Hogwarts Legacy - Whimsical Wizardry

[CriticalGaming]

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 substance to say.

I'm directly asking you a question. That you can't really answer because your initial response is that of virtual signaling and nothing more.

You wrote that writing slavery in which servants are happy for the bondage is creepy, and your entire implication is that Slavery written in even a fictional way is not a good look.

However I pointed out that slavery is used in fiction all the time, sometimes for evil, and other times for fetishistic reasons.

The point is that there are themes and circumstances used in fantasy entertainment all the time. And just because you find real world allegories, doesn't mean the author wrote it with malicious intent. And a lot of people make the mistake of projecting their moral values onto what they see in fiction and equate fictional writing into who the creator is as a person.

A person can write evil, without they themselves being evil. Judge a person by their real actions not some fiction bullshit they wrote poorly for young adults.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Harry potter's take on the issue is still stupid.

That is because Harry Potter is a poorly written series meant for 14 year olds. It would be like claiming Stephanie Meyer is a Pedophile because of the Twilight books.

I don't think it's all that deep, these are surface level stories for kids.

 

[Zeke davis]

That is because Harry Potter is a poorly written series meant for 14 year olds. It would be like claiming Stephanie Meyer is a Pedophile because of the Twilight books.

I don't think it's all that deep, these are surface level stories for kids.

Saying an series written for kids is secretly non-didactic and shouldn’t be judged as such is reading too deeply in it.
Accusing people of wanting to ban slavery in media for pointing out the obvious is also reading too much into things.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

"Lolita isn’t a perverse young girl. She’s a poor child who has been debauched and whose senses never stir under the caresses of the foul Humbert Humbert, whom she asks once, ‘how long did [he] think we were going to live in stuffy cabins, doing filthy things together…?’

But to reply to your question: no, its success doesn’t annoy me, I am not like Conan Doyle, who out of snobbery or simple stupidity preferred to be known as the author of “The Great Boer War,” which he thought superior to his Sherlock Holmes.

It is equally interesting to dwell, as journalists say, on the problem of the inept degradation that the character of the nymphet Lolita, whom I invented in 1955, has undergone in the mind of the broad public. Not only has the perversity of this poor child been grotesquely exaggerated, but her physical appearance, her age, everything has been transformed by the illustrations in foreign publications. Girls of eighteen or more, sidewalk kittens, cheap models, or simple long-legged criminals, are baptized “nymphets” or “Lolitas” in news stories in magazines in Italy, France, Germany, etc; and the covers of translations, Turkish or Arab, reach the height of ineptitude when they feature a young woman with opulent contours and a blonde mane imagined by boobies who have never read my book.

In reality Lolita is a little girl of twelve, whereas Humbert Humbert is a mature man, and it’s the abyss between his age and that of the little girl that produces the vacuum, the vertigo, the seduction of mortal danger. Secondly, it’s the imagination of the sad satyr that makes a magic creature of this little American schoolgirl, as banal and normal in her way as the poet manqué Humbert is in his. Outside the maniacal gaze of Humbert there is no nymphet. Lolita the nymphet exists only through the obsession that destroys Humbert.

Herein an essential aspect of a unique book that has been betrayed by a factitious popularity."

- Vladimir Nabokov

 

[Buyetyen]

I'm directly asking you a question.

It was a stupid question so I went ahead and disregarded it.

That you can't really answer because your initial response is that of virtual signaling and nothing more.

I already said why I felt that the Harry Potter writing of slavery is bad. That was not a broader comment on the depiction of slavery in fiction. That was some shit you made up.

your entire implication is that Slavery written in even a fictional way is not a good look.

Never said that. You make shit up, dude. Don't make shit up.

But hey if you want me to hate Jo Rowling for shit she does in real life, it's not like it isn't a target-rich environment. She's just a shitty person.

 

[immortalfrieza]

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.

Exactly. The issue with the SPEW plotline is we're supposed to actually think what Herminone is trying to do is wrong and against the wishes of the people she's trying to help. However, as demonstrated with Dobby before he is freed as well as other examples as you mentioned with Kreacher, House Elves are being magically compelled. As a race House Elves are both brainwashed from early on to think having nothing not even clothing to wear and slaving away for their masters is great for them, and even if they don't actually want to they have to do whatever their masters tell them completely against any desires otherwise. Chances are they've been magically compelled to think and tell everyone else they love being slaves. House Elves especially before they are freed very clearly are not mentally competent enough for their "wishes" to be considered valid.

What's worse is that there's a simple solution to this problem: Free all the House Elves so their compulsion is broken, then if they really truly find so much enjoyment in work so much have them work for next to nothing of their own free will like Dobby does. If they have a jerkass master who abuses them, they can just... you know, LEAVE and go work for someone who doesn't treat them like garbage. The behavior of wizards towards their servants in general would improve drastically because even the jerkass masters would have to compete with the ones who aren't dicks to the their servants and thus would have to treat their own servants better.

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.

To answer your question, Slavery is bad in any context and anyone who engages in it is not a good person. Writing that there's slavery in a fictional world is fine. The writing treating said slavery as though it is good is bad no matter what work of fiction we're talking about and the circumstances of the enslaved. Completely separate of any controvery with Rowling herself treating slavery as though it is good is exactly what Rowling does with the House Elves in the books. Yes, even the so called hero of the Harry Potter series eventually having a House Elf makes him a bad person. The fact that the narrative treats Harry Potter or any wizard having a House Elf as good doesn't make it good, it just means that the writer wants everyone to think that slavery is good.

 

[Baffle]

That is because Harry Potter is a poorly written series meant for 14 year olds.

FINALLY someone said it.

Apols for caps, on phone, can't do italics.

 

[Absent]

I remember a Bob Morane adventure I read many years ago. Bob Morane and his friends discovered the lost undersea kingdom of Atlantis (once more, I think they discover the lost undersea kingdom of Atlantis two or three different times in the course of their hundreds of adventures, but whatever), and its terrified citizens are ruled by their fear of some immortal sea god monster or something. So, of course, Bob Morane defeats/unmasks the immortal sea god monster, and liberates the whole population, as Bob Morane does. The twist comes from the fact that the population seems all the more distressed afterwards, and it is revealed that they will soon wither and collapse because all that was keeping that society going was this oppressive terror of that horrible godly figure.

It was an unusual twist for these otherwise positivist novels (they rarely ended on a bitter note), and not an entirely convincing one but still I found it interesting. So whenever I hear about this slave species in the Potter books, I think of that. I don't dislike that perspective, because I don't dislike unexpected perspectives in books and subversions of saviour tropes. Of course the context is different, as Henri Vernes was a staunch antiracist, anticolonialist, ecologist, whose multiple other books are all about various forms of tyranny ended by our noble doctor-whoesque hero. So, it doesn't set the tone or an overall aesop. Just a touch of nuance in the lot.

But it also echoes the reality that not everybody chooses freedom when given the choice, and we know (just check political stances and vote) how submission to the authority of some know-it-all patriarch is appealing to a lot of people. I have no trouble believing that not everyone wants to be "liberated", and that people have ambivalent relations to whatever good or bad structures their world...

So, this aspect of the Potter books (known indirectly as I never read them) never shocked me too much. I can see how it could be done without being an endorsement of slavery. And also how it could be done while being that. But given that, as far as I know, the Rowlings person seemed to be mostly left-leaning outside her outdated anti-trans beliefs (exchanging anti-trump tweets with Stephen King, etc), I doubt it was meant as an apartheid apology.

 

[Zeke davis]

I remember a Bob Morane adventure I read many years ago. Bob Morane and his friends discovered the lost undersea kingdom of Atlantis (once more, I think they discover the lost undersea kingdom of Atlantis two or three different times in the course of their hundreds of adventures, but whatever), and its terrified citizens are ruled by their fear of some immortal sea god monster or something. So, of course, Bob Morane defeats/unmasks the immortal sea god monster, and liberates the whole population, as Bob Morane does. The twist comes from the fact that the population seems all the more distressed afterwards, and it is revealed that they will soon wither and collapse because all that was keeping that society going was this oppressive terror of that horrible godly figure.

It was an unusual twist for these otherwise positivist novels (they rarely ended on a bitter note), and not an entirely convincing one but still I found it interesting. So whenever I hear about this slave species in the Potter books, I think of that. I don't dislike that perspective, because I don't dislike unexpected perspectives in books and subversions of saviour tropes. Of course the context is different, as Henri Vernes was a staunch antiracist, anticolonialist, ecologist, whose multiple other books are all about various forms of tyranny ended by our noble doctor-whoesque hero. So, it doesn't set the tone or an overall aesop. Just a touch of nuance in the lot.

But it also echoes the reality that not everybody chooses freedom when given the choice, and we know (just check political stances and vote) how submission to the authority of some know-it-all patriarch is appealing to a lot of people. I have no trouble believing that not everyone wants to be "liberated", and that people have ambivalent relations to whatever good or bad structures their world...

So, this aspect of the Potter books (known indirectly as I never read them) never shocked me too much. I can see how it could be done without being an endorsement of slavery. And also how it could be done while being that. But given that, as far as I know, the Rowlings person seemed to be mostly left-leaning outside her outdated anti-trans beliefs (exchanging anti-trump tweets with Stephen King, etc), I doubt it was meant as an apartheid apology.

Some read it like an neoliberal classist apology but regardless shit writing due to accident is distinct from intentionally fucking up but still shit writing.

No one’s quite accusing Rowling of promoting slavery per se. More like her own world-building trash which self-sabotages the plots own attempts at being nuanced or kids book tier fodder.

 

[Eacaraxe]

It does however mean that the Wizarding World has created a race of creatures that are okay with living in slavery.

It means it has a race of creatures with values and norms dramatically different than that of viewpoint characters, and by extension, the readers'. Those values and norms exist in conflict, and wizards have taken it upon themselves in hubris to interpret the relationship between themselves and elves as one of master and slave. Much as wizards interpret every relationship between themselves and sapient magical creature. Which is why the books frame wizards as generally being in the wrong for attempting to impose their own values and norms on every other magical creature, to differing but usually negative outcomes.

The challenge is for readers to look beyond their own worldview, and consider others' worldviews on their own terms rather that expect the other to simply conform. The latter is no less hubristic and imperialist than alternatives, however benevolently it may be framed. Which is why Hermione's efforts were particularly offensive to them.

We'll get to the Imperius curse in a sec.

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

It's in the stuff about Winky and Dobby working in the Hogwarts kitchen, specifically when Dobby was talking about his wages and negotiating Dumbledore down if I remember correctly. Because house elves had no existential need for commerce on account of their magic, and therefore payment as such held no extrinsic or intrinsic value; it did for Dobby, because of its symbolic value as gratuity.

Which, about the Imperius curse. It's interesting you brought this up, at this particular point and in this particular context; Crouch Sr's use of it was what led to Winky being disowned by him. And Winky, more than any other character in this, is -- or rather, would be -- a message about the perils of internalized oppression, were we to do anything but throw out the baby with the bathwater to salve our own self-righteousness, and parse these texts in any context other than "Wizard Book Lady bad!".

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.

He was still a grouchy old fart of an elf, but he still noticeably softened towards Hermione in OotP and HBP.

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.

I'm not implicitly claiming a damn thing. I'm quite explicitly claiming white liberals deliberately read it in the most superficial, comforting, and bias-confirming, context possible to indulge a pathological need for self-righteous indignation, and poison the well against any deeper analysis that could prove not just inconvenient, but indicting to their own worldview.

 

[Zeke davis]

I'm not implicitly claiming a damn thing. I'm quite explicitly claiming white liberals deliberately read it in the most superficial, comforting, and bias-confirming, context possible to indulge a pathological need for self-righteous indignation, and poison the well against any deeper analysis that could prove not just inconvenient, but indicting to their own worldview.

JK Rowling as a person is that kind of person you're accusing her audience and critics of being.

I do note that this thread overall hasn't really gone that deep into providing evidence....but yeah, you really haven't provided evidence that house elves have an actual mutually beneficial relationship with their masters or whatever nor have you really proved why it would change anything other than providing an theremin argument for such crass shite execution of it's themes.

"Having an minority in your book series being an happy house maid" is exactly the kind of tone deaf dictating over minority voices you claim SPEW is supposed to represent.

That is literally the kind of stupid repersation on film that black people bitched about back in the day.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

You're describing JK rowling perfectly but you seem to imply you're not. Strange.

They eat their own.

 

[Gordon_4]

"Lolita isn’t a perverse young girl. She’s a poor child who has been debauched and whose senses never stir under the caresses of the foul Humbert Humbert, whom she asks once, ‘how long did [he] think we were going to live in stuffy cabins, doing filthy things together…?’

But to reply to your question: no, its success doesn’t annoy me, I am not like Conan Doyle, who out of snobbery or simple stupidity preferred to be known as the author of “The Great Boer War,” which he thought superior to his Sherlock Holmes.

It is equally interesting to dwell, as journalists say, on the problem of the inept degradation that the character of the nymphet Lolita, whom I invented in 1955, has undergone in the mind of the broad public. Not only has the perversity of this poor child been grotesquely exaggerated, but her physical appearance, her age, everything has been transformed by the illustrations in foreign publications. Girls of eighteen or more, sidewalk kittens, cheap models, or simple long-legged criminals, are baptized “nymphets” or “Lolitas” in news stories in magazines in Italy, France, Germany, etc; and the covers of translations, Turkish or Arab, reach the height of ineptitude when they feature a young woman with opulent contours and a blonde mane imagined by boobies who have never read my book.

In reality Lolita is a little girl of twelve, whereas Humbert Humbert is a mature man, and it’s the abyss between his age and that of the little girl that produces the vacuum, the vertigo, the seduction of mortal danger. Secondly, it’s the imagination of the sad satyr that makes a magic creature of this little American schoolgirl, as banal and normal in her way as the poet manqué Humbert is in his. Outside the maniacal gaze of Humbert there is no nymphet. Lolita the nymphet exists only through the obsession that destroys Humbert.

Herein an essential aspect of a unique book that has been betrayed by a factitious popularity."

- Vladimir Nabokov

Is perhaps the film responsible for some of the misreading do you think?

 

[Zeke davis]

They eat their own.

Why then are you defending such dumbassed hypocritical virute signalling then?

It reeks more of the discourse becoming self-aware even if it's not under ideal circumstances.

Is perhaps the film responsible for some of the misreading do you think?

The films were a lot better on this and implicitly said pretty much the opposite. So I'd think not.

It's more Spencer posted unrelated quotes based on a moral panic without realizing the implications of the analogy.

Like a book that has an unreabile narrator isn't really relevant to an debate about an kids series that no one is actually aruging the in-verse objectivity. It's more about Spencer cheer-leading and calling all critics censors than anything relevant .

 

[Buyetyen]

FINALLY someone said it.

Apols for caps, on phone, can't do italics.

I feel like the, "It's for kids so it's okay to be badly written," excuse is kind of lazy though. Like, there's plenty of well-written stuff targeted at kids. Saying the children audience makes bad writing acceptable just sounds more like that person can't handle criticism.

Like a book that has an unreabile narrator isn't really relevant to an debate about an kids series that don't is arguing the subjectivity. It's more about Spencer cheer-leading and calling all critics censors than anything relevant .

Business as usual.

 

[Baffle]

I feel like the, "It's for kids so it's okay to be badly written," excuse is kind of lazy though. Like, there's plenty of well-written stuff targeted at kids. Saying the children audience makes bad writing acceptable just sounds more like that person can't handle criticism.

I don't think it justifies bad writing (and I haven't read the books to be able to honestly comment), I just think people who are now in their 30s and 40s are a bit too invested in a children's book from when they were young. But then, I play video games and am also slightly too old to have been interested in Harry Potter.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Why then are you defending such dumbassed hypocritical virute signalling then?

?????????????????

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I feel like the, "It's for kids so it's okay to be badly written," excuse is kind of lazy though. Like, there's plenty of well-written stuff targeted at kids. Saying the children audience makes bad writing acceptable just sounds more like that person can't handle criticism.



Business as usual.

I think the point is more that the series was supposed to be like something from Roald Dahl, where things are whimsical and often operate on cartoon logic. It's not bad writing per se, but it's also not meant to be taken too seriously.

 

[Buyetyen]

I think the point is more that the series was supposed to be like something from Roald Dahl, where things are whimsical and often operate on cartoon logic. It's not bad writing per se, but it's also not meant to be taken too seriously.

You're not proving me wrong.

 

[Silvanus]

poison the well against any deeper analysis that could prove not just inconvenient, but indicting to their own worldview.

It's not really "deeper analysis" to argue that we should take the relationship between Wizardkind and House Elves purely at surface-level, and disregard any parallel or analogy with slavery-- or even any real-world relationship, in a series otherwise chock full of analogies and sociopolitical commentary-- because they just magically love serving. Its kinda the opposite.

In the numerous southern adventure novels of the earlier 1800s featuring people perfectly happy and jolly to be working for nothing. Is it the deeper analysis there to say, well, they like serving! That's all there is to it! Or would it be more accurate to say... the fact hierarchical subservience is portrayed in that way in the first place is kinda meaningful?