It’s a conversation any books-first Harry Potter fan is all too familiar with: You’re talking about how wonderful Harry Potter is (because just because it’s nearly 2014 doesn’t mean you’re stopping that conversation any time soon), and your friend brings up that it doesn’t make any sense Harry wound up with Ginny Weasley of all people, because Ginny is the worst.
I’m sorry. This isn’t true at all! That’s just what Warner Brothers inexplicably wanted you to think because of the fact Ginny was in roughly 20 minutes of the entire franchise (time spent nearly dying in the Chamber of Secrets when she was 11 not included). Ginny is a really cool girl who becomes a really cool lady and –bonus! — through her J.K. Rowling taught teenage readers a lot of really valuable lessons about being yourself, owning your own accomplishments, and not waiting around for guys (well, at least not too much).
But while Book Ginny was a dynamic, feisty character, Film Ginny is a Manic Pixie Wallflower that could be literally anyone Daniel Radcliffe had zero chemistry with. Seriously, was it not possible for her to accio a personality from anyone in the general vicinity? Her entire role in the movies was to awkwardly kiss Harry once at the Burrow and once at Hogwarts, and then stare at him while he ran around actually doing things during the final battles.
There are plenty of Harry Potter book-to-film changes I’m still not over. (Who are the Marauders, you ask? Don’t ask anyone who only watched the movies!) But recently, what’s bugging me more and more is how little respect Ginny gets — and I think a lot of it is because of the films. It’s time someone stood up and defended her; She’s actually a really cool character — it’s just that none of her awesomeness translated onscreen.
Book Ginny would never. Let’s take a trip down memory lane…
Number One: Ginny from the book didn’t wait around for any man. When the boy of her dreams appeared disinterested (he had a few other things on his mind!) she didn’t get desperate. Instead, she got friendly with Dean, showing The Chosen One she had plenty of other things going on in her life. Next!
Number Two: While Harry is crushing on Cho in Order of the Phoenix, Ginny didn’t let her crush stand in the way of being useful and smart. She gave him support for Dumbledore’s Army, and helped fight at the Department of Mysteries, among other battles.
Number Three: While Harry, Ron and Hermione were off roaming a forest, Ginny was actually braving things out at Hogwarts — and it wasn’t all Yule Balls and Quidditch. In the books, Ginny and Neville are shown to be keeping the rebellion going at school (“Dumbledore’s Army, still recruiting“) – but only Neville’s heroism made the film. Ginny got to be a movie girlfriend, instead. -100 Points from the House of Movie Studios.
Number Four: This isn’t badass, per se, but I always thought it was really cool that right before Harry and Ginny finally kissed, Ginny was off winning a Quidditch game because her dumb crush was stuck in detention. Guys, am I right?
- Entertainment Weekly's Erin Strecker on why Book Ginny is cooler than Movie Ginny (via courtneysmovieblog)
Okay, okay, I’m going to tell you what Hermione sees in Ron.
A trio is a balancing act, right? They’re equalizers of each other. Harry’s like the action, Hermione’s the brains, Ron’s the heart. Hermione has been assassinated in these movies, and I mean that genuinely—by giving her every single positive character trait that Ron has, they have assassinated her character in the movies. She’s been harmed by being made to be less human, because everything good Ron has, she’s been given.
So, for instance: “If you want to kill Harry, you’re going to have to kill me too”—RON, leg is broken, he’s in pain, gets up and stands in front of Harry and says this. Who gets that line in the movie? Hermione.
“Fear of a name increases the fear of the thing itself.” Hermione doesn’t say Voldemort’s name until well into the books—that’s Dumbledore’s line. When does Hermione say it in the movies? Beginning of Movie 2.
When the Devil’s Snare is curling itself around everybody, Hermione panics, and Ron is the one who keeps his head and says “Are you a witch or not?” In the movie, everybody else panics and Hermione keeps her head and does the biggest, brightest flare of sunlight spell there ever was.
So, Hermione—all her flaws were shaved away in the films. And that sounds like you’re making a kick-ass, amazing character, and what you’re doing is dehumanizing her. And it pisses me off. It really does.
In the books, they balance each other out, because where Hermione gets frazzled and maybe her rationality overtakes some of her instinct, Ron has that to back it up; Ron has a kind of emotional grounding that can keep Hermione’s hyper-rationalness in check. Sometimes Hermione’s super-logical nature grates Harry and bothers him, and isn’t the thing he needs even if it’s the right thing, like when she says “You have a saving people thing.” That is the thing that Harry needed to hear, she’s a hundred percent right, but the way she does it is wrong. That’s the classic “she’s super logical, she’s super brilliant, but she doesn’t know how to handle people emotionally,” at least Harry.
So in the books they are this balanced group, and in the movies, in the movies—hell, not even Harry is good enough for Hermione in the movies. No one’s good enough for Hermione in the movies—God isn’t good enough for Hermione in the movies! Hermione is everybody’s everything in the movies.
Harry’s idea to jump on the dragon in the books, who gets it in the movies? Hermione, who hates to fly. Hermione, who overcomes her withering fear of flying to take over Harry’s big idea to get out of the—like, why does Hermione get all these moments?
[John: Because we need to market the movie to girls.]
I think girls like the books, period. And like the Hermione in the books, and like the Hermione in the books just fine before Hollywood made her idealized and perfect. And if they would have trusted that, they would have been just fine.
Would the movies have been bad if she was as awesome as she was in the books, and as human as she was in the books? Would the movies get worse?
She IS a strong girl character. This is the thing that pisses me off. They are equating “strong” with superhuman. To me, the Hermione in the book is twelve times stronger than the completely unreachable ideal of Hermione in the movies. Give me the Hermione in the book who’s human and has flaws any single day of the week.
Here’s a classic example: When Snape in the first book yells at Hermione for being an insufferable know-it-all, do you want to know what Ron says in the book? “Well, you’re asking the questions, and she has to answer. Why ask if you don’t want to be told?” What does he say in the movie? “He’s got a point, you know.” Ron? Would never do that. Would NEVER do that, even before he liked Hermione. Ron would never do that."
- Melissa Anelli THROWS IT DOWN about the way Ron and Hermione have been adapted in the movies on the latest episode of PotterCast. Listen here. This glorious rant starts at about 49:00. (via karakamos)
temporalequinox asked you:
Hi! I love your comic and I’ve been working on a vintage inspired story myself for the passed few years now, but I can never find a great source for clothing of the time period my story takes place in. Do you by any chance have an accurate source that you look to for reference?
nosunlightinthecity asked you:
I’m wondering where you researched 20’s fashion and style (and language!). My own foray lead me to nothing but cheap flapper costumes, but I’m hoping to be more put-together for this themed museum event. I’d love any nudge in a good direction. Thank you in advance!
Hi, guys! Here are some online places you can find authentic period clothing reference from the past 130 years or so:
- Old clothing catalogs. There are a lot of them archived in book form for pretty reasonable prices on Amazon. Scans from these catalog collections are plentiful online too - easy to find with a Google Image search.
- Old photographs. There’s no better reference than real actual people wearing real actual clothing. Shorpy is a goldmine. Also, it may or may not be common knowledge, but the US Library of Congress site has a huge online archive of historic photographs. (Obviously, that’s a pretty American-centric source, but I imagine many internet-friendly nations have a rough equivalent.)
- Vintage clothing stores. There are quite a few of them with fairly extensive online catalogs - just be careful to look for actual vintage articles of clothing as opposed to vintage style clothing loosely based on history.
- Museum collections. The Metropolitan Museum, for instance, has a very large collection of historic clothes and ensembles by historic designers (Vera Maxwell, Coco Chanel, etc) available for perusal on their site (pick Collections>Search collections). There are a number of tumblr blogs out there too, like OMGthatdress, featuring such pieces with search tags that might make it easier to find what you’re after.
I hope that helps.
If anyone has other resource recommendations, feel free to share!
The best thing is that these people are complaining that white people ruin everything and are the devil and only steal everything from PoC while 99% of them sits in a country that wouldn’t be in the modern state it is now if not for white people, while using a machine made by white people running a operating system made by white people blogging on a website made by white people .
I’m sorry but who built America nigga? LMAO YO GETCHA HISTORY TOGETHER BABY!!lol at the bolded. hooray for oppression and capitalism! good job guys.
I’m going to keep this brief and undetailed since I’m out of time and on my mobile phone, but first things first—I am an engineer. I’m going to assume you don’t know much about engineering at all, because I otherwise can’t imagine why you would write what you have. A working machine is not built by one person, its mechanisms not drawn from thin air. Development is a long process—occasionally punctuated by strokes of genius and happy accidents—undertaken by multiethnic (and usually multinational) teams, and the final product is a synthesis of theory and ideas that form something new (and hopefully useful). So it’s very odd to me that you would attribute things like “operating systems” and “computers” to “white ingenuity” as if that is logical by any measure. Do you know the history of microcomputing at all? The teams behind the ISA systems bus or the one gig processing chip? How about MCM or the development of modern RAM? Modern PC display? The development of the colour computer? Does Wang Laboratories sound familiar to you? Perhaps doctors An Wang or G.Y. Chu? Surely Mark Dean and IBM do. I know they do, because I know that you are well-informed about the development of modern computing and the countless engineering teams that put all their time, sweat, effort, and research into it.
I’m also curious to this “modern state” you attribute to white people. Is it this Western civilisation built by five hundred years of violent exploitation set to end, within the century, in global ecological catastrophe? Because even then, you at least surely recognise that it was built on the ruins of civilisations far more complex, and in many ways, more advanced. You at least surely realise that technological catalysts like the Textile and Industrial Revolutions would have been literally impossible without black African labour; that Western infrastructure was built both literally and physically, by black and Asian individuals, sustained by Native American agricultural practices (yes, including Europe, which accrued wealth by establishing colonies), was created financially by both riches stolen from the continents of Asia and Africa, and an economic system that relied entirely on the fabulously lucrative trade of human bodies, subjugation, barbarism, and slaughter.
Or did you mean before that—the European Renaissance that was only made possible by Moorish intervention in Europe?
Or did you mean before that, when Europe was experiencing its “Dark Ages”—a time of unprecedented death and disaster marked by violent superstition, sectarianism, and lack of hygiene—when, meanwhile, empires of the rest of the world—the Sahelian kingdoms; the caliphates of North Africa; the empires of Mali, Ghana, and the Songhai; the sultanates of Sudan, the Ethiopian and Somali city-states; the polities of the Americas; the universities of West Asia and Africa; the Song, the Mongols (and countless many more) were all in top form?
Or did you mean before that, during much-lauded Greco-Roman era…whose academic achievements were far outmatched by their West and South Asian counterparts, and whose greatest thinkers were educated by Africans?
I mean, seriously. Please show me this elusive age of white nobility and white achievement, because I’m keen to know where in history it ever existed. You won’t be able to. Do you know why?
Because that simply isn’t how civilisation works.
If you really think the world was built brick by brick by whiteness, or that the humans were pulled out of the primordial ooze by white men, you just aren’t as clever as you think you are. Like the process of engineering, the development of humankind has been one long synthesis of cultures, and the (not always peaceful) trade of languages, knowledge, and ideas. At no point in history did humans sit on their laurels with hands over their ears and eyes, ignorant of the world around them and entirely isolated from one another. It’s why you can find ancient Chinese coins in East Africa, West African bones in the Americas, Polynesian chickens in South America, Arab accounts of Asia and Africa, Central Asia vestiges in Eastern Europe, black Africans all throughout European history. The world is not stagnant. It never was. Human evolution was only possible because of the sharing and propogation of ideas. Your entire argument is facile.
Do you know why people on this website are angry?
Because it’s about the only place where you can express that anger and be (relatively) safe.
Do you know why we are angry in real life?
Because these last five hundred years have seen unprecedented cultural destruction, murder, ethnic cleansing, and subjugation in the name of greed, all sustained and justified by the construction of race. And nothing has changed.
You can write legislation to “guarantee” rights. Lands can be rewon in litigation. A few languages can be relearnt by handfuls of individuals. But you can never repair a culture. You can never repair a metaphysical holocaust, revive those lost to genocide, retrieve forgotten languages, customs, modes of thought, identities. Not only have they been destroyed, they have been actively and systematically been written out of history. How much of human development has been lost? How many lives do you think this earth has forgotten? How many ghosts wailing beneath cotton fields and rail ties do you think had wisdoms passed down by countless generations or held intellectual properties cultivated by thousands of years? A concept in its purest form may be as immutable as mass and energy, but like all Forms they are meaningless if there is no one to access them. Not even ideas are infinite; they disappear when no one is there to think them into existence. Gods die like everybody else. Whole perspectives destroyed. Thoughts, feelings, concepts, entire ways of viewing the world, all wiped out through magical feats of destruction. All this, by writing a few words in a book. Like magic.
Do you understand that? Is isn’t us who constructed this system, but we are still the ones dying because of it, erased because of it, dehumanised. And that’s worth owning. You should be as angry as we are, that anyone should have to endure centuries of and current suffering for arbitrary reasons that were installed by terrible legacies left by people who committed horrific acts of evil…whether those people were your forebears or not. Unless you don’t recognise those actions and the actions of the present as evil at all, and you genuinely don’t care about the welfare of your fellow human beings, you should be as angry as we are.
Of course, it doesn’t matter if you really don’t care or not. This five-hundred year system that’s been in place is unsustainable. And honestly? It will probably ultimately destroy itself and take all of us—and you—with it.