Hogwarts Legacy - Whimsical Wizardry

[Dalisclock]

I haven't seen any of the films or read the books, so I can only interpret 'the sock thing' in the worst public school way possible. Poor Dooby.

I'm not sure what this means but certain bits of British media have led me to believe the School system in the UK is horrific.

Granted, by that I mean Pink Floyd's Another Brick in the Wall(pt. 2), the Matilda musical that just came out and a joke in Blackadder that implied child molestation at school, so admittedly it's a very small set of data points.

 

[BrawlMan]

"Fascism" officially has no meaning anymore. It is basically just a curse word that's only purpose is to say "I do not like this person".

Where have you been since the mid 2000s?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

In the novels it turns out the kitchen is run by house elves, and following Dobby's freedom he gained employment there. There was also a subplot where Crouch's house elf was blamed for the incident at the Quiddich World Cup by her master and as a punishment gained freedom, something she considered a fate worse than death. She also ended up in Hogwarts' kitchen.

Hermione was horrified when she found out and started an organization to help them but more or less gave up after Hagrid said that it's only the really weird ones that want freedom so it was a fool's errand and was met with horrified looks from the Hogwarts kitchen house elves, once she started talking of her intentions.

I dropped out of the movies before this event happened, but did Harry end up being a slave owner like in the books or did they just cut Creature out entirely?

 

[Bedinsis]

I dropped out of the movies before this event happened, but did Harry end up being a slave owner like in the books or did they just cut Creature out entirely?

Kreacher, the old house elf of the Black household, was a character the movie makers probably would have liked to drop entirely (like Peeves the poltergeist) but then Rowling went and made him central to the final novel so they had to add an insert of him taking up the full screen in the fifth movie (like how Ron's pet rat Scabbers got an insert in the second movie, once they found out he was central in the third novel). I do not remember but I believe they only included him as much as him retelling his history with Regulus Black.

 

[Gordon_4]

I'm not sure what this means but certain bits of British media have led me to believe the School system in the UK is horrific.

Granted, by that I mean Pink Floyd's Another Brick in the Wall(pt. 2), the Matilda musical that just came out and a joke in Blackadder that implied child molestation at school, so admittedly it's a very small set of data points.

Hogwarts is a boarding school. And truthfully I don’t think there’s as much difference between the UK and US versions. So, if you’ve seen Scent of a Woman or School Ties you’d probably have a decent outline of the overall experience.

 

[laggyteabag]

So I was originally on the "fuck this game, and fuck JK Rowling" bandwagon, but then I saw Dunkey's new video


And sure, still fuck JK Rowling, but I guess I had a realisation (though not really, because I was already acutely aware of most of the shady shit that a lot of these developers were involved with) that it seemed bizarre for me to boycott this game, even though JK wasn't involved in it, whilst at the same time supporting a lot of these other games, that directly involved a lot of shitty people.

At that point, I guess I was at a bit of a mental crossroads: I could either boycott every game that was surrounded by some kind of controversy, or I could just accept that sometimes the things that we love, are sometimes made by the people that we hate

So that night I decided to get this game for my girlfriend who was similarly on the fence about getting this game, and she has been playing ever since.

Im waiting for my turn to play, but she has basically commanded a monopoly over my PC for the last week.

 

[Absent]

or I could just accept that sometimes the things that we love, are sometimes made by the people that we hate

There's that (no real problem with it on my side, I can "like a person for this" and "hate that person for that", I don't have to smooth it up by erasing one or the other, I think people can be gratified for a good thing all while being chastized for a bad thing, instead of being annihilated for one bad thing or sanctified for one good thing), but also it's not even a "made by" issue. Sometimes a thing we love is made by : three hundred people including one we dislike. Oh noes.

But in our eternal top outrage world and its rewarded permanent hysteria, we're encouraged to think in "one-drop rule" fashion. Finding one reason to hate and keeping at that is immensely precious, as it gives a sense of pragmatic agency, a concrete target, a channel for the feelings, a sense of identity (built "against") and a common enemy for socialization. "Reduction to the worst component" is a requisite for the contemporary sense of (individual and collective) self - and actually make that "reduction to the most antagonistic component" because it's true for conservatives and progressives alike.

 

[Baffle]

I'm not sure what this means but certain bits of British media have led me to believe the School system in the UK is horrific.

Dooby is the sock.

 

[Eacaraxe]

In the novels it turns out the kitchen is run by house elves, and following Dobby's freedom he gained employment there. There was also a subplot where Crouch's house elf was blamed for the incident at the Quiddich World Cup by her master and as a punishment gained freedom, something she considered a fate worse than death. She also ended up in Hogwarts' kitchen.

Hermione was horrified when she found out and started an organization to help them but more or less gave up after Hagrid said that it's only the really weird ones that want freedom so it was a fool's errand and was met with horrified looks from the Hogwarts kitchen house elves, once she started talking of her intentions.

Yeah, let's tell the other half of that story.

House elves are inherently magical creatures, some of the most powerful magical creatures in the setting, and big on self-sufficiency. They literally have no need for food, clothing, coin, or any other comfort another creature might provide them in trade, and they neither expect it nor want it. What they do expect -- in trade -- is acceptance and gratitude. If they don't get it, they are quite quick to against their "owners" in their own ways. It's the wizards and witches who, in hubris, took it upon themselves to consider the nature of this relationship "slavery" for all its unsavory connotations, and treat house elves accordingly.

Dobby rebelling against the Malfoy family is how he got involved with Harry to begin with. Kreacher hid Slytherin's locket and didn't betray its location to the Death Eaters because Regulus had been kind to him, and likewise, he betrayed Harry and Sirius to the latter's death as an act of rebellion for their cruelty towards him. Likewise, Hermione was the first of the main characters to earn Kreacher's respect and loyalty, because despite Kreacher's adopted pureblood mania, she was the first to actually treat him respectfully. And Kreacher spilled to Harry about the locket, because Dumbledore's cluebat to the head finally sunk in enough for Harry to treat Kreacher kindly.

Hermione had to learn the hard way, because of the SPEW incident. What people who take issue with this subplot tend to just...not talk about for some reason...is that Hermione took it upon herself to do all that shit without ever having consulted a house elf or taking their perspective into account. Which is partially why multiple characters told her to knock it off, especially after the Hogwarts elves started rebelling by refusing to clean the Gryffindor common room. Or to put it another way, Hermione was the Wizarding World equivalent of the white dude at the BLM rally who won't shut the fuck up.

The ultimate point there being, just as with goblins, that wizards themselves were the problems, and the solution to that was to change their perspective and behavior rather than enforce radical, cultural, change on an entire sentient species for wizards' own sake.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Yeah, let's tell the other half of that story.

House elves are inherently magical creatures, some of the most powerful magical creatures in the setting, and big on self-sufficiency. They literally have no need for food, clothing, coin, or any other comfort another creature might provide them in trade, and they neither expect it nor want it. What they do expect -- in trade -- is acceptance and gratitude. If they don't get it, they are quite quick to against their "owners" in their own ways. It's the wizards and witches who, in hubris, took it upon themselves to consider the nature of this relationship "slavery" for all its unsavory connotations, and treat house elves accordingly.

Dobby rebelling against the Malfoy family is how he got involved with Harry to begin with. Kreacher hid Slytherin's locket and didn't betray its location to the Death Eaters because Regulus had been kind to him, and likewise, he betrayed Harry and Sirius to the latter's death as an act of rebellion for their cruelty towards him. Likewise, Hermione was the first of the main characters to earn Kreacher's respect and loyalty, because despite Kreacher's adopted pureblood mania, she was the first to actually treat him respectfully. And Kreacher spilled to Harry about the locket, because Dumbledore's cluebat to the head finally sunk in enough for Harry to treat Kreacher kindly.

Hermione had to learn the hard way, because of the SPEW incident. What people who take issue with this subplot tend to just...not talk about for some reason...is that Hermione took it upon herself to do all that shit without ever having consulted a house elf or taking their perspective into account. Which is partially why multiple characters told her to knock it off, especially after the Hogwarts elves started rebelling by refusing to clean the Gryffindor common room. Or to put it another way, Hermione was the Wizarding World equivalent of the white dude at the BLM rally who won't shut the fuck up.

The ultimate point there being, just as with goblins, that wizards themselves were the problems, and the solution to that was to change their perspective and behavior rather than enforce radical, cultural, change on an entire sentient species for wizards' own sake.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Yeah, let's tell the other half of that story.

House elves are inherently magical creatures, some of the most powerful magical creatures in the setting, and big on self-sufficiency. They literally have no need for food, clothing, coin, or any other comfort another creature might provide them in trade, and they neither expect it nor want it. What they do expect -- in trade -- is acceptance and gratitude. If they don't get it, they are quite quick to against their "owners" in their own ways. It's the wizards and witches who, in hubris, took it upon themselves to consider the nature of this relationship "slavery" for all its unsavory connotations, and treat house elves accordingly.

Dobby rebelling against the Malfoy family is how he got involved with Harry to begin with. Kreacher hid Slytherin's locket and didn't betray its location to the Death Eaters because Regulus had been kind to him, and likewise, he betrayed Harry and Sirius to the latter's death as an act of rebellion for their cruelty towards him. Likewise, Hermione was the first of the main characters to earn Kreacher's respect and loyalty, because despite Kreacher's adopted pureblood mania, she was the first to actually treat him respectfully. And Kreacher spilled to Harry about the locket, because Dumbledore's cluebat to the head finally sunk in enough for Harry to treat Kreacher kindly.

Hermione had to learn the hard way, because of the SPEW incident. What people who take issue with this subplot tend to just...not talk about for some reason...is that Hermione took it upon herself to do all that shit without ever having consulted a house elf or taking their perspective into account. Which is partially why multiple characters told her to knock it off, especially after the Hogwarts elves started rebelling by refusing to clean the Gryffindor common room. Or to put it another way, Hermione was the Wizarding World equivalent of the white dude at the BLM rally who won't shut the fuck up.

The ultimate point there being, just as with goblins, that wizards themselves were the problems, and the solution to that was to change their perspective and behavior rather than enforce radical, cultural, change on an entire sentient species for wizards' own sake.

The sentient race that loves servitude, are genetically compatible with wizards, who''s first introduction is a creature that very much doesn't want to be a slave *at all*, just so we're clear.

Like, I get where you're coming from, but in a series chock full of eugenics (that's theoretically bad but never really addressed), maybe don't have an entire race of happy slaves?

EDIT: Dobby "rebelling" against the Malfoy family took the form of A) working to rule B) contacting Potter (and almost killing him) while he wasn't instructed to not contact him. Even doing that was causing Dobby to self-harm. He was clearly being compelled against his will and couldn't actually avoid doing anything actually instructed of him.

The statue that defenders are quick to point out as "here's an example of Dumbledore calling out wizard society" says that the wizards placing themselves above other was a *lie*, not that wizards were dicks sometimes. If House Elves were like you say, they wouldn't be *slaves*

EDIT*2: Given how easy it is to see the House Elves whole deal as being compelled, it'd be interesting for Hogwarts 2 to actually address like, a blood curse or something they're suffering from. Not that it would change it, if it's still a prequel.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Like, I get where you're coming from, but in a series chock full of eugenics (that's theoretically bad but never really addressed), maybe don't have an entire race of happy slaves?

Oh, the hell it isn't addressed. Literally the entire conflict is over the wizard "eugenicists" being oppressive, genocidal, usually inbred, lunatics framed specifically as, and understood in no context other than, categorically evil. Sirius himself points out there is no such thing as an actual "pureblood" family, the term actually has no real universally agreed-upon definition, and the pureblood maniacs are in self-denial, or projecting feelings of inadequacy based on arbitrary social standards no one is capable of meeting. Beyond that, "pureblood" families not overtaken by pureblood mania are depicted as being apathetic at worst about blood status, and that intermarriage is simply a byproduct of wizards keeping to their own community, out of convenience or necessity (i.e. the statute of secrecy).

Outside even that, it's awful funny how we never really wanna have that conversation that most "pureblood" families' privilege -- most notably, within the Malfoy family -- is the product of generational wealth and status. Eyes always on the Malfoys and Blacks, and far, far, away from the working-class Longbottoms and Weasleys, and by all means necessary, never, ever on that giant vault full of gold and the literal fucking deathly hallow that Harry inherited from being the scion of one of the oldest pureblood families in the setting.

Oh, and hey? remember when Slughorn was legitimately surprised by Lily and Hermione being skilled muggle-born witches, and how that was immediately understood as racism and to interpret in any other way means the interpreter themselves must be racist? Except, Slughorn actually had a point that certain people would rather ignore -- neither Lily nor Hermione lived as small children in the wizarding world, indeed neither had the first idea magic even existed until they were accepted into Hogwarts. Meaning, they started with educational and social disadvantages to overcome first and foremost, which someone like Harry never had to face despite having a muggle-born's background, thanks to the wealth and fame attached to his name.

Kind of like how in the real world, HDC's face educational and social disadvantages, that perpetuate and enable downward social mobility and generational poverty. And from that, how implicit racial biases intersect with socioeconomic biases, in ways quite perceptible to those without ulterior motive to protect socioeconomic self-interest. Is it any wonder Harry Potter hate comes not from the evangelical right nowadays, but near-exclusively white and bourgeois, lousy with delusions of beneficent grandeur?

Or in case the point's been missed, this is all identity reductionist bullshit and I'll have none of it.

The statue that defenders are quick to point out as "here's an example of Dumbledore calling out wizard society" says that the wizards placing themselves above other was a *lie*, not that wizards were dicks sometimes. If House Elves were like you say, they wouldn't be *slaves*

Who's the party calling house elves that, again?

 

[Drathnoxis]

Oh, the hell it isn't addressed. Literally the entire conflict is over the wizard "eugenicists" being oppressive, genocidal, usually inbred, lunatics framed specifically as, and understood in no context other than, categorically evil. Sirius himself points out there is no such thing as an actual "pureblood" family, the term actually has no real universally agreed-upon definition, and the pureblood maniacs are in self-denial, or projecting feelings of inadequacy based on arbitrary social standards no one is capable of meeting. Beyond that, "pureblood" families not overtaken by pureblood mania are depicted as being apathetic at worst about blood status, and that intermarriage is simply a byproduct of wizards keeping to their own community, out of convenience or necessity (i.e. the statute of secrecy).

Outside even that, it's awful funny how we never really wanna have that conversation that most "pureblood" families' privilege -- most notably, within the Malfoy family -- is the product of generational wealth and status. Eyes always on the Malfoys and Blacks, and far, far, away from the working-class Longbottoms and Weasleys, and by all means necessary, never, ever on that giant vault full of gold and the literal fucking deathly hallow that Harry inherited from being the scion of one of the oldest pureblood families in the setting.

Oh, and hey? remember when Slughorn was legitimately surprised by Lily and Hermione being skilled muggle-born witches, and how that was immediately understood as racism and to interpret in any other way means the interpreter themselves must be racist? Except, Slughorn actually had a point that certain people would rather ignore -- neither Lily nor Hermione lived as small children in the wizarding world, indeed neither had the first idea magic even existed until they were accepted into Hogwarts. Meaning, they started with educational and social disadvantages to overcome first and foremost, which someone like Harry never had to face despite having a muggle-born's background, thanks to the wealth and fame attached to his name.

Kind of like how in the real world, HDC's face educational and social disadvantages, that perpetuate and enable downward social mobility and generational poverty. And from that, how implicit racial biases intersect with socioeconomic biases, in ways quite perceptible to those without ulterior motive to protect socioeconomic self-interest. Is it any wonder Harry Potter hate comes not from the evangelical right nowadays, but near-exclusively white and bourgeois, lousy with delusions of beneficent grandeur?

Or in case the point's been missed, this is all identity reductionist bullshit and I'll have none of it.


Who's the party calling house elves that, again?

But if you explain it all like that, how can we retroactively hate Rowling for everything she's ever written, instead of just what she's currently writing?

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Finding one reason to hate and keeping at that is immensely precious, as it gives a sense of pragmatic agency, a concrete target, a channel for the feelings, a sense of identity (built "against") and a common enemy for socialization.

I touched upon this myself somewhere along the line (though I doubt I'm gonna be able to easily find it at this point), but I find it kinda fascinating that as soon as we have a name and a face to direct our anger towards, then the reaction towards the issue at hand seemingly increases. It's no longer "X corporation is evil" in a broad sweeping term, it's "X person is evil" and a ton of the hate that would've/could've/should've been directed elsewhere gets funnelled to them. It doesn't matter their level of involvement with anything down the chain, it's now primarily their fault

 

[Bedinsis]

Hermione had to learn the hard way, because of the SPEW incident. What people who take issue with this subplot tend to just...not talk about for some reason...is that Hermione took it upon herself to do all that shit without ever having consulted a house elf or taking their perspective into account. Which is partially why multiple characters told her to knock it off, especially after the Hogwarts elves started rebelling by refusing to clean the Gryffindor common room. Or to put it another way, Hermione was the Wizarding World equivalent of the white dude at the BLM rally who won't shut the fuck up.

(emphasis mine)
That is my ultimate take-away from that plotline as well: that it was intended to be a case of someone being in over their head due to their ideals without considering everything, not uncommon amongst child activists.

It does however mean that the Wizarding World has created a race of creatures that are okay with living in slavery. And I cannot call it anything else when Harry gained ownership over Kreacher and suddenly Kreacher was bound to follow his every command; there was explicitly a scene where he told Kreacher to shut up which he magically did, against his own wishes. All the more concerning since this is a setting where one of the Unforgivable Curses involved controlling other people.

House elves are inherently magical creatures, some of the most powerful magical creatures in the setting, and big on self-sufficiency. They literally have no need for food, clothing, coin, or any other comfort another creature might provide them in trade, and they neither expect it nor want it.

I don't remember this. Where did you get that from?

Dobby rebelling against the Malfoy family is how he got involved with Harry to begin with. Kreacher hid Slytherin's locket and didn't betray its location to the Death Eaters because Regulus had been kind to him, and likewise, he betrayed Harry and Sirius to the latter's death as an act of rebellion for their cruelty towards him. Likewise, Hermione was the first of the main characters to earn Kreacher's respect and loyalty, because despite Kreacher's adopted pureblood mania, she was the first to actually treat him respectfully. And Kreacher spilled to Harry about the locket, because Dumbledore's cluebat to the head finally sunk in enough for Harry to treat Kreacher kindly.

Really? I thought Kreacher was surly or hateful towards the main trio right up until Harry gave him Regulus' old locket, at which point he was respectful towards all of them (and they towards him), without any special preference towards Hermione.

 

[Buyetyen]

It does however mean that the Wizarding World has created a race of creatures that are okay with living in slavery. And I cannot call it anything else when Harry gained ownership over Kreacher and suddenly Kreacher was bound to follow his every command; there was explicitly a scene where he told Kreacher to shut up which he magically did, against his own wishes. All the more concerning since this is a setting where one of the Unforgivable Curses involved controlling other people.

This is the core of the problem. By any definition, it is slavery. And writing your slaves to be happy to be in bondage and servitude is creepy, echoing old Atlantic slave trade apologetics.

Still, nothing like seeing people simp for this shit to tell you who you can and cannot trust.

 

[Absent]

I touched upon this myself somewhere along the line (though I doubt I'm gonna be able to easily find it at this point), but I find it kinda fascinating that as soon as we have a name and a face to direct our anger towards, then the reaction towards the issue at hand seemingly increases. It's no longer "X corporation is evil" in a broad sweeping term, it's "X person is evil" and a ton of the hate that would've/could've/should've been directed elsewhere gets funnelled to them. It doesn't matter their level of involvement with anything down the chain, it's now primarily their fault

Yes. We especially do need personified enemies instead of vague, diffuse sociocultural systems that we're all part of. Conservatives or progressives, we love hating our scapegoats (50 years after the facts, whoever Roman Polanski is nowadays still is the priority target when it comes to defeating gender violence in the cinema industry). It was nice to raise revolutions against a clearly defined power - kings, dictators, "mandarins". After 1968 and so, the enemy has become just our vague environment, our own collective consumption, etc. Our wrath and frustration feel aimless, flailing in the void, seeking to grab something or someone.

Though it also works the other way. We need personified heroes. Progressives and conservatives, we love our messiahs. And this plays a role in the support that fringe pseudo-scientists (flat earthers, anti-vaccine, climate denialist, 9-11 truthers, etc) benefit from : they are the lone outsiders versus the vaguely oppressive, indistinct institutions. They fit well in a type of narratives that all our fictions have primed us to embrace.

So, be it how history is taught at school (everything hinging on great inventors and great historical figures) or how we frame our fights, it's like emotions and cognition favour individual actors. Our brains are made to process (and react to, and deal with) individuals around us, not abstractions.

And, again, our species will (literally) die of that.

 

[CriticalGaming]

This is the core of the problem. By any definition, it is slavery. And writing your slaves to be happy to be in bondage and servitude is creepy, echoing old Atlantic slave trade apologetics.

Still, nothing like seeing people simp for this shit to tell you who you can and cannot trust.

So is writing slavery in any form bad? Like is it immoral to exist in any fictional context? If not, what slavery in fiction should be allowed?

The reason why I ask, is there are many Elven slaves in Manga that need to start protesting.

 

[Buyetyen]

So is writing slavery in any form bad? Like is it immoral to exist in any fictional context? If not, what slavery in fiction should be allowed?

The reason why I ask, is there are many Elven slaves in Manga that need to start protesting.

Once again, you choose to be difficult instead of engaging with the substance of what I have to say. Come back when you have something of value to say.

 

[Zeke davis]

So is writing slavery in any form bad? Like is it immoral to exist in any fictional context? If not, what slavery in fiction should be allowed?

The reason why I ask, is there are many Elven slaves in Manga that need to start protesting.

Unless you're against any criticism of how art uses slavery i doubt this is a good faith response.

You should just straight out say what's worth defending with this world's take on the issue rather than go "You just want to ban slavery from media"..

I'd enslaved people in fallout 3. Harry potter's take on the issue is still stupid.

The fact the best defense is the implicitly claim only white liberals read it as slavery when they absolutely are not the only ones even among potter fans only shows how shallow and kneejerky these defenses are.

One suspects you're only triyng to defend the kids adventures plot from assocation rather than really defending the parts of the books. Just realize enjoyment can be conditional and move on.