Fred and George and the Toilers of Trouble (Year 1) ✔

Q & A: Blood Status

I know there are a lot of questions, and I will get to them...but a few weeks ago, a *HUGE* comment popped up at the beginning of the book and I'm finally going to address it here. But let me preface that by pointing to the nature of sequels, requels, and prequels – and the current trend in Hollywood when it comes to revisiting popular stories after many years of absence, which I'm essentially doing.

Let's take Star Wars as an example. The difficulty you face when bringing an established franchise back into the public is that you're dealing with very familiar (even expected) themes. Heroes and villains have been established, and we typically know the side for which to root. The wise decision in that moment (to re-engage your audience) is to flip things on their head by challenging established story elements. The most recent trailer for THE LAST JEDI did this brilliantly by ending with Luke Skywalker saying that "the Jedi have to end". Uh...what? Last we heard from Lukey...in RETURN OF THE JEDI... the Jedi, you know, returned... So...WHAAAT???

Voila, we are engaged!

Here's a semi-random pic of Tom Felton on Pottermore, being sorted into Gryffindor House. You are now, most-likely, engaged.

JKR is doing something similar in her five-movie saga of FANTASTIC BEASTS, which has set the viewer up to recognize, as Newt visits North America, that magic is not exactly what we thought it was. Or, at least, the politics of magic and protection of its creatures. The enemy, Gellert Grindelwald, will most likely veer the story toward the struggle to overcome a prejudice of Muggle-Wizard relations. This was already touched on when Newt suggested that Americans had strange beliefs, and how they aren't allowed to marry Muggles. This has very clear undertones of racism. JKR further tried (and I mean tried) to create a separation of old content and new by changing the lexicon and describing the non-magical as "No-Maj" instead of "Muggle". And, go ahead and make up your minds about that, but, personally, I think it's extremely pointless.

Where did No-Maj come from?

Well, it's how the Americans say it. Even Daniel Radcliffe agrees. See, Mike... silly Mike... what you fail to realize is that the established language of one people group can, and will, change when a colonizing culture adapts to a new surrounding and thusly develops their own new slang and descriptors. Therefore, the European "Muggle" is dropped for the Americanized "No-Magic" or "No-mag". Sorry, I meant "No-maj." Language doesn't travel well, Mike. Haha. Silly, ever silly Mike.

Okay, then what do you call someone who was born to a magical family, but cannot do magic?

Uh...they call them "Squibs".

How peculiar... Why did *that* language travel when "Muggle" did not?

Uh...uhm...er... Because. Yes! Because! Because JKR said so. That's my answer.