[ SECRET POST #5980 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5980 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Andy Warhol]



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 47 secrets from Secret Submission Post #855.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[meadowphoenix]

Percy and Sansa from ASOIAF have the same problem at the start of their arcs, which is that they had at least one parent who was giving them an understanding of the world they lived in that was more idealistic than practical and with an utter lack of nuance. they act in the way they've been taught and get mad at their family's lack of assimilation as something that is holding them back, when of course it's that the world doesn't actually give a damn how good they are at their political and social roles even though the social veneer would give anyone the idea that that is the way to success. they can't see beyond the idealistic veil, the values society purports to uphold, to reality, where the only value is power. and what's worse is that despite being taught this, they are deeply out of step with the rest of their family, when only makes them feel more alienated.

the fact of the matter is that arthur is only "bringing down" the family because he's a blood traitor in a government who curries favor with blood supremacists. they're never going to take him seriously because he likes muggles regardless of the way that fascination demonstrates itself. percy's never going to be right unless his perspective aligns with a certain oppressive understanding of the world order.

fred and george infuriate him because they belie all his understandings of success. they are immensely successful both socially and then professionally without upholding any of those perspectives or assimilating or acting with any decorum. I think seeing them as assholes make sense but assholes are successful in HP! the people in power are all assholes, and they're the people percy wants validation from! he works for umbridge at the end there who is the largest asshole in government! their assholeness, such as it is, isn't percy's issue with them.

anyway I'm deeply sympathetic.

[(Anonymous)]

That's an interesting interpretation, thanks for writing it out!

[(Anonymous)]

I don't see Arthur as some sort of martyr in his workplace who would be promoted and have a bright future if only he weren't surrounded by people who disapprove of his politics. He seems like a fairly mediocre, bumbling kind of guy that you'd have to be stupid to give additional responsibilities to. Anyone can say "oh, I could advance if I wanted to, it's just not important to me." But I don't look at him and see someone under-utilized. I see someone who's quite comfy in his dead-end job and makes excuses for why that ought to be good enough.

In general, I'm sympathetic to people not defining themselves by title or salary or occupation. It's more the combination of that with having seven kids that seems to me like it's making trouble for others.

I mean, there's also underlying, questionable story things like how the only poor family we see in the wizarding world is treated like they wouldn't be poor if they'd just had fewer children. And "poor" in their case means stuff like "can't afford new clothes and economize on their kids' school supplies." But Arthur, in particular, seems like he's just play-acting at being an adult. And defaults to sneaking around his wife because he wants what he wants (his muggle-related hobbies) but he's not mature enough to present them as something he has a right to pursue openly. And yeah, at least some of the time, I can laugh at him. But what I can't do is take such a man seriously.

[meadowphoenix]

I think people forget the framing of COS. Lucius isn't targeting Ginny because he hates Arthur. He's targeting Ginny because Arthur wrote an entire law about Muggle protection that is about to pass, and Malfoy wanted to embarrass Arthur so that it doesn't (also why it was a problem about the Ford Anglia). He also raided Malfoy's place based on the info Ron gives him that they got from Draco while playing as Crabbe and Goyle. He actually has a shitton of responsibility, and enough pull to get legislation passed. He also literally gets promoted in the books lmao, and you know how....the government changed because people believed harry that voldemort was back and fudge had to resign/malfoy was put in jail/rufus scrimgeor became minister of magic. that was the entire difference. uk ministry jobs are in fact wildly political, he's apparently only a step or two down from head of the mle.

The poor thing is a little hard to parse because they're upper class poor, which isn't the same as lower class poor. but you're arguing with british literally tropes, and that seems fruitless imo.

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks for explaining this very clearly.

...runs away in landed Austrian aristocracy middle class...

[(Anonymous)]

They are Lizzie Bennet poor, not actual poor.

[meadowphoenix]

yes! exactly.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I appreciate your bringing this up, because I hadn't thought about that aspect of book 2 in a long time. My overall impression of Arthur, though, is still that his successes are what TV tropes would call Informed Attributes, while what we actually get to see of the man, doing things in front of Harry and the audience, is that he's a bungler.

An author can put anyone anywhere with the stroke of a pen. The minister for magic is Arthur's boss because that's how Ron identifies him to Harry. And he got promoted whenever JK decided that happened. But if what I see of a character is that they're ineffectual, no amount of the author telling me that, offscreen, they're so accomplished is going to convince me. And that's all "but he wrote these great laws and got them passed" amounts to. The man I was introduced to directly in the book is too much of a coward to tell his wife he made a flying car, and too much of a coward to make room in his society for anyone to have the same hobby he has without their risking jail.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

Also, saying so when something seems questionable to me is how I get into conversations with people who can tell me what I'm missing, when there's relevant information I don't have. So no, when the wizarding definition of "poverty" seems to involve a much more comfortable existence than what muggles have to deal with, I'm definitely going to point that out. If there's some perfectly good reason to overlook that and treat it like a non-issue, any anon who knows more is welcome to provide it.

[meadowphoenix]

blood in HP is a magic version of the class system, thought muddled to be sure. Arthur and Molly are pureblooded and so are at least upper middle class (honestly the implication is that Molly married down a little bit iirc), so being poor is more about not caring about class and having a lot of ~love~ than a true character defect. It obviously bothers Ron and Percy and it always annoyed me that they wouldn't accept Harry's money, but pride is supposed to be like honor here, i.e. the mark of nobility. You're not supposed to care about money and if you have it, you're supposed to be like Harry and try to give it away as much as possible but never care for yourself lmao.

[meadowphoenix]

I don't think it's useful to dismiss "what we are told" in a book with third person limited like this when the main character is generally oblivious lmao and that's the author's key writing principal to show her skill. i think it's especially useless, when you're missing what's shown too. The ford anglia, the first thing we are shown about Arthur's talents, indicates very clearly that's he's very smart/clever.

But mostly I think you're missing the tropes here, and so while your interpretation isn't unreasonable (and is frankly understandable), i don't think it's taking into consideration why things are framed as they are. You're treating them as if they are characters who are supposed to have some modern verisimilitude, and they are not. Molly knows Arthur is fucking with the car. She knows so much they drive it to drop off the kids to the train after she officially learns that it flies, as a treat, which is of course ridiculous when you know its illegal. The Molly and Arthur dynamic is "minor quirky country land owner and loving wife" where the conceit of the trope is that Molly scolds Arthur regarding proper behavior when the plausible deniability about his behavior can't exist for her. I'm not saying this is likable or cute, there's definitely a sorta heteronormative ick about it, but saying Arthur is being cowardly is simply ignoring this dynamic that both of them participate in. In real life, this is mildly dysfunctional, as a literary trope it's supposed to be quaint.

Second you're missing the government tropes. Arthur functions firstly in that he is supposed to be the ideal sort of ambitious public service, which is not at all. For instance, Arthur helps Ludo Bagman out of trouble, and in return Ludo gets him World Cup tickets in the best box. This can be ambitious, and is contrasted with Percy's behavior later with Crouch which is supposed to be the "bad" ambition (Percy is not showing care for Crouch as a person in which case he would have told someone something was up, he's trying to be obsequious to get ahead). Arthur on the other hand is just being kind and is rewarded for it (also directly linked to this ambition trope: Malfoy and Fudge, obviously "bad" ambition). Also, it's clear that Arthur does let most harmless things slide, so he really isn't locking up people for stuff he gets away with (another government trope, that of the reasonable ministry employee who lets things slide if it's not really a bother).

You'd have to give me examples of bungling to see what you mean.