The Magic Quill, Hagrid's Prejudice, Triwizard Portkey, Dobby/Harry

[darrin_burnett]

No: HPFGUIDX 40886

Debbie recounted the:

> Exchange between Elkins & Darrin on Hagrid's bigotry:
> 


Elkins wrote:
> > In short, Hagrid is an unthinking bigot.  He is partial to 
sweeping 
> > > generalizations, and he does not stop to consider their 
> > > ramifications.  I would imagine, for example, that he would be 
> > > genuinely hurt to be accused of adhering to the pureblood 
aesthetic 
> > > of the Malfoys and their ilk, even though that is *precisely* 
the 
> > > sort of thinking that his comments all too often reflect.
> > > 


I wrote:
 
> > Hey, Hagrid has his own prejudices and quirks, but he certainly 
> > doesn't adhere to the Malfoys' beliefs. It is Hagrid who directly 
> > refutes the whole mudblood garbage. 



Debbie writes:  
> But is it?  As I read the passage, it's Ron who does the refuting, 
not 
> Hagrid.  Hagrid offers only two comments, one about there not being 
a spell 
> that Hermione doesn't know -- which is supportive of Ron's 
refutation, but 
> not a direct refutation.  His other statement is that it was a good 
thing 
> Ron's wand backfired because otherwise Lucius would have tried to 
get Ron in 
> trouble.  

I write again:

Ah, but way before CoS even takes place, Hagrid lets known his 
feelings about the whole issue. In PS/SS (pg 61 UK; pg 79 US) Harry 
has just met with Malfoy for the first time and has heard Malfoy's 
belief that Muggle families shouldn't be allowed to Hogwarts.

Hagrid responds: "Yer not from a Muggle family. If he'd known who yeh 
were - he's grown up knowin' yer name if his parents are wizardin' 
folk -- you saw 'em in the Leaky Cauldron."

OK, letting Harry know that Malfoy is full of it.

Now, next sentence: "Anyway, what does he know about it, some o' the 
best I ever saw were the only ones with magic in 'em in a long line 
o' Muggles - look at yer mum! Look what she had for a sister!"

His comments in CoS just reinforce this.

But I have come around more to Elkins examination of Hagrid's 
character flaws here:

Hagrid's insult of Aunt Petunia could be taken as an attack on 
Muggles and Hagrid does use the word Muggle in a different way than 
anyone else.

"I'd like to see a great Muggle like you stop him," Hagrid tells 
Vernon.

"Family of the biggest Muggles I ever laid eyes on," he says to Harry 
about the Dursleys.

It seems to go from a bland description of whether someone is magic 
or not to a description of a character flaw. 

I'm interested to see the history of the word Muggle. Its two-
syllable rhythm and double-G in the middle give it more than a 
passing resemblance to the vile-N word, but it seems to have gained 
acceptance in common use. Even a law, "Muggle Protection Act" uses 
it. And "mudblood" is the obvious parallel to our N-word, given how 
everyone reacts to it.

Only at the very end of GoF, when Draco says: "Muggle-lover" am I 
reminded of the term applied to whites who worked in the Civil Rights 
movement or to free the slaves. "N-lover."

But Hagrid uses Muggle as an insult. It is a clearly an insult to 
Vernon and the family to be Muggles. He seems to be insulting their 
lack of imagination and the fact that they embody the worst qualities 
of human beings.


Early on, McGonagall says: "You couldn't find two people who are less 
like us" when describing the Dursleys.

Hagrid says: "The biggest Muggles I ever laid eyes on."

Essentially saying the same thing -- Dursleys are bad news to anyone 
magic -- but Hagrid expresses it differently.

This makes me wonder how the word Muggle was once used. I'd bet it 
used to have darker connotations.

However, I refuse to have a grain of sympathy for Uncle Vernon, Aunt 
Petunia or Dudley. They are the wicked stepparents and stepbrother of 
this little drama and I don't wish to spend my time worrying over how 
badly they are being treated when I consider the fact that a blood 
nephew has been locked in a cupboard for most of his life. And they 
tried to "stamp out" the magic in Harry, in Vernon's words. We have 
hints that this involved physical beatings as well. Not to put too 
fine a point on it, but to Hell with the Dursleys.

Of course, JKR could pull a fast one on us, and make us reexamine the 
Dursleys, but until then, I'm going with what she's written so far - 
they are loathsome human beings and I'm not going to pore over the 
text trying to find good in them. If it exists, it will come in the 
next three books.

BUT... Hagrid does have some problems with language. His -- 
justifiable, in my mind -- hatred of the Dursleys is coming out in 
ways that at least raise eyebrows.


Debbie:

> I have different thoughts on Hagrid's prejudices.  I don't think he 
so much believes in egalitarianism as much as he wants to adopt the 
beliefs of  Dumbledore, whom he idolizes.  He really doesn't seem to 
have opinions of his  own; they are drawn either from his culture or 
from Dumbledore, and his sweeping generalizations reflect his 
childlike need to have simple explanations for the realities of his 
world.  On the other hand, Hagrid's  need for simple explanations may 
derive from his own childhood experience --  his mother left home, 
which is a devastating thing for a child, and he really needs to 
believe that it's not in the nature of giants to be maternal.  This 
sets him up to accept unthinkingly the WW's other prejudices, because 
it's so important to him for this one to be *right*.  
 
Hagrid is clearly on the right side of the fence on the Mudblood 
issue, though Muggle-born prejudice seems not to be a general WW 
prejudice (if you look at the history of the founding of Hogwarts and 
the split between Slytherin and the others) but a Slytherin prejudice.

I write: 

I would wager that the Muggle-born prejudice isn't just Salazar 
Slytherin's feelings, but old Double-S is the most extreme case. It 
would be similar to the differences between the die-hard KKK member 
and the person who despises outright racism, but would be horrified 
if his son or daughter came home with a minority fiancee.

I'd bet, over the centuries, there was grumbling about Muggle-borns, 
but only the Slytherins advocated throwing them out. "I believe in 
Muggle-born rights, but I don't want one moving next door," I can 
almost hear other wizards saying.

And Fudge obviously has some of the same tendencies and I really 
don't see how he could be a Slytherin. One, he doesn't seem the type 
and two, how could he maintain such a delicate political post while 
being from the house that spawned Voldemort?

> Theresa Ryan suggested:
> 
> 
> > The reason, remember, that Hagrid said that foreigners weren't to 
be trusted 
> > was because he was still stinging from the reject from Mme Maxime-
- wasn't 
> > 
> 
> I agree that Hagrid's experience with Mme Maxime had something to 
do with it, 
> but Hagrid made his comments five months later (at the end of May), 
and 
> Hagrid didn't just badmouth foreigners; he also slammed a foreign 
guest of 
> Hogwarts into a tree.  Either giants really *are* vicious, or 
there's 
> something much deeper going on in Hagrid's mind.
> 

I write:

Of course, Hagrid was RIGHT about Karakoff. That's the interesting 
thing, and what makes me believe JKR isn't really trying to teach us 
a lesson about racism.

Hagrid is usually right, even if his road to getting there is 
questionable.

Based on what we know, he's right about the Dursleys. He's right 
about the Malfoys. (at least the two we know of and until the good-
hearted brother Gabriel Malfoy is introduced, the Malfoys we know are 
evil) And he was right about Karakoff. He's even right about Snape 
when HRH kept trying to tell him Snape was bad.

If she was giving us a lesson, you'd think his character judgements 
would be wrong once in a while. Maybe that's coming.


snip some stuff about the Portkey

> > 
> Elkins writes:
> 
> 
> > Also, say what you like about Fudge (certainly everyone else 
around here does), but he presumably really does have some genuine 
political skills.  He has held the office for quite some time, after 
all.  I  imagine that he's got quite a knack for consensus-building 
and  bipartisan compromise and other skills that prove useful in 
maintaining order during times of peace.  

Debbie writes:
> 
> My take on Fudge is that he does as little as possible, and when he 
acts, it's for appeasement, like when he carted Hagrid off to Azkaban 
in order to make it look like he was doing something about the Heir 
of Slytherin.  It's all about making him look good.  These skills may 
work in times of peace when there is no direct threat, but he's not 
going to handle Voldemort's return very well, because he lacks the 
capacity for decisive leadership.  <oh, dear,  my cynicism is showing>
> 
> > That the wizarding world is strongly politically divided is 
implied in Fudge's exchange with Dumbledore over the dementors:
> > 
> > "'Half of us only feel safe in our beds at night because we know 
the 
> > dementors are standing guard at Azkaban!'
> > 
> > 'The rest of us sleep less soundly in our beds, Cornelius, 
knowing 
> > that you have put Lord Voldemort's most dangerous supporters in 
the 
> > 
> 
> Indeed.  Fudge's use of Voldemort's most dangerous supporters is 
what makes 
> him one of Voldemort's best allies, and without Fudge needing to be 
Ever So 
> Evil at all.  That's not to say, of course, that Voldemort is so 
brilliant he 
> would realize this before he acts.  But I do think he was taking 
things one 
> step at a time that day.
> 


I write:

The dementors are an obvious parallel to the death penalty debate in 
America. Poll after poll shows Americans in favor of the death 
penalty, even though there are real issues of justice involved here. 

Everytime someone hints that the dementors are a problem, I'd bet 
there is a Victims Rights Group in Wizardry that comes out with sob-
stories about how the prisoners in Azkaban ruined their lives.

What Fudge seems to be saying is essentially the same thing many 
American politicians have said: "If I come out against the death 
penalty, I'll lose my job."

Fudge's view of the job seems to be: "How do I keep this job?"

In times of peace, when members of the Ministry can spend hours 
debating the thickness of cauldrons, that's not so bad. But as Debbie 
said, the leadership now must be decisive.

Darrin
-- It is SOOO cool having both the UK and US versions.