Your History Books are Wrong About the Black Death

   When I was in elementary school, I read that the cause of the Black Death, which I thought to only really affect Europe, was the Bubonic Plague spread by rats and fleas. "Ring Around the Rosie" is famously said to refer to the Black Death. And that was that. This is the probably the case for most of you as well. Most people don't think all that much about it. "Black Death" and "bubonic plague" are often used simultaneously. We all have higher standards of living now, so we're all safe, right? No need to ever think about it.

   Well...

   Fast forward to last year (last decade, technically), but really only a few months ago. I was about to start researching my presentation in my college Western Civ class about the Black Death when my mom read an article by a UK doctor about how some vaccines simply fail to produce antibodies in some people, and he brought up, in a somewhat related topic, how the Black Death most likely was not the bubonic plague at all, but some sort of viral illness.

   Given that I was about to prepare a presentation on this subject, I was very intrigued. I, my mom, and everyone else I'd ever talked to had been told that the Black Death was definitively the bubonic plague, no questions asked, end of story. And while there is a slight possibility of that being the case, the evidence is heavily against it.

   First of all, some basic facts about the Black Death:

   

• The Black Death was just as disastrous as are the calculated effects of nuclear war, devastating populations throughout Europe, Africa, and the Middle and Near East, stretching as far as Greenland, and possibly as far as India and China
• An estimated 33% of the European population died of the disease
• The Black Death wiped out entire villages, killing as high as 1/2 to 2/3 of the population in some countries
• The Black Death's mortality rate was almost 100%, killing almost all if not all of those infected with the mysterious disease

   While widely reported to come from Asia because rats infected with Y. pestis, or bubonic plague, live in the steppes of Central Asia, the first documented cases of the Black Death were in Kaffa in 1347 in Crimea. Though the origins of the war that spawned it all are too complicated to get into here, basically, Catholics and Muslims around the region and with significant ties to major ports in Italy wound up breaking out into war in the town of Tana, where Catholics and Muslims brawled, with one Muslim being killed. The Mongol inhabitants, being Muslim since the 1200s, threatened the Catholic assailants. The Catholic, and generally Italian, assailants, fled to the nearby port town of Kaffa, with the Mongols following and deciding to lay siege to the town.

   Enter the Black Death.

   Somehow, from somewhere, no one has any clue how, though there are plenty of theories, the besieging Mongol army caught the Black Death. The mysterious disease ravaged their army, although unfortunately for historians, there are no records as to where it could have come from. Not ones to let a bad disease keep them down, the Mongol army decided to catapult the dead and living bodies of victims of the Black Death into the town of Kaffa to spread the disease to the besieged army as well. The inhabitants tried to get rid of the bodies to minimize the spread of disease, but caught the Black Death from the bodies while trying to get rid of them. Interestingly enough, this is also the first recorded case of biological warfare in history.

   The bodies over the wall were the last straw. The inhabitants of Kaffa boarded ships and fled to Italy. Unfortunately, they brought the disease with them. Everywhere their vessels stopped showed signs of infection a week or more later. When inhabitants of these towns began showing signs of symptoms, seemingly healthy residents fled in panic to other parts of Europe, unknowingly showing signs of infection several weeks later and spreading the infectious disease throughout all of Europe. The French port of Marseilles was infected soon after the disease first hit Italy, and, since Marseilles was a major trade hub, the Black Death soon spread throughout all of Europe, throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and possibly much farther. The Black Death was particularly fast-acting and fast-moving. The initial infection was in 1347, and four years later, when the disease reached northern Russia in 1351, the Black Death had already run its course throughout the rest of Europe, completely ravaging the population.

Aw, rats!
   While a disease colloquially referred to as simply "the plague" seems at first glance a perfect fit for the Black Death, one of the most, if not the most, devastating pandemic the world has ever seen, when closer examined, almost none of the evidence fits. The first problems arise with the rats themselves.

via GIPHY

   The problem is, we've witnessed several breakouts of the bubonic plague before, and they have never even remotely resembled what happened in the Black Death. The fact is, rats just don't travel. The Black Death traveled about 4 kilometers or 2.5 miles a day through France, but jumped between towns sometimes 300 kilometers, or 186 miles, apart within just a couple of days. This is much too far for rats or fleas to travel in such a short amount of time. In contrast, the bubonic plague moves very slowly, in India, taking six months to move 300 feet, and in South Africa in 1899, traveling only 20 kilometers a year, even with the aid of trains. The Black Death, however, spread to all of Europe, including Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, England, Greenland, and Russia, North Africa, and the Middle East in just four years. Many of these cold-weather places are not conducive to widespread rat populations at all. Furthermore, fleas are known to like rat bodies much more than human bodies, and documented outbreaks of the bubonic plague, including recent ones in Arizona and New Mexico, were preceded by a massive, incredibly noticeable, die-off of rats. Not only is a significantly higher number of dead rats not reported in any contemporary documents, there are very few rat skeletons to be found in any 14th-century sites. And to top this all off, the Black Death in London is documented to have arrived in November and reached its height by April, spreading very quickly throughout the winter months when rats and fleas are most dormant. The Black Death also spread throughout many very cold regions, such as Norway, Iceland, Greenland, and Russia, all places not very friendly to fleas or rats.

The "filth" commonly cited wasn't everywhere the Black Death was

   Let's assume there was a species of super-rat that lived in the 14th century that traveled at almost Flash-like speeds around the world, taking their superfleas with them, then massively dying off by the thousands, instantly vanishing when dead so that no one could ever see their bodies, then or now. Even supposing rats and fleas were capable of traveling this fast and under all climate conditions, where do rats always, always, always breed? In filthy, dirty conditions. And while medieval Europe was indeed a cesspool of filth at the time, not everywhere that the Black Death spread was. In Northern Africa and the Middle East, Islam was and still is the predominant religion by a large percentage. Muslim cities were known for their cleanliness (nowadays, most of the world is much cleaner than before so these cities don't stand out). This is because the founder of Islam, Mohammed, was a bit of a neat freak and wrote daily baths into the religion. All properly Muslim cities were required to have many constantly flowing fountains so that all devout Muslims could bathe regularly. And they did, and clean habits became part of the culture of these regions. Regular bathing and clean habits cuts down majorly on rats, but even more severely on fleas. Regular bathing habits are also a part of the Jewish religion, and the presence of a Jewish population in any of the places in the Middle East or the high population of Jews in Poland that was present there all the way until Hitler came did nothing to stifle the spread of the Black Death.

The symptoms don't match

   You heard me right. The symptoms of the Black Death don't actually quite match the symptoms of the bubonic plague. The incubation period of the Black Death was about 20 to 30 days. This means an infected person could carry the disease in their body for up to 20 or possibly 30 days without showing any signs of infection, but being able to spread it everywhere. This is in contrast to the two to six day incubation period of bubonic plague, but interestingly matches the incubation periods of several incredibly deadly hemorraghic fevers, such as Ebola. Once the infected person began to show symptoms of the Black Death, the victim would suffer pains, fever and delirium, boils, swollen lymph nodes, blotches, vomiting blood, and then death within three days. If infected, a person was almost certain to die, few if any cases being recorded of victims recovering from the horrid disease. These boils were what is characterized as buboes, a common symptom of many diseases, but the symptom which gives bubonic plague its name. However, buboes in the bubonic plague only occur in specific areas such as the groin and hardly ever spread over the entire body while the boils in the Black Death spread over the entire body, and even the swollen lymph nodes swelled in several areas never seen swollen in the bubonic plague. In addition, the Black Death was accompanied by a horrid stench, blotches, and disrupted nervous systems leading to delirium and stupor, none of which are found in the bubonic plague. Blotches all over the body are found, however, in Ebola, where the blood vessels burst under the skin, creating symptoms almost identical to what the medieval communities called "God's tokens". I also mentioned the mortality rate more than once. The mortality rate for the Black Death was almost 100%, but the bubonic plague is extremely curable, and even untreated, the bubonic plague has a mortality rate of only 60%. 

The origins of quarantining

via GIPHY

   Funnily enough, the practice of quarantining originated during the Black Death. In what is now known as Istanbul, officials reported that the disease killed rich and poor equally, no treatments or conditions making any difference in mortality rates. The Black Death killed all it infected equally. The only method that wound up effective in preventing the spread of the disease was quarantine. The city-state of Milan, after hearing reports of the illness sweeping the Italian peninsula, cut themselves off from the rest of the world, ordering their walls closed and allowing very few visitors, as they had significant food stores and multiple wells inside the city. Anyone showing symptoms was barricaded inside their house, and sometimes even burned inside their homes. They managed to wait out the Black Death and not suffer any significant losses. Not a small number of cities, villages, and houses, infected and uninfected either protected themselves from the Black Death or prevented the spread of the disease by staying inside and not leaving. This made the practice of quarantine popular and even invented the word "quarantine". Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but rats and fleas don't honor quarantines. If a rat or a flea saw the red paint on the doors warning people to stay away, he wouldn't see it and go, "Oh, I better not go in there or I'll get sick." And conversely, rats and fleas don't listen to governmental decrees stating they can't leave infected houses or villages or they'll spread disease. If the Black Death was spread by rats or fleas, quarantining wouldn't have worked as rats and fleas don't pay attention to quarantines. Also, many, many contemporary accounts attest that the Black Death was spread through person-to-person contact. If someone touched the living or dead body of an infected person, or anything that came in contact with the infected person, they would most likely get infected too. Like the Black Death, one of the most known hemorrhagic fevers, Ebola, can be spread through any contact with living or dead persons or their things, as it is spread through any bodily fluids, similar to how the common cold spreads. Like the Black Death, an outbreak of Ebola in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Libera from 2013-2015 was kept from infecting the rest of the world by very strict quarantines imposed by world health organizations.

But...but...the scientists and historians argue

   In the late 90s, a group of paleomicrobiologists extracted dental pulp from skeletons in mass graves in France and reportedly found Yersinia pestis, or the bubonic plague. For years, scientists examined skeletons from several grave sites all over Europe and couldn't replicate any of the findings. Finally, in 2010, Y. pestis was found in two teeth from another mass gravesite. Now, this finding is hailed as "proof" that the Black Death was the bubonic plague.
   First of all, these scientists clearly didn't understand one of the first rules of science:
   Science can't prove anything
   This is due to the fact that all science is done through inductive reasoning, which is basically studying what you see and making hypotheses off of that. Because no one can ever have all the evidence or be sure the evidence was collected without any human error, no one can be absolutely sure of any of their hypotheses, but one piece of evidence can disprove a hypothesis, theory, or even scientific law. For instance, there were theories for years that Mars had water canals, upheld by so much evidence that it became a scientific law. However, technology improved, Mars was studied closer, and we found out that these so-called canals were just scratches on telescope lenses and eye fatigue. What a let-down.
   Second of all, the claim that this evidence supports the bubonic plague theory is flimsy at best. The mass gravesite the teeth in 2010 were pulled from was not started until after the first outbreak of the Black Death was over. While it is true that there were outbreaks of the Black Death in isolated areas until the 17th century, this mass grave was used for burying people who died from many mores causes than just the Black Death. DNA in older skeletons is fragile and can be hard to analyze, and diseases can only be found if one knows what one is looking for. All this test "proves" is that two people buried in this gravesite were infected with the bubonic plague at some time over a period of several centuries. After all, people did still get the bubonic plague; it's just not the pandemic-causing killer the Black Death was.

The AIDS mutation
   A mutant form of a protein involved in the immune system called CCR5 arose in northeastern Europe 2,000 years ago​. This mutant form gives protection against diseases such as HIV and AIDS. About 700 years ago, or in the 14th century, the number of Europeans with this mutation rose from 1 in 40,000, which is 0.0025%, to 1 in 5​, which is 20%. This mutation also gives greater resistance to hemorrhagic fevers. Between the 14 and 17th centuries, Europeans grew more and more resistant to the disease causing the Black Death. When tested, however, it was found that the bubonic plague affects people with and without this mutation equally​.

   The Black Death has an incubation period very similar to many hemorrhagic fevers. Ebola victims, for examples, don't show symptoms from five to twenty-one days after infection. The bubonic plague, however, only has an incubation period of two to six days. The symptoms match up more with several different hemorrhagic fevers, as hemorrhagic fevers infect and liquidize all internal organs, essentially dissolving them, causing excruciating pain, such as found in the Black Death victims. This liquidation of internal organs causes a black stinky goo also found in the victims of the Black Death. This goo was basically dissolved organ sludge. I know, disgusting. The quick spread and contact does not correlate with how bubonic plague is known to spread, but is similar to how viral hemorrhagic fevers such as Ebola, yellow fever, and the Marburg virus. DNA evidence in favor of the bubonic plague being the Black Death is flimsy at best, but molecular evidence suggests a viral hemorrhagic fever caused the mutation that increased in frequency dramatically after the Black Death first came to Europe. The Black Death had a much higher mortality rate than the bubonic plague does.
   Sadly, my presentation was not as put together as this blog post, since I had to work with a partner in the project and it was very hard actually getting him to meet with me and devote time to the project. Our presentation got a B, but, since we're both honors students, I know we could have done better. Nevertheless, I enjoyed doing the research for my project, as strange as it sounds. I am a history major after all. I was watching a video the other day about the Ebola outbreak in 2014 and was reminded again of the strong similarities between Ebola and the Black Death. Do I think the Black Death was actually Ebola? Maybe. I do think it was a viral hemorrhagic fever. Ebola could have mutated into a particularly viral strain, ravaged the world for a while, then disappeared. It happened in 1918-1919 with a strain of the avian flu that doctors and scientists still aren't sure why that particular strain was so very deadly. The Black Death could have been a strain of a similar viral hemorrhagic fever that wasn't actually a strain of Ebola. I do not think, though, that we need worry too much about the Black Death ravaging the world again. True, viruses have no cure (at least almost always). But it was shown in 2014 that with careful care and quarantine we can prevent an epidemic from becoming a pandemic. It was pretty scary, though, when the few infected American medical personnel were flown into my former hometown, a fairly small place with a very small airport, because I lived near the CDC in Atlanta, but thankfully, Ebola did not break out in Georgia. I think, with careful handling, most pandemics can be avoided. And, if we're lucky, the particular strain of the Black Death died away like smallpox or became less dangerous like measles.
   Don't just take my word for it, though. Check out my sources and decide for yourself.

• Aberth, J. (2005) The Black Death: The great mortality of 1348-1350. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's​
• Byrne, J.P. (2012) Encyclopedia of the Black Death. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, LLC​
• Cohen, J. (2018, August 30) Can we stop blaming rats for the Black Death? Retrieved from https://www.history.com/news/can-we-stop-blaming-rats-for-the-black-death 
• Dunham, W. (2008, January 30) Black Death did not kill indiscriminately. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-plague-europe/black-death-did-not-kill-indiscriminately-study-idUSN2846871520080130
• Edmonds, M. (2019) How the Black Death worked. Retrieved from https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/black-death5.htm
  
• Kelly, J. (2005) The great mortality: An intimate history of the Black Death, the most devastating plague of all time New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers​
• Kendrick, M. (2019, October 11) My feelings about the vaccine debate Retrieved from https://thevaccinereaction.org/2019/10/my-feelings-about-the-vaccine-debate/​
• MacKay J. et al. (2017) A history of western society. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's​
• Mackenzie, D. (2001, November 4) Did bubonic plague really cause the Black Death? Retrieved from https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17223184-000-did-bubonic-plague-really-cause-the-black-death/#targetText=THE%20DISEASE%20that%20spread%20like,violent%20epidemic%20in%20recorded%20history.&targetText=As%20far%20as%20most%20people,rodents%20that%20jumped%20to%20humans.​
• Slavicek, L. C. (2008). The Black Death. New York: Facts on File, Inc. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=257344&site=eds-live&scope=site​
• Sterlin, J. (2006, January 6). Was Ebola behind the Black Death? Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117310&page=1
• Ziegler, P. (1998). The Black Death. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Alan Sutton.

   Also, here's the video about Ebola that reminded me of my project and inspired me to write this post. 

The Resistance Audio Book is Here!

After five years since publication, the first book of Jaye L. Knight's fantasy series, Ilyon Chronicles, is now available on audiobook! Enjoy this epic adventure through the voice of narrator Lance Rasmussen. Find out more and listen to the sample below. And don't forget to enter the giveaway! You can see the other tour posts here.

About the Book

"Don’t you know? Animals like you have no soul."

Could God ever love a half-blood all of society looks upon with such fear and disdain? Jace once believed so, but when a tragic loss shatters the only peace he’s ever known, his faith crumbles as the nagging doubts he’s tried to put behind him descend on his grieving heart. With them come the haunting memories of the bloodstained past he longs to forget, but can never escape.

Taken from home at a young age and raised to serve the emperor, Kyrin Altair lives every day under a dangerous pretense of loyalty. After her unique observation skills and perfect memory place her into direct service to the emperor, Kyrin finds herself in further jeopardy as it becomes increasingly difficult to hide her belief in Elôm, the one true God.

Following the emperor’s declaration to enforce the worship of false gods under the penalty of death, many lives are endangered. But there are those willing to risk everything to take a stand and offer aid to the persecuted. With their lives traveling paths they never could have imagined, Jace and Kyrin must fight to overcome their own fears and conflicts with society as they become part of the resistance.

Available now on Audible and iTunes!

Haven’t discovered the world of Ilyon yet? Find out more at the official Ilyon Chronicles website!

Book Sale!

Now is the perfect time to get into the series! Starting Friday, November 29th, all books from Ilyon Chronicles will be discounted. You can even get the prequel novella for free! So be sure to check them out on Amazon.

About the Author

Jaye L. Knight is an award-winning author, homeschool graduate, and shameless tea addict with a passion for Christian fantasy. Armed with an active imagination and love for adventure, Jaye weaves stories of truth, faith, and courage with the message that even in the deepest darkness, God’s love shines as a light to offer hope. She has been penning stories since the age of eight and resides in the Northwoods of Wisconsin.

You can connect with Jaye on her website, blog, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Etsy.

About the Narrator

Lance Rasmussen is an audiobook narrator and actor based in Denver, CO. A graduate with a BFA in Acting from Utah State University, and an MFA in Acting from Louisiana State University, he now narrates and produces audiobooks from his home studio while working at various regional theaters across the country. More information can be found at www.lanceras.com. Follow him on Instagram at @LCRasmus. 

Giveaway

Share in the excitement of the release and enter to win one of 3 copies of the Resistance audiobook! Winners will receive a free download code to use on Audible. Open internationally!

a Rafflecopter giveaway

Why Can't We Be Friends?

   They say we're more divided in this country than ever before. While that's obviously not true (see: the American Civil War), it is true that Americans are very divided these days. It's normal and even good to have people in this country that disagree fundamentally, but that advantage of different perspectives goes away when we're never nice to each other. Nowadays, it seems like if two people disagree on certain issues, they're not allowed to still be friends, respect each other's differences, and be kind to each other.

   Take, for instance, the issue of gay rights. George W. Bush is, as Ellen DeGeneres put it, a "conservative Republican president", while she is a "gay Hollywood liberal". Ellen and her partner attended a football game that George W. Bush and his wife were also attending. They sat near each other, chatted, and had a good time, despite the fundamental differences in their beliefs. Ellen was slammed on social media for being friends with George W. Bush. Slammed! For being nice to someone she disagreed with. I myself don't agree with certain of Ellen's personal choices, but I applaud her for refusing to follow the trend of society today and instead acting like a decent human being. She told everyone that we have forgotten that being different is okay and that we can disagree with people and still be friends.

   Ellen is exactly right. I think many people have started to see people that disagree with them, especially people who are white, male, Republican, Christian, or, heaven forbid, all of those at once, are people that hate them, have some sort of agenda against them, or somehow wish harm on them. That kind of thinking is ridiculous! Just because I disagree with Ellen's life choices doesn't mean I hate her or think she's some kind of lesser human being. I applaud her for being able to look past barriers and be friends with someone who is very different from her, even though she probably knew there would be backlash.
   I posted a while ago about enemies. What I said in that blogpost still holds very true today. Maybe I really am idealistic, like my fellow students told me in class yesterday, but I don't see why that idealism has to be a bad thing. Why can't we all strive to be better than we think we can be, to be friendlier, to put aside our differences and get along anyway? Why can't we be different and still be friends? As they have said, don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon. Don't tell me we can't stop focusing on "black" and "white", "white privilege" and "black oppression", on any of the real or perceived superficialities that set us apart and focus on the true person instead. Don't tell me we can't be better than we are. Don't tell me we have to be ashamed of our past to truly change our future. We are more capable of the impossible than we could ever dream. Why is it wrong to dream big?
   The differences that set us apart don't have to divide us. So forget what's possible and just do what's right. You and I can be as different as can be, but we can still get along and be friends.
   So please, let's stop the attacks on people who believe differently than you, who look different or act different, or maybe even believe some of the things you do are wrong. Chances are, they probably don't actually hate you, and would be more than willing to be friends.
   We don't gain anything from fighting and hating each other. Differences don't have to be divisive. Disagree doesn't equal enemy.
 
   Why can't we be friends?

Why I Don't Like Harry Potter (Hint: It's Not the Magic)

  I was never banned from reading Harry Potter as a kid. I remember all the hullaballoo when the last book in the series was coming out and everyone was reading it. The commercials for all the movies were on TV when I was growing up. My mom said if I really wanted to read it, I could. But I didn't. See, I loved fantasy to death, still do, probably always will, but I never was interested in Harry Potter. The commercials on TV for the movies didn't intrigue me, they freaked me out. They looked really dark and they disturbed me. The commercials for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince especially creeped me out. And my mom said she'd read the first book, and while she didn't see the problem with the magic a lot of Christians brought up, she felt that Harry Potter was not a good person, that he used his magic for revenge and the whole book was filled with ends-justifies-the-means philosophy.

   I got older, read a lot more fantasy, and saw the Harry Potter books at pretty much every Goodwill I ever went to. I started watching Studio C and they brought up Harry Potter in several of their sketches. And soon I acquired a new reason I didn't want to bother with Harry Potter: it sounded boring. And completely unoriginal. My sister working at the library saw snippets of the books while gluing them and wasn't intrigued at all.

   Fast-forward to a couple of weeks ago. I'd been tossing around the idea of reading it for a while. After all, it is a cultural phenomenon, and I'd like to understand all the references I can't escape from. And I would like to be able to take a stand in the magic debate over Harry Potter. So I finally bit the bullet and read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

   Oh glory.

   Let's get the magic out of the way: all of the hullaballoo about the magic of Harry Potter is just that. There's nothing about it that makes me uncomfortable. The wizards and witches aren't drawing power from the devil to power their magic. They are born with the ability to do magic. Simple as that. They go to Hogwarts to learn how to do it better, like having a natural talent with the piano and taking lessons to use that and improve. And there is a part of magic that is dark magic that the good characters are not supposed to do, and they only keep stuff about it at Hogwarts so they can know how to defend against it. I think the terminology is mainly what scares most Christians (witches, wizards, and the very word "magic"). The spells that are supposedly "real spells used by real witches" are just Latin or Greek words, sometimes altered a bit or paired to sound better. The only actual "spell" is Avada Kedavra, which is the original form of, you guessed it, abracadabra. Apparently the original purpose was to cure illness and J.K. Rowling twisted the meaning a little to suit her book purposes. It might be lazy writing, but it's certainly not actual witchcraft. If the magic was the sole mark against the book, I would have no qualms handing this book to a small child.

   But of course it's not just the magic. That wasn't the reason my mom didn't like it, after all. And it's not the reason I didn't like it, either.

   Here we go. (Spoiler warning, by the way. Don't read any further if you don't want the book spoiled for you.)

via GIPHY

   The first chapter is completely pointless. It doesn't need to be there. All the information in it is shared again later in the book. It doesn't even really have the main character in it. It serves no point and could have been cut completely.

via GIPHY

   Also, the way Dumbledore handled the whole thing with Harry's custody was completely horrible. If he was just going to leave Harry to be raised by Muggles anyway, why did he send Hagrid to get Harry before the officials could arrive at the scene only to dump Harry on the Dursley's doorstep and go away? If Dumbledore was going to knock on the door and explain to the Dursleys everything that happened, maybe consider actually telling them about the death of their family in person, delivering Harry like that might have made sense. But no, he just wrote a letter and left a baby on a literal doorstep, expecting everything to be all right. If he had just left Harry to the Muggle foster care system, Harry might have ended up with relatives or a foster family that actually wanted him. At the very least, the Dursleys would have had to choose to take Harry in, which might have made them a little less resentful towards him.

   Once we finally get to truly meet the main character, we are clobbered over the head with how abused Harry is and how we need to feel sorry for him. Well, I don't. No, the Dursleys aren't all that nice to Harry, but they aren't really that abusive, either. So he sleeps in a closet. Big deal. He's fed and clothed, and the worst abuse he gets is from bullies at school, which happens to too many kids to make him an object of pity. Percy Jackson was abused much more by his stepfather than Harry ever is by his family. Compared to him, Harry's doing pretty great.

   And you know what? I'm just going to say it. Harry Potter doesn't have much of a personality.

   

via GIPHY

   Yeah, yeah, I know, he's the main character, but he's a cardboard cutout with a scar and an undeserved talent and a tendency to jerkiness and bad behavior. Never once in the whole book does he do anything remotely heroic. And actually, he's kind of a brat.

   Sure, Dudley's a spoiled brat, but Harry's no better. The first time we see poor wittle orphan Harry actually do something, he's screaming at his uncle to give him his letter. He didn't even try asking nicely, no, simply resorted to screaming at the top of his lungs. He's sarcastic and rude, and he's frankly horrible. Once he learns about the existence of magic, he immediately is drawn to a book all about curses and is upset when Hagrid drags him away from it because he wants to learn how to curse his family. He develops an immediate hatred of Draco Malfoy even though he hadn't done much yet except be a snob. Harry hopes throughout the year that Draco will get expelled or fail his exams.

   Harry constantly sneaks around and breaks the rules, sometimes just so he can show Draco Malfoy up. Even when he's not sneaking out to duel with Draco Malfoy, he's meddling in things that are none of his business. He doesn't need to know anything about the attempted thefts at the Gringotts bank. He's a kid, and if the adults aren't telling him things, that's because it's none of his business. There's only one point in the book where he actually considers following the rules, and that's portrayed as a bad thing. (Thank goodness Harry snapped out of it! Imagine if he actually considered properly respecting authority!) That's one of the worst things about it. There's nothing wrong with kids making mistakes and learning from them, breaking the rules and being punished. But Harry never actually is punished. When a teacher tells the kids to stay on the ground and not fly around to prevent injury to themselves and others, Harry gets in a fight with Draco Malfoy, is caught flying pretty high up in the air, and, when pulled aside by the teacher, doesn't get scolded at all. No, the teacher breaks the rules herself to reward him by putting him on the quidditch team, even though first-years aren't allowed on the quidditch team. When Harry breaks many, many rules by breaking through all the defenses for the sorcerer's stone (mostly by using his friends, because apparently Harry is incapable of doing any actual magic besides flying), he's not punished. Not even a "you delayed Voldemort so good for you, but you also broke many rules, so you're also going to be punished, because rules are there for a good reason and we don't want you getting the idea you can break them whenever you want." No, Harry gets rewarded. Rewarded! For breaking the rules and hurting his friend. Sure, Dumbledore, Harry's a real hero.

   That leads to another bad thing: Harry is a teacher's pet, and one of the biggest Mary Sues I've ever seen. He's such a teacher's pet that he concludes the one teacher that doesn't like him must be allied with Voldemort and trying to kill him, when really that teacher was trying to save his ungrateful life. Everybody but Snape loves Harry. Harry is rich and famous. Harry's very talented with magic. Harry's parents were great wizards. Harry defeated Voldemort as a baby and almost killed him. Harry saved the Sorcerer's Stone. (Actually, Harry endangered the Sorcerer's Stone. The Mirror of Erised was the only way to get it, and Quirrel couldn't get it when he looked into it. Even with all the other defenses gone, it was still well-protected until Harry blundered in.) Harry got into the best magic school out there without even applying. Harry's in the best house in said school. Harry was given an invisible cloak and the best broomstick out there by his teachers. Harry won the quidditch game. Sure, Harry flubbed it up by being caught breaking the rules, but he won the house championship anyway by breaking the rules again. And Harry defeated Voldemort (again!) by doing absolutely nothing (again!) because his mother loved him very much and that means evil people can't touch him. Or something. (Which doesn't make much sense, but most things in this book don't make sense.) Most of the teachers love him. Dumbledore gave him an invisible cloak. Yes, his father used to own it, but did it never occur to Dumbledore that maybe he should wait until Harry is older and more mature to give him such a powerful gift with such potential for abuse? And the whole quidditch thing is ridiculous. Quidditch is supposed to be hard and take hard work to get good at. But special little Harry, who's never even heard of quidditch until a few weeks ago, can fly and play and be the best Seeker Hogwarts has ever seen just because apparently his dad was good at quidditch.

via GIPHY

   Skill with quidditch or soccer or any other sport can't be passed down through genetics like a good nose or a nice singing voice. And just because Harry has some talent doesn't mean he should be able to master a sport like that. It should take him years of training and strategy and practice and actually working out to get a skill level like that in a sport, or in anything, really. I have some talent with the piano, but it took eleven years of lessons to get to the skill level I'm at today. And if I have kids, they aren't going to be able to just sit down at the piano and play Maple Leaf Rag just because I can play it after many years of practice. It doesn't work like that in the real world and it shouldn't work like that with Harry, either.

   But don't worry, haters of Mary Sue-ness and magic in general. Aside from the flying and one accident with a snake, Harry performs no magic whatsoever in the book at all. He's shown attempting a grand total of one spell, and that's an epic failure. Ron's the one that defeated the troll, and Hermione's the one that unlocks the doors and stops poor Neville from doing the right thing, and Ron wins the chess game, and Hermione solves the puzzle. All Harry does is play the flute badly and meddle in things that are none of his business. Oh, and live. The Boy Who Lived is very good at living. I can't believe he's considered the hero in all this. He doesn't even defeat Voldemort at the end. Dumbledore does that. Harry just manages to live long enough to be rescued.

   Let's talk about Voldemort, shall we? Does anyone actually know what he's trying to do? I get that he kills lots of people, and that's not good, but why? What does Voldemort actually want? What is his purpose? Does he want to take over the wizarding world or all of the world or does he just like killing people? Most dark lords have a purpose and a plan, but I really can't figure out what in the world Voldemort was ever trying to do.

   There are other things in the book that are just too convenient. How considerate of Voldemort to wait until Harry had figured out his plan to make his move! He could have made his move any time after he figured out how to calm Fluffy, or any time after he drank the unicorn blood. He could have lured Dumbledore away from Hogwarts with a note any time, but he considerately waited until Harry knew about it so he could warn Dumbledore and follow Voldemort. How kind of him!

   On that note, how in the heck did Quirrel get through Snape's defenses? Harry and Hermione said there was only enough potion in the bottle for one person to drink, and Harry drank it. There was no sign that Quirrel had ever been there.

   Rowling seems to have confused the old writing adage of "Show, don't tell," into "Tell, don't show." Or perhaps she was just being lazy. Very little is actually shown in the story. Hermione figuring out Snape's defense isn't shown. The chess game isn't shown. The quidditch games aren't shown. Harry's "torturous" classes with Snape aren't shown. Hermione actually becoming close friends with Ron and Harry isn't shown (she just says, "There are some things you can't share without ending up liking each other," ignoring the fact that not being hostile to each other anymore and becoming close friends are two different animals). The school's hatred for Harry isn't shown. It's no wonder people say the movie is better than the book. Movies have to show things!

   Then there's the fact that Harry's instinctual magic can only be used via negative emotions, and the fact that Hogwarts is socialist. Don't believe me? They practice collective punishments and rewards for each house. Students don't have demerits, they get points taken away from their houses. If students do something good, points go to the collective house pool. If houses win quidditch games, they add points to the pool. If students are caught sneaking out at night, they lose points from the pool. Gryffindor's legitimate quidditch win is taken away because Harry was caught sneaking around at night. No wonder the students start to hate him. Afterwards, Slytherin wins more quidditch matches, so they win the "house championship", a contest designed to reward houses for being over-all better than all the other houses. Nothing wrong with sports championships, guys. And in the end, in the most contrived happy ending I've seen, Dumbledore steals the championship from Slytherin by giving loads of points to Harry "for courage", Hermione "for logic", Ron "for being good at chess", and a little to poor Neville for actually doing the right thing. So of course Gryffindor wins the cup, not evil Slytherin. Which is another thing. Why is there a bully house at Hogwarts? Hagrid straight up tells Harry, "Oh yeah, all the nastiest magicians come from there and everyone in Slytherin's a jerk." Why even have that house if all it does is encourage bad behavior (even more than the rest of the school)? The demeaning attitude towards Slytherin surely doesn't help matters any. And the demeaning attitude towards muggles is not okay, either. The wizarding world isn't real! Why is J.K. Rowling racist towards anyone that's not a part of it? And Hogwarts isn't the only magic school. Why do they ban people from using their natural talents over the summer or if they're expelled? That seems oppressive and wrong.

   And last but not least, the most stupid thing of all is the fact that the wizarding world is kept secret. Why, Harry asks, doesn't anyone know about magic? Well, Hagrid says, if muggles knew about magic, they'd want to use it to solve all the world's problems. What exactly is the point of having magic if you're not willing to help people with it? What do wizards do when they graduate from Hogwarts? Just help the wizarding world? Go around cursing people that were mean to them? It sounds like a lazy excuse to have the wizarding world a secret, not a good reason. More lazy writing, if you ask me.

   I'll end this with something from the end of the book. The Dursleys come to pick up Harry at the end of the school year. Uncle Vernon doesn't gush over Harry's return and is impatient to leave. Hermione's response? She is "shocked that anyone could be so unpleasant."

via GIPHY

   I'm shocked that anyone could be so unsubtle about how sorry we're supposed to feel for Harry and how awful the Dursleys are(n't).

   Some say that it doesn't get good until the third book, so I might try continuing the series. But I certainly wouldn't recommend this book to anyone, much less give it to a small child. There are a few somewhat entertaining aspects, but they are overwhelmed by the bad writing and bad morals. I can somewhat understand why kids like it, because they don't know any better, but all the people that read this as teens or adults? Why? There's not really that great friendship, and it's not good vs. evil. There aren't good people in this book (besides maybe Neville). Most of it is boring anyway. I just don't understand how this series got so popular. Must have been the marketing.
   (Sorry for the very long post, I had a lot to say, and didn't really think it should be split in two.)

Tolkien vs. Lewis

   I've been a bit busy with college lately, but I wrote this poem between classes the other day, so here you go.

There once were two bookworms
Who stood in the snow
Chatting and smiling
With nowhere to go.

“I think this is Narnia,”
One bookworm said.
“It looks just like the pictures
I have in my head.”

“Oh, no, my dear hobbit,”
The other replied.
“We are stuck in the mountains
Of Caradhras white.

“Can’t you hear the foul voice,
The cruel air on the wind?
If we don't turn back now
We'll by goblins be pinned.”

“I must disagree,”
The first bookworm grew firm.
“The White Witch resides here,
Not great Smaug, the foul worm.

“The bare trees all around,
The spring touch in the air,
I can almost hear bells,
Or spy Tumnus’s lair.”

“Your blindness is only
Eclipsed by your dumbness.
Smaug, that old foul dragon,
Lives nowhere near Tumnus.

“A Balrog lives under
Old Caradhras fair.
Dale is the home
Of the foul dragon’s lair.”

“Well, excuse me for not
Knowing much about Tolkien.
That topic is fit for
No one but old men.

“Give me Aslan and Lucy
And all that good stuff!
No more elves or old folklore.
Who has time for that stuff?”

A confused, lonely bookworm
Looked on from the side.
“Don’t you realize,” he said,
“You don’t have to decide?

“You don’t understand it;
You don’t have to fight.
This can be both those places.
You both can be right.”

The two angry bookworms
Lashed out at the man.
How could they love both
Belov’d fantasy lands?

“There can be no agreement
Betwixt us this day!”
“All right,” said the third man.
“Then have it your way.”

The third man moved on,
Leaving them to their fight;
Two bookworms convinced
That they can’t both be right.

   What do you think? Do you take Tolkien's side or Lewis's side, or do you like them both? Is it possible to be a fan of both Middle-Earth AND Narnia? (jk, of course it is!)

The Biggest Lie About Disney Women

   There are some people out there that claim Disney princesses are not good role models for women because they are apparently all flat, boring pushovers that rely on men to save them. To which I have to say, they must never have watched a Disney movie before. Flat, boring pushovers? Waiting around for men to save them? Let me introduce you to the Disney princesses I know.

Rapunzel

Via Pinterest

  True, Rapunzel didn't physically leave her tower until Flynn Rider climbed up there. But he didn't exactly sweep her off her feet and carry her from her undesirable circumstances. He was simply fleeing pursuit by the authorities. Rapunzel hit him on the head with a frying pan, tied him to a chair, and forced him to escort her to see the one thing she'd always dreamed of. She simply seized opportunity when it came knocking at her, well, window. Would she have left if Flynn Rider hadn't ever climbed into her tower? Maybe not that year, but eventually, she probably would have gotten fed up and left to go fulfill her dream. Rapunzel is a very determined, though naive, woman who doesn't seem to take no for an answer. And let's examine what she did in the rest of the movie: she convinced an entire tavern of terrifying thugs to forgo money and not turn Flynn in to the authorities and not take advantage of a naive sweet girl, but instead help her on her way to her goals. Her winning ways change the heart of Flynn, and, ultimately, she's brave enough to make a huge show of trust in giving him his incentive to escort her safely there and back while waiting to see the lights. She convinces Javert in horse form to leave the desperate criminal he's been hunting alone. Once she sees through her "mother's" lies, she turns her back on her and tries to leave her abusive situation. She is willing to give up her freedom to save Flynn's life. Indeed, in the end, Flynn doesn't save Rapunzel from much at all. She saves his life and changes his heart. (This is not to negate the awesome sweetness of Flynn's sacrificing his life for Rapunzel's freedom. That's still one of the greatest moments in Disney history.) Flat boring pushover? Not here.

Tiana

Via Pinterest

   Tiana kind of got the short end of the stick when it came to movies, but that doesn't detract from what an awesome character she is. In fact, I think she may be my favorite of all Disney princesses. Unfortunately, the theme of her movie seemed to be, "You're not fulfilled unless you have a guy-any guy, but preferably a rich one that can fund your goals." Nevertheless, Tiana is a hardworking goal-driven woman who won't let anything hold her back from what she wants; not the Great Depression, not racism, not a lack of money. She held down several jobs and sacrificed to achieve her dream of opening a Cajun restaurant. She certainly didn't wait around for anyone else to do things for her. I think what Disney meant for her movie to say theme-wise was something like, "Don't let life pass you by," but that's certainly not what the movie portrayed. She didn't give up her morals for the man she married, but definitely deserved better than what she got. Naveen is certainly no role model extraordinaire, but Tiana is pretty great.

Mulan

Via Pinterest

   Although she's technically not a princess any way you cut it, somehow, Mulan wound up on the list of official Disney princesses. Which is nice, because she's pretty great. She doesn't fit in with the expectations of her country's culture for females, and even though she tries to fill them, she always fails. Then her father is called to war, but he's too old and too injured from the last war he fought in, so Mulan sacrifices her own life to save her father's. She masquerades as a man because women aren't allowed in the army, becomes a soldier, defeats the Hun army with her ingenuity, saves her commanding officer's life, then follows her unit after being thrown out for being a female and defeats the remaining Huns, saving the emperor of China and her entire country. She returns to civilian life bringing home honor to her family name and a pretty great guy to boot. Sign me up for the next war!

Pocahontas

Via Pinterest

   Setting aside the fact that the real Pocahontas was eleven and none of the events this movie is based on probably actually happened because John Smith was a serial liar, there's no getting around the fact that this whole story is based on the premise of Pocahontas standing up to her father and saving John Smith's life. This is another story about a young woman standing against what her culture demands of her to do what is right. Never mind the fact that the history is all wrong and the love story was created out of thin air and the animators clearly never set foot in Jamestown in their lives before. Seriously. There are no tall cliffs or waterfalls anywhere in the vicinity. It's a freaking swamp, for crying out loud!

Jasmine

Via Pinterest

   "I am not just some prize to be won!" Jasmine, in the animated movie, is a feisty princess that refuses to marry a stuffed shirt and instead insists on marrying for love. Outrageous demands, right? Well, they seem to be too hard for her father at first, but Jasmine isn't budged. She just sends her tiger after any undesirable suitors. She even tries to send Aladdin packing when he's bungling his words so much he makes it seem like all he cares about with Jasmine is her money. She's brave enough to kiss (gross) Jafar to distract him from Aladdin stealing the lamp back, and is super understanding when Aladdin is revealed to be a street rat, not a prince. She's a brave woman who won't stand for injustice, and that's definitely something we should strive after in this world. Also, she's from one of my very favorite Disney movies, so...

Belle

Via Pinterest

   She's sweet but spunky. She doesn't fit in in her town and longs for more than what her life consists of. She loves books, doesn't care for the handsome jerk, and craves adventure. When her father goes missing, she tracks him down, then trades her freedom for his. Her curiosity gets her in a bit of trouble, which causes the Beast to blow up at her. She storms off, unable to take it anymore, and fights valiantly against a pack of angry wolves. Unfortunately, she's almost unable to fight them off. Thankfully, the Beast comes to her rescue, then collapses. Ignoring the call to freedom, Belle drags him back to his home and her prison, takes care of his wounds, and yells at him for losing his temper. The Beast starts to change, and Belle starts to fall in love with him, but when she sees her father is sick, she leaves to go tend him. She defends her father and the Beast to an angry mob, then races across snowy, wolf-infested woods at night to try and save the Beast from her townspeople. She doesn't arrive in time to participate in the final fight, but she comforts the Beast as he dies. (Spoiler: it doesn't last.) Belle is strong and spunky and feisty. I have a formal Belle dress, and it's amazing. She's amazing. (And so is my sister, who made the dress.)

Ariel

Via Pinterest

   Heheheh...heheheh...yeah...I can't defend her. She sells herself into slavery to a sea witch for a chance to woo a man she met once. Eric is a great guy, but Ariel is a spoiled brat. Definitely not a great role model. Grow up, girl.

Aurora

Via Pinterest

   ...   She seems pretty nice. She can sing and dance and probably cook. But honestly, she spends most of the movie asleep. The fairies and Phillip are the heroes of this movie. Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather are pretty great. They save the entire kingdom, with the help of Phillip, because it was a bit hard for them to fight a dragon by themselves. Sorry, but this one's probably where all the accusations have their birth. There's really not much to her.

Cinderella

Via Pinterest

   I don't care what anyone says, she's much prettier in this than in her ball gown. Cinderella is kind to everyone, even the animals most people consider vermin, and even the evil cat (I'm convinced Walt Disney hated cats). She doesn't complain about becoming a servant to her step family, and doesn't even consider leaving. All she wants is to go to a party, which, considering her depressing life, is quite understandable. When her stepsisters rip up the dress she and her mice friends worked very hard on, she's upset and storms out. After her fairy godmother salvages the evening, she goes to the party and meets a nice young man, whom she doesn't realize is the prince. She goes home after midnight, content to enjoy the memory of her nice evening at the ball. Prince Charming coming to propose to her is just a cherry on top for her, and a victory for her future father-in-law, who had set up the entire ball just so he could have grandchildren. I think she would have been pretty happy without a man coming to "rescue" her. I may be biased, though, since I grew up on this movie.

Snow White

Via Pinterest

   Yes, she literally gets saved by the prince at the end of the movie. I don't care. She's just a kid. She does her best, despite being enslaved by her stepmother just because she's good looking. Then her stepmother sends an assassin after her. Naturally, when the hunter tells her to run, she runs. She always tries to be brave and always tries to be cheerful. After she stops running, she says, "I'm so ashamed of the fuss I made!" As if she should be ashamed of freaking out when someone tells her they were sent to kill her. Then she manages to take care of seven bachelors while in hiding for her life. So she's also a hopeless romantic and a little naive. So what? Girls could learn to be that cheerful.

Then of course there's Merida and Moana, but they don't even have romantic interests.

So what do you think? Are Disney princesses just flat characters only saved by men that would make terrible role models or much more? Who's your favorite Disney princess?