet unable to utilize savvy to benefit himself or his family. I mean if you can’t afford to buy clothes from the magical world, and they don’t seem all that different from mundane ones, why not get a job in the muggle world where being able to magic shit would give an advantage?
And that in itself speaks to Rowling’s lack of creativity. She could’ve illustrated arbitrary value on things. Like Ron getting dress code violations or teased for only being able to afford muggle shoes or whatever. A kid wearing expensive Air Jordans to magic school and getting a reality check on arbitrary markers of class? That would be interesting and you could still have the story be much the same.
Oh well…
being poor in a fantasy setting
I’m imagining a world where spell components are only affordable to the uber wealthy, and everyone else born with magic either has to get a job as a magic cop/troop or never get to use their powers (and in fact it’s illegal to try).
There are a few stories like that. I heard there’s one where a single ruler who can allocate magic to others and the wealthy surround and pamper them in exchange for power.
Fantasy has so much potential to explore things like wealth and class. It’s a shame that jkr is the extent to which most people know the genre.
a single ruler who can allocate magic to others
Reminds me of Reincarnated as a Slime, where the main character can dish out a portion of their power by giving low-ranking monsters a name. Naturally they go out of their way to give names to everyone they can because why would you horde something so beneficial?
We can’t have a character unable to afford all of the frivolous magic shit. That would create too much character tension and motivation. Who wants to read a story about being poor in a fantasy setting?
The best and most direct counterpoint to Harry Potter on this issue is Terry Pratchett’s Tiffany Aching books. It is the chad working-class part-time witch, part-time cheese maker / shepherdess / midwife / village doctor / village psychiatrist, versus the virgin trust-fund kid whose sole ambition is to be a wizard :top-cop:.
