>>Which raises the question, if we could use a word editor to swap the gender, and some of the clothing, of all of the characters, would it then become a good story? Possibly, but this type of logic is apparently beyond me, which is why I would never make a good literature major, I can't just let it go.<<
Actually, it'd be interesting to see how Harry Potter would read with gender switches in the main roles. Gender codification goes much deeper than just names and pronouns, so you might end up with accidental literature. Just imagine Blanche Dumbledore behaving exactly as her male counterpart does. Or Hermann Granger, who knits hats for house elves. Or Mr Weasley, who fusses about the house and children while Mrs Weasley sits meekly playing with plugs. It'd be a completely different story.
Now, I'm not denying that Zipes is talking with the wrong orifice in that quote, but the gender roles in Harry Potter are very entrenched in a patriarchal system, probably because of the literary tradition into which they fall. It's just the kind of stuff feminists and post-colonialists have can endless fun deconstructing.
On the subject of poor old ID (*repress snicker here*), have you come across Richard Swinburne's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Swinburne) work? He's done a lot of work in trying to make teleology respectable in a post-Darwin scientific work.
His basic line of argument is to make a distinction between two kinds of explanation - scientific explanation and personal explanation atributable to the free will of an agent. (He relies, I think, on Quantum indeterminism and on the wide spread 'common sense' view for his assumption that such a fish as 'free will' actually exists.)
Based on this distinction he compiles a heap of arguments, mainly with a teleological slant, and calculates their cumulative probability with the help of Bayes Theorem. In doing so he wants to show that theology can be rational and can provide a better and simpler explanatory base than science ever could. His final thesis is that God's existence is more probable than not.
If you ever stumble across his "The Existence of God", it's well worth flicking through. It's an absolute collander of an argument, but it's an interesting read.
no subject
Actually, it'd be interesting to see how Harry Potter would read with gender switches in the main roles. Gender codification goes much deeper than just names and pronouns, so you might end up with accidental literature. Just imagine Blanche Dumbledore behaving exactly as her male counterpart does. Or Hermann Granger, who knits hats for house elves. Or Mr Weasley, who fusses about the house and children while Mrs Weasley sits meekly playing with plugs. It'd be a completely different story.
Now, I'm not denying that Zipes is talking with the wrong orifice in that quote, but the gender roles in Harry Potter are very entrenched in a patriarchal system, probably because of the literary tradition into which they fall. It's just the kind of stuff feminists and post-colonialists have can endless fun deconstructing.
On the subject of poor old ID (*repress snicker here*), have you come across Richard Swinburne's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Swinburne) work? He's done a lot of work in trying to make teleology respectable in a post-Darwin scientific work.
His basic line of argument is to make a distinction between two kinds of explanation - scientific explanation and personal explanation atributable to the free will of an agent. (He relies, I think, on Quantum indeterminism and on the wide spread 'common sense' view for his assumption that such a fish as 'free will' actually exists.)
Based on this distinction he compiles a heap of arguments, mainly with a teleological slant, and calculates their cumulative probability with the help of Bayes Theorem. In doing so he wants to show that theology can be rational and can provide a better and simpler explanatory base than science ever could. His final thesis is that God's existence is more probable than not.
If you ever stumble across his "The Existence of God", it's well worth flicking through. It's an absolute collander of an argument, but it's an interesting read.