What Does Harry Potter Mean Now? [28:30-32:51]

as if badness is genetic. No mouthful he's worth listening to. Bad blood, that's what it is. Likewise, Harry's goodness appears genetic. He is naturally gifted at quidditch, just like his father. His patronus is a stag, just like his father's. He was able to survive Voldemort's killing curse because of a magical boon granted by his mother. He had a whole existential crisis when he learned his father used to be a bully. Harry's blood is just as important to him as any death eater. And while we're here, what's more essentialist than magic? In Potter, magic is something you're born with, which divides humanity into two classes. Muggles and wizards, the normals and the specials. The whole escapist fantasy of Potter is our hero discovering he has magical powers, which let him leave the ordinary world behind to join a secret club of other special people. Well, that is part of the fun of it. And there's deconstruction of this too. The villains see themselves as superior to Muggles. Magic is might, etc. We're supposed to disagree with that. And yet, it's not just the villains who exhibit anti-muggles sentiment. The very word muggle is often used as an insult, almost like a slur. If he wants to go, the rate muggle like you won't stop. I'm a muggle, I can say that. I'm just right. I'm not a muggle anymore. Oh, God. She's just so famous. I'm sorry. Even Arthur Weasley, who is fascinated by Muggles, views them with a superiority that is both affectionate and patronizing. In genius, really? How many ways Muggles are found of getting along without magic? Okay, but that one's a joke. As readers, it's funny to see wizards treating Muggles essentially ourselves as the other, that the mundane world is mysterious and exotic to them. But that still comes from a place of superiority, as critical writing student Vicki Gavin writes. Arthur's attitudes express and reinforce the idea that muggles are inherently different from wizards, and the separation between muggles and wizards is natural. All wizards, not just the villains, see themselves as essentially superior to muggles. Are heroes disagree with the villains, not because they see Muggles as equals? The disagreement is, they think Muggles should be segregated instead of subjugated. Since the disdain for Muggles stems from racial lines rather than ability or merit, Muggles are hard pressed to be seen as positive members of society. Another shorn observation is that while bigotry against Muggleborns is proven incorrect, it's not proven immoral. Pointing out that magical talent doesn't correlate with blood status accepts the logic of the bigots and only disagrees with their conclusion. So, if it's wrong to be bigoted against Muggleborns because we can prove they're equally magical, does that mean it's okay to be bigoted against Muggles because they aren't magical at all? What we end up with is a story which proclaims a message of non-essentialism, whilst frequently presenting its characters through an assumed, essentialist worldview. It both doesn't matter what you're born as and it absolutely does. Rowling wants to have her cake and eat it too, to have Harry the fairy tale hero born to greatness and yet promote a social vision in which only merit counts. According to the reinterpretation, this essentialism not only suggests unconscious biases on Joanne's part, certainly in regards to fat phobia and beauty bias but also suggests the reason she's unable to recognize those biases as YouTuber Hoots puts it. Joanne has a very individualist black and white sense of good and bad and since she knows herself to be a good person who does nice things like give to charity, people telling her that she has done bad things just doesn't compute. And while it would be absurd to suggest Joanne's secretly harbors anti-muggle sentiments, the fact she puts this big ontological divide in her fictional world without feeling the need to address it suggests she doesn't recognize it as a problem, which brings us to the second complaint.