“When minor characters who are also ethnic minorities start talking among themselves in their native tongues, they sometimes take advantage of their invisibility to say things. Sometimes they break the Fourth Wall and start ranting about the movie director. Sometimes, they spout random obscenities or natter about their lousy lunch. It’s all in not-English, so whatever they say doesn’t matter! And the actual translations of their lines can be a secret source of hilarity in films where actors are instructed to use a Gratuitous Foreign Language (GFL) in order to make a scene sound more authentic. When some Native Americans cast in Westerns were told to speak their own language to add some authenticity, these actors took the opportunity to crudely editorialize about their director, which allegedly resulted in Native American audiences (in)explicably cracking up laughing during scenes that were meant to be dramatic.”—Minorities can be marginalized in film, but not silenced. (via salon)
apparently some guy named mark was trying to tell my mom he needed to speak with my dad about any financial transactions my mom was making because he was the man of the house and she did not take kindly to his implying that my dad was the primary breadwinner/person in charge in our family so
Everyone says they was to see Cap pick up Thor’s hammer in AoU, but everyone knows that Cap’s a good guy.
No, what I want is for Natasha to pick it up. In the heat of battle, and it lands beside her, and she gets cornered so she grabs for a piece of debris to attack with and she just swings it completely without meaning too.
Then she realises that maybe she’s good, maybe she’s wiped out the red in her ledger.
Or, “the negative treatment of Slytherin House in canon.”
To me, “the Problem of Slytherin” (which I’ve nicknamed based on the infamous “Problem of Susan” from CS Lewis’s Narnia) is one of the major flaws of the series. Not as bad as my issues with DH, certainly, but something that detracts from the series as a whole.
Again, this is a somewhat unpopular opinion: there are plenty of people who feel that the portrayal of Slytherin was fine as-is, many who argue that it was inevitable because of the books’ first-person Gryffindor-centric POV, and some people who believe that an ambition-oriented House is more likely to produce evil people than one that values intelligence/wit, hard work/patience, or bravery/fame, particularly given Salazar Slytherin’s penchant for conflating greatness and blood purity, making a House that seems pre-made for prejudice.*
*I think that Slytherin’s orientation on blood-purity could have been written as something that was a rational response to his historical period, but I don’t think that JKR intends it to be viewed that way. If mass persecutions were occurring and lots of wizards were dying, then you could make a case for hiding/not accepting Muggle-borns - but again, this is something that’s more grounds for an AU fic based on what we know of Rowling’s Wizarding history, in which witch-hunting/problems didn’t get to be significant until three to four centuries after the Founders’ era, and in which the dangers weren’t that significant in any case. (Yes, that’s no consolation to Nearly Headless Nick, but we’re led to believe that persecutions weren’t that terrible a danger in the great scheme of things. In canon, Salazar Slytherin is not Wizarding Magneto, who believes that wizards need to create a wholly separate society of their own because the real world has given them concrete evidence they’ll never be accepted otherwise - although, again, I do believe that Salazar Slytherin-as-Wizard-Magneto, a man with some valid points but extreme views and methods, could successfully exist in fanfic.)
But, even given the idea that Slytherin held an indefensible, reactionary opinion for his own time, I believe that the books could have - and should have - written Slytherin differently. Because, as it is, there is a huge problem with the general portrayal of Slytherin characters, and, moreover, with the idea of House Unity and that entire theme, which became so important in OotP.
“The problem of Slytherin is that JKR has significant authorial bias. She is a Gryffindor, this is a heroic epic, and Gryffindor qualities are favored because those are the qualities she values most in herself. Gryffindor actions are consistently downplayed - Sirius’s prank against Snape, the twins’ near-manslaughter of Montague, Hermione’s scarring of Marietta Edgecombe—have no long-term repercussions and aren’t treated with the weight they deserve (and in Hermione’s case, JKR has defended the action in interviews.) Meanwhile, Slytherin House is generally portrayed negatively: Gryffindor is treated like the hero House and Slytherin like the villain House, when the possibility exists that they could have been so much more. The world, after all, does not exist in terms of pure good and evil—and if the Houses are really meant to be as good and as bad as portrayed, well, there are the problems with world-building and plausibility that I’ve mentioned above.”—bronzedragon, “The Problem of Slytherin” (via robbieyoukilledmyunicorn)
“No matter how progressive, liberal, or politically and socially astute we think we have become, everyone living in the United States (and elsewhere, for Dahl was certainly not American) has been affected by ideas about which children can be — and cannot be — viewed as innocent. Of course, in the Enlightenment, and afterward, there are examples of dark-skinned peoples being viewed as noble savages. However, the prevailing cultural script that has been handed down over the generations is that some children are more innocent than others. We notice this, but we are not encouraged to speak it aloud, because the construction of childhood innocence on foundations of race is something that is implied but never spoken, lest we offend others.”—