A sandwich

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 178678

> lizzyben:
> 
> What if she didn't? The arc is only confusing or contradictory if
> you're approaching it from the standpoint that the status quo of
> slavery is bad. Post-DH, I'm not sure that's the correct standpoint.
> The subplots of the "magical brethren" actually make sense if you
> approach it from a different angle. Maybe it wasn't about lifting
> these creatures up, or granting them equality, but about the Trio
> learning about & taking their rightful place of power over them. It's
> not an arc about enlightenment or change, but an arc about
> indoctrination & inheritance. In the end, this is not a story about
> how Harry changed the Wizarding World, but how the Wizarding World
> changed Harry.
<snip>
> In every subplot, Harry & Hermione go from tolerance of these magical
> creatures, to learning that they actually should have a second-class
> status in wizarding society. The bigots are right, just as they were
> right about the Slytherins. The pecking order is not loathsome, but
> natural & good. And in the last sentence of the last novel, Harry
> assumes his noblesse oblige as a slaveholder in the Wizarding World.
> Maybe one subplot got muddled, but how is it possible that *every*
> creature subplot ended w/Harry learning that the prejudice &
> oppression is justified? That can't be a coincidence.
> 

Prep0strus:
Well, bad writing wouldn't be a coincidence either, really, but it's
also an explanation aside from 'JKR meant to write something
subversive'.  With almost every topic you have a subversive,
inside-out viewpoint to express.  And it's not like they can't be
defended, and they're certainly interesting.

That being said, I don't believe it was the intent.  That doesn't
matter for the interpretation to exist, and it can be fun to play
around with different ways of looking at things, but there is no way I
will ever believe JKR meant to write a story in which she expresses
the idea that slavery is good and bigotry is good, and all that. 
Which is why I ask for explanations for things that make sense in
areas that to me simply look like poor writing.

A lot could also validly be explained by the fact that these are
fantasy creatures - just as hippogriffs, by definition, can respond to
human verbal treatment, so could house elves very legitimately be
perfectly fine as servants without aspiration and giants be violent
evil creatures.

I agree that that is not always how she presented everything, but
that's where I see confusion and missed opportunities - not a
deliberate attempt to put forth opposite ideas to everything she has
stated.

Just as her treatment of Slytherin is not, imo, a support of bigotry,
 but a statement against the ideas of bigotry.

But while I don't agree with you, and have a hard time believing you
really even truly agree with what you said... I don't have a good
answer.  It's why I hate the elf storyline and wonder why it was
included.  Grawp, as the representative for the giants, and Draco...
sort of the representative for the Slytherins, I also see as oddly
dropped storylines.  Yes, even the goblins... I just don't understand
why she brought up issues to not really address them.  I don't think
the issues were made clear enough (because of the fantasy rules that
overlie the structure) to even promote good debate.  So it's not that
she had to tie these things up in a bow for me to be happy, but I need
to see some reason why they were even made a part of the story.

There's an argument to be made that centaurs break the mold slightly
(though, I'm sure, in your view, their coming to help the 'good'
wizards only solidifies their place as subservient), but not enough to
truly represent anything important.

It really is very confusing to me.  I don't think the answer is that
prejudice is justified, but I'm sorry to say that I don't have my own
theory to put forth.

~Adam (Prep0strus)