Beedle Discussion: The Wizard and the Hopping Pot

[doriscrockford2]

stubefied_by_gd has posted the following questions:

1. So... how did the father know about the foot? Had he once been like his son and learned the hard way himself to be generous? Did he curse the pot to add the foot as he neared death on purpose (which is sort of what Dumbledore implies by saying he intended to teach his son a lesson, and the foot

Comments

[author_by_night]

So... how did the father know about the foot? Had he once been like his son and learned the hard way himself to be generous?

That's what I came away with. It just seemed like a more drastic, childish version of any story where someone's parent passes down an important lesson they learned in their own youth.

7. Any thoughts on what Dunglicking has to do with spending time with Muggles?

Sorry to say, I think people who used the insult were likening associating with muggles to licking manure.

9. Loaded Question: Who was right? Seriously, was helping out Muggles a bad idea or not?

I think that there were dangers at the time, but I don't think it's as though the characters were telling witch hunters how to find Hogwarts and stuff. The wizards just admitted to knowing magic and being able to help.

That said, I don't think the son was hesitant out of concern that it would endanger anyone - he just had his head up his arse.

[catkat1988]

1. + 4. Actually I really really like the idea of the father being sort of like Dumbledore - wanting to teach his son a lesson, he put the curse and the foot on the pot himself. But you're right, the last line implies that he never started helping others because he changed but because he had to if he didn't want the pot to start acting up again. I don't know, it kinda messes with the theme that everyone should be given a second chance to redeem themselves, because this implies that people don't change, you can only hope of forcing them to behave... I don't know. But then again, Dumbledore did not re-write this fables, he just commented on them. Clearly he wanted to make the best of it

[vegablack62]

The fact that someone might be given the opportunity to change and redeem themselves doesn't mean they will. That is simple reality. You can believe in the power of people to change and the need to give them the opportunity without expecting that they will. Many many people don't, but that doesn't mean the opportunity should be removed. The story was an accurate portrayal of how many people act out of desire for reward or fear of punishment rather than true compassion, that doesn't mean that true compassion doesn't exist. I don't think realism over how people may use their second chance argues against the value of offering one.

[stubefied_by_gd]

7. But it's not like you have to lick a Muggle to help them.... I am apparently too literal to be a Pureblood Name-Caller.

[doriscrockford2]

1. I'd thought the father had had the same thing happen to him, many years ago when he was young (wizards live a looong time) and rather than curse his son, he saw it as a chance for the son to make himself a better person

[stubefied_by_gd]

4. That's an interesting spin on it. And it works. :)

[doriscrockford2]

Thanks. :)

[stella_thomas]

Ooh! Just like the old chapter by chapters!

[doriscrockford2]

Hi Stella!

I really don't understand these people who get up in arms about books they deem too scary for kids. I can only assume that they have no memory of what they actually read as a child or that they were never read to and only watched Disney cartoons. If they keep sadness and fear in the relatively safe venue of fiction away from their kids, how are those kids going to deal with those same feelings in the real world when they grow up? Scary stories = training wheels for the emotions.

I'm not saying you need to read your 2 year old Stephen King, just go back and look at the Grimm Brothers, HC Anderson or even Katherine Paterson, for goodness sake.

[stubefied_by_gd]

You came sooo close with the cuts! Future reference: < lj-cut text="Whatever you want"> blah < /lj-cut >

Also, yay rants, boo crazy people. :)

[stubefied_by_gd]

8. So I'm the only one who thought the Bloxham quotes sounded just like Umbridge going on about how there was no need to expose dear, precious children to real defensive magic? Huh.

[sea_thoughts]

I thought of her immediately too, though Bloxham doesn't sound nasty or power-hungry like Umbridge, just terribly misguided.

[stubefied_by_gd]

Yay! I don't mean yay Umbridge and Bloxham. I mean yay, we saw the same thing. :)

[vegablack62]

6. What do you think about the origins of the spending-time-with-Muggles-means-you're-stupid idea?

7. Any thoughts on what Dunglicking has to do with spending time with Muggles? (also, Scumsucking and Mudwallowing, although that one is at least connected to the Mudblood name)

6. Those who hold these opinions believe that only the stupid and weak of magic would want to spend time with people who were magicless and ignorant and obviously idiotic. Obviously only those who needed to be made to feel powerful by spending time with powerless people would have an interest in Muggles. Muggles obviusly have nothing to offer anyone of anyworth so only the stupide and weak would want to be with them, either because they were to stupid to realize their was nothing intelectualy stimulating to be gained from them or because they again wanted to feel smart and powerful by lording it over inferiors.

7. I fear that dunglickers is probably an obsenity with various disgusting sources and associations some of which may be sexual in nature.

[stubefied_by_gd]

7. EEEW! EEW! EEW! EEW!