[LMB] RE: OT: Potter, Weasley

Susan Fox-Davis selene at earthlink.net
Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:47:34 -0700

>>On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:58:42PM -0400, Sara Amis wrote:
>>>>Rowlings was riffing off the typical situation of a large Catholic
>>>>family, where they mightn't see it as a matter of choosing.
>>>But then, I was raised by people who shared Cordelia's notions about
>>>children, and can't quite wrap my head around why having a large family is
>>>supposed to be a bad thing.
You would think that Lucius Malfoy would be more in favor of 
pure-blooded wizard families having more children.  <shrug>  The Weasley 
children seem to be healthy enough, if not rich in material things. 
 [And why not?  Cannot the parents magick up whatever material things 
they need?  JKR has a lot to answer.]

>>Because of concerns about overpopulation, translated down into the personal
>>realm, and because it is possible to have more children than you can afford.
>>(Actually, overpopulation would be the collective version of that.)
>Indeed.  But "having children you can't take care of" is a separate 
>issue.  It doesn't necessarily follow, that if you have a bunch of 
>children, you aren't able to take care of them properly.  People act like 
>it does.
Which is why "All wealth is biological" but on the other hand, Vormuir's 
creche-factory is considered Too Much Of A Good Thing.  Evidently, he 
could take care of them, since he did demonstrate that he had sufficient 
caregivers for these clean and happy girl-children, but factoring in the 
Dowries put them out of financial reach.

So... is all wealth Financial after all?

I'm beginning to wonder, who let the Bean Counters rule the world anyhow?  

Frustrated at Life In General,
Susan Fox-Davis / Ma Foxti
selene at earthlink.net