A sandwich

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 178630

Lealess:
> JKR also created Dobby, the elf who acted alone, who wanted to be 
> free, who held Harry to be a saviour, who wore wizard-provided 
> clothes, and who died a hero's death. JKR also created Hermione, 
the 
> Muggleborn who stubbornly tried to free the elves whether they 
wanted 
> freedom or not.  Perhaps nobody would be having this discussion 
were 
> it not for Dobby and the story his life seemed to be telling, 
along 
> with Hermione's premature efforts on behalf of house-elves.  So 
tell 
> me, why oh why did JKR even include this storyline at all?  It 
seemed 
> to be an anti-slavery story at one time.  It ended up being 
anything 
> but.
> 
> lealess

lizzyben:

I don't know, but it does seem like JKR originally intended to show 
that the house-elf slavery was a bad thing & then changed her mind 
later on. If anyone can explain to me how DH agrees with these 
quotes, I'll give them 1000 galleons. :)

JKR in 2000 - "Bigotry is probably the thing I detest most. All 
forms of intolerance, the whole idea of "that which is different 
from me is necessary evil." I really like to explore the idea that 
difference is equal and good. But there's another idea that I like 
to explore, too. Oppressed groups are not, generally speaking, 
people who stand firmly together — no, sadly, they kind of subdivide 
among themselves and fight like hell. That's human nature, so that's 
what you see here. This world of wizards and witches, they're 
already ostracized, and then within themselves, they've formed a 
loathsome pecking order." 

JKR in 2005 - "Sam Dordoy for Ottakars - Your books have a theme of 
racism with the wizards oppressing other races and half­bloods. Do 
you think this has changed how people think when they read them?

JK Rowling: ... I would hope that it has made people think, I mean I 
do not write the books thinking what is my message for today, what 
is my moral, that is not how I set out to write a book at all. I am 
not trying to criticise or make speeches to you in any way, but at 
the same time, it would be great if the people thought about 
bullying behaviour or racism. The house elves is really for slavery, 
isn't it, the house elves are slaves, so that is an issue that I 
think we probably all feel strongly about enough in this room 
already."


Slytherins - In the quote, she says that the series explores the 
idea that different groups can be equal and good. In DH, we learn 
that which is different from Gryffindor is probably evil, and 
certainly not equal or good. 

Hierarchy of the wizarding world - She call the WW a "loathsome 
pecking order", with wizards at the top, goblins & centaurs ignored, 
and elves enslaved. This "loathsomeness" is reflected in the fake, 
fawning Fountain statues; in which the lesser magical beings look up 
at the might wizards with awe. She calls the house elves "slaves", 
and states that the house-elves represent the issue of slavery in 
the real world. This scene & that quote seem to establish that the 
existing WW hierarchy is *not* a good thing. But in DH, the existing 
loathsome order is restored, and no one seems to think there's a 
problem anymore. From a loathsome pecking order, it has become the 
right and proper order of society. House-elf slavery has gone from 
an evil to a good. The heroes don't care anymore about the ones on 
the bottom of the hierarchy, as they accept their place at the top. 
Now Harry doesn't want to free elves, he wants them to serve him. 
And all was well. 

I can't figure out if she was being dishonest about her message in 
the earlier quotes, if she totally changed her mind about the 
direction of the series, or is she honestly doesn't see the 
disconnect between her statements and the ultimate messages 
contained in the novel.


lizzyben