[HPforGrownups] Re: Potter as a Social Commentary?

[Margaret Dean]

No: HPFGUIDX 14696

meboriqua at aol.com wrote:

> I've spoken to people who really don't like JKR getting into the whole
> racism thing, and that she is treading on thin ice there.  I'm not
> sure I agree - I kind of like how she approached the topic of racism
> and injustice.  We all want Dobby and other elves to be free and well
> treated, and we as adults realize the connection between slaves and
> elves, but children may not.  It is a nice introduction for children
> to start to think about how unfairly some people are treated in our
> world.  I'm very curious, though to see where JKR will take the idea -
> the elves we've seen generally do NOT want freedom.  Should they be
> convinced?  Or are they really creatures who, in the magical world,
> relish being owned and serving their masters?

I think she's handling it beautifully, myself, and hope that she
keeps up with the complexity, which is what makes it so
fascinating.

The main question about the house-elves (in my mind, at least) is
how close their nature is to human nature.  Hermione's reaction
to their enslavement is what most of us would consider "right" --
for humans.  And if they are "human" (or maybe I should say
"beings"!) in their nature, then =their= reaction to =her= (apart
from Dobby) is presumably due to cultural conditioning and only
needs education to be ironed out.  But what if it is as much in
their nature to serve humans as it is for, say, cats to chase
rats?  (Interesting that Ron and Hermione were on the opposite
sides in =that= particular conflict!)

And even if not, do house-elves really =want= to be part of the
"rat race" that =only= values work in terms of the money that can
be obtained for it?


--Margaret Dean
  <margdean at erols.com>