CHAPDISC: DH25, Shell Cottage

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 184011

Elfundeb wrote:
<snip> I, for one, do not believe goblin notions of ownership are
wrong; they are different, reflecting cultural norms in goblin society
-- in which craftsmanship may have been honored and revered above all
else -- before they were subjugated and marginalized by the dominant
wizard culture and shunted aside into professions for which wizards
have no taste or aptitude.

Carol responds:

I don't want to get into discussions of "marginalized cultures" and
whether the Goblins were "shunted" into those professions or chose the
ones they were good at (like Tolkien's dwarves). Nor am I going to
repeat my views on Goblin ownership, which I see as, shall we say,
mistaken. Instead, I'll accept Deb's statement that they're
"different," which I think we can all agree on, and just point out
that Griphook's "different" notions of property and ownership did not
prompt him to offer payment or even a thank you to Bill and Fleur for
his use of their house, his consumption of their food, his acceptance
of Fleur's services in waiting on and healing him. A Goblin is
supposed to be paid in gold coins (made by Goblins) for his services
and materials in creating a tiara or sword or armor, which he
nevertheless biews as still belonging to him, but the Wizards are not
supposed to be paid or even thanked for the services they rendered and
the food and medicine that were theirs but which they can never get
back because he consumed them?

How does the Goblin economy work among Goblins themselves, I wonder?
If one Goblin makes another a sword and the second Goblin pays for it,
does the first Goblin still consider it his, or does one Goblinmade
product, a set of gold coins in an amount that the first Goblin sets,
compensate him for another Golinmade product, the sword, which can
still be said to belong to "the goblins," just not to the Goblin who
made it?

What about houses? Surely Goblins. at ;east those with families, live
in houses, not caves. Do Goblins build their own houses? Surely, the
Goblin builder of a house wouldnt still consider it his after another
Goblin paid for it. Or would he? Do they only lease, not sell, houses?
What if Goblins can't build houses, either by law (let's say that
they're restricted to banking and metalcrafts) or because they have no
interest in/aptitude for house-building and must buy houses from the
Wizards who build them. Would they see the Wizard-built house as
belonging to the Wizard who built it and theirs only as long as they
keep paying rent, or theirs only for the lifetime of the Goblin couple?

If one Goblin makes a cake and another buys it, surely the baker
retains no claim on the cake, whether the cake is eaten or thrown
away. If one Goblin makes and sells clothes (I won't say shoes because
the Goblins seem to go barefoot), would the tailor-Goblin consider the
clothes to belong to himself?

It seems to me that these, erm, *different* views of Goblin ownership
apply mostly if not solely to metalcraft, to valuable objects made
from precious metals and precious stones, especially if they also have
magical powers. It also seems to me that this view is selfish and
impractical and could cause disputes between Goblin craftsmen and
Goblin owners if applied within their culture.

A Goblin selling to a Wizard should, perhaps, require a written
contract. If the Goblin craftsman insists that the object is still his
despite payment in Goblin-made coins for a Goblin-made artifact, the
Wizard should have the right to refuse to pay. If the Goblin agrees
that selling amounts to a change of ownership, the Goblin should honor
that bargain, just as he would if he were selling a cake rather than a
sword.

What the Goblin retains when he makes a sword or a tiara or a piece of
armor for a Wizard is the secret of his craftsmanship. The Wizard can
duplicate its appearance, but never its powers or its worth. (The
duplicate cups in the Lestrange vault are worthless, as is the Fake
Sword of Gryffindor.) The Goblins have been paid for their materials
and their highly specialized services, just as Mr. Ollivander is paid
for his when he makes a wand. They retain the secrets of their
craftsmanship? What more do the Goblins need, other than the right to
carry wands? (If they want to make their own wands, let them share
their own secrets in exchange.)

But to return to my point. Suppose that Goblins had the right to carry
wands but depended on Wizards to make them because they didn't have
the secret to wand-making. Would they believe that even though they
had paid for the wand, it still belonged to its maker, or to the
Wizards in general? I don't think that they would. And yet such a view
of property must extend both ways or it has no validity at all.

Carol, wondering how "the Goblins" could own a sword or a tiara unless
they have communal ownership, which seems unlikely for such a
quarrelsome species of creatures