Just In
Community
Forum
V
More
for trying to live

12/3/2021 c1 Guest
Most of the time a gun will beat a wand

Is Harry The Hero and a genuine savior, or is he a trust-fund orphan (though he spent the first ten years of his life in abusive poverty and didn't understand he was famous in the Wizarding world or how to handle his new found wealth) whose deceased parents give him license to dismiss everyone else's problems as unimportant? Or is he a nice guy but just a poorly executed one? The first time he defeated Voldemort was through no action of his own, and the second time was mostly taking advantage of Voldemort's inability to understand love and he simply followed Dumbledore's plans. Some critics suggest that many of his victories were only based on luck (or Dumbledore's Batman Gambits) as opposed to great skill with magic. Interestingly, Harry himself believes the former, only for Ron and Hermione to insist that these events also showed a bravery and resourcefulness that others don't have.

Many also question if Harry actually is a good friend. Some have argued that Harry is a Hollywood Nerd who is fundamentally a jock, who likes sports and girls, coasts off Hermione for his homework yet refuses to listen to her and even dismisses her when he wishes to For instance, in Deathly Hallows, Harry privately concurs with Xenophilius Lovegood that Hermione is "narrow-minded," and while he agrees later that Hermione was right about the Hallows, he does not apologize to her and moreover has severe Moral Myopia when it comes to class and school discipline (i.e. his insensitivity to Ron, and his plagiarism of the Prince's notebook in Book 6, poor sportsmanship). Such fans also raise eyebrows to Harry/Hermione Shipping Goggles since Harry in the books does not really come across as a very good friend to her (taking Ron's side in Book 3, he got mad at her for reporting the Firebolt anonymously sent to him to McGonagall despite that it was a big red flag (To be fair, Hagrid did call him out for that), and generally getting very morose and depressed whenever he and Ron fight, but taking Hermione for granted and moreover not showing the slightest remorse or consideration about how his use of the Prince Textbook is unfairly giving him an advantage over Hermione's labor in class), while also criticizing him for Gaslighting Ron into the Sidekick Glass Ceiling Like after becoming Captain in Book 6, he doesn't defend Ron despite him more or less winning the Quidditch Cup the previous year, while Harry sat out of the final for his poor sportsmanship and then resorting to a cheap trick to make Ron feel like he won but still remain insecure, while Ron once again served on the winning team of the Quidditch tournament when he got himself suspended again.

Who are even the good guys? Many Death Eaters don't exactly share in Voldemort's fervor to Take Over the World. Some of them were high-ranking figures already, which suggests that they were attracted to the movement's ideology (which happens to be to exterminate everything that's not a pure-blooded wizard). Others suggest, though, that they're Not So Different from the good guys, who themselves want to keep magic a secret from the world at large (to the point where none of them bothered to break The Masquerade during the ten months Voldemort took over their government even though it was a threat would have ended both societies and despite how many muggles were being killed at the point), have a very harsh and sometimes disproportionate justice system, are fine with slavery, and have their own discriminatory viewpoints (Dumbledore is implied to be astonishingly progressive to give Lupin and Hagrid jobs at Hogwarts, and he still has to keep Lupin's lycanthropy a secret). One common fan interpretation is that Wizarding Britain is incredibly backwards, insular, and prejudiced compared to other magical communities.

Gryffindor is the house Harry belongs to, so naturally we see the most of it and it's painted in the best light. It's nominally the house of courage and chivalry, but some fans see it more as a house full of Jerk Jocks, Glory Hounds, and the Popular Is Dumb crowd. Ravenclaw is the house for smart people, but how smart are Ravenclaws really? Some paint them as rather boring, academic, and exclusionary. But when Order of the Phoenix introduced Luna Lovegood, now they also became associated with eccentrics, mystics, and creative types. Is Slytherin a house of Always Chaotic Evil Pureblood fanatics? Word of God says no, they're much more nuanced. However, we don't see much evidence of this in the books, but Harry is a Gryffindor, has a real rivalry with Slytherin, and might just not want to see any redeeming qualities. The most positively portrayed Slytherin, Horace Slughorn, is an Anti-Hero who still has subtle traces of Pureblood Supremacy. Officially, they're the house of ambition, but Ambition Is Evil in the story. Fan writers like to suggest that they're Not Evil, Just Misunderstood – a house that likes being edgy, sticking up for each other, and finding hidden potential. Pureblood fanaticism on that large a scale seems kind of impractical, anyway.

Its founder, Salazar Slytherin, is not painted well in the books – he was known to have built the Chamber of Secrets, which housed the Muggle-killing Basilisk, and he did have a falling out with the other founders over whether or not to accept Muggle-born students. This suggests that he really was a Pureblood supremacist, but one interpretation suggests that since the Burn the Witch! trope was alive and well at the time, he didn't have anything against Muggles per se, but was a pragmatist who didn't want to open the school up to attack by Muggles. Under this interpretation, the Chamber of Secrets was a defense against a possible attack.

Hogwarts appears to be founded in the 990s or so, the Burn the Witch! thing didn't get underway until the mid-1400s. There were isolated incidents in the Founder's time, but not the hundreds of thousands we see during the Early Modern Period. So it might have been the fear that the Muggle-borns would attract unwanted attention, as a pure- or half-blood would have parents who could mitigate the damage?
Hufflepuff is so often portrayed as "the House of All The Rest" that it named a trope. Fans naturally wanted to explore their positive traits, but they differ on what those are. Some suggest it's the House of goal-oriented hard workers, so much so that they'll eschew glory just to get stuff done. Others suggest it's the House of love, friendship, and community. Still others suggest they're just Lawful Stupid.

Much like Salazar Slytherin, Helga Hufflepuff has been reinterpreted in some works as the Only Sane Man. In this view Hufflepuff wasn't "all the rest" because she especially valued community, but because she knew children didn't have a firm grasp of their identity at age 11 and that dividing students up based on personality was a bad idea.

By the way, imagine what an eleven-year-old child would think when the Sorting Hat singing their song at the Sorting Ceremony DIRECTLY making Hufflepuff a "House of All The Rest" - somebody who isn't brave enough for Gryffindor, clever enough for Ravenclaw or pure enough for Slytherin, and making a very hard point that the hat isn't ever mistaken. No wonder why some consider Hufflepuff House as a dumping ground for students that the other founders wouldn't consider "worthy".

With a few exceptions, such as Dobby, the House-Elves find the prospect of not serving human wizards abhorrent. However, is this Happiness in Slavery attitude actually genuine? Are the House-Elves just saying they’re fine with being enslaved because they feel as if they can’t fight the Fantastic Caste System the Wizarding World has enforced on them? Or have they been enslaved by wizards for so long they don’t know what they would do if they weren’t serving wizards? note For this point, consider how Dobby's idea of freedom is "never serving the Malfoys again and being able to choose who he serves while he gets paid for it", not "never serving wizards again". Also, when Dumbledore offered Dobby ten Galleons a week and weekends off (which is the minimum wage in the Wizarding World) when hiring him to work in the Hogwarts kitchens, Dobby was uncomfortable with this because he felt it was too much, so he bargained down to one Galleon a week and a day off per month instead. Or are they just trying to avoid punishment from their human overseers by seeming to be grateful for the slave labor they’re forced to do note and most wizards, who aren't open-minded people just take these claims at face value so they don't have to bother themselves with the implication of having slaves?

At one point, Hermione speculates that the House-Elves are psychologically conditioned to like being enslaved, which is something that has happened to slaves in real life. When you read into it more, you realize that this assumption actually does have a lot of basis in fact; the House-Elves are psychologically conditioned to physically punish themselves severely if they fail a task or disobey their masters. If they're mentally compelled to do that to themselves, what other things are they mentally compelled to do to themselves?

The series also repeatedly demonstrates that the house-elves are fine with working for wizards as long as their masters treat them with kindness. With that in mind, it explains why the Hogwarts house-elves are upset when Hermione tries to trick them into being freed by leaving out hats and socks for them. Serving at Hogwarts under Dumbledore is the best job that a house-elf can get in Wizarding Britain, so being forced to leave would have forced them into an even worse enslavement, something that Hermione clearly doesn't consider at all
12/3/2021 c1 Guest
Would like to see revolution by blue wizard for Easterlings and Haradrim

consider that Tolkien thought Samwise was the real hero of the story, and he was the son of a gardener

The Easterlings and Haradrim allied with Sauron. In a world in which the sides of good and evil are very obvious, and in which evil's ultimate goal is blatantly to enslave the entire world, and in which Sauron has shown himself over the course of many, many centuries to be treacherous and only out for his own power, what country made up of free-willed people chooses to fight for Mordor? It's not like even Sauron's human allies would benefit in the event of his victory, and unless they were all completely idiotic it's not like that fact wouldn't be very, very obvious from the start.
We the readers, and the protagonists know of Sauron's treachery and malice because the characters in question are the descendants of elf-friends, having learned Truth and bearing the knowledge of Númenor and the elder races. Not all men are so fortunate to have such teachers. Men who are not descended of the Edain, living far from the northwestern coast, have only their own experiences to go by. They were seduced into the service of Morgoth in the first age, and if they ever received any instruction from the Ainur after the War of Wrath, it was forgotten to the years. Sauron is the greatest Power they know of, and has likely lied to them to convince them that he is the only great Power that exists, and as their God-King, they have no choice but to obey him. Sam himself wonders at one point what lies they had been told to take them so far from their homes to die in battle — so even the characters know that the "evil" men are merely being deceived on a national scale.
Every temptation in the book is stronger to the characters than it would be to real people. Without being able to feel the supernatural forces behind them, the allure of the One Ring seems easy to ignore, and the voice of Saruman as he tries to convince Théoden to switch sides again just sounds silly.
Also, note that at least some of the human allies of Sauron had really big trouble with the "good" nations, especially Númenóreans and their descendants, due to the colonialist arrogance of the latter. Remember for example Dunlendings that were driven off their lands by the Rohirrim. So, in the opinion of the Haradrim, joining evil Sauron was the least evil — think Finland in WWII or the numerous volunteers from Ukraine who fought alongside Nazis even though they knew that the Nazis considered Slavic peoples as inferior to Aryans.
The Men of the East in particular have an excellent excuse to side with Sauron: Númenorian treachery during its height, as it is said men of Númenor sacrificed Easterlings in great number in the sacred name of Morgoth. No wonder they're still pissed.
There's also the point that Sauron is the greatest Power still active in Middle-Earth, even without the Ring in his possession, and the East in particular is his territory, with nothing that can even challenge him. Even if the Men of the East knew Sauron for what he was, they might well have decided it was better to live as Sauron's slaves than die (and condemn their families to death) by defying him.
"It's not like even Sauron's human allies would benefit in the event of his victory." Actually, they probably would. Sauron doesn't want to destroy the world, he wants to rule it. And he can't be everywhere at once. He's going to need lieutenants, kings and lords and princes under him to rule over his various territories, and they would probably enjoy a decent level of power and a fairly good standard of living.

Although it's fairly subtle, there's a good case for to be made that the text encourages diversity, internationalism, and openness to others while rejecting isolationism and xenophobia.
The Fellowship itself is in essence a Multinational Team with representatives from numerous races and places, all of whom have different specialties, points of view, etc. They are also helped by still other people who are not present in the Fellowship, (elves from Lorien, ents, Tom Bombadil, men from Rohan and Ghan-buri-Ghan's tribesmen, etc.) without whose help the quest would have certainly failed.
Every time someone from the "good guy races" acts in a xenophobic manner or follows isolationist orders against outsiders, it gets called out as stupid, counterproductive, and helping only Sauron.

At first glance the Shire seems like it's being held up as a paragon of Arcadia, but there's also a fair bit of criticism of the Shire: the Hobbits living there are quite small minded, ignorant, and provincial, which makes them easy marks for Saruman when he chooses to set up a tin pot dictatorship there. (With the most small minded, ignorant and provincial hobbits generally being the ones most likely to turn into Saruman's lackeys, ala Ted Sandyman.) When the Shire needs to be saved from Saruman, it's not the good old hobbits who are uncorrupted by foreign influences and the outside world who do the saving (or at least lead the charge) it's the ones who have experience in the outside world and have forever been changed by its influences and their experiences in it. When the Shire needs to be rebuilt after Saruman is defeated, it isn't made more beautiful and wonderful than it was before by going back to the way it was, (or by trying to reject outside influence and become more Shirish or properly hobbitish) but because Sam uses the gift of Lady Galadriel to introduce new trees and plants that had never been present in the Shire before. The story even goes so far as to have Gildor, an elf noble, rebuke the isolationism of the Hobbits, pointing out that however much hobbits try to isolate themselves in the Shire they are still part of a larger world that affects them regardless of how much they try to ignore it or remain separate from it. In the divided and increasingly xenophobic and isolationist days of the early 21st century, there is certainly some food for thought and resonance there. Frodo: I knew that danger lay ahead, of course; but I did not expect to meet it in our own Shire. Can't a hobbit walk from the Water to the River in peace?
Gildor: But it is not your own Shire. Others dwelt here before hobbits were, and others shall dwell here when hobbits are no more. The wide world is about you: you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot forever fence it out.

Masculinity isn't defined solely through raw strength. Plenty of conventionally manly characters are shown crying, displaying physical affection with each other and can appreciate both nature and the arts when they're not fighting for noble causes.

The Orcs, helped by the fact that Tolkien was worried about the implications of the Always Chaotic Evil trope (that he detested) and apparently intended for them to be Proud Warrior Race Guys serving Sauron only because of his power over them. He had actually planned to have Frodo meet some helpful Orcs but hadn't figured out where to work their scene in. He would have introduced this part of them and expanded their role in future editions too but passed away before

Melkor's fall was not based on his desire to create life, but his desire to control the life he created. Compare his experience with that of Aule, who also sought to create life, but since he did it without selfish intent, he was forgiven and his creations, the Dwarves, were give true life of their own. Evil intent is defined by the attempt to bend life to your own individual will.

Note that both Sauron and Saruman were originally servants of Aule before they turned to evil. They were both craftsmen, skilled at making things. The temptation to enslave others, to take a creature with a will of its own and bend it into a mere thing to be controlled, is particularly strong in those who are builders. Aule himself is able to resist this temptation, because as a pure Artist he takes joy in the act of creation, and has no desire to impose his will over anything or anyone. It's not evil to create, even to create life

Mordor has large fertile areas offstage where food is grown, thus explaining how Sauron's armies survive in the volcanic hellscape around Barad-dûr. The Ring is also more than just a convenient MacGuffin — its effects matter too much for that. This is largely due to the immensely elaborated Back Story and Tolkien's life-defining experiences in The Great War.

There were, though, some tropes J. R. R. Tolkien couldn't justify to his satisfaction, not helped by the fact that he updated his mythos constantly over a period of decades, creating a minor Continuity Snarl at times but never quite reaching the Shrug of God. He spent years trying to decide how orcs could be Always Chaotic Evil without being born evil or soulless — since Eru would not give creatures inherently evil souls, on moral grounds, Morgoth was unable to create souls, and Tolkien believed anything without a soul would be a mere animal — but he never found any answer he liked. It was philosophical niggles like this that stopped him from publishing The Silmarillion in his lifetime. His son Christopher did it posthumously, to the delight of all Tolkien scholars, and most of his readers
1/14/2019 c1 0RANG
what?
6/23/2017 c1 Mikaela Bliss
No offense, but your grammar and punctuation is terrible. The storyline seems pretty good, but I didn't get very far because the grammar and punctuation made it too difficult to read. Maybe you should get a bet? Or even just get one of your friends and family to look over it?
11/4/2014 c1 1kvdsouza
I like the plot but I think you need to get someone to Beta this. There are just so much spelling, grammar and punctuation errors.
10/22/2014 c1 Guest
This story has good potential and an ok plot. However you need to go over punctuation and spelling. More details in your scenes and less rushed throughout. A great attempt, but it could be better.

good luck
10/22/2014 c1 setsuna1415
need to check your spelling and your ("...") the quotation things so you can understand when they are speaking, otherwise you read something then have to go back and make sure you read it right.

Twitter . Help . Sign Up . Cookies . Privacy . Terms of Service