Hogwarts Legacy - Whimsical Wizardry

[Absent]

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

But because unwanted ?

Because the reform is wished by someone else than the concerned people, and isn't wished by the concerned people, right ?

That is, because the institution is presented as beneficial to all, and the reformer as mislead about the concerned people being unhappy ?

These are not rhetorical questions. I'm asking them to make sure, and clarify some points about books I haven't read.

Also, as a kid, in school, we had read a lovely little tale about a family encountering a bat suspended upside down on a tree, and mistaking its upside down smile for a frown. They carry it everywhere to "cheer it up" (to the park, to the zoo, etc) which the bat enjoys, smiling all the more, and (still upside down on its perch) looking all the more as if frowning. Unless it gets bored and annoyed by the family's efforts, and stops frowning, at which point the family, feeling victorious, happily bring it back to the forest. Where the bat starts smiling again away from sight. I see the potter thing as a similar story, in the form of some scifi/fantasy trope about creatures who don't get their happinesses from the same things as we do.

I don't think the bat story is supposed to teach never to try to cheer up a sad looking person.

 

[Silvanus]

But because unwanted ?

Because the reform is wished by someone else than the concerned people, and isn't wished by the concerned people, right ?

That is, because the institution is presented as beneficial to all, and the reformer as mislead about the concerned people being unhappy ?

These are not rhetorical questions. I'm asking them to make sure, and clarify some points about books I haven't read.

Because the House Elves naturally love serving, in short.

But that in-universe explanation has some uncomfortable implications, if we're to look at analogues out-of-universe.

 

[Absent]

Because the House Elves naturally love serving, in short.

But that in-universe explanation has some uncomfortable implications, if we're to look at analogues out-of-universe.

"Uncomfortable" is good (we have to be challenged by litterature, there are a lot of uncomfortable realities in the world concerning the ethnocentrism of our values and our old disastrous, clumsy, well-meaning support of "civilizing" efforts), but I suppose you mean "undesirable" or "unfortunate". And I think they are not the only implications. I think there's a bit of a rorschach effect in that tale that allows for a wide range of projections, and for both beneficial or toxic analogies with the real world. Because it's fantasy, which, like scifi, uses simple structures to hang stories on (typically "races" - any story with elves, dwarves, or gungans, or vulcans, has unfortunate implications about racialist determinism if taken out-universe). And the simpler you go, the more compatible you get with the widest range of discourses. That's why the Bible, with its little parables, is full of vague injunctions that can be used for anything and its opposite.

So again, there can be a nasty approach to this tale (akin, to, say, "hey it's just an alien looking like a 12 years-old girl and in their culture being raped is a honor who are we to judge") and there can be a virtuous approach to this tale (from "maybe natives don't want to be saved from a system of values that clashes with yours" to "maybe you shouldn't be shamed or forbidden to volunteer so much in an NGO if you find it more fulfilling than insuring luxury cars"). Every real world analogy leaves aside arbitrary aspects of the tale. I don't think any specific one imposes itself here.

But again, I think that Rowlings' anti-trans spiral encourages the worst interpretations. Can be so legitimately (the most probably deliberate subtext being inferred from what else is known of the author's worldview) or illegitmately (she's awful on this subject therefore we don't like her therefore she's awful on the other subjects). Plus, death of the author and all that : what moral people retain of the tale can be independent from the (good or bad) intent. And from what I've seen, this varies a lot.

 

[Satinavian]

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

Does she ?

The actions of Hermione are all about Hermione and her personal relationship with the house elves. Not about the owners or the ministerium or the laws or actually any institution that keeps the house elves in their situation at all. We don't even really get told how or why it exists, only some offhand remark about the elves having seeked santuary with the wizards long time ago. We learn nothing about what actually compels the elves to obey commands.

Instead it is all about how Hermione did not really understand house elves and didn't really listen to them. And how they get upset when she tried to trick them into freedom with hidden clothing articles.

It is quite a strech to paint that a story about institutional reform. It distinctly lacks prominence of institutions. They firmly remain background for personal drama.

Because the House Elves naturally love serving, in short.

But that in-universe explanation has some uncomfortable implications, if we're to look at analogues out-of-universe.

So stories about helpful domestic spirits as they exist in folklore half the word over and play an important part in several religions are bad now because some people think of human slaves instead?

 

[Buyetyen]

So stories about helpful domestic spirits as they exist in folklore half the word over and play an important part in several religions are bad now because some people think of human slaves instead?

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but in most folklore, don't house spirits expect to be repaid for their effort with small offerings of food or similar or they leave? Harry Potter's house elves don't have that option. Not saying it's still not iffy. Just saying that Rowling wrote herself into a corner on that one.

 

[Satinavian]

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but in most folklore, don't house spirits expect to be repaid for their effort with small offerings of food or similar or they leave? Harry Potter's house elves don't have that option. Not saying it's still not iffy. Just saying that Rowling wrote herself into a corner on that one.

That is common, but not universal. And geneally those offerings are not worth much.
And there are stories where trying to pay them or giving them anything else beside specific food offerings makes them leave instead. That was obviously the inspiration for Rowlings clothing quirk.

Generally many of those stories are about how wrong treatment of house spirits makes them leave or stop doing their duty ( when they can't leave because they are bound to the house like domovoi). What exactly counts as wrong treatment differs from story to story. Sometimes it is neglecting to give then those offerings, sometimes it is giving them the wrong kind of offerings, sometimes offerings are not included and it is all about the virtue of the inhabitants (when people are lazy or greedy or too proud, the spirits leave), there are even cases where the condition is that the spirits must work in secret and observing them makes them leave.

I think i have read the excat same kind of scenario where preparing clothes for them made them leave in some fairy tail long before i ever touched HP.

What Rowling did differently was making the home owners wizards and giving them far more direct power where in the stories the home owners generally are regular folk with little understanding of the supernaturall who certainly can't force the spirits to anything. Well, at least in Christian European stories because actually commanding spirits would be evil witchcraft. It is different elsewhere.
But that goes back to "Yes, in those stories those spirits do their work because they want to/it is their nature"

 

[Silvanus]

Does she ?

The actions of Hermione are all about Hermione and her personal relationship with the house elves. Not about the owners or the ministerium or the laws or actually any institution that keeps the house elves in their situation at all. We don't even really get told how or why it exists, only some offhand remark about the elves having seeked santuary with the wizards long time ago. We learn nothing about what actually compels the elves to obey commands.

Instead it is all about how Hermione did not really understand house elves and didn't really listen to them. And how they get upset when she tried to trick them into freedom with hidden clothing articles.

It is quite a strech to paint that a story about institutional reform. It distinctly lacks prominence of institutions. They firmly remain background for personal drama.

The "institution" in this case is not a specific organisation, but the societal structure of master-servant as it exists and is accepted across two entire species. And yes, Hermione attempts to address that directly, and is ridiculed for doing so.

So stories about helpful domestic spirits as they exist in folklore half the word over and play an important part in several religions are bad now because some people think of human slaves instead?

Nope, and that's not implied by what I said.

 

[immortalfrieza]

I think the whole ''The house elves love being enslaved and every attempt to free them is a complete joke!'' is kinda undercut by the fact that pretty much no one in the Harry Potterverse treats their house elves well. There are three main house elves: Dobby, Winky and Kreacher, all of who'm are stuck with abusive owners and clearly unhappy with their situation. Well...Winky mostly about being fired by her abusive owner, but she's fired because he's an abusive prick who treats her like garbage. Later in the story there's even a house elf presumably being sentenced for manslaughter because the ministry couldn't bother to actually investigate the house elf.

Also the ones who most often insists that house elves adore being enslaved are Hagrid and Ron, not two characters known as being very considerate and open minded on every subject. Hagrid's a very nice dude, but he's undeniably got bigoted sentiments and Ron's...well he's Ron.

...and both were lifelong wizards who grew up in the wizard culture which on the whole sees absolutely no issue with enslaving an entire species. There are plenty of cultures throughout history that have committed horrific acts as part of their cultural makeup and it's people think it's good because of not knowing any better, it doesn't mean those horrific acts are actually good.

It's like time traveling to before the Civil War and asking slave owners or even just people who lived in the South if slaves like being slaves. Chances are very high especially if you're talking to the slave owners that they will say that yes, slaves love being slaves. Most of them might even genuinely believe it, despite slaves constantly trying to escape because they've never known anything else and are so used to having slaves and depending on them that they'll twist any logic into knots if not outright ignore it to avoid admitting that something they've spent their life benefiting from is wrong, as people do.

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).

A bad track record in the past doesn't change the fact that Hermione is completely right in this instance

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.

All of those are fair points, except that the house elves themselves, which interact with the trio directly, clearly don't want to be helped. Hermione goes the whole hog (as Gordon puts it), and the house elves detest her for it.

The House Elves detest Hermione for trying to help them and don't want to be helped because they've been conditioned to think their situation is right. Even if the House Elves aren't being magically compelled to think being slaves is good and thus their opinions can't be considered valid and genuinely think that Hermione should stop because being slaves is good, that doesn't make them correct. Just because someone thinks something is good doesn't make it actually good.

Hermione isn't "spectacularly wrong," the story treats her as though she's wrong, there's a massive gulf between the story deciding someone is wrong and that person actually being wrong. A story can decide that the "hero" committing murder of innocents, rape, genocide, or in Harry Potter's case slavery is right with any number of justifications, it doesn't make any of these things actually right.

Why are you so invested in claiming that it's present?

Probably the same reason why the vast majority of people can tell that water is wet without having to jump into a lake first, because it's blatantly obvious. The wizards use of House Elves very very incredibly obviously is slavery. Slavery is bad. The only way either of these two things could be more obvious is if Dobby had a flashing neon sign over his head saying "SLAVERY IS WRONG!!!" End of story.

Really, you can throw in Santa's Workshop as well if you feel like it. I mean, the joke that Santa's using slave labour to create presents is an old one, most people know not to take it seriously.

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?

For one, because Santa as a concept not to mention his elves is public domain. Thus it is fluid and has been changed and interpreted by thousands and thousands of different sources throughout history since the concept was originated, as opposed to Harry Potter which has only one author. For another, santa's elves are rarely ever treated as slaves in any media to the point that it's a plot point that freeing them is an issue unlike with with Potter trio and House Elves particularly Hermoine. Third, because Santa's elves are a background element in nearly all media and even when they are major figures we very very rarely have any indication of what their situation even is. The vast majority of stories with Santa's elves could have them all as paid workers for all we know.

On the other hand, House Elves are significant figures throughout the Harry Potter books, we're given a very close look at what they are, how they live day to day, what their values are, and the books do make dealing with them in one manner or another a significant plot point on multiple occasions. We see that the House Elves are enslaved because that's what the books show us. We see examples of House Elves that do things against their own will because they are magically enslaved. We see that House Elves are capable of not wanting to be enslaved because we have examples of individuals that want to get out of said enslavement. In fact, we're introduced to the whole concept of House Elves in the first place showing us that they are enslaved and that enslavement is bad in the form of Dobby.

The problem with the House Elves plot line is it then subsequently turns around and then contradicts everything shown up to that point by acting like the enslavement of House Elves is a good thing because it's in line with the wishes of the House Elves. An idea that quickly falls flat with any sort of scrutiny whatsoever.

The fantasy people tended to use to justify those things were religious texts and pseudo-science. I've never seen anyone, anywhere, hold up a work of fiction and use it as justification.

You do realize you just contradicted yourself right? You admitted that religious texts and pseudo-science are a fantasy and thus works of fiction, then in the next breath said that you've never seen anyone hold up a work of fiction and use it as justification.

Does she ?

The actions of Hermione are all about Hermione and her personal relationship with the house elves. Not about the owners or the ministerium or the laws or actually any institution that keeps the house elves in their situation at all. We don't even really get told how or why it exists, only some offhand remark about the elves having seeked santuary with the wizards long time ago. We learn nothing about what actually compels the elves to obey commands.

Instead it is all about how Hermione did not really understand house elves and didn't really listen to them. And how they get upset when she tried to trick them into freedom with hidden clothing articles.

It is quite a strech to paint that a story about institutional reform. It distinctly lacks prominence of institutions. They firmly remain background for personal drama.

With the clothes thing Hermonie was trying for something akin to the Underground Railroad. Help the people who are slaves now rather than being concerned about changing slavery as an institution. An indirect result of the effort to free slaves was that several former slaves led the fight against slavery that ultimately led to the Civil War and the complete abolishment of slavery. Helping a people now led to helping to stop what was making them as a whole suffer in the first place.

Also, Hermonie was trying to form an organization that would ultimately bring down the institution that is the slavery of the House Elves. It only fails because the narrative reads it as shortsighted and stupid for her to so much as try when it was anything but. So yes, the SPEW plot can be considered a story about institutional reform.

 

[Satinavian]

With the clothes thing Hermonie was trying for something akin to the Underground Railroad.

Don't see the paralels here. With the clothing Hermione tried to trick the house elves who didn't want to be freed. And she knew it, otherwise she wouldn't reach for trickery. How is that even remotely comparable ?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

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.

I cannot stress enough that the books go out of their way to say that wizard society is and has been screwed up. The goblins are not happy, the centaurs are not happy, the giants are not happy, the merfolk are not happy, the house elves with bad owners are not happy, the werewolves are not happy, etc, etc, etc. Even a good chunk of the wizards are not happy, for a wide variety of reasons. The status quo of the wizarding world is making nobody happy, but only the bad guys are trying to shake up the status quo (and a lot of the non-wizards, but they don't have enough of a narrative arc to count)

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So again, there can be a nasty approach to this tale (akin, to, say, "hey it's just an alien looking like a 12 years-old girl and in their culture being raped is a honor who are we to judge") and there can be a virtuous approach to this tale (from "maybe natives don't want to be saved from a system of values that clashes with yours" to "maybe you shouldn't be shamed or forbidden to volunteer so much in an NGO if you find it more fulfilling than insuring luxury cars"). Every real world analogy leaves aside arbitrary aspects of the tale. I don't think any specific one imposes itself here.

Speaking of which Half Elves exist in the setting, complete with horrifying implications. It is currently unknown if they too are compelled to be enslaved.

 

[Gordon_4]

Speaking of which Half Elves exist in the setting, complete with horrifying implications. It is currently unknown if they too are compelled to be enslaved.

Wait what?

 

[Hawki]

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.

If there's a moral message with the half elves, I'd say it's along the lines of "don't presume you know better for a group than what they themselves tell you." This at least applies to Hermione.

If we're looking at it in the context of book 5, Dumbledore more or less states the theme - "neglect often does more harm than outright malice" (or words to that effect). The half elves are happy to serve wizards, that doesn't mean they should take them for granted, as Sirius did Kreacher.

Since you made a point of comparison to the Death Eaters, the difference is that it's easy to find real-world parallels with the Death Eaters and their ideas of "pure blood," but for the half elves, that comparison doesn't exist beyond folklore. Death Eaters are human, and for all their powers, remain human, with all the foliables that entails. House elves distinctly aren't, and while you can absolutely use a fictional species as a stand-in for humans in the real world, the house elves aren't a case of this.

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.

Um, domestication? Yes, I know "slavery" is the word you're going for, but again, house elves aren't human. They don't think like humans, they hold different values. This isn't really a projection, this is outright stated. If your definition of slavery extends to that, then is Harry "enslaving" Hedwig, for instance? Is Hermione "enslaving" Crookshanks? Animal welfare is a valid discussion, but it's very rare that "slavery" is the term used for it.

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 said they weren't the crux, I did say they were part of the point. Learn to read.

And yes, that house elves can't obey their masters leaves them open for abuse, that's not in dispute.

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

I've never seen any piece of Santa media depict elves as in a union. I've no doubt such media exists, but really, I can go into a children's book section, find something that deals with Santa and elves, and I doubt I'll find anything approaching the sort.

The difference, of course, is that when such media depicts Santa's elves as such, it's usually parody. I've never seen anyone look upon the Santa/workshop myth and be genuinely put-off by the elves' free creation of presents for the masses, because most people can understand that it's fairytale logic, and that elves aren't human.

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.

And? That says more about the people than the media.

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

We're way past just the game, Rainbow.

 

[BrawlMan]

And? That says more about the people than the media.

I wasn't talking about the media. Don't know what grand conclusion you assumed I was talking about.

 

[Buyetyen]

They don't think like humans, they hold different values. This isn't really a projection, this is outright stated. If your definition of slavery extends to that, then is Harry "enslaving" Hedwig, for instance? Is Hermione "enslaving" Crookshanks? Animal welfare is a valid discussion, but it's very rare that "slavery" is the term used for it.

So what would you call keeping a sentient species in bondage?

 

[Gordon_4]

Um, domestication? Yes, I know "slavery" is the word you're going for, but again, house elves aren't human. They don't think like humans, they hold different values. This isn't really a projection, this is outright stated. If your definition of slavery extends to that, then is Harry "enslaving" Hedwig, for instance? Is Hermione "enslaving" Crookshanks? Animal welfare is a valid discussion, but it's very rare that "slavery" is the term used for it.

Okay a lot of your points are good but this one doesn’t wash. Hedwig and Crookshanks are animals and while that certainly makes them sentient they do not possess self awareness or the capacity for moralising. House Elves can speak; they can reason; they can think for themselves and they’re more than likely capable of creativity. But speaking is the big one: if Hedwig was able to say “Hey, let me out of this cage you fuckin’ nerd” to Harry then yeah that would change the tone of their relationship immensely.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Wait what?

Fantastic Beasts should be a much more fun set of movies given the batshit insane things that happen in them. It's kinda impressive that Rowling could even make them dull and boring.

So Ezra Miller dies in the first movie after turning into a horror cloud, because if an abused kid has untreated trauma and doesn't learn magic they turn into a *literal* monster. (thanks JK)

Except not really, he's fine as of the second movie for unexplained reasons, where he and Nagini the abused human woman who turns into Voldemort's giant snake horocrux to be killed by Neville (thanks JK) spend way to much time trying to figure out who his parents are. It *seems* like his dad is an old racist bastard who had a half elf servant and who raped his mom using the imperious curse, but plot twist, the baby was switched out by Leta Lestrange as a child because the rapist's child cried too much on the ocean steamer they were on. The steamer then sank, leading Ezra Miller to be saved by the half elf servant of the rapist, who brought him to New York to be abused by a tiny anti-witch cult and turned into the horror cloud, while Leta's rape-induced half-brother died at sea

Now, Ezra Miller is actually a Dumbledore, *The* Dumbledore's nephew, which means that Leta Lestrange had accidentally swapped out the rapist's curse baby with Dumbledore's brother's kid entirely on accident.

"Does any of this actually matter?", I hear you ask, and the answer is "the movie thinks so, but I can't fathom how"

The circus Nagini was in also had some background half elves. Nothing about the existence of half elves or their relationship with magic is ever explained or expanded upon.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I've never seen any piece of Santa media depict elves as in a union. I've no doubt such media exists, but really, I can go into a children's book section, find something that deals with Santa and elves, and I doubt I'll find anything approaching the sort.

The difference, of course, is that when such media depicts Santa's elves as such, it's usually parody. I've never seen anyone look upon the Santa/workshop myth and be genuinely put-off by the elves' free creation of presents for the masses, because most people can understand that it's fairytale logic, and that elves aren't human.

You've also not seen any piece of Santa Media where an abused toy elf flees to a human child to beg for his freedom from the horrifically evil Santa, so...

 

[Terminal Blue]

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but in most folklore, don't house spirits expect to be repaid for their effort with small offerings of food or similar or they leave?

More typically, you build them a shrine.

But house elves in particular are clearly based on brownies or hobs in British folklore, who did expect offerings and require propriation.

And there are stories where trying to pay them or giving them anything else beside specific food offerings makes them leave instead. That was obviously the inspiration for Rowlings clothing quirk.

The clothing thing is a common part of stories involving hobs and brownies, although the implied reasons differ and are seldom elaborated.

 

[Satinavian]

Speaking of which Half Elves exist in the setting, complete with horrifying implications. It is currently unknown if they too are compelled to be enslaved.

Googling that it seems to come from the Spin-Offs.

Yes, that seems questionable in various ways.