Harry Potter and the Queen of Welfare
Posted by crimsonfukr457@reddit | greentext | View on Reddit | 335 comments
Posted by crimsonfukr457@reddit | greentext | View on Reddit | 335 comments
Deykun@reddit
If you can effortlessly break the laws of thermodynamics and you're still poor, you deserve it.
UnsureAndUnqualified@reddit
Considering the fact that you can exchange Muggle money for Galleons, one duplication spell would (even if no wizards are interested) earn you a fortune in Pounds/Euros/Dollars, which you can then exchange.
trawkins@reddit
Also since wizards are susceptible to Newtonian/human fall and impact damage, summoning a conventional weapon with “accio” would have been prudent many times.
If every time I went walking in the woods I saw Bin Laden encircled by his followers giving a lecture AND I had the power to make a light machine gun appear, I wouldn’t let the terrorists continue for 7 years, but what are plot holes anyway?
DigbyChickenZone@reddit
You would have to already had a machine gun near you for accio to work. At first I thought you were going to say why don't they just say accio to the nearby boulders to drop on their enemies.
I haven't read those books for 20 years and I still remember that they really can't just conjure shit out of thin air.
AdhesivenessDry2236@reddit
just seems more practical to have a pistol on you than have to say avada whatever the fuck everytime you wanna kill someone
UnsureAndUnqualified@reddit
That's like a caveman saying it's more practical to have a club than needing to reload a gun all the time. I'm pretty sure the guy who can kill people with two words is just going to shrug off some metal flying his way.
No-Internal7978@reddit
It's more like someone fighting with an alexa connected to a bunch of wacky pointless shit vs pew. He better walk around with that shield up 24/7.
AdhesivenessDry2236@reddit
have wand and gun, ww1 you had club and gun for trench raids
UnsureAndUnqualified@reddit
I like the idea of dual wielding.
Ex- BANG -pel- BANG -li- BANG -ar- BANG -mus!
LashingFanatic@reddit
Let me introduce you to this legendary reddit post
https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/gwl0v/why_harry_potter_should_have_carried_an_m1911/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
UnsureAndUnqualified@reddit
Kinda. We only know they can't conjure good food. But we see people create hundreds of sleeping bags or some table cloths or stretchers from nothing, so they can just make stuff. Perhaps a gun is too complicated?
FrankFarter69420@reddit
They mention that stuff has to come from somewhere. The house elves prepare the food in the kitchen, the food is apparated into the great hall. The sleeping bags stored somewhere, etc.
UnsureAndUnqualified@reddit
They mention that the food has to come from somewhere. And food is explicitly mentioned as one of the Principal Exceptions to Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration (this includes conjuration). We do see people create lesser foods (such as sauce or drinks) from nothing, or even animals.
Such limitations are never mentioned for non-food items. The sleeping bags have never been stated to be stored somewhere else afaik. Tablecloths and sleeping bags are conjured from thin air, not simply transported. We even have a book say it pretty explicitly:
FrankFarter69420@reddit
Hmmm. Wacky world, I guess. I appreciate your detailed response!
Bitter-Bell31@reddit
Inflation, probably had limits on that
DigbyChickenZone@reddit
This doesn't track as logical. Every wizard would be able to do that, thus, the banking system likely can check for stuff like that.
UnsureAndUnqualified@reddit
But how? They can probably check if your money is real (it would be) and maybe any wizard can check if the item has been duped (Muggles can't, so you only sell to them). But the wizard bank probably can't check how you earned the money you want to exchange.
This is one of those things where yes, "this doesn't track as logical" is the most likely answer because JKR didn't really think this world through to the end. She introduced the money exchange in book 2 and then item duping in book 7 and never checked how they would interact.
If we want to be generous, we can say that the bank has maybe a limit on how much you can exchange a year or so and it's high enough for muggle parents to support their kids but not so high that it would make for a viable career. But that's assuming and doing extra world building.
Beamo1080@reddit
It may be stupid but they show the Weasley’s being too prideful (or too graceful depending on how you look at it) to take Harry’s money.
The Weasleys being dirt poor always struck me as odd anyway. Yeah they have a lot of kids, but Arthur works a decently high-ranking government job, and it’s shown so many times in the series that things like clothes can just be conjured out of thin air. Why are they stuck wearing hand-me down robes? Do they just suck at magic?
Agerones@reddit
JK Rowling worldbuilding moment
festus34@reddit
did you read the books?
Agerones@reddit
Yeah
festus34@reddit
you should know this then, there are 1000 things wrong with jk rowling and her writing but is one of the things that makes sense
Why are the weasleys poor? Arthur works in the smallest department of the ministry, his office is basically a closet, he absolutely does not get payed enough. He is also consistently not a very wise man, he spends a lot of time and likely money on his experiments and hobbies, like the flying car. In the second book they win a lottery and spend most of it on a vacation. That's why they don't have a lot of money, if the question is "how could a person with magic ever not be rich", come up with a magic money making scheme and I almost guarantee theres a reason it wouldn't work.
Why do they have second-hand things? Several reasons, firstly, a lot of their second hand items simply can't be made from magic, school books, wands, cauldrons (these likely can be made from magic but wouldn't be good quality and are likely way outside of arthur or mollys magical ability), school robes, etc. Some of the stuff could likely be made with magic but wouldn't be high quality enough to work. Think about the protective gloves they use for herbology, normal gloves could probably be made from magic but ones that can survive magic plants are outside of the range of what they are capable of doing. Secondly, Molly is very old fashioned, like a grandma, mending and fixing things far past the point most would replace them. She also does create a lot of things for them, like the christmas sweaters, I don't remember if she uses magic to create them but id guess that she does considering she uses magic for most chores.
No-Internal7978@reddit
Ok. Explain to me why any other spell but Expelliarmus was used for dueling? If you use it you are the master of their wand now so even if they pick it back up it will obey you.
thr33beggars@reddit
If the Weasleys went from poor to better off, it would be a positive transition and Rowling will not stand for a transition of any sort.
Timekeeper98@reddit
Rowling finding more ways to portray the Weasley’s as poor Irish people without resorting to introducing their long lost family member Potatofamine O’Carbomb.
pangeapedestrian@reddit
What a fun little group of token characters she had.
Martin Luther King Slaveman, and let's not forget Harry's Chinese paramour, Ching Chong.
onarainyafternoon@reddit
Like her only Jewish wizard student character, Anthony Goldstein. Not a joke, that's a real student wizard in the book.
Sure-Cartographer962@reddit
People say this as if Chang and Goldstein aren’t incredibly common names
pangeapedestrian@reddit
Ya the name "cho" is a super common, normal Chinese name.
onarainyafternoon@reddit
It's not about how common they are in real life. As a writer, you don't have to follow real-life rules. It's why no writer ever writes about their characters going to the bathroom, even though characters would need to do that all the time if we were following exactly what happens in real life.
ArCSelkie37@reddit
No, you don’t have to follow real life… or else she wouldn’t have written about wizards. But if you’re going to assume racism/stereotyping of either the intentional or accidental sort, it’s reasonable to look at if names are real or reasonable.
Battle_Axe_Jax@reddit
Clearly you have read any Martin.
CyberneticSaturn@reddit
Yeah i heard her editor rejected the original idea, Jewy McJewface
pangeapedestrian@reddit
Actually there are lots of Jewish characters, though they are mostly just in gringott's scenes.
Timekeeper98@reddit
Or the actual Irish student, Shaemus Mcshaemus who did blow things up.
pangeapedestrian@reddit
I really hate Harry Potter. It was a pretty unpopular opinion when I was a little kid but good lord what a bunch of derivative, stupid drivel.
BanzaiKen@reddit
Dumbledore said calmly.
kbobdc3@reddit
DIDYOUPUTYOURNAMEINTOTHEGOBLETOFFIRE?
hitmarker@reddit
DIDYOUPUTYOURDICKINTOTHEGOBLETOFFIRE?
Sangwiny@reddit
Bajilion points to Griffindor.
unknown_pigeon@reddit
Hey, the blowing up part was actually movie only!
Token Irish student just tried to distill alcohol and blew up doing so, which isn't absolutely a reference to any real life Irish issue that's ever happened
Ardalev@reddit
Dude, that friggin sent me!!!
lordatamus@reddit
...There is a greentext on that, that I be she'd fucking love and be angry she didn't write herself...
iwasbatman@reddit
First time reading it and I enjoyed it a lot. Thanks for sharing.
Defiant_Lavishness69@reddit
Halfway knew which one it was going to be. Was not dissapointed.
I_Automate@reddit
"The gas chamber of secrets" holy hell
SacredIconSuite2@reddit
Or his brother, Ira O’Armalite
igerardcom@reddit
Fun fact: This is the most common name in Ireland.
Berkuts_Lance_Plus@reddit
r/redditmoment
Flashlight_Inspector@reddit
That screencap from that guy ranting about Rowling being a status quo stooge that sucks off meritocracy has done more damage to my opinion of her as a writer than a hundred thousand gay little retcons ever would've
SilverNightingale@reddit
That pun was intended, wasn’t it.
Affectionate-Cod4152@reddit
That’s really one of the big problems with having a fantasy world with a lot of magic, it doesn’t really make sense for the world to be even remotely similar to ours.
It’s like George R. R. Martin said, if a sorcerer can destroy an army by uttering only a single word, then why even assemble an army?
NotAnNpc69@reddit
That's why the fat piece of shit has taken more than 12 years and still hasn't written his next book. Its cause his sorcerers can't kill armies with a word.
NowaVision@reddit
That's just lazy writing. Give the army a sorcerer with shield magic.
Affectionate-Cod4152@reddit
Why not just have the two sorcerers fight it out then? The regular soldiers seem kinda useless in comparison.
Forcing farmers to become soldiers is super costly with almost no return in value if a sorcerer can destroy them so easily.
Feels more like they’re there only there because real life medieval battles had armies.
NeedAPerfectName@reddit
IIRC, in eragon, one sorcerer and a hundred soldiers can beat ten sorcerers.
You don't need to defeat the wizards wirh magic, you just need to keep the shield up long enough so the guys with pointy sticks can stab everyone.
It's called combined arms warfare.
(and equipping soldiers is a lot cheaper if magic can spawn equipment)
flippy123x@reddit
How do the 10 sorcerers not absolutely giga-stomp the other guy's shield magic in that case? Or even like 3 of them vs. 1?
polar_pilot@reddit
If I remember correctly, magic uses the equivalent in physical strength of the user; and it is possible to exhaust yourself so thoroughly trying to do very hard feats using magic that you just die.
In this case, the defending army can tap into the strength of their soldiers as well to help power the shield. 100 guys will have a lot more “man power” than 10
flippy123x@reddit
Makes sense but being able to convert stamina, from the army of trained soldiers surrounding you as your own mana pool sounds busted like crazy lol
MegaEmailman@reddit
Slight spoilers with no names just, things that can or have happened with the magic system in the universe.
Magic in the world is controlled by an ancient language of sorts. The only limit is how much power you have at your disposal, and your mastery of vocabulary and grammar in the magical tongue
flippy123x@reddit
That does sound pretty cool actually and I haven't seen something like that done before (although I only play fantasy games while never really having read any books with magic other than one series).
Don't mind any spoilers but that kinda sounds like an interesting twist if you don't mind sharing.
shiny_xnaut@reddit
polar_pilot@reddit
Oh and then you can throw whole giant ass dragons into the mix too!
MechaWASP@reddit
A well developed magic system with defense being less costly than offense.
flippy123x@reddit
Someone else replied that the stamina of the army surrounding the sorcerer simply becomes their own mana pool which makes a bit more sense then.
New_Canuck_Smells@reddit
Same issue as tanks and battleships, they can't hold a city. You need troops for that.
bannedinlegacy@reddit
We have nukes and biochemical weapons but we still fight regular wars. Sometimes you don't war a full scale war, or you don't want for your enemy to go scorched earth against you, even if you could win the war.
Better to lose a conventional war and lose land, than to lose a magical war and lose your life.
Discord84@reddit
Literally the Eragon books
NowaVision@reddit
Yeah and these were written by a child, so I have no respect for adult writers who don't think that through.
rlaxowns@reddit
I will always be impressed by Christopher Paolini writing the first book when he was 16. I was too lazy to even write a journal at 16 lol.
infrowntown@reddit
Never underestimate the power of the 'tism.
kRe4ture@reddit
Absolutely. And the worldbuilding is also better. Having magic physically drain your strength is certainly an intelligent move in terms of balancing.
A_Stoned_Smurf@reddit
I like Eragon, I enjoyed it a lot when I was a kid. But those books are basically an unholy amalgamation of Wheel of Time, Star Wars, and I'm sure a few others I can't pinpoint. The way magic worked is ripped almost wholesale from Robert Jordan, as are the fodder enemies. Still fun for YA books, and impressive he wrote them at 16, but they are super derivative and blatantly theft at some points lol.
Ow_you_shot_me@reddit
Great series, weak ending.
Defiant_Lavishness69@reddit
Mhh, yeah, But it IS better than Eragon ending up with the Love Interest (CBA on looking up the Name in English rn) in the end, despite the entire Book Series being about not having that trope in there.
Ow_you_shot_me@reddit
I honestly would have prefered that, just let the guy have some happiness for once. I really dont get why everyone enjoys having Eragon suffer so much. It felt so childish and unnecessary for them to split at the end.
zeldaprime@reddit
You'll be happy to know there is a hidden addition, where after Eragon established his sanctuary school thing, he was visited by a certain elf girl and they got married and had kids. The addition is hidden in my bookshelf on a single sheet of looseleaf, but I assure you it is very much canon.
Ow_you_shot_me@reddit
Sounds wonderful and completely canon to me now.
Previous_Air_9030@reddit
It helps a lot when your parents own a publishing company.
rlaxowns@reddit
Fair point, lol
Malvastor@reddit
We have hydrogen bombs and yet we still have armies.
arbiter12@reddit
If your sorcerer can destroy any army in the world, at will, instantly, at no cost, then he's not a sorcerer, he's a god. Odds are there are some limitations.
If he's a sorcerer in a credible world, his powerful magic is either very demanding, very slow or very short range, meaning he can only destroy one army at a time, in one region. Add to that, that he's probably unique or rare in his knowledge (otherwise, armies would still be built, they'd just be made of sorcerers), and your master sorcerer is a very avoidable threat, like "not marching into a tornado".
Scientia_et_Fidem@reddit
That's... literally the entire point of his statement. He's saying a fantasy word's magic/spells has to have decent rules and limits. If a sorcerer can just wish army's dead with a word and a wave of their hand or near instantly pop himself over to a completely different plane of existence to escape whenever somebody somehow puts him on the back foot (likely after sacrificing a fuckton of resources to do so) then having anything but "magic god vs magic god" duels stops making any sense.
As an aside, this is also why DnD doesn't fucking work at high levels without serious homebrew. Those two things I listed are literally things high level casters can do with a single action. The casters in that game become literal walking gods that can hop between dimensions in an instance to escape any threat that isn't another walking god, while martials get to swing their weapon one more time. The obvious solution is to nerf higher level spellcasters to no longer be walking gods so stories with stakes can still happen at high level but WOTC is so unwilling to nerf casters they would rather just go "Yeah so we didn't even try to make the game work for the 2nd half of the player level curve, we recommend you never play at those levels". Shit is so dumb.
Laiko_Kairen@reddit
Sure it does... If you have a weak main character, they merely need to employ trickery, work on the wizard's hubris, etc. Or you can destroy their magic ring, phylactery, Oz-style facade, etc.
Sbotkin@reddit
Yeah, you just proved their point.
Kreiger81@reddit
David Eddings did this pretty well with his various fantasy series.
In the Belgariad/Mallorean series, the main form of magic was the "Will and the Word" where the character would "draw in their will" to do.. whatever it is they wanted to do, but building the will, maintaining it and then using it were all exhausting, as bad as actually physically doing the thing. At multiple points the main characters have to do extraordinary things but require recuperation time cause they push themselves to exhaustion.
Actually, his other series, the Elenium/Tamuli trilogies also handle it well, since "magic" is literally praying to a deity and sometimes they listen and sometimes they don't, or they don't understand the request and magic tends to require a bit of a windup so its not great in emergencies.
Affectionate-Cod4152@reddit
That’s what I’m saying! There has to be limits.
Limits on who can use magic, limits on what it can do, limits on how freely it can be used. But the Harry Potter books have almost no limit at all, the only limit I can really think of is the creativity of the characters.
orca-covenant@reddit
Real_Tea_Lover@reddit
If a machine gun can easily kill a thousand men easily, why send thousands of men to war?
Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that.
Sbotkin@reddit
A machinegun with infinite ammo when the other side is in stone age, yeah.
bienbienbienbienbien@reddit
You figure out how to take out the machine guns, and innovate in your artillery, or invent smoke grenades etc. All it takes for the sorceror example to work in fiction is to have a counter/defense against the sorcery.
Affectionate-Cod4152@reddit
That is a completely false equivalence, it would be more accurate to say it would be like sending soldiers to battle just for the other side to nuke the battlefield.
DivisiveByZero@reddit
Men will learn not to charge into MG fire. It will take some time, learning from others mistakes, but they will learn eventually.
MechaWASP@reddit
Just another case of Martin being a moron.
If a Dragon rider can immolate an entire army by uttering a command, why even assemble an army?
Sorcerers are more limited than the impossible to counter dragons in his books.
ojqANDodbZ1Or1CEX5sf@reddit
Wow these societies don't suddenly upend their traditions and assemble a radically different army when faced with a war? Shocking. Even during the conquest, battles could be near things despite dragons existing.
For the previous enemies of the dragonriders - it's unclear how the Ghiscari resisted them, but the Rhoynar had magicians of their own. Possibly the Ghiscari had something as well in GRRM's head.
MechaWASP@reddit
Yes. The point is that Martin is a moron when something worse than a sorcerer is present in his own setting, yet wars are still waged and armies assembled. He's a hypocrite, willfully ignorant of quality world building.
spiritofporn@reddit
George just isn't that great a writer. Master storyteller though.
Thendrail@reddit
*Obligatory WHEN WINDS OF WINTER????*
ojqANDodbZ1Or1CEX5sf@reddit
I've got some exciting news for you!
Thendrail@reddit
Pff, that's old news, guess you haven't seen the update from two hours ago!
ojqANDodbZ1Or1CEX5sf@reddit
I was pleasantly surprised to find this not a rickroll
WisherWisp@reddit
Reddit moment.
Sbotkin@reddit
JK Rowling is an awful worldbuilder, even HP fans admit it. Literally thinking about anything in her world for more than a minute will make you realize it.
This is what happens when you write a children book (nothing wrong with that) but don't think about the world at all and then have to retroactively come up with something as the series goes on.
Vospader998@reddit
J. R. R. Tolkien really spoiled us, didn't he?
Sbotkin@reddit
He truly did but he is in a league of his own, it's silly to compare any fantasy writer to him. Also because Rowling's bad worldbuilding can be disassembled by a middle school student, she's bad even compared to her peers.
Vospader998@reddit
Oh ya, he's two orders of magnitude better at world building than Rowling. It's like comparing Michelangelo to Adolf Hitler
Agerones@reddit
"Oh you didn't like this bread? Clearly you must think you're better than the baker who baked it."
GodIsAWomaniser@reddit
She needs the Irish to suffer
StormOfFatRichards@reddit
Rowling cannot conceptualize gingers as anything but impoverished
TheOnlyBliebervik@reddit
Isn't she a ginger
Reading_username@reddit
she literally wrote the first concepts of the books on napkins in a coffee shop, she came from poverty.
So it tracks.
Sbotkin@reddit
People still go around and believe stuff like "this successful person wrote the first draft of their thing on a napkin"? I thought this type of shit died in 2000s.
Reading_username@reddit
Literally read her wikipedia page, brainiac
Sbotkin@reddit
Go and find me the napkin part on her wikipedia page, I dare you.
MetaCommando@reddit
jonasnee@reddit
Isn't this a myth, i seem to recall she was middle class.
Deruji@reddit
In Scotland that is middle class
Reading_username@reddit
From her wikipedia page:
"Rowling was working as a researcher and bilingual secretary for Amnesty International in 1990 when she conceived the idea for the Harry Potter series. The seven-year period that followed saw the death of her mother, the birth of her first child, divorce from her first husband, and relative poverty until the first novel in the series"
"She later described her economic status as being as "poor as it is possible to be in modern Britain, without being homeless""
RomeosHomeos@reddit
Me when the wizard book meant for 6 to 10 year olds focuses on things like whimsy and mystery and fun characters rather than socioeconomic analysis
Agerones@reddit
You just don't get it do you? How can I, a grown, highly intelligent individual, enjoy this series of novels if they don't comment on the most pressing issues beplaguing my generation?
hornwalker@reddit
She called them Weasleys because she wanted to weasel out of good worldbuilding
dankspankwanker@reddit
Tbh i think this was something she didn't really thought off when writing book 1.
It was never ment to be this huge series
FlambyLamby@reddit
Pretty sure there was a canon explanation why they can't magic Gold and become rich.
garebeardrew@reddit
He works in the muggle relations department which is very under payed and under funded with their offices being tucked into some dingey closet. The wizarding world is very biased against muggles and anyone like Arthur foolish enough to appreciate them.
Zealousideal-Bus-526@reddit
Weasley works as an air traffic controller, but the Magic government is in shutdown due to threats from Voldemort
Pumpkin_Sushi@reddit
It's one of the big downsides to the early books being closer to kids fables where you're not meant to worry too much about how the world works, and the latter half being a gritty serious drama
Leadfarmerbeast@reddit
Exactly lol. When the main characters are children and the stakes are fairly low, you really don’t think too much about the particulars of the world and just enjoy the whimsical spells and creatures. As soon as Voldemort came back and we had evil Nazi cultists doing terrorism and overthrowing the government, the story had to start thinking more literally and solving things. I don’t like analyzing stories for plot holes and ruining the fun, but once the story itself starts taking time to try to plug up plot holes, then I got to start thinking on its terms.
Pumpkin_Sushi@reddit
Exactly!
I remember in Book One Dumbledore's opening speech is a bunch of nonsense words and then truthfully telling kids that if they go to the third floor they'll have a grizzly death. In book one, that's all great. It's exactly what the wizarding world is presented as - bizarre, quirky, but also dark and dangerous.
Then by the end of the series you gotta look back at wonder why Dumbledore did, or was allowed to do, any of that. As a fantastically fable-like world? Fine, don't need to question it. As what gets established as reasonable man in a grounded world? What the hell? haha
Ive even seen people try and head canon "Oh well that's just Harry's perspective as a kid and he grows up" which seems silly to me. End of the day, you're just meant to adapt your expectations with the series as it changes.
pangeapedestrian@reddit
Which was also not thought out and had constant random bullshit that made no sense.
"Neville was clumsy and broke all the time travel okay"
Pumpkin_Sushi@reddit
That was in the latter books to explain away one of the whimsical elements of the early books, kinda my point in a nutshell
pangeapedestrian@reddit
I guess my point is just that there are many cases of lazy writing and poorly thought out world building in all of the books, later and earlier.
Pumpkin_Sushi@reddit
I wouldn't call that lazy, that just what writing for 10 year olds is like. In fact the opposite, she came up with an interesting plot gimmick in book 3 that kids loved (PoA is largely most people's favorurite)
It was when the series became adult and grounded that it, among other previously fine elements, needed reworking.
pangeapedestrian@reddit
Hey, I mean no offense by this, but I think this is a really shitty take.
There is a whole world of writers that make really good, considerate, thought out content for children.
In a similar vein to Rowling, you have authors like Ursula Le Guinn, Jane Yolen, Phillip Pullman, Tolkien, etc.
If you want to talk about the merits of Harry Potter and why you like it, that's fine but like.... Let's not start with the premise that "that just what writing for 10 year olds is like", because that's complete nonsense.
There are lots of great books for ten year olds, and criticism of lazy writing, shitty plot points, and bad world building should not just be dismissed as "ya well it's for kids so who cares".
And even if that was valid, a lot of those same gripes continue into the later books that are targeted at young adults and adults.
But again, kids books can be, and often are, really great, carefully written, good books.
Pumpkin_Sushi@reddit
I mean, Tolkien is a great example. A lot of stuff in Hobbit doesn't hold up to scrutiny because its aimed a littler kids. It was even rewritten to make more sense after Lord of the Rings dropped.
I don't think your grasping just how young book one is skewed, especially comparing it to LOTR or Amber Spyglass which are both YA.
Kid's like fantastical elements and part of going big means it won't always hold up to adult scrutiny. "They give a schoolchild time travel to take more classes" works perfectly fine at a book aimed at little ones, not so much to adults. The issue was truly in trying to translate it afterwards.
I'm not arguing "Who cares, nothing matters" as I'm sure you're not arguing "Everything HAS to make sense and be explained or it's shit!". It's all about suspension of disbelief, pitching at the right level, and crafting a consistent (if not wholly logical) world. There's great joy in writing time travel for an audience that flat out doesn't care that the Ministry should take TT's more seriously or whatever.
I'm reminded of another series I loved as a kid, "A Series of Unfortunate Events" - which was able to get away with a lot of outlandish plot details because the world was established to be more hyperbolic than ours. No one cared that you couldn't burn down a house with a magnifying glass, or how silly it was the adults never started to believe the triplets. the only difference was, unlike HP, that world and pitch never changes.
pangeapedestrian@reddit
also, I could tell you a lot about Bilbo from that Hobbit, how be develops, is cautious and conservative but will rise to the occasion when needed. I can tell you why he is brave.
When trying to characterize Harry Potter characters, it's kind of frustrating. What is Harry actually like? He's kind of just an element that the reader can use as a vehicle to imagine themselves in a fun world. And this is... Fine, I guess. But all the other characters kinda suffer too. Hermione is a girl. And she's a nerd. That's.... Kinda it. Ron is .... Loyal? I guess? and poor? He's kind of just a stand in for Harry to access whacky hijinks. But after hundreds, if not thousands of pages, these are beloved protagonists that I sincerely can say very little about. Honestly the only character growth I can really think of is with Malfoy, and it was basically "he was a nasty little jerk, but actually by the end, he was quite vulnerable and human, by which I mean he was a sobbing little bitch who couldn't cut it as a death eater, haha what a little bitch amirite?"
The times that are most profound are either trite truisms (the only thing more powerful than magic is love.... Okay that's nice but.... What does that mean....? Why did Harry survive? Like.... You don't have to explain it but if "love" is a valid defense in the arsenal of magic battles I kinda have some questions), or they are kinda downright shallow and ugly (the fat mean bitch was bad and she lost to the good guys because they are good and she is bad! Doesn't that feel good? No?).
I just..... I really hate Harry Potter.
Pumpkin_Sushi@reddit
While I think that's fine, that's a different conversation all together about the depth of the characters, you know?
I'm not saying HP is as good as the Hobbit, and Im not even trying to big HP up as great pieces of literature. They are mostly okay kids books - though the number of kids it got/gets into reading should be commended still imo.
End of the day I was just trying to defend the idea that you can craft a looser, more hyperbolic world that doesn't always hold up under a magnifying glass if that's the right pitch of your audience. That consistency is more important than complete groundedness. I honestly don't think this would be debated half as much about Harry Potter, but it is a very rare case of a little kids book developing into a series for adults, and that brought a lot of unique problems.
Dragonbut@reddit
All of that is fair and true, but I think it's all besides the point that they were arguing, which I took as being just that the logical inconsistencies in the story aren't a huge problem because logical consistency isn't the priority of the story - being fun and exciting for kids is, and potentially hindering that by leaving out elements that are hard to keep logically consistent would harm the story
pangeapedestrian@reddit
Logical inconsistencies aren't my only complaint, and I think that's fair by itself.
But add in all the rest and it's like..... Nahhhh
pangeapedestrian@reddit
ALSO haha sorry.
You know what else I hate? Turkish delight.
Based on what that little glutton was willing to do to get it I assumed for years as I just that Turkish delight was the most rarified, delicious substance in the world. And by how I could never find it in the American grocery store this Vernon l belief was super reinforced.
Boy was I disappointed when I finally ate some. Dessert equivalent of pastel crayons.
Dragonbut@reddit
I like Turkish delight but you can't get the shitty red cubes with powdered sugar you gotta get the ones with like saffron and nuts and stuff
pangeapedestrian@reddit
I've had big squishy square lumps. They weren't bad just.... Kinda toothless flavor-wise? I kinda liked them texturally but a bit meh overall, especially for my expectation of it.
I'll keep my eye out for some good looking ones but so help me God if I get burned again on this.
Dragonbut@reddit
I've only ever found the good ones at actual middle eastern markets. The flavor is definitely still a bit more aromatic focused but still stronger and much better than the big squares. The good ones I've had often look kinda like a sushi roll but with some sort of filling on the inside (hazelnut cream, pistachio cream, chocolate, or a number of different fruit flavored gelatins) and then nuts, saffron, maybe some other stuff occasionally on the outside.
I think that the kind you've had is more common, at least in America, but I agree that they're alright but not the best, and kinda reminded me of more aromatic Dots lol. For the record I still wouldn't pull an Edmund for it nor is it even close to my favorite type of sweets, but I think it's worth trying some actually good Turkish delight if you get the chance.
pangeapedestrian@reddit
Shit okay. Heard. Ya for me it's always been kinda perfume/soap adjacent flavor-wise.
Dragonbut@reddit
I won't lie the fruity ones can be like that. The hazelnut/chocolate/pistachio and similar ones aren't though. And I think the fruity ones with nuts are still a lot better than the cubes even if they're still a bit perfumey
pangeapedestrian@reddit
I see what you are saying- and mostly I just want to make sure we aren't relegating children's literature to being necessarily bad or nonsensical.
I think suspension of disbelief hits the nail on the head- but I think there is a little more nuance.
There has to be some internal sense and cohesion. Things can be as outlandish and nonsensical as you like, but it has to feel plausible in the larger framework provided by setting, characters, themes, plot elements, etc.
Series of unfortunate events was constantly extremely hyperbolic about everything. I don't remember them too well, but I do remember that simple hyperbole was the beginning and end of everything in those books. Sunny could bite anything. That could be used in any possible way you could think of. It was internally coherent. (Incidentally, you absolutely can burn down a house with a magnifying glass, and lenses left on in sight of sunny windows are not a terribly uncommon source of house fires).
I think the Hobbit does, mostly, hold up to scrutiny here too - there are some inconsistent and jarring things. Coloquial English language and references. A lot of explanations of characters that you kinda just take for granted. But it's all pretty grounded. I can't think of anything that really defies explanation or requires the reader to go out of their way to make it make sense.
I don't like Harry Potter. I do, think that it is shit. But I have what I think are some pretty good reasons for this, and the big one, is these internal inconsistencies. But fair warning. I do think it's shit. I don't think all kid's books are shit though. And again, incidentally, I think le Guinn or Pullman is very comparable if not more accessible than the Hobbit or Harry Potter. Pullman further follows a similar trajectory to Rowling where each successive book feels more targeted at an older audience.
They are constant, and egregious, and I think that they stem from Rowling's adamant refusal to engage critically with her materially, and more speculatively, with reality or herself as a person.
Where other "great" fantasy might be inconsistent with logic or reality, it still "makes sense", internally.
In HP, I'm constantly hit with these weird contradictions the are pretty obviously a consequence of not bothering you think it through.
Like, instead of explaining or inventing perfectly "reasonable" limitations to time travel, or even just writing them off as "it's magic okay, don't worry too much about it", Rowling goes out of her way to logically explain it away instead, and paradoxically arrives at the most jarring, nonsensical explanation possible - "Neville just trips and breaks it all okay?"
It does nothing to resolve previous questions created by the time turners, but more than that, it destroys suspension of disbelief. They aren't just magic, subject to the inexplicable mysteries of magic. No, they have to be logically explained, in the most ham handed and stupid way possible.
HP is full of shit like this. And it results in some pretty bizarre shit, especially in the later books.
Early on, the house elves are kind of just this weird, whimsical thing. Hermione bringing up ethical issues about them is kinda fun and interesting. But boy does Rowling get in the weeds on this. Every single book explores more and more how the house elves are this big important piece of the wizard economy, and how some wizards are good slave owners, and others are bad slave owners. It's just.... It's kind of the opposite of what you are defending. It would be so easy to gloss over and dismiss, except that Rowling doubles down every book and keeps trying to explain it logically and ethically, and it pulls these elements out of the magical world, and exposed in the cruel light she has put them in, they are so, so out of place and jarring, and sometimes downright ugly.
Have you tried rereading Harry Potter as an adult, and rereading some of these other books as an adult? Some children's books really hold up. I actually find that the first 2-3 Harry Potter books hold up pretty well, incidentally, mostly because they aren't trying to explain everything, be something they aren't, tackle more complex subject matter, etc. But especially passed 4, man do they start to fall apart.
But I don't think books, especially that are fantastical, or for kids, have to strictly adhere to or engage with reality to suspend disbelief by any means. But I do think they have to engage critically with themselves. And Harry Potter doesn't do that. It's constantly at odds with itself.
The break from being whimsical to try to be grounded and realistic is actually a great example of this, and why I think most readers barely remember anything that actually happened in the series passed the fourth book.
Like wtf even happened in order of the Phoenix?
I could tell you a shitton of things about 1-3- they were internally coherent and memorable at least.
And some stuff about 4 - dating sim and big contest with other schools. But passed that?
5- I think Harry inherits a house? I vaguely remember more world building outside of the school, but it was all pretty incoherent and man they should just go back to school, I can't remember a damn thing.
6- I had to look this one up. I wasn't sure if it existed. I remembered there was an order of the Phoenix, and that there was a last one where he beats Voldemort but wasn't there one in between? Okay, yeeaaaa this one, I think they are back at school now. It's revealed that snape is a secret good guy. I think that's this one. I remember literally nothing else. Is this where she tries to explain everything about the wizard politics and economy maybe?
7- they are out of school again and running around in the woods. Everything is very surreal and deep, but not really, because none of it makes any sense. Harry falls in a pond and gets hypothermia and has some kind of vision that's very important. Why? Who the fuck knows. They beat Voldemort and Harry has another deep vision where Voldemort is like.... A little crying baby or something? Is that right? Wtf is happening? Who gives a shit, they all live happily ever after and get married and join the government and become police officers or something or other.
I don't think it's complaining at the puppet show- I think it's pretty egregiously bad, and poorly executed, and doesn't try to engage with itself very well.
DenkJu@reddit
I find it pretty funny that you're trying to call out specific inconsistencies in a book series you barely even remember.
pangeapedestrian@reddit
Haha, I remember some of it I'll have you know!
I really hate it and think it's dumb and bad. I think it's pretty funny that anyone would waste their time reading my Harry Potter hate rant.
But I grew up reading a lot, and it frustrates me to no end that so many people think Harry Potter is peak children's literature. Because you know, it sucks ass.
Also, totally derivative and unoriginal.
An entire genre of English literature has been recycling the same material for decades, and doing it with better writing and storytelling.
Jane Yolen's Wizard's Hall is probably the most identical, down to the protagonist getting a burning scar from the evil big bad wizard who died but he ultimately most defeat in reincarnated form at school. Along with the floating candles, moving pictures, apparating feasts in the great hall, etc. Like..... Impressively identical.
But also groosham grange by Anthony Horowitz and a whole shitton of others. It's a pretty storied genre that Rowling cannibalized and kinda monopolized. I'm not faulting her for her success but Jesus people just have a really big blind spot that I feel like people should be more aware of.
DenkJu@reddit
I think arguing about the qualitative value of works of art is generally a monoric thing do, but especially in this case. Harry Potter is wildly popular with kids, which suggests it's doing it's job as a children's quite well. Telling kids that their favorite book series is actually shit and that they should be some objectively better literature instead seems like a ridiculous idea to me.
pangeapedestrian@reddit
Well, I enjoy talking about things that are shit, because I'm a monor.
Is the 4chan greentext subreddit full of wide eyed children who I should be coddling about their favorite shitty children's books?
Oh damn I didn't know that, I'm so sorry I didn't know I was bullying children for God sake, I guess I take it all back.
In conclusion, Harry Potter is objectively shit. And this is the opinion of pretty much every person who has read any other books beside Harry Potter, children included. I had no problem telling people why I thought Harry Potter was shit when I was a small child, and I have no problem talking about it now.
To any illiterate or semiliterate children reading this who like Harry Potter, I'm very sorry, Harry Potter is very good and nice, and I hope you learn to read better soon.
All that said, if you like Harry Potter, I'm glad. I personally don't, and I'm hear to bitch about how it's shit.
Dragonbut@reddit
It's funny, it's almost like he's calling himself and other Harry Potter fans children
Dragonbut@reddit
I agree with you here. I think Harry Potter is poorly written in many ways, but I do think that the argument about things needing to be super logically consistent is kind of missing the point. Even in stories aimed at adults, I find that people who are really focused on making things make perfect logical sense and finding any plot hole they can are sort of foregoing the purpose of the story and what's it's trying to say or do just for the sake of pointing out that something doesn't necessarily make absolutely perfect sense.
I will say that worldbuilding focused stories tend to need more care to not have too many holes like that, because the reason people read them IS their world building, and that has to be and remain pretty consistent to its own systems and logic, but I see a lot of fans of fantasy worldbuilding stories apply that to everything, and often overscrutinize things even for worldbuilding focused stuff
Kreiger81@reddit
wait he did what. i havent read the books in 10+ years.
pangeapedestrian@reddit
You should reread them.
The later ones especially as pretty bizarre and don't hold up very well.
They kinda progressively feel more and more like Rowling doubling down on plot holes and contradictions and basically defending herself against her own fandom.
It takes it to some pretty wild territory in a bunch of places, but cutting off the "what happened to the time turners" or trying to ethically justify "wait so the wizard economy is based largely on chattel slavery?" I think are my favorites.
All the extensive explaining on wizarding politics and government stuff also really feels like a premonition of the current state of her Twitter, and just in general, once you get past books 3/4, things really start turning into an incoherent mess fast.
Also, there are a bunch of surreal lynchian dream sequence things in the last two books that seem like they are supposed to be really deep and profound, but as far as I can tell, just don't make any fucking sense.
I think when people think of Harry Potter, they think of the first 3, and everything after that is basically ignored and forgotten about.
Kreiger81@reddit
Chattel Slavery in form of the house elves or whatever they are?
shiny_xnaut@reddit
Yep
In one of the later books Hermione tries to start an anti-house-elf-slavery activist movement and literally everyone (Harry included) clowns on her for being an annoying busybody because the house elves actually all like being slaves
Reading_username@reddit
all the time turners got smashed in OoTP when Harry Potter and all his wizard friends snuck into magical Washington D.C. because Harry had a bad dream
MetaCommando@reddit
Wow Harry was so dumb for pattern recognition
Reading_username@reddit
Not like Dumbledore and Snape were telling him the whole year to close his mind because Voldemort would use that avenue of visions to attack/lure him, or anything...
adamsworstnightmare@reddit
Kind of like people calling the original Pokemon games a buggy mess. These things were designed to be fun things for kids and having adult nerds pour over every line written for decades to come wasn't part of the plan.
MetaCommando@reddit
The first game is actually a technical marvel since it squeezed every byte from the GB cartridge, regardless of how much QA testing they did there wouldn't be room for sanitation checks
_sephylon_@reddit
Basically the only job options for a wizard are Hogwarts, shop owner or government worker so it's really not all that. And he wasn't named head of his office until the penultimate issue.
It's not. Conjuring stuff out of thin air is limited by both magic and the law. It's stated out loud that even if you could manifest something and if it was legally allowed, it would eventually disappear
pre_nerf_infestor@reddit
So they break down like real clothes?
Correct_Doctor_1502@reddit
His job is a joke to most in the ministry and isn't well paying. You can't create clothes, but you can multiply them and alter them.
Neomataza@reddit
Wizards refuse to abuse their magic to make money in the muggle world. Or it's forbidden somehow.
Either way, I guess JKR wanted Harry to be friends with a poor family, so she wrote it that way while it in no way makes sense. Maybe the Weasleys were really into LARPing as lower class.
Cyhawk@reddit
It isn't forbidden, its just looked down on. Also what use would muggle money be in the Wizarding world? They still use candles, robes and quills instead of electricity, light bulbs and ink pens.
At best, Muggle money would be useful for buying food, but they can magic up some eatable plants to grow quickly for that or make their chickens massive for a huge feast.
Its a world separate from our own, with little need for interaction between the two.
The Weasleys are looked down on for being 'poor' not so much for being without money, but because they don't care about keeping up appearances with the other pure blood Wizard families. Their Father works in the lowest of the low (status-wise) departments of the Ministry (studying muggles) because he wants to, not because he has to. They have a family middle finger to the hoty toyty high class Wizarding families and do stuff manually/muggly because to them they like it. This pisses the others off, making them 'poor'.
Its a status thing, not a money thing. The Weasleys basically live their life this way as a giant fuck you to the others. It especially stings because they're one of the few remaining pure blooded families and they reject everything the others feel is important.
Neomataza@reddit
So they LARP as lower class, got it.
Also I'm rather sure that clothes, kitchen equipment, cars a lot of other mundane stuff would be universal. Yeah, nobody makes quills anymore, but you still use paper, buy furniture and wear a jacket. And if you can just magic that stuff up effortlessly, you could sell that to muggles and trade muggle money for gold bars, which wizards definitely use as currency.
I_Automate@reddit
Gold to silver exchange rates are fixed in the wizard world but variable in the muggle world.
They could have made a killing just exploiting that.
But, wizards are just....stupid, in universe. Its almost like being able to cast magic takes 30-40% of their IQ off the top
__ICoraxI__@reddit
In a way it makes sense. Imagine you can wave a stick around and say some nonsense then boom what you wanted to happen occurs. Shit I'd be turbo lazy and regarded too
EddieCarver@reddit
Yeah Hermione mentions this in the first book. Most wizards don’t have much logical thinking because they’re so used to magic lol.
jamiebond@reddit
The magic thing is obviously stupid but as do Arthur’s job I’m pretty sure it’s a department that basically no one else cares about. He’s in charge of studying muggles and a big part of the world building is that the wizarding world looks down on muggles and actively refuses to incorporate any of their inventions (thus why they’re using candles and quills). So I could imagine his department gets basically zero funding.
Tuarangi@reddit
UK civil service has long been lower paid than equivalent roles in private work, it has caught up in places but the selling point was always the very generous pension (currently career average rather than final salary but still a gold standard vs private pensions and backed by the country rather than a firm). It's more than possible that Arthur is low paid and in a minor department with little budget hence the poverty
ojqANDodbZ1Or1CEX5sf@reddit
Also he's a sole breadwinner with seven children. Even if magic can take care of a lot of the usual expenses, it can't do so for everything. And living in a magical society they probably require things made with magical labour (which would not be cheaper because of magic), for respectability if nothing else
JakeVonFurth@reddit
Plus, can you imagine the UK taxes on The Burrow and the land it's on?!?
Tuarangi@reddit
UK doesn't tax land unfortunately, it's done on buildings only, on a farcical 1991 survey which is still the basis for the council tax. It's also done by each council, Ottery St. Mary which their local village is based on, it's between £1568.87 - £4706.62 a year tax
ojqANDodbZ1Or1CEX5sf@reddit
Not that dissimilar from us, it's set by the municipality, too. Except it's a percentage of the estimated plot value, which isn't as ridiculous as a 1991 survey (at least it's not the Doomsday Book). But it does allow for other fuckery - the municipality might try to overvalue every single house to make more on taxes
Tuarangi@reddit
Indeed, though just to be a minor pedant, it's the Domesday Book (the era spelling of Doomsday). A land tax here would at least encourage land use and discourage land banking by developers and people holding onto empty houses as assets
HotDogGrass2@reddit
Plus, he's got like nine kids and a farm to take care of
HydroponicGirrafe@reddit
No they’re just ginger
ViceRoyHenTie@reddit
The conjuring rule is nothing can be summon out of nothing. The last book shows Hermonie stealing food to feed all three of them making notes to pay them back later. I agree about his job. He’s literally head of a department.
Cyhawk@reddit
They can also make plants grow extremely fast, nearly instant.
Hermonie stealing food is more of a way to avoid detection by using magic instead of need due to lack of other means.
AzorJonhai@reddit
Things can’t be conjured out of thin air, you can bring it from somewhere else. I’m pretty sure that’s one of the laws of magic they mentioned in the last few books.
infrowntown@reddit
I think she just wanted to write some poor characters for some socio-economic diversity, because its way too easy to get the Weasleys out of that trailer park life, especially with magic.
virgo911@reddit
The Weasleys demonstrate that with magic you can automate home chores like cooking and cleaning
Yet wizards still keep house elves as slaves
ColdCruise@reddit
It's a commentary on wealth being generational. All the super wealthy are that way through inheritance. The Weasleys never had money, so they were never able to get ahead.
You can dig deeper and bring up the fact that they are obviously of celtic ancestry and suffered from discrimination for most of their family history.
But also Harry does give the twins seed money for their business, frequently buys stuff for Ron, marries Ginny, and helps out Arthur and Molly when he could.
Anen-o-me@reddit
Fr, a poor magician by our standards should live like a billionaire. It's only in the wizard world that they could be poor, which implies lack of rare magical artifacts that can't be conjured from simple magic like a cup of tea can be.
windowpuncher@reddit
Oi you got a loicense for that there clothes magic?
peter_seraphin@reddit
It’s literally her politics. She stands for „I inherited so therefore it’s mine and I am not expected to share.” And weasleys are a pisspoor family but they are happy and doesn’t need help. It takes the burden away from the 1% and lets them enjoy the riches. It’s literally her worldview. She is Labour 100%. Donated 1 milion pounds in 2008.
pangeapedestrian@reddit
I feel like after he literally crashed and wrecked Ron's Dad's car that he had just bought and was super proud of that could have been a reasonable time for them to take some money without pride being a factor.
Reading_username@reddit
ojqANDodbZ1Or1CEX5sf@reddit
You're not supposed to write new greentexts on here, you're supposed to write them on 4chan and then screenshot them before posting here
Reading_username@reddit
You're not my real dad
ojqANDodbZ1Or1CEX5sf@reddit
Obviously not, I'm not even your pretend dad
... I hope
pangeapedestrian@reddit
Was the cigarette store out of marbs ? Are you coming home soon? It's been 17 years Dad please come home soon
pangeapedestrian@reddit
Add in the memory where he goes to the bank with that kid who stole and crashed the car, and the kid sees your empty, dust filled bank account, and he sees the kid's literal gold filled vault.
ojqANDodbZ1Or1CEX5sf@reddit
Take the money from a kid, though? I'm not sure most people would. Especially if they are poor. People often will go to great lengths to make it seem like they're doing fine, financially.
Not_Just_Any_Lurker@reddit
It’s to make poors feel good when the main adversarial family is rich pricks who do “dark magic” even though all you ever see them do is sneer and brown nose the one noseless fuck who can’t even magic himself a nose.
ojqANDodbZ1Or1CEX5sf@reddit
This sentence is gonna live in my head for a while, I'm afraid
DigbyChickenZone@reddit
I think spells for that stuff wear off quickly or something. It is mentioned a lot throughout the books that richer wizard folk have nicer robes.
ethics_in_virtue@reddit
I'm pretty sure it's mentioned in the books, but Arthur's job in the Ministry isn't well paying due to his office being low on the totem pole of importance in the wizarding world
OneCatch@reddit
They're basically a slightly sanitised version of dated stereotypes about Irish Catholics. Rural, poor, loads of kids, matriarchal, fiery redheads, unconventional, slightly outside of the law.
A lot of Rowling's stuff is quite reductive that way.
rigatony96@reddit
Arthurs office is pretty much considered a joke by the ministry as a whole. Idk if im remembering incorrectly but I thought he was passed over a bunch for promotions also.
EddieCarver@reddit
Yeah he is, Percy also mentions how being Arthur’s son made his time at the ministry so hard as he’s considered a joke there.
In the 6th book he gets a promotion which pretty much incorporates his current job with a more better one.
EddieCarver@reddit
Arthur isn’t high ranking though. This is explained a bit in the 4th and 5th books. Basically Arthur’s department is a joke and everyone looks down on it, including Fudge. That’s why Percy gets so angry and blames Arthur for everything basically saying he’s had to work harder because he’s his (Arthur’s) son and no one respects him.
HalfwaySh0ok@reddit
At the start of the first book when Harry just meets Ron, he is emotionally intelligent enough to trade Ron's sandwich he hated for some candies he wanted but couldn't buy.
Ofc HP is anything but consistent, so once he gets to know the family he repays them by crashing their car, not buying Ron a wand even while he struggles for a whole year, not buying people Christmas presents while the poor family gives him lots, etc.
Mr_Pink_Gold@reddit
To be fair, in the UK government workers have fuck all. Source: I am a government worker.
lavalantern@reddit
Maybe they are like those rich hippies
KrisadaFantasy@reddit
Arthur's work at Misuse of Muggle Artefacts Office was not well paid nor well respect. He was a head of office with only one subordinate in a cupboard-size office.
I think - by us muggle understanding of poverty - Weasley is not poor by any means. With magic they have a house, food, and clothes, a well-off rural family in my view. But you still need wizard gold doing wizardry stuff. Buying wand, books, magic ingredients, or magic items like broom, all the wizarding world stuff you cannot just conjure by yourself. And without those first-hand shiny stuff you are poor by wizarding world standard.
MoustacheMullet@reddit
There are a lot of fan canons why this is how it is. But ultimately Rowling created magical world, not really logical one, and perhaps that is one of the reasons people love it so much. It feels easy and childlike if you dont think too much.
Invariable_Outcome@reddit
Raising seven children on one salary is going to be tight, even accounting for the fact that they own their own home paying neither rent nor mortgage. That said, yeah, magic works kind of randomly.
CaptainHindsight92@reddit
It is difficult to tell, some items are bought and cannot be created out of thin air for example the broomsticks (like the nimbus) so presumably they can enchant a broom themselves it probably wouldn’t be as good as someone who makes and enchants brooms It’s a bit like saying muggles can cook their own food, why don’t they grow food in the ground and cook it rather than go to a restaurant? The answer is the knowledge of what makes something taste good and knowledge of the magic needed to create a certain taste from scratch. The food that seems to appear out of thin air (in the great hall) I believe comes from the house elves cooking it in the kitchen. I think they simply teleport it to the hall.
Pumpkin_Sushi@reddit
IIRC wasn't he not able to access this money until he turned 18, and lived off a stipend while at Hogwarts?
seergaze@reddit
My man flexed immediately at the first snack trolley iirc
Pumpkin_Sushi@reddit
Film only, in the book he "buys one of each" as a treat for Ron. A bit of a flex, but definitely not a rich kid move
Least-Use9227@reddit
Nope, he was allowed to spend as much as he wanted. There's a particular paragraph in the Prisoner of Azkaban about how he had to be careful with the amount of gold he had to spend.
DrProfSrRyan@reddit
To be fair, never read the books, watched the movies years ago, but to me someone who has to „be careful with the amount of gold he had to spend” sounds more like they are on a stipend than having full access to a pile of gold.
Theownerer7@reddit
Doesn’t he but the newest, best, most expensive broom for himself that no one else can afford?
Pumpkin_Sushi@reddit
First was a gift from Dumbledores, the other was a gift from Serious Black
SatanV3@reddit
McGonnagall not Dumbledore
Timekeeper98@reddit
I thought the Firebolt was even out of Harry’s price range based on how it was written, even with his vast family fortune the Firebolt was still too top of the line.
KaiFireborn21@reddit
I still well remember that chapter. Harry is at the alley windowshopping and sees the Firebolt. He immediately considers buying it, but remembers that a) he's got a perfectly good broom already and b) he still got years before the graduation where he might still need the gold so he decides not to buy it.
You can probably buy a good pc or something with regular salary, but then you'll have to eat instant noodles and have the heater off for the next three months, so you still don't buy it even though you could. Think it's a similar sotyr
I_Automate@reddit
Good thing a bitchin pc IS a space heater
DrProfSrRyan@reddit
I believe that was a gift. But, again it’s been years.
JakeVonFurth@reddit
That pile is less like old wealth fortune and more equivalent to a million dollar life insurance policy. It's not "never work again" money, even if it's a shitload for a family to get.
For book reference on Harry VS Actual Old Money, Harry specifically says that if he bought the Firebolt, the new fastest brooms on the market, that he would blow through most of his vault's finances. Meanwhile Sirius, who has the Black Family Fortune, buys it for him without a second thought, and Lucius doesn't even seem inconvenienced when he brought an entire team's worth of Nimbus 2001s (the previous fastest broom) for Slytherin the previous year.
For movie reference on Harry VS Actual Old Money, think about how much money Harry has when we see his vault in Sorcerer's Stone.... And then compare it to the LeStrange Family Vault in Deathly Hallows.
TheReverseShock@reddit
He also has no sustained income so anything spent slowly depletes his gold. I'd just melt a coin or 2 down and outsource most of the nonmagical gear personally. I haven't seen anything about the robes themselves magic as I recall, basically just wool robes that anyone could make.
JakeVonFurth@reddit
Correct, it's talking about how expensive the Firebolt is. He says that he would nearly drain his entire account if he actually bought it.
It's actually a great demonstration of how Harry isn't as rich as everybody thinks he is, because in the previous book Lucius bought the Slytherin team an entire new set of Nimbus 2001s, the previous fastest brooms on the market.
Despite popular belief, he isn't "old money" rich, he's more like "my parents died in a car crash and left me a million dollar life insurance policy" rich. Like, that's a life changing amount of money to drop onto somebody, but it isn't "never work again" money unless you're already well off.
Least-Use9227@reddit
I actually do think Harry did have "old money" riches and can retire comfortably with what he has, there's plenty of Reddit threads that have figured out how much he has - he's got a fair few quid in his bank, possibly a few million quid or more. James was also able to financially support Lupin and retire himself with his parents' money, so we're not just talking about a nepo baby but a proper proper well off one.
I'd also like to believe the Firebolt is simply so expensive that whilst he could afford it, it could've cost him most of his savings the same way you wouldn't spend a few million quid on a Porsche if you only had a few million quid.
JakeVonFurth@reddit
Harry is definitely not old money rich by wizard standards.
When he get a description of his vault contents we see that it's "Mounds of gold coins. Columns of silver. Heaps of little bronze Knuts." Which sounds impressive until you remember the description of the LeStrange Family Vault being "crammed from floor to ceiling with golden coins and goblets."
I said that. But again, compare that to literally one year prior when Lucius dropped a whole team's worth of Nimbus 2001s into Slytherin Houses' lap, which were the previous fastest broom. Or Sirius buying one for Harry, and still having a "reasonable amount of gold" in his vault by the time Harry inherited it.
Again, this is not Old Money wealth that Harry has, it's comparable to a 10 year old gaining access to an insurance payout. By the time he hits Year Three, and in context outside of the Firebolt, Harry is actively thinking that he's having to keep track to insure that he doesn't blow it all before he graduates. That's not something you could easily do with old money.
Pumpkin_Sushi@reddit
That sounds like he had an allowance to me
Jan_Jinkle@reddit
In the same way that budgeting is giving yourself an allowance, I suppose you’re right
UnsureAndUnqualified@reddit
No, he could literally access all the money. The being careful thing is Harry holding himself back from very expensive purchases, reminding himself that he needs the money to last until he finishes school. Had he wanted, he could have spent it all in one glorious night.
ktdk5t@reddit
Yes, people sometimes forget that there are very less proper rules and regulations in the wizarding world unlike the muggle world.
Ex:- other than the unforgivable curses there are no illegal spells.
DST_Soccer@reddit
Literally one of the first scenes in the movies he buys the entire snack cart
JonesJoestar@reddit
Idk the books but i can remember 2 times when he spent his gold
First was when he bought the entire cart for himself and Ron in the first travel to Hogwarts on train (that's probably not cheap?)
Second was when he helped Fred and George open up their shop, he wasn't 18 here
UnsureAndUnqualified@reddit
The second time is him giving away the prize money from the triwizard tournament. That's not part of the money he inherited, but he doesn't want it as he feels guilty about Cedric. Iirc he also doesn't do that in the films, they never mention how Fred & George got the funds.
In the books he spends his money all the time. In Hogsmeade he buys a lot of sweets, during the world cup he buys omniscopes for all three of them, he buys a lot of treats in diagon alley when he stays in the leaky cauldron at the beginning of year 3, etc.
RootInit@reddit
Given the cost of airline drinks and snacks its possible that took all of it.
Timekeeper98@reddit
The money he gave Fred and George was his prize money from winning the Tri-wizard cup, not his own fortunes.
JonesJoestar@reddit
Mb then
Heathcliff511@reddit
No. The other reply didnt explain it particularly well, but in canon there is no 'trust vaults', 'family vaults', 'inheritance vaults' etc. - the vault just happens to be Harry's. There is never a mention of age or withdrawal limit. It is simply a locked room that happens to have vast wealth contained within.
Funnily enough, he does give a key/give his key to the Weasleys at some point, but it is so they can do shopping for him and not to access it for themselves.
f3th@reddit
His parents probably left him a trust
sabrefudge@reddit
It’s pretty consistent with Harry Potter’s character:
Rich “chosen one” who hoards his wealth like a dragon, doesn’t support the poor or even his poor “best friend”, gives no fucks about elf slavery, fetishizes the one Asian girl at school, and ultimately becomes a cop.
Vospader998@reddit
What did Rowling mean by this?
TotalWarrior13@reddit
Don’t forget Seamus always blowing stuff up
Braeburner@reddit
Tbf that was only in the movies
Vospader998@reddit
Ya, he's not a Weasley, but it does track.
The first Harry Potter book was published while "The Troubles" was still ongoing, but I'm sure that didn't influence her writing at all...
SatanV3@reddit
I mean he accidentally blows something up in the first book and it’s basically an off hand comment. While in the movie, that JK Rowling doesn’t write, it’s a reoccurring gag. Don’t think she really meant anything by it
DrTinyNips@reddit
The Weasley's wouldn't accept the money if he offered, this was illustrated very well in the 4th book during the quiditch world cup but expecting someone to read these days is pretty difficult.
UnsureAndUnqualified@reddit
How is this illustrated? He only offers to buy Ron an omniscope and Ron is embarrassed about his family's situation. That doesn't really reflect how Molly and Arthur would react. From all we know they would refuse but except for Harry insisting that they would, I don't remember him ever offering them any.
DrTinyNips@reddit
Ron borrowed money from him and then paid him back with the Leprechaun gold, he then gets upset when he found out the Leprechaun gold disappears after an amount of time despite Harry assuring him that he didn't care about it.
UnsureAndUnqualified@reddit
No. Ron accepted the Omniscope because Harry told him it'd replace his christmas gifts for the coming years. Ron had no intention of paying Harry back at that point and didn't borrow that money.
When he got the Leprechaun gold, he paid Harry back saying that now he'd have to buy him christmas gifts after all.
Still, this doesn't illustrate that the Weasleys as a family wouldn't accept Harry pitching in. There are loads of occasions where he could've done so in a way that seems more like "paying back" or "pitching in" than just giving them money. E.g. offering to pay the 50 Galleon fine Mr. Weasely got for the flying car. It was partly his fault that Mr. Weasely got that fine. Or paying for the camping ground during the world cup (assuming they got the tickets for free and not just the chance to buy better tickets than normal). Paying for a new wand for Ron (again, Harry was heavily involved in that incident).
DenkJu@reddit
Harry offered Molly the prize money he won from the Triwizard Tournament, but she refused to take it. Later, he gave it to the Weasley twins to support their plans of opening a novelty shop, who only accepted after he threatened to throw it away if they didn't. The narrator also mentions on at least one occasion that Harry would love to support the Weasleys financially, though he knows they would never accept such help. The point seems to be that the Weasleys don't really see themselves as poor (aside from Ron at times). They are living a humble life and actually get by quite well, all things considered.
wine_coconut@reddit
Nah, he offered the money to the Diggorys because he felt Cedric was the actual winner of the Tournament (he got to the Cup first, after all)
DenkJu@reddit
He did that too.
wine_coconut@reddit
I don't remember the excerpt verbatim but it goes something like this:
"Mrs Weasley to Ginny: I suppose we'll have to give you something second hand"
Harry looked away. He'd have gladly given all of his wealth to the Weasleys but he knew they'll never accept it"
Even Ron, who explicitly says that he hates being poor, never took any money from Harry.
Only the Weasley twins accepted the Triwizard prize money to fund their business. And they point blank refused to let Harry pay for shopping at Weasleys Wizard Wheezes because he gave them the startup fund they needed.
At least they were gracious to knock off a Knut from Ron's shopping haul :')
TeddyBearToons@reddit
I remember at the end of one of the books Harry has to force Fred and George at wand-point to accept his tournament winnings as a nest egg for their joke shop. Fred and George would be older so I assume Arthur and Molly would react the same way to being offered money.
zenerat@reddit
There are better things to read than this trash.
BlackAxemRanger@reddit
"I an unmoved by your downvotes" do you think you are special? The amount of liberal children on this website who will never change their opinion - no matter how stupid - is horrendous. "Oh jk Rowling is an awful person. No I've never met her, but the other tantrum-throwing kids on this website told me she said stuff about trans people and you're not allowed to do that"
zenerat@reddit
*am
If you are going to quote me do it correctly, please.
BlackAxemRanger@reddit
Nice, any other thoughts in rebuttal? Or just bowing out of this one?
zenerat@reddit
There is no debate I have an opinion and you do as well. If you think what she’s doing is fine then there’s no real point in trying to talk to you. Also bonus points to you foot white knighting for a very oppressed billionaire.
BlackAxemRanger@reddit
The white knight comment makes me think you are very young, but so does everything else you've said so far. You're determined to throw a tantrum, you will make up anything you can to convince yourself that everyone who disagrees is evil. I do hope you someday get the same treatment, which is actually likely. Progressive people throw each other under the bus all the time if anyone steps even a little bit out of line
zenerat@reddit
You call someone disagreeing with you a tantrum? I think they are poorly written books written by a currently spiteful person. It’s an unwelcome opinion as the vast majority of millennials have a nostalgic blind spot for the series. Also you seem to come from an argumentative standpoint where you try to infantilize anyone who disagrees with you with the classic you’ll understand when you’re older schtick.
BlackAxemRanger@reddit
There's a lot more you've said in your replies that leads me to call it a tantrum. "Oh you're white knighting, you're just a hp fan, she's a billionaire that doesn't deserve to be protected" these are all incredibly immature.
That "you'll understand when you're older" shtick might be classic for a reason. It might just be that kids are a lot dumber than they think they are. I wouldn't Mair the assumption of you didn't keep making very immature and dismissive comments.
Also again, you're assuming a nostalgic blind spot is the reason any one defends her so again you're using random bullshit to dismiss opposing opinions instead of having a substantial argument
zenerat@reddit
What you are doing is the current definition of white knighting. Are you cool with her attacking Barbra Banda and Imane Khelif for not being feminine enough for her standards? She is a very rich public figure with a large social influence, the words she speak have far reach and consequences. People get death threats because of them. Why are you defending her?
BlackAxemRanger@reddit
I'm annoyed that I actually looked this up and bought into this random bullshit drama. The concerns of Imane Khelif are that she may be a biological male fighting in a woman's league. Did I actually do more research on this than you did before forming my opinion?
I thought maybe JK was wrong for this one, but this is what I found:
"Imane first underwent a karyotype test in 2022. The results came back as XY male. Imane wasn't immediately disqualified.
Imane then underwent a second karyotype test in 2023, which also found she has XY chromosomes and is biologically male according to the IBAs gender standards."
No one is attacking her just because they want to protect women in this space. If they are a biological male than that is wrong on their part.
For Barbra, I found this comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/vsssa3/comment/if3ps6w/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
So Jk Rowling is not "attacking" anyone. Is she maybe a little too sensitive about the subject? Maybe, but I don't think she has done or said anything so unreasonable. At this point you might just say I'm also transphobe because of not wanting biological males to compete in women's sports. I want trans people to have rights and not be oppressed, but I do not believe they should be able to go into spaces that have been designated for women and especially biological women.
Also, white knighting is some stupid, INSANELY OVERUSED dismissive comment used by children. If you don't want me to call you a child, don't keep using it like it's a valid argument. It's not.
I will say I'm glad you are concerned about people receiving death threats. I find it strange you only care about specific people receiving them and not JK Rowling herself, who absolutely receives her fair share of hatred and abuse online. I guess it's because you've convinced yourself that most people don't deserve death threats, but she does because you have convicted her in your mind as a horrible person who deserves death.
I'm just going to say this: these childish emotional arguments only hold up in echo chambers where the majority of other people share the exact same beliefs about everything and attack anyone who varies even a little bit. As soon as you leave the echo chambers, you have to dismiss any criticism to these arguments in order to hold on to your beliefs because the arguments don't stand on their own.
zenerat@reddit
Women can have XY chromosomes there is a large variety of intersex people on either side. Are we saying intersex women are men now? Almost 2% of humans are suspected of being intersex but do not know it are we supposed to be karotyping people prior to them using bathrooms? Michael Phelps has genetic advantages should he not be allowed to compete in swimming?
newaccount@reddit
Your reply was deleted. Keep it civil
newaccount@reddit
Intersex people are either male or female. There’s no third party of reproduction
‘Michael Phelps has big feet so I think males should be allowed to punch females in the head’ WTF is this?
zenerat@reddit
I’m uninterested in educating you. Intersex people exist who generally identify as one gender or the other generally based on what they were assigned at birth. They generally have difficulty procreating due to hormone imbalances. I’m sorry to rock your world this way.
Phelps has several genetic advantages. Disproportionately large wingspan, double joined ankles, and half the lactic acid production of a normal athlete. He also has an extreme work ethic without which all the rest is moot. That being said he was born to be better at his sport than almost any other competitor. Is this not unfair?
So let’s move along. You are born intersex you don’t know it neither do your doctors but you produce more testosterone than others which naturally makes you stronger at whatever sport you go after. Apparently now you are a dirty cheater who is cosplaying as your gender just to beat up weaker versions of the gender you have pretended to be. Can you see similarities between 2 and 3?
Is there a solution hard to say some people are born differently is it ok to allow some gifted generic people to accelerate at whatever sport they want while those that push against norms should be rejected. Obviously we’ve made that choice as a society.
thefaultinourstars1@reddit
Buddy she has publicly and openly bragged about using her personal wealth to attack trans rights, it's not like this is hearsay lmfao. Look at literally any of her social media, she doesn't shut the fuck up about it
BlackAxemRanger@reddit
Found the child.
Let's see a summary of what she's said...
"She has stated that she believes biological sex is a material fact, supports the concept of single-sex spaces for women, and opposes legislation that allows for self-identification of gender without a medical diagnosis. While she denies being transphobic and states she respects trans people's rights and wants them to be free from discrimination"
Yeah sounds like someone who has different opinions on the trans issues than you. Children literally using buzzwords like transphobia. If anyone doesn't fall in line and agree blindly to 100% of the movement, they are "attacking trans rights".
One day you guys are going to realize that being insufferable and turning on everyone who isn't 100% in agreement (including your own) is not actually helping your cause
zenerat@reddit
https://jkrwf.org/
Maybe read her own website. What did you use chat gpt to get that summary? Adult HP fans are insufferable
BlackAxemRanger@reddit
This seems like a good thing, she's trying to raise funds for women? Based on sex? This is a good thing, women having their own spaces is important, especially with things like physical sports or places where they are vulnerable. If you can't make a calm argument against that without "they're attacking trans people!" then we're done here lol
Also, I'm not a hp fan, you're just throwing a tantrum and looking for any reason to dismiss other people's views on this
zenerat@reddit
It’s a legal slush fund for people who feel like they are being targeted for hate speech against trans people.
BlackAxemRanger@reddit
Isn't targeting anyone a bad thing? And I worry what you consider hate speech. It's ok to want rights for trans people, but that doesn't mean we have to blindly give them rights, especially rights that the rest of us don't even have.
I can't play on a women's league and I don't think a biological male should either. That's not hate speech. You can try and dismiss everything you don't like as hate speech or transphobic if you want. It's going to blow your mind when you realize you 100% need all the people you're dismissing. There's too many of them, you can't make any real changes without them
zenerat@reddit
Hate speech is any form of communication that attacks, uses discriminatory language, or incites hatred, discrimination, or violence against a person or group based on their identity.
That’s my definition It’s actually pretty easy to not do.
BlackAxemRanger@reddit
Fair enough, I haven't seen any examples of her doing it yet
BialyKrytyk@reddit
I'm thoroughly thankful that people like you exist. I used to cringe at myself for liking Harry Potter despite being an adult thinking that all the cringy people are into it. All thanks to Rowling turning the most obnoxious people against her I finally feel like I'm allowed to feel comfortable with enjoying it, since hating on it is no longer what the cool kids do.
Octahedral_cube@reddit
For all your cope, JK Rowling is, unironically, the most culturally significant writer of the last 30 years. Not just in the Anglosphere, but globally. She had children and teenagers lining outside brick-and-mortar bookstores at 5am in the morning. She conjured a 25 billion dollar franchise out of literal napkins at a greasy spoon. Her international reach was so astonishing that there exist unauthorized translations of her work in languages such as Sinhala before the publishers could legitimately translate the works. There are 16 unauthorised translations in Persian because she penetrated into theocracies like Iran.
Next to her, contemporary popular writers such as George RR Martin, Susan Collins and Stephanie Meyer are absolute nobodies, by almost any metric.
Osuruktanteyyare_@reddit
Being significant doesn’t make someone good
Octahedral_cube@reddit
Having a cultural impact is one of the most important metrics. I'm sure someone else writes better prose, someone else has better themes, and someone else has written the best book on igneous petrography volume 3. All things considered, spurning discussion and getting lots of children to read are super important.
zenerat@reddit
It’s not cope I’m aware how influential she is. She’s a once a century phenomena. It doesn’t mean I’ll buy her books, go to her theme parks, or wear her merch when she’s found probably the most easily bullyable population and then uses her money and influence to bully them.
Octahedral_cube@reddit
You said it's "trash" now you're backtracking harder than the Italians in the Battle of Pindus, seeing as yesterday was the anniversary.
zenerat@reddit
I’m not it’s still trash both for writing and for the author. I’m just not willing to write down every single plot hole, contrivance, poorly developed character that series has. All of those are not as bad as the author herself.
DrTinyNips@reddit
Like morning glory milking farm?
zenerat@reddit
Sure it probably doesn’t support a transphobic billionaire who is helping shape laws and fund anti trans organizations. I’m sorry you love children’s books more than people.
Sbotkin@reddit
There's so much you could actually criticize about the HP series but you decided to go after the author instead. That doesn't prove your point.
zenerat@reddit
Why would pointing out plot contrivances for a children’s series support my point more than pointing out that the creator is using the money and power she’s made from the series to try to hurt people.
jonathanoldstyle@reddit
Apology accepted.
The_Third_Molar@reddit
🗿
KNGJN@reddit
Separate the art from the artist my guy
StickyNebbs@reddit
ehhhh idk about that lol maybe when they’re dead, opinions are one thing but actively trying to lobby for changing laws and interfering with how people go about themselves is totally different. i think not wanting your money to inevitably end up in a hate machine is understandable 🤷🏻
Intelligent-Goat-606@reddit
The HP books are very very Charming
Seneschal1066@reddit
Oooh I see what you did there!
Sage296@reddit
Like Diary of a Wimpy Kid
YungSkeltal@reddit
'this is actually lightly explained in the 4th huge ass book out of the seven huge ass books in the series. It is in a scene right after Ron scratches his ass and sniffs his fingers during the quidditch cup, exclaiming "Damn I'm broke!" but of course NINCOMPOOPS wouldn't be able to fathom reading anything that isn't SEX these days... '
xspiderdude@reddit
I will agree on this point to certain extent, but if I was Harry, and I felt really grateful to them, I would probably go to the wizard bank and tell them to transfer one fuckillion credits to the Weasley's vault and to please keep it a secret, if they ask, say it was an anonymous contributor.
If confrontation arouse, I would say something like "give me one penny back and you can pretend that I'm dead to you" Harry and his short temper could find a way to make it sound worse though.
Your-Evil-Twin-@reddit
My headcanon is that the Weasley’s having an appearance of being outwardly poor was nothing more than an aesthetic choice, because it literally makes no sense whatsoever that anyone can be poor in a universe where people can conjure up or create basically anything they want any time they like.
Al_Fatman@reddit
Its been a long time since I the books, but I remember a repeated theme is how Harry wants to give money to Ron and Mrs Weasley, but they keep shooting down the idea. Even Fred and George are hesitant to take the gold he earns from the Triwizard Tournament. Harry tries, but the Weasleys often refuse.
gfolder@reddit
At least JKR was very true to life with the goblin characters design alliteration
shre3293@reddit
iirc he did his Triwizard winnings to Weasley twins. that's how they were able to set up their shop. also Weasley family were not like in poverty, their sons were successful guys. also dad chose to do the job he enjoyed. but life was indeed shitty for Ron.
Tuarangi@reddit
Their kids weren't really successful, wealth wise - Bill went to work at the bank but Charlie was an academic studying dragons and Percy was also in the government role at a mid level while Fred and George don't setup their joke shop until mid way though the series after they finished school
Flashlight_Inspector@reddit
Only one not obviously swimming in coins is Charlie and even that's a stretch.
Tuarangi@reddit
If we're being excessively pedantic
Bill is a curse-breaker for the bank, perhaps adventurous but not Indiana Jones
Charlie isn't a tamer, he works at a sanctuary as a student, never a high paying job
Percy is a civil servant, assistant and powerful role but not high paying. All 3 of them survived the war
Fred and George are only able to do the shop because Harry gives them his winnings from the tournament
1 student, 1 civil servant, 2 lads who needed a freebie to start the business, nah, not swimming in anything, not least because their family still lives in a dump rather than being moved out by a rich offspring
clobear20@reddit
Here's a crazy idea, maybe Arthur and Molly like their 'dump' of a house. It's not even a dirty shack, it looks cosy as fuck inside, and I'd love to live there.
Flashlight_Inspector@reddit
He's described as breaking into lost pyramids for the bank in Egypt and Harry Potter is an intentionally whimsical setting, so the favorable interpretation is he's an Indiana Jones expy.
He's never stated to be a student and has enough social pull to bring half a dozen of his friends down from Romania to England to pick up a dragon just off of a "trust me bro, it'll be there". Also he bought a private beach house in the 7th book. Those two facts alone imply he's a high roller.
IRL british ministry is corrupt as fuck, and this is 90s fantasy ministry where the minister getting bribed by a nazi is treated as a repeating gag. Also his second boss got tortured to death and his third boss got black bagged and turned into a meat puppet.
Tell their giant vault full of gold they got from their successful business that it doesn't count because they got a 0% interest loan from a friend and see if the gold disappears. Oh look, the vaults still full of gold.
Cyhawk@reddit
It was because he was envious of other peoples wealth and status. Always wishing for more material goods or lamenting his lack of new/fancy things everyone else had. His whole character arc is his growth realizing money and status aren't whats important in this world. Family and moral values are.
Funnily enough, Rupert Grint learned this as well with his famous free ice cream truck and relatively quiet life doing only good things (or so we think, dun dun dunnnnn!)
dodolungs@reddit
I think people forget few things about the whole situation, that they would have refused the charity (at least Molly and Arthur), that Arthur makes a relatively solid wage just by looking at his position in the ministry it's just that the family is huge so they save where they can, that he does share some of it eventually, and that Rowling is notoriously bad at cohesive and detailed world building, it's all broad strokes and just whatever flows the best with the story, not concrete details (like how much Arthur or even the teachers at Hogwarts actually make)
Theoretically (and a staple of most HP Fanfics) is that there should be some way to convert wizarding gold to British pounds, yet aside from people converting pounds to galleons for a tiny amount of 5 pounds per, I don't think it's ever mentioned if it can go the other way. I also don't think it's ever stated if galleons are actually pure gold or just that they are just made of "gold" with some indeterminate purity.
The fact that galleons have massively lost their value over the centuries seems to indicate to me that they aren't actually made of pure gold, but some alloy of gold that lets them make more despite the muggle value of gold always increasing. Though that's probably giving Rowling too much credit, esp since it's a later addition to the lore.
NorthKoreanKnuckles@reddit
Weasleys are racist, they don't want half blood money.
They just accept harry in apparence so nobody call them racist at the ministery. "I'm not racist, my son best friend is an half blood".
Cyhawk@reddit
Harry is pure blood, as are the Weasleys.
NorthKoreanKnuckles@reddit
His mother is muggle born.
Keegan_Wer@reddit
I'm pretty sure this is why so may fanfictions have written the Weasley's to outright hate receiving charity.
charlie-the-Waffle@reddit
I haven't read the books in years (for obvious reasons), but isn't it a thing that the weasleys constantly refuse harry's money?
ok_buddy_gamer@reddit
Trust me bro Harry Potter is the shit. So fire. Just ignore the bigoted author, she sucks. The books themselves are so fun and whimsical. Even the darker ones are super fun.
mcj1ggl3@reddit
The only think that makes the reason “obvious” is your pfp lmfao
Dominus_Invictus@reddit
It's funny to me that people after all this time are still coming to the realization that JK Rowling sucks at world building.
pangeapedestrian@reddit
Go read "Wizard's Hall".
It's..... Impressively identical.
zepherth@reddit
Pretty sure he's not allowed to use most of the money. He is a kid and kids don't get a conservatorship of their inheritance. Also, he can use it outside of the wizard world, can't give away to the muggles that there is a cabal of magic wealthy people.
pangeapedestrian@reddit
He literally walks into the bank and scoops handfuls of gold into a sack without counting it whenever he needs money. That's canon.
I find it really funny that you made up wizard conservatorship to explain it though haha
jejbfokwbfb@reddit
I believe in the context of the books they explain that it’s a fortune but it’s a small fortune I think the equivalent would be like you grandparents leaving you 20-100k in their will sure it’s a lot and for the average person could seriously help them But it’s not an ever lasting fortune
Yoda2000675@reddit
They literally tell Harry not to give them money, this is a shit take
Hopefulforsomething5@reddit
lmao bro literally had a vault that could sustain a small country and the Weasleys were out here wearing hand me down robes from the 1800s 💀
No-Section-4385@reddit
Mean magic isn't free either..
You would assume there is a limit to it as well.
GuyNamedWhatever@reddit
Why doesn’t the 13 year understand what he can do with his vast fortune? Is he stupid?
Kekeripo@reddit
I believe the gold lost quiet a bit in value as the story progressed. I belive 1 gold wad like 5usd at the end of hp.
DigbyChickenZone@reddit
I mean in the books it was made very clear that the Weasleys would not have accepted his money.
What should have been addressed is if he would have been treated better by the Dursley's if he made them filthy rich.
ProfessorGimpsuit@reddit
The best thing about the Weasleys is that being poor is like a minor annoyance but they don't really are that much. I liked how their house is amazing and full of magic thanks to Molly. They illustrated that being a poor wizard beats being a rich muggle every time
risethirtynine@reddit
This always pissed me off about the series even as a kid… he doesn’t do shit with all the money he got
Mr_Pink_Gold@reddit
How could he humble brag in front of Ron otherwise?
DraconixLord@reddit
I swear I remember Harry offering to pay a couple times, but Mrs Weasley told him to put his coins away.
SmoothPimp85@reddit
Weasleys are Dickensian-Zolya prideful poor people, they'd have kicked Harry out and ruined his with "be me, meet qt3,14" affairs with the redhead.
SnapHackelPop@reddit
Look I've said this about HP and I'll say it every time: if you wanna talk plotholes, pack a fuckin lunch cuz we'll be here all day
Mouthfullofcrabss@reddit
He tried to give the Weaslys money on several occasions but they always refuse.
Least-Use9227@reddit
I was about to go into a spergy meltdown about how the Dursley's are abusers who do well enough for themselves but instead I'll just write a typical "Harry is James all over" post 😹
DrProfSrRyan@reddit
Aren’t they talking about the Weasley’s?
UltraSapien@reddit
Yes, I believe so.