[HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH25, Shell Cottage

[elfundeb]

No: HPFGUIDX 184018

Carol:
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?

Debbie:
We have no idea if Griphook thanked Bill and Fleur.  The narrator doesn't
report that Harry thanked them, either, only that Bill and Fleur had been
informed of their departure, although I would infer that Harry thanked
them.  Also, as Griphook would not have remained at Shell Cottage for more
than an hour but for Harry's insistence that he stay, and considering what
Harry has asked him to do I think it would be acceptable for Harry to thank
Bill and Fleur on his behalf and keep Griphook out of sight.

Carol:
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?

Debbie:
The question here is what is the second goblin paying for?  If among goblins
ownership remains with the creator, then the second goblin would understand
that he is only paying for the use of the sword.  In a transaction between
goblins and wizards, however, there is a mutual misunderstanding of the
bargain being made.  It's also possible, as you point out, that goblin law
or tradition places ownership of goblin-made items with the goblins as a
species.

I'll bet that goblins keep goblin-made coins to themselves, and that the
gold at Gringotts is wizard-made. I'd further speculate that goblins accept
wizard gold as payment for goblin-made items, because goblins have uses for
wizard gold.

Carol:
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?

Debbie:
I don't want to get into the minutiae of property law (which I'm not an
expert in, anyway), but land as a commodity that can be bought or sold,
while fundamental to our culture, is not universal.  In any event, there's a
question regarding who would own a structure built on someone else's land
(here, unless otherwise specified by agreement among the parties, IIRC the
structure becomes a component of the land and generally conveys with the
land).  In the goblin universe, rental of housing from a hereditary
landowner who cannot convey the property or improvements to the property to
another might be the norm.  Or maybe goblins have communal living
arragements.

I do think it's possible that goblin ownership rules only govern ownership
of property that is unique to the goblins.  If an item, such as a sword or
tiara, is produced using goblin magic that no other creatur can duplicate,
then in goblin culture, only a goblin may "own" it.  But this rule would not
apply to something anyone can make, like a cake.

Of course, I'm speculating wildly; the books simply don't answer these
questions.

Carol:
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.

Debbie:
I think goblins would depend on wizards to make the wands (otherwise, I have
no doubt that they would make their own and use them secretly).  But as
wands perform differently for different persons, I'm not sure a goblin would
care what happened to his wand after he died.  Why not give it back to the
wizards?

Debbie
proud member of S.P.U.G.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]