fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2629 ]

[ SECRET POST #2629 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2629 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 071 secrets from Secret Submission Post #376.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 3 - too big ], [ 1 2 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The trolls could have been completely removed from the story and the story would not have changed at all

The Weasleys could not removed without it affecting the plot significantly. They're the first example of a true (not assholish and abusive) 'family' he ever encounters/becomes a part of, which is fucking crucial in Harry's character development

I hate the trolls, but the troll king was the one who erased Anna's memory. A plot point I feel was idiotic, but without it the whole first act, and possibly the dynamic of the sisters, would change (I personally wouldn't mind that, but...).

The Weasleys were pushy, overbearing, there were too many of them, and they got their poor white trash* cooties all over Harry and Hermione's loooooove and/or took time away from Draco/Sirius/Snape/who-the-fuck-ever.
Seriously,multiple portions of fandom shat all over the Weasleys for years.

*Or English equivalent thereof

Yeah, there is some....weird hatred for the Weasleys. Not even Harmony hatred, more like--I have DARK and EDGY fic coming up here, I am here to TELL JKR how it SHOULD'VE gone, and the Weasleys (and Dumbledore) will bygod PAY.

I recently had to quit reading a fic that just had this hate-on for Molly--really tore her up ("screechy," "hysterical," had this humiliating incident in front of everyone at Hogwarts). I posted a comment saying "you have some decent ideas here. But Molly--Molly is the mother surrogate who held Harry in her arms as he sobbed after coming back from the graveyard at the end of GoF. She doesn't deserve this." With very few exceptions (UMBRIDGE), most of these characters are carefully realized, complex characters that have good and bad points, both mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Even Voldemort (and I daresay if we'd been given some of Umbridge's backstory, we'd have understood a little bit why she became such an abusive horrible person). If you can't see that and write fic that realizes that, it's creepy grudgefic and I have no time for it.

The Weasleys are low-class and poor, yet not saintly. Worse, they have self-esteem and don't think of themselves as worthless and therefore don't scurry around with their heads down, falling over themselves with shock whenever someone shows the magnanimity of not treating them like shit. Worse still, they don't prioritize raising themselves to middle-class above all other values, like, say, being loyal to your friends, helping people in trouble, or treating muggle-borns with respect and not being snooty about their long pure-blood pedigree.

Don't you know that if you have the audacity to be low-class and poor and still want the hero to lower himself to the point of associating with you, you had better be sweet tragic meek victimized saints who never treat each other with anything other than Cratchit-like picture-perfect reverence?

Edited 2014-03-16 01:02 (UTC)

They really do not read as poor to me. Relatively less affluent, yes. But they own their house. They meet their needs. If they were desperate Molly could look for a job, and there's no evidence she ever did. They just have their priorities, and their priorities are not material wealth. They're satisfied living frugally.

While it's rarely brought up outright, a lot of the arguments I've heard against the Weasely's over the years have some really classist undertones to them. They seem to come pervaded with this whole "because they are poor, they should be acting like THIS" attitude, and hell even a secret on here a while back criticized them for using prize money to go visit their son in another country and enjoy a vacation rather than pay for essentials that they could afford, even if they sometimes struggled for it.

No one enjoys being poor*, but the family was one that happened to value a lot of things way more than they wanted to be rich. Isn't "morals over money" an ideal that our culture is supposed to value? -_-

Isn't "morals over money" an ideal that our culture is supposed to value? -_-

It's one of the capitalist fairy tales that we tell ourselves at night so we can sleep. Every culture has its bullshit to maintain a certain status quo and the West is no exception.

That's just it, though - if that's the fairytale value we're chasing after, then why are people so pissed that the prominent family of a children's book series are actually demonstrating those values?

You must not be British then.

Seriously, you must not be aware of how virulent classism in British culture operates. I don't know where you're from, but I've heard this kind of disbelief mainly from American fans, since in America, the main thrust of classism is usually leveled at single mothers and blacks and Hispanics in the ghettos, or trailer-park white trash, not people like the Weasleys.

I have to admit, I did not understand British classism until I lived in England.

In America, it's alternately more blatant (tied in with our particular brands of racism and religion) and more subtle (because technically we don't have a history of aristocracy, just plutocracy, and many of the originators of family fortunes started out poor).

Edited 2014-03-16 02:14 (UTC)

I am still befuddled by Britain's obsession with accents and how they connect to wealth. My Fair Lady cleared up a lot of that confusion, but then I watched some news clip about British media freaking out about how Prince William's accent sounded less posh than it was 'supposed to be' and that befuddlement came back.

I actually remember reading a fanfic in a British fandom a while back, in which the American author commented that when she explained to her British betas that in America, politicians will often play up 'lower class accents' in localized elections or appearances, they were completely befuddled by the idea. But then, they apparently didn't believe a lot of the American political scandals the author mentioned were real and not just shit pulled out of political thrillers. :P

I've actually heard people try to claim the Weasleys were abusive at times. Taking any sarcastic comment or failing by Molly to be a sign she's the evil bitch hag they want her to be (apparently it's 'abusive' for her to forget that Ron doesn't like corned beef)

It was obnoxious.

At her worst, Molly is sometimes harsh with her kids. And really, given the kind of things Fred and George (and Ron) canonically get up to, I don't think she's overreacting.

If you wanted to be obnoxious you could claim that the kinds of things Fred and George canonically get up to is evidence the Weasleys weren't tough enough.

(I expect it's mostly that what worked on Bill and Charlie didn't work on Fred and George.)

The trolls could have been completely removed from the story and the story would not have changed at all.

Except for the part where they heal Anna in the flashback and then explain what the cure for a frozen heart is. Obviously the film didn't need that information, no siree!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2629 ]

I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys