CHAPDISC: DH25, Shell Cottage

[Marie]

No: HPFGUIDX 184027

Aussie:
> > 8) We see Fleur in her own environment here. She quickly changes
> from (ze goblin) fury; to (you are safe 'ere) over-protectiveness; to
> > getting Mr Ollivander to deliver the tiara (when Bill was going
> there too); to (glancing at the window) worry about Bill outside; to
> anger at Muriel; to baby hugger; to humble wife ("Wait" said Bill)
> within one meal time. What do you think of her?
>
> Pippin:
> Her changeable moods I think are part of her "water" personality. I
> think that, like Harry, she really did believe that Gabrielle was in
> danger, and so she's grateful to him not only for "saving" her sister
> but for making her seem less foolish by viewing the situation the same
> way she did.


Marie:
Hi, Pippin, I just want to comment here that I think that is a really
interesting reading.  Once you say it I can totally see how someone
would read it that way but I was also kind of shocked because it has
never crossed my mind to think that part of Fleur's gratefulness to
Harry was a  kind of "foolishness loves company" reaction.  I think
she was completely sincere.  I think she knows, intellectually, that
Dumbledore would not have let her sister die but on a visceral level
sees that her sister was in terrible danger and that Harry had enough
concern for someone he didn't even know to stand up to the merpeople
not to mention fall behind in the competition.

And I think people forget about him but I think in that scene we were
also supposed to note Percy's reaction.  Percy is also absolutely
terrified for Ron and clearly takes the situation very seriously.  I
really wish we had seen the twins here too - I rather think they would
have been quite upset themselves.

I think that the juxtaposition of the reaction of characters who have
a sibling in danger (Fleur and Percy) with those who do not (Cedric
and Krum) kind of points out the selfless and sometimes irrational
nature of love.  I think it was a very different position that Fluer
was put into compared to Cedric and Krum.  I know 17 year olds always
think their bf/gf is their one true love but at 17 (and now) I would
have a much stronger reaction if one of my sisters was put in danger
than I would if my boyfriend of a couple of weeks was.

So my point is that all of this draw attention to the fact that Harry
was treating all of the hostages as if they were as precious to him as
 those of his own blood.  What I took away from this was that Harry
treats everyone as though they were his own brothers and sisters.  I
think this a very important precursor to what Harry does in the forest
in DH and the way his charm protects all of the Hogwarts defenders.
He loves all of them.  This is central to his presentation as a
Christ-like figure.  Although for some reason what Harry does there
has less resonance for me that what he does during the second task.

Aussie:
> > 11) Goblin ownership laws: "the true owner of an object is the
> maker, not the purchaser". This sounds like our copyright and patent
> laws. I can't buy a CD and copy a song onto my I-Pod. Are arguments
> against the goblin law grounds for authors to re-think copyright laws?
>
> Pippin:
> Ownership can be considered a "bundle of rights" -- goblins evidently
> bundle things differently than wizards do.
>
> Goblin law sounds  like a "life interest" in real estate. But RL fine
> artists have attempted to extend their rights in their work, so that
> the creator of a painting gets some share of the future sales, or
> maintains control over how it can be displayed.

Marie:
Your comment really got me thinking about how we view ownership of
ancient works of fine art.  People are always saying things like "That
belongs in a museum."  I think even in our world there comes a point
where people believe that an important work of cultural significance
kind of belongs to everyone.  I think the goblin attitude is probably
very similar - perhaps they believe that a true work of art can never
really belong to a person.  I don't really have a problem with this as
 I kind of feel the same way.

Consider if something like the Mona Lisa were in someone's private
gallery and they never let anyone look at it.  Wouldn't that be wrong?
   It may technically belong to their family but for something so
important you would expect them to place it in a museum or public
gallery - and to donate it if they were rich enough.

Or how about the Elgin marbles?  Obviously, by some people's
definition of ownership, what the Earl of Elgin did by removing those
pieces from the Acropolis was OK, and the British Museum paid for
them.  But for many, especially today, it amounts to nothing less than
vandalism and it seems clear that the pieces should be returned to Athens.


-Marie, who is making her first post and hoping she does it right