Fantasy does not excuse bad writing. And that's what the whole house elf thing is. It's bad writing. That's the last I'm going to say on this because no other point seems to get through.
I don't hugely like fantasy as a literary genre, but there are enough good and interesting works of fantasy out there, especially children's fantasy, to utterly discredit the idea that being fantasy is an excuse. Frankly, that's what's always been baffling to me about this series. The books were never good. They managed to catch some weird child zeitgeist which meant everyone read them because their friends were reading them, but in truth they're kind of bad. They're not competently written, they're not well plotted, they're spectacularly unoriginal and above all they have nothing to say.
And I get that I'm not the person those books were written for. I feel like for a lot of people, girls in particular, stuff like Harry Potter was less about the literary merits of the books and more about having something you were allowed to be openly passionate about (besides being heterosexual). I just think it's quite sad that that cultural space had to be opened up by such a vacuous sack of publisher-planted wallpaper paste.
I don't hugely like fantasy as a literary genre, but there are enough good and interesting works of fantasy out there, especially children's fantasy, to utterly discredit the idea that being fantasy is an excuse. Frankly, that's what's always been baffling to me about this series. The books were never good. They managed to catch some weird child zeitgeist which meant everyone read them because their friends were reading them, but in truth they're kind of bad. They're not competently written, they're not well plotted, they're spectacularly unoriginal and above all they have nothing to say.
As someone that grew up on these stories I would like to object to the notion that they were never good. I think they were. And still are.
I would like to ask why you find them not competently written and badly plotted, but if you don't have the energy to break it down: could you point to another series that you consider good on those merits that would be a worthwhile alternative?
As to your actual points, all of this is factual (the speculation for the WOMBAT aside), but again, nothing you've cited shows that house elves are operating outside their nature. That house elves have the potential to be abused is well established, we see that from Kreacher, to Winky, to Dobby, which comes to a head in book 5 - Kreacher was abused, Sirius died, abusing goodwill for too long will have reprecussions (and is a generally shitty thing to do regardless).
He is fucking compelled to follow orders. That is not "goodwill". We should be launching massive investigations into why Dobby is so hilariously different and seeing if there's any magical compulsion going on, and Hermoine gets a pass for not thinking about it because she's muggle born and, like, 14
As someone that grew up on these stories I would like to object to the notion that they were never good. I think they were. And still are.
I would like to ask why you find them not competently written and badly plotted, but if you don't have the energy to break it down: could you point to another series that you consider good on those merits that would be a worthwhile alternative?
Yeah, I liked the books (well, 1 and 2 were forgettable and nothing happened in 6). There were big flaws obvious to me in my late teens/early twenties. But still some good bits.
I know it's a low bar, but I particularly liked the bit where Harry suddenly decides Cedric is a bad person because he's dating Cho, who he wants to date himself. in literally every other time I've seen something like this come up, the protagonist turns out to be (usually coincidentally) totally correct and the rival is awful, but Harry is clearly being stupid here.
Let's be realistic. The people trying to make hay out of this and scold the entire quiltbag for the actions of a few, were never going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete erasure of queer identities. They're bigots, it's just what they do.
Of course its possible. But that's not the reality. Anyone well versed in science fiction literature knows it often, and intentionally, evoked themes and moral questions related to slavery, without the AIs ever being a stand-in for a real-world demographic.
I'd say the opposite is true - anyone well versed in sci-fi literature will see the singularity analogy evoked.
In fact, I tested this - going through my homepage, I looked for settings with an AI uprising (or equivalent), and divided them into four categories:
1: Slavery Analogy
2: Singularity Analogy
3: SinguSlavery Analogy (where both are used)
4: Non-Analogy (where the uprising is bereft of analogy)
So on that note
Slavery Analogy
-Blade Runner (arguably this comes under SinguSlavery if you go by the novels)
-The Orville (arguably SinguSlavery, but given how thick it lays it on, I'd say it belongs in this category)
-StarCraft
Singularity Analogy
-Battlestar Galactica (original)
-Command & Conquer
-Dune
-Grey Goo
-Halo
-I, Robot (film version)
-Mass Effect
-Oblivion (highly debatable, but based on the hints, I'd say it fits)
-Space Odyssey
-Terminator
-Tron
-Warhammer 40,000
-Whoniverse
SinguSlavery Analogy
-Aliens (I'd say this is more Singularity, but based on some wording, I can be generous and categorize it under SinguSlavery)
-Battlestar Galactica (reboot)
-The Matrix
-Overwatch
-Star Trek
Non-Analogy
-Andromeda
-Dark Matter
-Dragon Ball
-Futurama
-Power Rangers (this arguably comes under singularity if I'm feeling generous)
So, yeah. This of course isn't definitive, but in my experience, the concept of AIs rebelling against their creators is more commonly used as a reference to real-world concerns than slavery analogies, and on a subjective level, more interesting as well). YMMV as to which IP comes under which category, but point is, there isn't a 1:1 relationship between the concept of AIs turning against us and slavery, which is true of both fiction and the real world.
Because *you* care about stuff outside the books. Most people will look at Dumbledore saying Kreacher is enslaved and accept that Kreacher is a slave.
He is fucking compelled to follow orders. That is not "goodwill". We should be launching massive investigations into why Dobby is so hilariously different and seeing if there's any magical compulsion going on, and Hermoine gets a pass for not thinking about it because she's muggle born and, like, 14
You realize that you're contradicting yourself in the same post, right? In the first, you're using stuff from outside the books to make a point (the WOMBAT test), but in the second paragraph, you're ignoring stuff from outside the books by claiming Hermione never did anything. I mean, wow. Just wow.
Fine, to address your points:
-Kreacher is ill treated, I've said that plenty of times (as is Dobby, as is Winky, etc.).
-Don't know who "we" is, since this is a work of fiction, but sure, hypothetically, "we" could do that, and Hermione probably "did" do that as part of what she did in the Ministry to improve house elf welfare, but in a fictional universe, saying something "probably" happened isn't solid ground
-The reason I don't call house elves slaves is that regardless as to how they're treated, their behaviour remains the same. Slavery, by definition, requires coercion. House elf actions remain the same regardless as to how their masters treat them.
-I've already laid out the real-world inspirations for the house elves - I know we've gone on this merry dance as to what the house elves REALLY represent (to the point that I've had to do word searches, because that was fun), but if you want to make the claim that house elves represent (Trans-Atlantic) slavery,* then I'd say that's where the burden of proof lies.
-When given every opportunity to take their freedom (see book 4), the house elves refuse. I've seen people postulate that there's some kind of mind control going on, but while I enjoy fanwank as much as the next person, it's fanwank all the same.
-It also relies on the idea that what the books are presenting isn't "really" the truth. That's absolutely possible in works of fiction (see the unreliable narrator), but there's no indication that that's the case here.
*There's at least a train of thought that you could follow for slavery, but the TAST? Really?
As someone that grew up on these stories I would like to object to the notion that they were never good. I think they were. And still are.
I would like to ask why you find them not competently written and badly plotted, but if you don't have the energy to break it down: could you point to another series that you consider good on those merits that would be a worthwhile alternative?
Whether someone (dis)likes Harry Potter is up to them, just like (dis)liking anything is up to them. However, since I took a peak at TB's post (ugh), I feel compelled to say that:
-If you want to make the argument that the HP books were simply in the right place at the right time, you'd have to account why other books in the right place at the right time didn't catch on (e.g. Artemis Fowl - that was released not long afterwards, it was big for awhile, but unlike HP, faded away).
-Similarly, if that was the case, why are HP books still popular two generations on? I work in libraries (yes, you're probably sick of that), and I can assure you, the HP books remain highly popular among their intended age groups. Just yesterday, had a patron return HP books, and I spent a good period of time helping her get more HP books (I know, I'm a terrible person)
-By extension, the "what other series is good" argument is one that's hit home, because really, what else is there in that age range that applies a similar premise? Magisterium? Crap. Keeper of the Lost Cities? Only read the first book, but even crapper. The Riordanverse? Quite possibly - that's probably just as popular as HP, if not moreso these days. HP isn't the be all and end all of JF/YA fiction, but it's hard to find books in a similar range of quality and popularity.
To borrow a quote, I know "popularity is prestige's slutty cousin," but it's certainly a leap to say that people only got into HP because of happenstance (and seriously, what's with the sexuality nonsense? No, don't bother answering that.)
You realize that you're contradicting yourself in the same post, right? In the first, you're using stuff from outside the books to make a point (the WOMBAT test), but in the second paragraph, you're ignoring stuff from outside the books by claiming Hermione never did anything. I mean, wow. Just wow.
Incremental and unspecified changes of a minor nature off screen years after the story was written is not something to brag about. There's something to be said about Hagrid and Ron's lazy "oh, they love being enslaved, except for all the weird ones that don't" argument literally never being followed up on in your story that's ostensibly about bigotry being bad.
-The reason I don't call house elves slaves is that regardless as to how they're treated, their behaviour remains the same. Slavery, by definition, requires coercion. House elf actions remain the same regardless as to how their masters treat them.
-It also relies on the idea that what the books are presenting isn't "really" the truth. That's absolutely possible in works of fiction (see the unreliable narrator), but there's no indication that that's the case here.
Dumbledore literally says that Kreacher is enslaved. Is the book presenting the truth or not? If you don't like fanwank, don't base your argument on fanwank.
-I've already laid out the real-world inspirations for the house elves - I know we've gone on this merry dance as to what the house elves REALLY represent (to the point that I've had to do word searches, because that was fun), but if you want to make the claim that house elves represent (Trans-Atlantic) slavery,* then I'd say that's where the burden of proof lies.
*There's at least a train of thought that you could follow for slavery, but the TAST? Really?
So this is the smoking gun on the pikamee stuff. You could say the company, or other people were lying to cool down the hate, but there's no way they could make this stuff in less than a month.
Edit: I do want to note though this does not excuse the harassment she got, and it probably stopped her for streaming for a month, but it's not the reason she's graduating.
Man, this vtuber stuff makes me feel old, I'm on the cusp of getting it but I don't. The graduation stuff is like real life idol culture in Japan so that much makes sense, but you could like, shave your head and apologize if you fucked up there. It's hard to imagine we are in a culture more barbaric than one that requires you to go bald and prostrate yourself for having a boyfriend lol.
Man, this vtuber stuff makes me feel old, I'm on the cusp of getting it but I don't. The graduation stuff is like real life idol culture in Japan so that much makes sense, but you could like, shave your head and apologize if you fucked up there. It's hard to imagine we are in a culture more barbaric than one that requires you to go bald and prostrate yourself for having a boyfriend lol.
So, yeah. This of course isn't definitive, but in my experience, the concept of AIs rebelling against their creators is more commonly used as a reference to real-world concerns than slavery analogies, and on a subjective level, more interesting as well). YMMV as to which IP comes under which category, but point is, there isn't a 1:1 relationship between the concept of AIs turning against us and slavery, which is true of both fiction and the real world.
I have the impression that slavery analogies in AI uprisings got rarer from the nineties onward. I would guess that came from authors having more personal exposure to computers and programs. When you look at 60s or 70s fiction the picture is different.
Wait, why do you think VOMS decided to force Pikamee to quit months ago? EDIT: Clarifying the question because lol, English: Why do you think it was VOMS decision to retire Pikamee?
I'd say the opposite is true - anyone well versed in sci-fi literature will see the singularity analogy evoked.
In fact, I tested this - going through my homepage, I looked for settings with an AI uprising (or equivalent), and divided them into four categories:
1: Slavery Analogy
2: Singularity Analogy
3: SinguSlavery Analogy (where both are used)
4: Non-Analogy (where the uprising is bereft of analogy)
So on that note
Slavery Analogy
-Blade Runner (arguably this comes under SinguSlavery if you go by the novels)
-The Orville (arguably SinguSlavery, but given how thick it lays it on, I'd say it belongs in this category)
-StarCraft
Singularity Analogy
-Battlestar Galactica (original)
-Command & Conquer
-Dune
-Grey Goo
-Halo
-I, Robot (film version)
-Mass Effect
-Oblivion (highly debatable, but based on the hints, I'd say it fits)
-Space Odyssey
-Terminator
-Tron
-Warhammer 40,000
-Whoniverse
SinguSlavery Analogy
-Aliens (I'd say this is more Singularity, but based on some wording, I can be generous and categorize it under SinguSlavery)
-Battlestar Galactica (reboot)
-The Matrix
-Overwatch
-Star Trek
Non-Analogy
-Andromeda
-Dark Matter
-Dragon Ball
-Futurama
-Power Rangers (this arguably comes under singularity if I'm feeling generous)
So, yeah. This of course isn't definitive, but in my experience, the concept of AIs rebelling against their creators is more commonly used as a reference to real-world concerns than slavery analogies, and on a subjective level, more interesting as well). YMMV as to which IP comes under which category, but point is, there isn't a 1:1 relationship between the concept of AIs turning against us and slavery, which is true of both fiction and the real world.
I didn't say there was a 1:1 relationship; of course there isn't. What I said was that drawing the connection between the use of AI with self-awareness and slavery has a long history in science fiction. Which is absolutely true. And it's demonstrative that you can evoke themes of slavery without requiring a stand-in for a specific real world group.
(On a side note, almost all of your examples there are visual media, whereas the slavery connection is more common in literature.
However, Mass Effect and I, Robot certainly also belong in the Slavery column. And the Whoniverse also evokes slavery without using a real-world analogue, via the Ood).
If you want to make the argument that the HP books were simply in the right place at the right time, you'd have to account why other books in the right place at the right time didn't catch on (e.g. Artemis Fowl - that was released not long afterwards, it was big for awhile, but unlike HP, faded away).
I mean, the obvious answer to Hawki is that Artemis Fowl *wasn't* in exactly the right place at the right time. The twenty years of development hell for the movie probably didn't help
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
