DISCLAIMER THE FIRST: It is by JKR's writing alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the grace of coffee that thoughts acquire speed, the back acquires strains, the strains become a warning. The warning is that I make no money from this. It is by JKR's writing alone I set my mind in motion.

PITHY STATEMENT RELATING TO THIS CHAPTER: "Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed." Herman Melville – American novelist and poet – 1821-1891

Last Updated: 04-10-2020

XxXxX

HARRY POTTER AND A FAN-FIC WRITER'S VEXATIONS

PART ONE – POVERTY

XxXxX

Thoughts about Harry Potter – Things brought up by Reviewers that Got me Thinking

I like to harp that people should read my author's notes because it often has important stuff relative to the fic. Well I started having lots of thoughts due to various things. Some of it has been on-going. Some, I think are because anytime you start a fic (like Spider-Mage) and Harry ends up at Hogwarts for the first time, you look at the series again and begin to wonder about things. These thoughts lead you down interesting paths

I'm sure I'm breaking some rule with this chapter and a few others I've got in the pipe. But I figured it would be better to post them like this than at the end of a chapter like I had prepared to do. If this lights a fire in your belly (or brain) you CAN use the PM feature. I recommend it because I want feedback on this. Or review; either way.

XxXxX

They Did What?!

Why is good editor is important? Because they hopefully catch you from making mistakes that make no sense. A reviewer of Chapter 2 of Spider-Mage brought up possible reasons why the Weasleys might be on the Muggle side of Kings Crossing in Book One. The problem is that in trying to refute a possible Manipulative!Dumbledore scene, it brought up even MORE inconsistencies in Harry Potter canon.

One of the main points about this is the obvious. Why didn't the Weasleys do what you expect all magical families to do? That being flooing into Platform 9¾. Simple, direct and no danger to the Statute of Secrecy. One possible reason might that floo powder is expensive? And when discussing the ramifications of whether or not this might be true is where things began to go off the rails.

First off, if floo powder was so expensive, one would think there would be a Magical version of the telephone. Why? Well if floo powder was expensive, why is it used for transportation and communication? Given the existence of the Wizarding Wireless, I would think a magical telephone system would be a snap.

I do, however, see that it would probably be like the early days of telephones where you'd call up a magical operator and they'd connect you. Especially if local wards might interfere with the signal. (This brings up a long-standing debate on shields in Fantasy and Sci-Fi: if light and radio waves can get through, shouldn't attacks using those [like lasers] also get through? One of those "let's just all agree to ignore that" things I think.)

Also, who uses the floo? Before we can answer this question, we have to know how far Magicals can apparate. Now I don't think we have a canon answer to this. Fanwankmore...uh I mean Pottermore and other sources go with the answer that it depends on the distance traveled, the power of the Magical and how well known the destination is. So one would expect if Ottery St. Catchpole isn't considered far, apparating to work would get easier for Arthur the longer he works in the Ministry. That he could do so would seem to be possible given that Hermione apparated from the Burrow to Tottencourt Road in Book 7.

BTW, how many readers caught that not only did she apparate from the around Essex to London that she did it TAKING HARRY AND RON WITH HER! So essentially, she did a side-along apparition with TWO extra people. I'm not sure, but I think it's implied in canon that it's difficult but again, I think in canon the only other person we see do it is Dumbledore and that's not a good example. A lot of fics show that being dangerous and only a few wizards could manage it. Well once again, Hermione Granger: Like. A. Boss!

So one would expect people to apparate directly to work, but that's not what we see in canon! Now we see people flooing to work; why? My answer is something I broached in Paging Dr. Bell: the floo is an 'officially approved' hole in wards. You can't just apparate into the Ministry due to the Wards. This would also be borne out by the need to "flush" oneself into the Ministry.

Of course this brings up another inconsistency. Instead of having to flush oneself, why not have a designated apparition point outside the main wards which you'd jump to and then walk through a guarded entry point? (Like I have in HP and the Thin Blue Line) Once again, the lack of an editor to point all this out is telling. Also, if the exit point of the "flush" is the floo, why not have people floo from home? Or if that is a security risk (and it would be) once again, why not have a designated place to apparate to and THEN floo in from there. In fact, given St. Mungo's is in London, why not have the main apparate to point be close and connected there? Obviously for various reasons, I can see a hospital would be someplace you'd want people to be able to apparate to directly.

Also, if we're back to the first question. Is floo powder expensive? If it is, why have it where the Ministry, who apparently employs a LOT of people, have to use it to get to and from work every day? That's an absurd cost. Far better to have people apparate (or use other means) to get to the designated security area, get checked by guards and even go through a Thief's Downfall while taking the elevator (or a slide) down to the Ministry. If people want to floo from the Ministry, they'd have to pay out of pocket for the privilege.

Plus, don't you think people wouldn't get a tiny bit curious that every workday morning that a bunch of business types went to the bathroom but never come out? Do they 'unflush" at the end of the day? Because if so, wouldn't a bunch of people suddenly coming out of a bathroom be just as weird? It's just another "cutesy" thing JKR did that makes NO sense in a larger context, especially relating to the Statute of Secrecy.

(BTW, a good point I saw made in in the fic Divided and Entwined by Starfox5 is during the Cold War, having people disappear off the grid at age 11 and then suddenly reappearing later would set off a lot of warning signs to the intelligence community This would also apply post 9-11. Having a bunch of people go to the same building every day and up and disappear for 8 hours or so would be noticed.)

Back to the floo, one would assume kids who can't apparate, late-stage pregnant witches and the elderly would be ones to use the floo. Even if floo powder is expensive, the Weasleys only have to save up for a few trips depending on the school year. A typical school year would require four trips and Molly & Arthur should be able to apparate home. And if the kids stay at school at Christmas, then that is a 2-trip savings. I can't see floo being that expensive that this would be that much of a burden. Plus we have no idea how hard to make a Portkey costs. I'm sure they are regulated and maybe hard to make given while we saw Dumbledore make one easily, well he's Dumbledore. That being said, it is an option given you don't have to use it very often.

So then we get to another bigger question. In The Prisoner of Azkaban, the Ministry sends 3 cars to transport the Weasleys and Harry to King's Cross due to the danger of Sirius Black. Yet in the Goblet of Fire, Molly Weasley ends up calling up 3 taxis to get the family to King's Crossing because the Ministry wouldn't send magical cars like they did the year before.

First off, why did they need to do this in the first place? Even if the Ministry still felt Sirius Black was a threat, Harry and Ron know he's not as does Dumbledore. Voldemort hadn't been seen since the end of Book One so why didn't they floo? Even if it's expensive, Harry could help out given a paragraph in Book One implies that enough coins to fill a small bag is enough, in Hagrid's own words, to tied Harry over for a few years. (this line brings up the constant inconsistencies in Magical money and costs but that's more in line with my next bit farther down)

Anyway, we know the Weasleys are poor. Maybe floo powder is expensive. But you know what else is expensive? A 3-hour taxis ride from Devon County to London! Now if you assume Ottery St. Catchpole as being in roughly the same location as Ottery St. Mary, you get a trip of over 3 hours. Using today's taxis rates from Google and an "official" galleon to pounds converter and assuming (because I'm too lazy to look it up) a party of 6 (Molly, Ginny, Ron, the Twins, and Harry) the total trip would cost around 350 galleons!

Given that the Weasleys wouldn't drop 7 galleons to buy Ron a new wand, the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT TOOL for a wizard shows how big of an error this is even if it's just one throw-away bit in one chapter in a large series.

That and it shows Molly is as much of an idiot regarding the Muggle world as Arthur given taking a train from Devon county directly to Kings Crossing would have been the quicker and cheaper option anyway. Even that is a lot of money. Taking a taxi to Exeter would cost 33 galleons while one-way tickets for six would cost 50 galleons. (These estimates are using a £4.63 to a galleon pricing) Even if you use US inflation rates as a guide, it would still cost 47 galleons for the taxis/train option and 200 galleons for the taxis only to London option.

XxXxX

Why are the Weasleys Poor?

Of course the Weasleys are poor is something I've wondered about for a long time, in some ways going back to the late 70's and 80's due to how I would wonder how a magical economy work in my D&D campaigns.

Before we go on, I'd like to bring the idea (which has been written about a lot by other people) that JKR's magical money system is totally and completely insane and unworkable. For the purpose of the following, I want to remind people that by the "official" currency converter, Sickles are $0.39 cents and Knuts are roughly $0.013 cents. So when we see the contents of the Weasley faults, the amount shown could be as little as $6 American.

Think on that. How could any family or person survive with so little? We don't see credit cards or other bank drafts. So unless Molly had money she brought with her, then the Weasleys aren't just poor, they almost have nothing.

But why is this? We know Arthur has a decent Ministry job. I'm going to assume he can apparate to London. I'm also going to assume Floo powder can't be that expensive given it's used not only for transportation but also communications via floo-calls. (See above)

Give its location, it's a good assumption that Arthur owns the land of the Burrow given that both he and Molly are pure-bloods which implies an old family who probably have a little land. Even with the issue of families having to split land over time for kids, the fact that there is such a space between the Burrow and the Rookery implies there is not a land crunch. (Though you might expect one give time and the 57+ million Muggles in the UK.)

So a Magical family like the Weasleys don't have to worry about bills like cable, phone, internet, or utilities like electricity. So what would they have to spend money on? They can magic up water and banish wastes so that part of utilities is covered. (That and we know the Burrow has water near it in canon) Heating & Cooling is probably done mostly through charms built into the house. (Which brings up is an interesting question, if you transfigure something into wood, can you burn it? If so, instead of banishing garbage, use it for fuel!) The Weasleys live on a farm so a lot of their food is home grown.

So except for a almost certain monthly tax to the Ministry for their floo connection, a subscription to the Daily Prophet and food they don't grow/make themselves, what are the Weasleys spending money on? Arthur's car aside (which he shouldn't have) Wizards don't have cars so there is fuel and insurance costs they don't pay. Given the lack of world-building by JKR outside of Hogwarts, we don't even know if Magical wizards have a form of cinema or even the theater! (We presume they would.) Still, think on all the things we pay for in the modern world and most of it isn't something the Weasleys would have to pay.

A case could be made for the money going to land rent, but again, while that would explain a lot, it doesn't mix well with what we see in canon. But it is a good explanation given Arthur is the youngest son of a family noted (at least in fanon) of having big families. OTOH, it is implied Arthur is the first in a long line of Weasleys that is where he is. Again, there are a lot of ways we could fan-wank it AND given it's 2020, it's getting really hard to remember what is canon and fanon. Frankly, I don't think JKR does either. =)~

Even if things like clothes and the like are more expensive (and you would expect them to be) the trade off in the Magical world is they come with charms to make them stay cleaner longer, be more resistant to stains and the like. Certainly having lots of kids doesn't help but until Ginny came around, hand-me downs would mostly work. Also, one could think that people could make their own clothes and only have to pay an expert to do the long-term charms on them. Plus, I don't sew or anything, but "wizard's robes" which are the primary bit of clothing in canon (unlike the movies) don't seem that hard to make. (Wizard clothing is a subject for the next Vexations piece.)

So again, one has to wonder why are the Weasleys poor? JKR herself says that Hogwarts tuition is free (which I do not agree with ) so in canon (at least) that is another thing the Weasleys don't have to pay for. They don't have to be wealthy, but it just seems odd that they are dirt poor (unless Arthur has a gambling problem we don't know about) when his upper Middle-class job should easily pay for his family.

This is especially true given if you peg the Magical world as being way behind the Magical one, Arthur's job is still important. Think about what a department head (even of a minor department) probably made in Victorian time. You figure it's a damn sight better than one might expect some shop keeper in Diagon Alley to make, that's for sure! Historically, government jobs are seen as a ticket to a good life and Arthur has one!

Also, if they were dirt poor, why the hell aren't Bill and Charlie being good sons and sending money home? With that possible extra source of income, the lack of bills, Arthur's job, it just doesn't make sense for the Weasleys to be so poor that they'd be unwilling (or unable) to buy Ron a wand.

Also, given the more conservative nature of the Magical World, one would expect that there would be pressure for both Bill and Charlie to marry. While both have dangerous jobs, the trend in HP is for Magicals to marry early. That can be fan-wanked (and I do) but even poor, both Head Boy turned Curse Breaker Bill and Quidditch Star turned Dragon Wrangler Charlie seem like good catches to me! So one would expect some family would want to cough up a decent dowry so their daughter doesn't end up with the likes of Stan Shunpike. That they are pure-bloods has to help as well. I mean how many pure-bloods are left after Grindelwald and Voldemort Phase I conflicts?

Also, as I've mentioned in author's notes and made a plot point in a fic or two, why are the Weasleys so inept when it comes to Muggles? The UK isn't like the US with vast stretches of land you can hide out from the Muggles. No, you're going to be on top of them pretty much anywhere you go in England. (The main reason that comes to mind is the REFUSE to mingle which sadly is probably true given how we know how the Prewitt's squib accountant cousin is treated. And these are the LIGHT wizards!)

My father came from a poor, rural family the same size of the Weasleys and all of them worked a LOT growing up. So why hasn't someone like Ron been out making money mowing lawns or other odd jobs? If the kids are needed for agriculture on the Weasley land, that would imply a lot of work (given there are around 4 kids on average of working age at the Weasley home at any given time) and thus more produce which could be sold in town. (I'm assuming the UK has plenty of farmer's markets.) So you'd expect the Weasley kids to be used to being around Muggles, used to taking their money which Arthur probably exchanges at work.

Also, going by "official" Muggle money to galleon converters, at current rate, Ron's wand would cost £34.51. Going with the rate of inflation used earlier, his wand would be closer to £18. I find it hard to believe that Ron himself couldn't be doing enough side-hustles growing up that he couldn't make that prior to going to getting his wand.

I know if I had some 5th Grader offered to weed my lawn, I'd cheerfully pay him $5. I'd pay him more if wanted to wash my car. Maybe I'm biased due to being exposed to Where The Red Fern Grows at a very early age, but it seems doable to me. Plus depending on their income, you could see the Weasley kids helping out at the Rookery or whatever the Diggory's home is called. (Assuming Cedric was an only child, that is.)

(That right there is another big of a mystery. Given the Quibbler is seen as a joke and thus probably doesn't have the readership UK and US tabloids have, unless Xenophilius has lots of "old" money, the Lovegoods should be even poorer than the Weasleys!)

Plus, given you have to have a wand to do magic, why not just include the cost of the wand as part of Hogwarts tuition if it's "free" as JKR says? (Sorry, I REALLY hate it when things like this are free. Hogwarts' tuition wouldn't be free; it's paid for through taxes, just like regular schools are. That doesn't make it free.) Actually the idea that Hogwarts' is paid through taxes makes some sense because, again, if money was involved you could be damned sure all the old-money Pure-bloods would ensure Hogwarts was the elite school and then there would be another school for everyone else. That there isn't does imply everyone goes to the same place. (Even so, I think tuition makes more sense for various reasons)

Another reason to have a wand as part of paid schooling is without it, you get what you see in canon, EVERY Muggleborn coming in would do so with a brand new wand when some pure-bloods like Ron have an older, legacy wand that may be in poor condition. On general principles, the Malfoys might not like the Weasleys but I can't see them not ensuring they'd have wands on the same level as Muggleborns.

Also the "no magic at home" makes NO sense for the Weasleys or any magical home for that matter. The Burrow is a magical home with magical adults with magical children under what you'd assume have outer Muggle repelling wards. It doubly makes no sense if the Weasleys are as cut off from Muggle life as is implied by canon. Given it would be VERY obvious to any Muggle that the Burrow isn't visible without some magic or high-tech thing to make it work, then you'd expect that due to the Statute of Secrecy, the Burrow would be REQUIRED to have Muggle repealing wards. If that is the case, then who cares if the kids do magic? The 'do magic' every time they go play Quidditch so what's the issue of them using wands?

Now, imagine how much magic might make it easier to do various crafts like knitting and the like. I think that rule was simply so none of the kids could use magic to clean Grimmauld Place. Another little bit thrown in just to make one scene work that totally messes up the actual mechanics of the world.

Anyway, the movies showed some needles knitting themselves. So the kids could be making all sorts of crafts and if any magic is needed, Molly would be able to do that. So not only could they be selling food from "Weasley Family Farm" but also various things like knitted pot-holders, caps, wood crafts and the like. Also, if magic can have knitting needles work themselves and pots get scrubbed similarly, this frees Molly's time up to do a lot of other things that could help make money.

So again, why are the Weasley dirt poor except as only a cheap plot point?

XxXxX

Fan-Wank Yourself out of a Plot Hole

So what if the Weasleys really aren't dirt poor? What if there is something different at work; something to do with perception? Once again, I think we need to think about the Magical economy. I'm betting you would rapidly get a divide of who is rich and poor not by the actual total in the bank exactly, but how you use it.

So while the Weasleys aren't rolling in galleons, they do just fine. They can provide for themselves just fine. However, let's think about how people with more money would see that, especially over time. Take the Malfoys; can anyone see them doing lick of work? They have house-elves to do any menial work and they pay others to create stuff for them. They are the epitome of the idle rich who really have no concept of how most people live.

I see families like the Malfoys being in the traditional European mode of landowners who make the bulk of their money on rents. Others work in the shops on the land own, they eat the food from the farms on the land they own and so forth. They use their money like venture capitalists and I'm betting if they lose money, they con/bribe the Ministry to bail them out somehow. So except for certain hobbies, elites like the Malfoys don't do squat. I really liken their life to being like what you see in the film Dangerous Liaisons. In fact, I can easily see Narcissa and Lucius acting like how Glenn Close and John Malkovich's character act. You know, sit around all day and ruin people's lives for the fun of it.

That the Weasleys have to (shudder) make their own things is seen as a sign they are poor. They aren't and it could be argued that the Malfoys are "wasting" money by not doing similar things. I'm betting except for hobbies; it would be seen as crash for these elites to actually do something that might be sold. It's telling that before the Industrial Revolution, being in manufacturing (again, actually making things!) was seen as very low class no matter how needed.

This also, I think, shows why people like Arthur and Remus are so proud and don't like 'charity' given they grew up with the likes of the Malfoy's looking down at them. But to them, the very things the Draco mouths off about are a great source of pride to them. That they don't need Gringotts or the Ministry and the like. They can get by on their own if needed. I touched on that a bit with thoughts from a "Scrub" Weasley in Chapter 2 of HP and the Thin Blue Line. A Weasley might be seen as poor, but they own their land, don't owe any bank and they aren't beholden to anyone they don't agree to enter in with.

I could see one of the reasons that Aunt Muriel is such a pain is House Prewitt has old money and the like and thus Muriel looks down on Arthur and thinks Molly could have married better. That a Black married a Weasley (even a potentially better off one) is then seen less of a Light House vs. Dark House thing and a lot more of a witch from an elite house marrying way below her station. OTOH, you could see it from Cedrella Black POV. Maybe she didn't want a "Dangerous Liaisons" life of dinner parties, and long walks and the like but actually wanted to do something with her life.

This also shows how quickly a old House could spiral down if things went bad. You figure the Malfoys are fucked after the end of Battle of Hogwarts given you can bet they are going to probably lose most of what they own to pay reparations. The "kitchen witch" type families can get by without money, but can you see how screwed the Malfoys would be with little money, no house-elves and maybe a plot of land similar to the Weasleys? They'd probably starve the first winter.

XxXxX

Some thoughts on Accents in Harry Potter

This bit isn't a 'vexation' but more of something I found while researching various things. So we have Hagrid's think accent which is designated as "a heavy West County accent" What I found interesting was his specific West Country comes from the area around the Forest of Dean.

Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

Anyway, why I'm lumping these thoughts in with poverty is due mostly to some BBC shows, the West County accent is often associated with farming which ties in to the sort of dirt-poor scrub farmer riff that JKR labels the Weasleys with...even if she doesn't actually show them being like they would if they actually had more of a farm. So if I'm reading this right, the West County accent is sort of how we might see a Mid-West accent or other accent associated with working class and poor.

For you see, the Weasleys canonically are from the West County. The issue is exactly where because it will affect how they talk. If you go with my idea of Ottery St. Catchpole being near real life Ottery St. Mary, their accent is going to be right at the boundary of all of these West Country group of accents: West County, Somerset and Devonshire. Where I place it, it's closer to a West County accent. More canonical sources put it in Devon, near Exeter which would place it withing the Devonshire West County accent.

It was interesting to learn WC Accent types say the R in words more like Americans (in that they say them) but all the Weasleys, like Hagrid would say 'ouse instead of House.

The Below are rough estimates from various online sources of the difference between where the characters grew up to where the movie actors did in terms of an accent.

Harry Potter: Surrey – Supposedly a "rough broad" London area accent. It is worth noting his Aunt Petunia would have a working-class Black Country mid-lands accent. OTOH, being the noted social climbers the Dursleys are, you can bet they affect the best accent that they suspect will get them ahead and that would probably be what Harry grew up hearing.

Daniel Radcliffe: Wow! Is his accent a mess! He's was born and educated in the London area but his mother is Jewish born in South Africa but raised in Essex. His dad is from Ireland. So wow, is he going to have a weird accent.

Hermione Granger: In canon, she's from London. I have her growing up in Winchester but going to school for quite some time in London. She would have a South-East accent from the South accent group.

Emma Watson: Oddly enough, even though she grew up in Paris till she was five, her mother and her lived in an area that has the South-East accent! So her accent in the movie could be very spot on to where I have her growing up!

Rupert Grint: Essex (Voted sexiest English accent supposedly)

Ronald Weasley: As mentioned above, depending where you put Ottery St. Catchpole is going to effect. So presumably if you listen to an interview with Chris Martin, lead singer of the band Coldplay, you'd get a representation of what Ron and the rest of the Weasleys should talk like if you stick with the Exeter area accent.