The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes...

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 176525

> > Carol responds:
> > 
> > Goblins' rights aside, Griphook *is* wrong--as in mistaken--about 
> the
> > ownership of the Sword of Gryffindor. It was made by a long-dead
> > goblin for Godric Gryffindor, who paid a large amount of gold for 
> it.
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> I completely agree with this. After reading this thread, I tried 
> seeing it from the Goblins' point of view, but I simply can't. I 
> admit that part of the reason might be, that the Wizard's idea of 
> property in this case basically is the same as ours, and I'm sinply 
> raised that way, but the Goblins' claim make no sense to me, 
> particularly Griphook's. 

Magpie:
I wasn't sure about responding to the thread because I agree too--and 
I wasn't sure if Carol's thread implied she thought I didn't or not.:)

I think whatever the Goblin perspective is on this, Gryffindor 
certainly didn't "steal" the sword in the way Harry or the reader 
would understand the word. He exchanged money for a product. When 
Griphook says he stole it Harry of course imagines that he just 
snatched it without paying and without the Goblin ever wanting him to 
have it. He discovers this is not the case at all. Even from 
Griphook's pov, Gryffindor exchanged something for the sword with the 
original Goblin's consent. 

So yes, I think Griphook is wrong in that he's not using the 
word "steal" to mean what we use it to mean or what Harry uses it to 
mean. The sword even seems to agree when it comes back to Neville and 
Griphook loses it again. I would be surprised if the average reader 
thinks any differently than Harry when they learn the truth--just as 
I think that reader would be more likely to agree with Hermione about 
Griphook being wrong about his view of what's going on with the wand-
users given the pov of the book and where his/her sympathies are 
likely to have been during it. It would take a lot of work with the 
Goblin's pov to make the audience, imo, really feel things the way he 
does and we're not getting it. It doesn't hold up the way many real 
life alternative ideas about ownership do, imo. If Gryffindor had 
merely rented the sword and not given it back, and it was understood 
that's what he did, it would be stealing, but that doesn't seem to be 
what happened. The Goblins don't seem to be running a rental agency 
(and I don't know how they expect to run a bank--do they think the 
Goblins own all the minted coins too? Can Goblins inherit? If so, 
why, since they didn't make the thing themselves? Even the author 
doesn't seem to have actual respect for this system when she refers 
to fanatics and says Griphook's just wrong.

-m (who can't really think of any time in canon the way of the 
correct Wizards doesn't seem to be the best way)