Hogwarts Legacy - Whimsical Wizardry

[Hades]

For what its worth I've never been terribly harsh on the politics of Harry Potter. A lot of people have analysed the series politics as being very neoliberal, with a particular leaning towards New Labour, a movement to which Rowling herself has strong ties. Two strong tenants of this political belief are that changes are to be made on a personal level and that systemic changes are undesirable, and that problems are caused not by systems, but by the wrong persons being in charge which can be fixed by putting the right people in charge.

Essentially the politics of Rowling and Potter operate under the belief that the systems and society we have now are the best it will ever be, and that systemic change is misguided at best. Lately these politics of Rowling have gotten both analysed and criticized thoroughly, but I think we should be nuanced about this. At the time when Harry Potter was written Neoliberalism was the chief ideology of the western world. We are now experiencing the downright titanic downsides of this ideology, but at the time the world was largely optimistic about neoliberalism and its ideals. It was the end of history after all. ''We'll never have it better than we do now!'' was the common belief at the time.

In retrospect the idea that systems can be fixed just by putting the ''right persons'' in charge seems shockingly naive but at the time of writing that was the ''logical view'' of how society operated. I'm sure that people in poverty at the time would scoff about systemic change being undesirable, and that the problems are just about the wrong people being in charge, but society didn't pay attention to such people at the time. Why would they? If poverty was a personal failing rather than that of the system. At the time it must have been easy to dismiss those crushed by neoliberism as ''whiners just out to ruin everyone's good mood with their own failings''. But because neoliberism encouraged the failings of society to get ignored, or even heavily increased in pursuit of profit its far harder to dismiss the now more numerous people who are very aware of the many flaws within that ideology.

That Rowling had those politics at the time, and wrote them into Harry Potter doesn't really reflect poorly on her. All it tells us is that Rowling and Harry Potter are products of their time. That Rowling maintains these beliefs to the present day does reflect poorly on her though. There's somewhat of a ''screw you, got mine'' mentality about it.

I do find it amusing that Rowling accidentally did write about systems being to blame all along. After all Fudge didn't single handily screw up the Ministry. As far as I can tell its always written as an institution with a zealous drive towards racism and self destruction. Fudge is more of an outgrowth of that system rather than the wrong man getting in charge and ruining an otherwise functioning system. Though given the status quo gets maintained after book 7 I don't think Rowling ever noticed that.

 

[Hawki]

The thing you have to remember about bigots is that they think everyone secretly agrees with them. False pattern recognition is a thing, and if you go looking for a justification for some horrible belief, there's countless media you can miss the point of in order to feel validated.

Okay, but that's a problem that lies with the bigots, not the media.

Again, the idea that MLP could be used as a justification as racism is insane to me. I mean, this is a kid's show, and while written much better than many other kids' shows, it's still a kids' show where drama can be resolved within 20 minutes (60 tops if you're doing specials). Where in Gen 4, a core plot point is literally every species in Equestria uniting to defeat a common threat, whereas by Gen 5, the premise of the movie is to mend the bonds of trust between the three pony tribes after they've become xenophobic of each other, where that fact is presented as an unambiguous tragedy.

There's at least a train of logic you could follow into claiming that house elves are slaves, tenuous as the track is, but to say that MLP supports their views? There isn't a train you can follow, there isn't even a station.

 

[Buyetyen]

Okay, but that's a problem that lies with the bigots, not the media.

I didn't say otherwise. Just pointing out that as insane as it may sound to you, a lot of really awful people mistakenly see themselves in a lot of narratives. From the white supremacists who said that Black Panther validates their desire for an ethno-state, to the racists who think MLP is telling them what they want to hear, there are some people who are only ever going to see the world through a twisted lens.

That said, where the media has dubious messaging, criticism is still warranted.

 

[BrawlMan]

Okay, I've watched every episode of FiM, plus seen the four Equestria Girls films, plus read a no. of the comics, plus seen the Gen 5 film, plus read a number of novels. I have no idea how any of that could be used as justification for racism. If anything, any approximation of racism in the IP is regarded as a bad thing.

The episode when Zecora is first introduced. You can connect the dots.

If anything, any approximation of racism in the IP is regarded as a bad thing.

Too bad there are people that fucking stupid, ignorant, or petty that missed the overall message.

So, not an answer then.

Not my fault you can't figure out the answers that were given out beforehand by other users going on about the House Elves. Funny how you can't pay attention when some people already gave you the answer(s). Your problem, if you don't like them.

 

[Absent]

Essentially the politics of Rowling and Potter operate under the belief that the systems and society we have now are the best it will ever be, and that systemic change is misguided at best.

Isn't that the case with almost all light entertainment books ? Status quo disrupted/threatened oh no, status quo restored/protected yay ? Few happy ends involve a transformed society, world, universe. The kingdom is usually saved at the end, the kings aren't beheaded and replaced by a parliamentary democracy.

 

[Silvanus]

Why does there NEED to be a solution? We argue about real world problems with no solution that everyone can agree on.

??? There doesn't need to be a 'solution'. But the writer has chosen to portray one approach (systemic change) as naive and laughable, and to portray another approach (not changing anything) as the only workable thing to do. There doesn't need to be a single right answer in fiction, and moral ambiguity is great-- but what's happened here is the author has very explicitly chosen to give us a right answer.

Why is it wrong for Hermoine to see something as bad but try to fix it in a way that fails to do so and for the House Elves to genuinely be mistreated and need to be helped while also not WANTING to be helped?

It wouldn't be wrong. Though that's not the story as presented to us.

That's a complicated issue, but like most things that aren't the main plot, it doesn't get a full investment. That doesn't mean JK Rowling SUPPORTS SLAVERY!

Didn't say it did, and I don't believe she does. Try to talk about this in a less reductive way.

I don't think she supports slavery, and I don't think she's an antisemite. However, I think she's written a story that clearly draws on tropes associated with those two subjects, and has done so in a thoughtless and pretty iffy way.

So Goblins are Jews, Orcs are Black, this means House Elves are....I dunno dogs? Dogs love serving people so must be dogs.

Didn't say any of that, but you're welcome to respond to what I did say.

House Elves aren't a direct parallel with any real world group. But their situation is most closely analogous with slavery, and even the book itself makes that comparison.

 

[Silvanus]

Okay, I stopped commenting ages back when it was clear that any presented evidence could be waved off as non-canon regardless as to how many citations I used, but since I'm already here, I'll say this - I don't think the house elves are representing what you say they're representing.

I'll throw certain users I won't name a bone and won't cite anything outside the main books. Let's assume for the sake of argument that nothing changes are book 7 (that's factually incorrect, but let's go with that assumption). Let's look at the specific context of book 4 and look at why Hermione's elf plot exists. Really, to me, it's simple:

1: Hermione has been well-established by this point as being highly intelligent, but also highly arrogant. She's often been convinced that she knows best, regardless of anything else to the contrary (e.g. Divination, which she's hopeless at, in part because it doesn't fit how she sees education).

2: Book 4 gets to have fun with the house elves because we have an example of Hermione being utterly, spectacuarly wrong. Regardless of any evidence presented to her, she's utterly convinced that she's in the right, and everyone else, including the house elves (who just want her to stop bothering them) are wrong.

I am well aware about how the situation is presented in the books; the canonical "right answer" isn't my issue. My issue is with that this approach implies-- the messages it sends.

For instance, the Death Eaters' pureblood prejudice and mania is presented as wrong and dangerous. In-universe that's the position as presented to us. But we're clearly not meant to stop there, and take no messages into the real world: the message it sends to us in the real world is that judging someone purely on their heritage or race is wrong and dangerous. Because that's the closest analogue.

Apply the same approach to the House Elf stuff, and what do we get? I am well aware that "House Elf liberation" is ethically the wrong thing to do in-universe. So what are the implications and messages from this? That... changing subservient or hierarchical systems is laughable or patronising? That they shouldn't be changed and they're fine as they are? Because those are the closest analogues.

There's already parallels to the house elves from folklore. That's where the inspiration lies. It's a stretch to imagine that the house elves are meant to be a stand-in for real world slavery, because a) house elves aren't human, they can operate on their own terms, b) their own terms have real-world folkloric antecedents, and c) we know how humans operate, and it sure as hell isn't like house elves.

Are there parallels in HP to the real world? Absolutely. Are the house elves meant to reflect the real world? Not really. There's nothing inside the text or "Word of God" to suggest that (as opposed to lycanthropy, which Rowling claimed was meant to represent AIDS, but even if that's true, that's a hell of a stretch.)

There doesn't really need to be 'Word of God' on this matter, when the nature of the relationship-- complete subservience of one intelligent being, and complete authority of another over the former-- is so clear. There's not really another word for it.

 

[BrawlMan]

I don't think she supports slavery, and I don't think she's an antisemite.

No, but she has no problem supporting systematic abuse.

and even the book itself makes that comparison.

And it sounds like Rowling did a shitty job.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

And it sounds like Rowling did a shitty job.

Hacks gonna hack.

 

[Hawki]

The episode when Zecora is first introduced. You can connect the dots.

You mean the episode where everyone is distrustful of Zecora without any real basis, how they blame her for the blue flower disease, how this makes them act stupidly to the point of self-sabotage, and how the end moral is that you should never judge people by their appearances without getting to know them first?

Not sure what other moral you could take from it. I mean, that's a season 1 episode where the "friendship lessons" were delivered explicitly.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Is it one of those kid stories where all the adults are unreasonable and unrealistic bastards, and only the kids are good people despite having very little good influences around them?

No. In fact, in the Fantastic Beasts movie, a magical baby dear who can see people's souls bows to Dumbledore, showing the masses that his soul is pure.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

2: Book 4 gets to have fun with the house elves because we have an example of Hermione being utterly, spectacuarly wrong. Regardless of any evidence presented to her, she's utterly convinced that she's in the right, and everyone else, including the house elves (who just want her to stop bothering them) are wrong.

3: Since it's bound to come up, Book 5 does complicate things a bit with Kreacher and the Ministry statue, but the house elves aren't the crux of it, they're part of a wider point - from the dementors to the giants, the Wizarding World has let injustice linger for too long, now it's paying the price. The difference, of course, is that the house elves aren't these beings.

There's already parallels to the house elves from folklore. That's where the inspiration lies. It's a stretch to imagine that the house elves are meant to be a stand-in for real world slavery, because a) house elves aren't human, they can operate on their own terms, b) their own terms have real-world folkloric antecedents, and c) we know how humans operate, and it sure as hell isn't like house elves.

House Elves aren't part of the point, despite being on the mentioned statue. House Elves can operate on their own terms, except if their owner gives a direct order, and they *cannot* leave under their own power regardless of circumstances and abuse.

Sure

I mean, for instance, if we accept the argument that house elves are slaves, I'm going to assume that you're similarly opposed to any depiction of Santa and his elves?

Any media that depicts Santa being on the outs with his elves generally shows that the elves have a labor union and can, in fact, just leave. Except for Futurama, which is a cynical adult comedy

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Isn't that the case with almost all light entertainment books ? Status quo disrupted/threatened oh no, status quo restored/protected yay ? Few happy ends involve a transformed society, world, universe. The kingdom is usually saved at the end, the kings aren't beheaded and replaced by a parliamentary democracy.

The good kingdoms/status quo in said media aren't typically portrayed as being run by incompetent racists. They usually present a status quo that's, you know, good

 

[BrawlMan]

You mean the episode where everyone is distrustful of Zecora without any real basis, how they blame her for the blue flower disease, how this makes them act stupidly to the point of self-sabotage, and how the end moral is that you should never judge people by their appearances without getting to know them first?


Not sure what other moral you could take from it. I mean, that's a season 1 episode where the "friendship lessons" were delivered explicitly.

And guess what? There are/were a bunch of dumb fucks that missed the point or deliberately ignored the lesson. Confirmation bias and all that shit.

 

[CriticalGaming]

No. In fact, in the Fantastic Beasts movie, a magical baby dear who can see people's souls bows to Dumbledore, showing the masses that his soul is pure.

Does that count or is that a recon after the fact?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Does that count or is that a recon after the fact?

Dumbledore has always been Rowling's super special boy, even when he was pushing a child to want to murder his enemies.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Um, why are you here then?

Can we please, maybe, have a sort of hands as to who's actually read the books? Anyone?

Lol, he made the thread... about Hogwarts: Legacy. The game, which the thread is about.

Read all the books, including the supplemental material, was way into it up until the 6th book where I decided not to wait for the Swedish translation to come out and try my hand at reading it in English. (not knowing words such as "snogging" meant I did not enjoy the novels as well as I otherwise might have.)

Though it should be mentioned that there are probably plenty of fans that have only watched the films or played the games. It's not as if the books are the only way to interact with the franchise, as the (supposed) subject of this thread can attest.

The seventh book just wasn't very good in my opinion. Rowling just didn't have a firm enough plan for how she wanted to end the series and tried to cram too many new plot threads into the book instead of just focusing on wrapping up existing ones leading to the resolutions feeling pretty weak.

 

[Absent]

The good kingdoms/status quo in said media aren't typically portrayed as being run by incompetent racists. They usually present a status quo that's, you know, good

No. Well, they subjectively present it as good, and it's good in-universe. In colonial adventures, it's good in-universe that the natives know their places. In medieval settings, feudalism is good in-universe, no problem with it. In wealthy adventurer stories, wealth distribution is good in-universe. In modern stories, the hero doesn't fight for social rights, but for criminal disruption of the established order, implicitely good enough - and actually good enough in a universe ruled by an author who decide who is happy or not. It's when you import it to the real world that you start wondering if batman's money doesn't have better fights to fight - starting with the existence of billionaires ina world of crushing inequalities.

Likewise, in the potter books, a "good" is defined by the fact that people are happy with the system. By people, I even mean magical beings, "thought experiments", defined by better reasons for "voluntary servitude" that we ourselves have. All the more remote from our universe, therefore projection symbols of many things. From, as we said, "voluntary servitude", to victims of well-meaning ingerence (and our colonial/imperialist history is full of interventions ostensibly motivated by "bringing justice" to sociocultures without understanding their inner logics, stakes, articulated values, etc).

So, a lot of arbitrary interpretations. A lot of arbitrary projections on these elves gnomes thingies, and also a lot of double standards on authors's "status quo to protect". Way too much to get all super internetishly riled up against it. But again, context. Which makes it "an additional thing". (I seriously believe that the same concept, from some author more "above suspicion", would be more widely defended as some "interestingly unconfortable counter-intuitive questionning of well-meaning intercultural intervention". And indeed, the first time I heard of this story was from progressive academics using it as an example of the Potter books being more complex and subtle than I was giving them credit for. I still don't have a strong opinion about it apart from the strong opinion that strong opinions about it aren't warranted...)

 

[Satinavian]

Pretty much every time Rowling wrote about politics in the book, it was bad. The whole ministry is a set of clichees and statements that strain credibility more than most magic related parts of the story. The more it is important in the later books, the more obvious it becomes how little sense anything makes.

And now people complain that she didn't tackle institutional reform ? Writing a believable story about that is vastly outside her abilities.

 

[Silvanus]

And now people complain that she didn't tackle institutional reform ? Writing a believable story about that is vastly outside her abilities.

Not tackling it would be absolutely fine, and I've already said earlier in the thread that stories can present terrible situations and ongoing injustices without needing to solve them.

But with the House Elves, she does tackle the topic of institutional reform, and comes firmly down as presenting it as hilarious and impossible.