percyfan, I must I admit that I haven’t read your argument. Nor will I ever. A few sentences in that I’ve realized that you have continued to fail to grasp my points and make very poor attempts to defend yours. But you have resilient, I’ll give you that.

On a second thought, I will contest you on the second to last point because it enrages me. Umbridge was raped, pure and simple. The content exists on a subtextual level but nonetheless EXISTS. I know that it’s a children’s book, but that explains precisely why J.K.Rowling only implied it. She, as a fantasy writer, knows Greek myths inside out. Anybody would understand that, by including centaurs in such a story, rape would be implied. If she didn’t mean for rape to occur, she should’ve stated so explicitly. Otherwise, she’s failed as a writer. Greek mythology is a part of a fantasy writer’s vocabulary. When you watch a gangster film and hear someone says “I will take care of him” you know instantly that by “take care” that person means “kill”. Not knowing that wouldn’t magically change the character’s intent. He/she wouldn’t go from wanting to kill a person to wanting to draw them a bath because of your ignorance, I assure you. Likewise, the fact that you had no prior knowledge of this part of Greek mythology and therefore misinterpreted J.K.Rowling’s intent does not do away with the story-line. Umbridge did get raped. And anyone with any knowledge about trauma would tell you that her reactions to Ron’s hoof noises in the hospital confirms this theory. As if it wasn’t obvious enough.

Enough. I can safely say that this is so far one of the few debates I have not enjoyed at all.

Harry Potter books are not by any standard fine literature. But their fans sure are some of the most militant people around. Ciao.