A sandwich

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 178714

> > lizzyben:
<snip>
> > 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.

lizzyben:

What can I say? Everyone's got a niche. Go to Carol for knowledge of
canon, go to lizzyben for loony Luna Lovegood theories. The thing is,
post-HBP, it was also "subversive" to argue that DD was a manipulative
Machievelli, or that Snape was still on the good side. Both
interpretations went against the surface appearances of the text, and
both turned out to be true. Just because it's subversive, doesn't mean
it's wrong. In many ways, the books actually *encourage* subversive
readings, through the relentless double standards & switching of roles. 

And I'm not sure what's subversive at all about the House-elf
interpretation. A subversive int. goes directly against the stated
message of the work. But here, it seems like no one is even sure what
that message was. I think we can all agree that "Elf slavery is wrong"
didn't end up being the ultimate message of the series. So you're
either left arguing that elf slavery is good & natural, or just
puzzled by the whole thing. In that context, I don't see why it's
subversive to say that the actual message is that "House-elf slavery
is a good thing", when that seems to be the actual result of the
series. Harry certainly doesn't end up thinking that being a
slave-owner is wrong. He ends the series wanting his house-elf to make
him a sandwich.

Prepostrus:
> 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.

lizzyben:

I simply cannot figure out what JKR's intent was. Like you, I'd
*assume* that she wasn't intending to write a pro-slavery series, but
IMO that's what ended up happening. It's especially odd considering
her statements that directly compare the elf slavery to real-life
slavery & racism. But then again, I'd also assume that a member of
Amnesty Int. wouldn't show Harry torturing someone, & that's what she
did. So, IMO we've got to toss aside assumptions & simply look at the
text. Pretend that no one knows who wrote it, when it was written, why
it was written. And looking at the text only, the end message did seem
to approve of the established hierarchy of the wizarding world.

Harry's narrative arc doesn't involve him changing the status quo of
the WW, but involves him coming to understand and accept the values of
this society. He's accepted his own natural, proper position of
superiority. And I don't necessarily agree that that was intended arc,
but simply proposing it as a reading. And I am sort of playing with
it, because the message about "magical creatures" is so muddled that
it seems like it almost might make more sense if we come at it from a
different angle. It's like a jumbled-up Rubik's Cube - none of the
colors or themes or subplots align at all. Except, when you twist the
Cube a certain way, all the colors line up. When I look at the
house-elf issue from a standpoint of Harry assuming his natural
wizarding right to rule over other creatures/races, all of these
subplots fall into place.

Prepostrus:
> 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.

lizzyben:

Well, except that Dobby did have that aspiration to be free, & he
could think & talk & hope & dream. He's not an animal. Hagrid's a
half-giant, and very gentle & kind. Even Grawp cries at a funeral. But
I guess they're just misfits? Where this gets disturbing to me is how
many of the misfits that don't fit this rigid hierarchy were killed
off or eliminated in the end. Dobby, the one free elf, Lupin, the one
werewolf who wanted to be a part of wizarding society, Tonks, a
Metamophus who married a werewolf over a proper wizard, Snape, who was
sorted too soon, & even Sirius, who was a good guy from bad blood. 
So in the end, the established hierarchy can remain intact.

Prepostrus:
> 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.

lizzyben:

I really, really don't want to get sucked into the Slyth issue again &
I'm sure no one wants to hear it. Suffice it to say that JKR defines
bigotry as the belief that "that which is different from me is
necessarily evil." And in the end, we learn that the different House
is necessarily evil, or at least horrible. The giants are evil brutes,
the goblins are sneaky & untrustworthy. In this crazy world, the worst
stereotypes about "the Other" are actually true. Just like, in this
crazy world, the justifications that slave-owners give are actually
correct. 

I loved GWTW, but it is incredibly racist & pro-slavery. And in that
novel, the narrative defends slavery by claiming that slaves are
actually happy with their lot, that they'd never be able to cope on
their own, that the slaves who want freedom are just crazy & don't
understand how good they've got it, etc. And these are the same
arguments that are used to defend house-elf slavery in HP. With GWTW
or War & Peace, modern readers know that this standpoint is antiquated
& wrong. But with HP, readers are told that this standpoint is
actually correct & proper. JKR has created a world in which slavery is
justified, superiority & inequality is proper, and oppression of
"inferiors" is the right of the elite. It's nutty.

Prepostrus:
> 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. 

lizzyben:

Well, it might just be that the series got too big & complicated for
her to resolve all of the subplots in a satisfactory fashion. So in
DH, she often chose easy resolutions over "right", complex
resolutions. It's easier to resolve the "house elf" subplot by simply
having a freed Dobby die & an enslaved Kreacher happy with his new
owner. Or to resolve the goblin/Wizard issue by just saying that
goblin customs are nuts. Or to resolve the werewolf issue by killing
off the "good werewolf", etc. So it's not that she intended to resolve
the subplots in this way, but that she changed her mind about them
mid-stream. *pauses, shuffles the mental Rubik's Cube*  

But that still doesn't line up, because JKR has said that she planned
the last third of DH over a decade ago & she wrote the epilogue at
that time. This was always the ending she had planned - and she always
knew that the ending wasn't going to involve house-elf liberation,
werewolf inclusion, Slytherin redemption, giant tolerance, or any
change at all for the status of the "magical brethren". So why would
she even bring up these issues in OOTP? Why have Harry notice the
"falseness" of the golden statutes if she never intended to go
anywhere with that? 

Of course, arguably the series did go somewhere with these subplots,
and they were resolved. And that resolution involved Harry taking up
the White Man's Burden, or the British Wizard's Burden, to rule over
these inferior races. And it's noble & proper for him to do that, even
though these ungrateful people/creatures don't always seem to
understand that it's all for their own good. It's sort of an ode to
British imperialism & superiority, as lealess pointed out. 

"Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child. ...

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

- Rudyard Kipling

That same smug self-righteous superiority is what I see in the end of DH. 

Prepostrus:
 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.


lizzyben:

One problem is that when we're introduced to a new fantasy universe,
the rules of that universe need to be clear. In COS, we're introduced
to the concept of elf slavery. And we're shown that poor Dobby is
abused, miserable, forced to obey cruel masters, & made to punish
himself whenever he goes against orders. When Harry frees Dobby, he is
incredibly grateful & happy. So, in that novel, elf slavery is clearly
characterized as a "bad thing", the Malfoys are bad for owning one,
and Harry's a hero for freeing one. In this universe, slavery is an
evil that should be corrected by Harry. Then in DH, slavery is
suddenly a natural institution that should be accepted by Harry.

If that's really what JKR intended, that should've been clear
throughout. She could've introduced the issue w/poor Winky, so
miserable since she'd been freed, so happy to work for no wages. Then,
the rules of this universe would be clear - slavery is a good thing
for house-elves. If readers don't like that rule, they don't have to
read the series. Instead, HP introduces slavery as an evil, and then
transforms it into a good at the end. And maybe that's why elves were
introduced into the story, so that Harry could go through that arc &
realize his proper role.

Prepostrus:
> 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)

lizzyben:

So, what it boils down to is that you don't like thinking that the
books sent this message, but can't contradict that viewpoint? I
don't like it either, but that theory seems to best explain the way
that these issues were eventually resolved. Like Sherlock Holmes said,
"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth." I find it highly improbable that JKR
intended for Harry & co. to learn that prejudice is justified, slavery
is proper, some classes are morally inferior, and the elite have a
right to rule, but IMO that's exactly what she did.


lizzyben