Prejudice/Slytherins/House Elves/Failed Messages in the Books

[Katie]

No: HPFGUIDX 177867

Considering the subjects we have been discussing lately, primarily the 
role of the Slytherins in the wizarding world, and the place of "good" 
Slytherins, and also the general messages about prejudice and racism in 
the books, I wanted to contribute something more coherent than what 
I've been posting (or not posting)about the messages about prejudice in 
the books, and success, or lack thereof, of these messages. (By and 
large, I think the messages were not successful.) I apologize in 
advance for the length of this post, but this stuff has been swirling 
around for quite a while, and it's all coming out in a burst.


First of all, let me tackle the question of whether or not there is an 
intended and definite message about racism and prejudice in the books. 
In my opinion, there is no question that JKR put in a very pervasive 
and pointed theme about racism in these books. From the very first 
book, she has associated the "good" side with the acceptance of half-
wizards, werewolves, giants, and other WW outcasts. It was very evident 
to me (a very socially liberal person) from the outset that Harry and 
his bunch were "my" kind of people. People that would celebrate the 
differences that make us interesting and embrace those who are 
different. She made a point of having the Trio be friends with 
Neville, "practically a Squib", and Hagrid, a half-giant, and Lupin, a 
werewolf. JKR did this very pointedly and very loudly. There was no 
missing the idea - the good guys are accepting and tolerent, and the 
bad guys are racists. 

The "bad" guys, Slytherins and DEs, and to a point, the MoM, were not 
only prejudiced against muggleborns and halfblood wizards. They hated 
all those people that did not aspire to join their elite social status. 
The exchange between Draco and Harry in PS/SS was enough to show us 
that Harry's choice to spurn Draco's friendship was enough to make him 
a social outcast in the world of pureblood wizards. JKR made a very 
obvious correlation between prejudice and being a bad guy, and between 
tolerance and being a good guy. At least for a while.

I believe the waters started to get muddy when JKR introduced the House 
Elf issue, and later on, discussed goblins and centaurs. However, let 
me focus on the House Elf issue, which I believe is the biggest failure 
of the books. Introducing characters that are obviously powerfully 
magical, are enslaved by all kinds of wizards, not only "bad" ones, and 
are "happy" to be so enslaved was, IMO, a big mistake. At least to me, 
a History graduate student, the parallels between African slavery and 
House Elves were too great to be ignored. Whether she intended that or 
not, that is definitely what came across, and she handled the 
resolution of it incredibly poorly. It is simply not ok to say that 
enslaved people/elves are happy to be enslaved. It is also not ok, from 
both a literary and moral standpoint, to indroduce a storyline about 
educating and freeing said slaves, and let that storline peter out and 
die. JKR led us to believe that SPEW was important. She had several 
adult wizards, including Arthur Weasley and Remus Lupin, voice their 
opinions about House Elf rights, and how Hermione was correct in 
wanting to get rights for them. However, in DH, this storyline was 
dropped pretty much completely, and we see Harry, our hero, treating 
Kreacher like a servant as his final House Elf moment. Kreacher and the 
Hogwarts house elves have just fought bravely against Voldemort and his 
reward is to make Harry some food? That really bothered me. It went 
against everything she had been building towards for 3 books with SPEW 
and the various opinions about rights for magical creatures. She really 
dropped the ball on this. Showing Ron being concerned that the House 
Elves wouldn't die was a lame and underwhelming moment, and basically 
the end of what should have been an empowering story about how the 
House Elves finally realized their own power and that they wanted to be 
creatures of strength and part of the WW, not just the slaves of it. To 
end that theme by leaving them happy and in servitude was an incredibly 
disturbing message, in my opinion. It is never ok to have people be 
enslaved, whether they think they "like" it or not. That says something 
incredibly upsetting about the WW, and I cannot help but feel that 
there is a RW connection. She made a point about slavery and then let 
it drop - you just can't do that. It's a serious issue, and you 
shouldn't bring it up unless you are prepared to deal with it and see 
it through.

Another problem with her initially black and white message of prejudice 
is that she chose to confuse the picture by having the bad guys be 
fallible and human, and having the good guys sometimes be cold or 
cruel. She also showed that people we were supposed to like could be 
prejudiced (Ron, Fred, George, and Harry didn't care about elf rights), 
and that people we were obviously supposed to dislike could be quite 
likeable and sypathetic (Snape is obviously much less complex for her 
than he is for us). This, to me, is a big problem. If you are going to 
write a book with heavy themes about bigotry and racism, then you need 
to be clear about where your opinions lie. JKR muddies her own waters, 
and it really weakened her original points. 

Moving on to the issue about Slytherin, I think JKR was pretty clear 
about who these people are. They are dark, bad, and racist, and we 
shouldn't like them. For me, this was easy and clear. With the 
exceptions of Snape and Slughorn, I find no Slyths interesting or 
appealing in any way and I think she did a good job of making this 
house a parallel for the racism and hatred in the real world. I don't 
think she meant Slytherin to be a specific reference to Nazis or the 
Klan, although these groups certainly embody hatred, but she definitely 
intended the Slytherins to be the opposite of the tolerant and 
accepting good guys. I disagree with those who think Slytherin was 
intended to be the opposite of specifically Gryffindor - I think 
Slytherin was supposed to be the embodiment of what was wrong in the 
WW, within and without of Hogwarts.

However, again, she fails to put the story to a satisfactory ending. 
She could have had Slytherin House realize the error of their ways, and 
join the fight against Voldy. She could have had Slytherin House be 
expunged from Hogwarts after the battle. She could have gotten rid of 
the House System altogther (which, as we've discussed previously, would 
have fit the best with the messages of books 1 - 6). She did none of 
these things. Slytherin House just keeps on keepin' on, and there is no 
monumentous change in the structure of Hogwarts,which I think most us 
us agree, is quite flawed. There were many different resolutions to the 
story of Slytherin House which would have suited the theme of bigotry 
being evil, but she chose to let the story just kind of die a slow 
death. Not good storytelling.

As for the issues with Gryffindor being the house of "elites" or being 
the place where all the "good" people go, I think that's got some 
validity, but I don't see it as that black and white. I think all the 
Houses, except Slytherin, were meant to have good qualities, and we 
deinitely see good people from all three. I personally would have liked 
Hufflepuff the best - I think they best embody the idea of inclusion 
and tolerance...and certainly they weren't stupid or incompetant, just 
were people that didn't fit in the other 3 houses. I think the Gryffs 
are JKR's favorites, but she certainly made a point of showing good and 
brave folks from Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw, too (Cedric, Luna, Justin 
Fitch-Fletchley, Ernie Macmillen, and Prof. Sprout, to name a few). So, 
I think it's extreme to say that Gryffs are the only good house, or 
that she intended that to be the message.

I think what bothers me the most is that the first 6 books were about 
the WW at large, and DH was about Harry. We were set up to watch Harry 
change the world. We were led to beleive that Hermione would lead a 
House Elf revolution, that racism would go down with Voldy, that the 
Slytherins would be redeemed or perish, that the half wizards and 
magical beings that aren't wizards would finally be seen as 
equals...and then we got a story about Harry coming into his own and 
being brave. Well, I knew Harry was brave, and I knew he would save the 
world and defeat Voldy...but I expected some sort of resolution for all 
the other storylines that had been going on for 4000+ pages. And very 
darned few of them were resolved. She had a world view, a message about 
what kind of world we should strive for, and it all fell to pieces at 
the end. I don't know why...I know some have said that those themes 
aren't really in there and that we expected too much, but let me tell 
ya, they're in there! I am rereading OotP right now, and have just read 
1-4 again, and I see the bigotry theme stronger than ever. She made of 
a real point of this for 6 books and then just let it die. 

Now, unlike some other folks, for whom the books were ruined by DH, I 
still love the series, by and large. I just don't understand how DH 
fits into the other six. I still like DH in many ways, but I feel like 
it was written by a different person. I think what is unfortunate is 
that she could have easily cleared everything up with a few simple 
lines about freed House Elves, or the death of the House system. It 
wouldn't have taken much time...but she chose not to, and I think the 
book is much weaker for it.  


Ok, hand cramping. : ) I may have more later, but ta-ta for now, Katie