Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 180752

> > a_svirn:
> > 
> > Well, we didn't get to see wizards lifting the enchantments,
> > did we? So, this good point belongs to the realm of fanfiction.

Mike: 
> No, it has not been corrected by the end of DH. But one of our 
> heroes, Hermione, has realized it. And she's informed Ron's and 
> Harry's interpretations. Ron was right about the elves not being 
> slaves, but he was enlightenment to their treatment only comes at
> the end of DH. Harry has only reached the treat mine right stage,
> but it's a start.

Montavilla47:
Except Ron started out enlightened.  It was Ron who *actively*
fought Hermione's culturally imperialist attempts to free the 
elves--not by taking the hats, but by *revealing* them so that 
the elves had a *choice* about their freedom.

Ron didn't see how Dobby was treated by the Malfoys.  Had
he seen it, I'm sure he would have protested.  The first time
he *did* see Dobby, he spontaneously and generously gave
the elf a pair of nice, new socks.  

If he didn't get angry about Winky's treatment, it was 
probably because he felt there were more important worries
at the time.  Or perhaps it was a reluctance to get in-
between a master and servant relationship.

That's the whole weirdness of the Ron/Hermione kiss
in DH.  Ron's position is exactly where it was in CoS and
GoF.  Elves are happy serving wizards, and they should
be treated as well and respected.

It's Hermione's position that has changed.

And then the other weirdness comes from JKR's
statement that the elves were about her take on 
slavery itself.  Because, her takes appears to be 
that slavery is okay, as long as you don't beat  or 
yell at your slaves and give them the occasional gift.

And don't feed them poison.

> Mike:
> It was NOT a comment on slavery, it was a plea for treating one's 
> inferiors with respect. Nobody is asking you (generic) to respect 
> slavery, it was instead a request to respect the existance of beings 
> that don't hold the same life values as you do. And to improve the 
> treatment of all of them, get those self-punishment enchantments 
> removed. Something admittedly only started by the end of the story.

Montavilla47:
I can buy that.  Because sometimes the best way to solve a 
problem isn't head on, but sideways.  For example, one solution
to growing population rates is to educate women.  Instead of, 
you know, imposing a limit on the number of children a family can
have.

So, it doesn't bug me as an adult that the elves aren't freed by the 
end of DH and that it might happen in small steps. What bugs me 
is the feeling I get that we're supposed to cheer because Ron 
suddenly cares what happens to the elves.

Why?  Because there's nothing sudden about it.  He's been like
that all along.  It's not a change at all.

And Harry actually goes backward.  Unless his journey is to
go from a skewed perspective on elves (elves shouldn't have
to serve wizards) to a proper one (its okay for elves to serve 
wizards).

> > a_svirn:
> > Yes, indeed. And notice how little wizards concern themselves with 
> > goblins' beliefs and customs, and nature. Wizards do not want to
> > play by their rules, do they? Because it wouldn't suit them.
> > Goblins's notions of ownership clash with those of wizards, but
> > they have no quarrel with elves' notions of happy servitude. So
> > it's all down to wizards, not to the magical creatures. 
> 
> Mike:
> Goblins were shown as greedy and unscrupulous. Griphook was fine with 
> breaking into a Gringotts vault, to let Harry and co. steal whatever 
> thing they wanted, as long as he could get the bigger prize of 
> Gryffindor's sword back. Harry planned a letter if not spirit of the 
> law maneouver. Griphook one upped him by outright double crossing 
> Harry. But Neville drawing the sword out of the Hat in the end 
> signifies who the rightful owners of the sword are.

Montavilla47:
Griphook wasn't fine with breaking into a Gringotts vault.  He was
very unhappy about it--and did it on the understanding that Harry
was looking for something specific.  


Mike:
> Goblins aren't wizard's servants, that has been repeated throughout. 
> They can take care of themselves and they aren't restricted in using 
> their magic like house elves are. Curious how their biggest beef 
> seems to be that wizards won't share their wandlore, at the same time 
> they insist anything made with by their hand, with their skills is 
> theirs to keep. And they don't seem to be sharing *their* gifts of 
> metalurgy and other craftsmanship.


Montavilla47:
Actually, Goblins remind me of commercial writers and artists.  
What they seem to be giving people with their weapons and such is
First Run Rights.  

Then, like any author or artist, they expect the party to come back
and negotiate for second runs or subsidiary rights.