"Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 178844

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> a_svirn wrote:
> > Actually, she does not seem to recognize it [that House-Elves 
can't
> realistically be freed]. Or rather, she does not acknowledge it. She
> still insists that slavery is a bad thing, that Hermione was right
> back in her fourth year when she tried to change things, and that 
the
> HP books are about morality and tolerance. But the only thing they
> teach to tolerate is inequality in its most extreme forms.
> >
> Carol responds:
> 
> To be fair to JKR, even though I'm not happy with her for a variety 
of
> reasons at the moment, perhaps her *intended* message of "tolerance"
> relates to human characters rather than House-Elves (not that I have
> any faith at all in the validity of authorial intention as a basis 
for
> literary analysis). 

a_svirn:
Then, what is the point of house elves? We sympathise with their 
plight (impossible not to), we are repeatedly treated to the 
discussion of the evils of their situation and for what? So that in 
the end we would accept those evils as necessarily ones? Not only it 
seems like a rather anticlimactic lesson from that great Gospel of 
Tolerance, I don't see where exactly the necessity really lies. If 
she invented natural slaves simply because they are very useful 
creatures to own it's
 well, not very commendable. 


> Carol:
> As for the books being about "morality," I don't recall her using 
that
> word. 

a_svirn:
She said her interviews that her books are moral books. Here are a 
couple of links that a quick google search yielded:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/3215099.stm
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-oregonian-baker.htm

> Carol:
> Muggles are perhaps another matter. 

a_svirn:
hear, hear!

> Carol:
<snip>The message that prejudice
> against Muggles, and particularly Muggle-baiting, is wrong is, IMO, 
> much more garbled thanks to the Twins' actions against Dudley and 
the
> depiction of the most important Muggle characters in the books as
> bullies. The victimization of Muggles is shown, and criticized by
> Hermione and Mr. Weasley, but the equality of Muggles and their 
right
> not to have their memories Obliviated or otherwise altered is not 
even
> considered. (Admittedly, Obliviate is also used against Wizards, but
> not on principle as a means of maintaining the Statute of Secrecy,
> itself problematic in ways that JKR probably didn't consider when 
she
> invented it.)

a_svirn:
Exactly. They use their power to victimise muggles simply because 
it's expedient and they can do it. As in that old adage about ends 
and means. Hermione even messes with her own parents' minds, because 
it's simple and economical solution of her problem. What they may 
think about this identity theft does not even merit a question from 
her best friends. Her parents are only muggles, after all.  And while 
it is all very understandable and sensible from the wizarding point 
of view attitude, it can hardly be called tolerant. 

> Carol, sure that JKR, whatever her faults as a writer or 
interviewee,
> is not advocating slavery or prejudice or any other abuse of human
> beings or animals in the RW

a_svirn:
She may not advocate it, but she seems ready to tolerate it. Whenever 
it is convenient for her to do so.