The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes...

[muscatel1988]

No: HPFGUIDX 176506

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> Goblins' rights aside, Griphook *is* wrong--as in mistaken--about 
> the ownership of the Sword of Gryffindor. 

Mus responds:  I agree entirely with you that in RL Western law, the 
goblins wouldn't have a chance at satisfaction, but I don't think 
it's entirely right to say that the entire notion is absurd.  

Native American views of land ownership come to mind, where the 
notion of owning land makes as much sense as owning the sky, together 
with the tradition that such views facilitated treaties with European 
settlers - a treaty transferring ownership of something it's not 
possible to own is meaningless, and it's not hard to imagine how this 
might sound like a very good deal, rather like a successful sale of 
the Brooklyn Bridge.  

It's absolutely clear from the text that the author intends us to 
regard the Western view of property as the correct one, not least 
because the sword answers a needful Gryffindor.   But the issue of 
the sword so obviously recalls that of "tribal" artefacts and their 
ownership and return that I can't help wondering why the author 
included this thread.  It's hard not to think "Actually, from the 
goblin point of view...". Triggering that thought made sense earlier 
in the series - it makes less now, and I don't know why it's still 
there.  For this reader, it was one bit of incoherence (or we really 
were supposed to take the original statue in the Minstry fountain 
seriously.  Surely not).

In reponse to which goblin could be the rightful owner of the sword 
now, it's interesting that Bill uses the word "master" of the maker 
of a piece of goblin work, not "owner" [DH, UK hb: 418].  The book is 
riddled with references to the "master" of an object - the use of the 
word here makes me think that from the goblin's point of view, 
there's more to it than simply ownership.

I'm afraid, Carol, that I don't understand what you mean by: 

> An artifact can't belong to a group. 

The group that bought the Damien Hirst skull might disagree. :-)  
Whether something can belong to a group depends on how that group is 
constituted, but it can't be true to say that group ownership is 
impossible even in the Western Muggle world, can it?