Hogwarts Legacy - Whimsical Wizardry

[Eacaraxe]

"Some people who hate harry potter got an origin of a stereotype wrong" is hardly an well constructed argument that proves harry potters didn't do that stereotype

Your argument would land if that was actually my point. My point was not whether the stereotype was invoked at all, but rather in what context, why, what thematic purpose it serves, whether that thematic context is well-founded, what message does that invocation convey, and whether that invocation was therefore justified.

Historically, Jews were excluded from any gainful profession and guild, and forced into moneylending and tax collection specifically because Catholic dogma forbade it. Which in turn made them easy targets for further dehumanization and demonization, and even easier to steal from, expel, and murder when it came time for (predominantly Christian and noble) debtors to actually pay up.

And when Jews actually did what you would expect any reasonable person to do under those circumstances -- resist and revolt -- it "proved" they were really "nothing but" greedy usurers loyal to no one but their own. Thereby turning justified acts of resistance against oppression against the oppressed, to rationalize further oppression. And in the post-industrial world, that centuries-long externally-enforced stereotype -- and its ramifications -- were weaponized against them to justify further antisemitism, up to and including the Holocaust itself.

You know, kind of like how goblins are portrayed in the damn books. But naw, just the mere invocation of the trope means Wizard Book Bad, Wizard Book Lady Bad, regardless of any actual context that might make us consider how some of these stereotypes came to be, and what it says about us as a people.

Then I'm glad Lily and Hermione did their homework, lest the racists be proven right.

Case in fucking point about this whole "analysis" being superficial, reductive, and denialist towards any deeper context.

Or are you going to argue HDC's don't face educational and social disadvantage, that plays an integral role perpetrating generational poverty and downward social mobility?

Look, I know the internet pretends that trans people are all comfortable middle class whites, but I scroll through way to many "help, I need to pay for food/transportation/rent/medicine" posts to believe that's true.

Can't help but notice those folks only come up now, once you need a shield against criticism. As opposed to other groups who tend to suck all the oxygen out of the room, and pull attention away from people who actually need help.

You desperately need to pretend that people who don't like this are all more well off than you, and I'm curious as to why. Like, c'mon my dude, what image the phrase "Harry Potter adult" pop into your head? What sort of person uses Harry Potter memes for damn near everything including politics as sane people desperately tell then to read any other book?

Sounds like you got that one on lockdown already and don't really need my input on the matter.

When all of this analysis goes no further than the story itself, and doesn't take even a step into our own world, because the entire species just loves serving and is right where it should be serving us? Yeah, that'd be superficial.

So, let me see if I get this straight. Wizard Book Lady invokes stereotypes that are harmful against people in the real world, perpetuate bigotry, all that good stuff, but now -- only once someone suggests n actual, critical, thematic analysis -- and only now is it just a book that doesn't really have anything to say? Yeah, that absolutely doesn't punctuate my point all this is a reductionist smoke screen to keep people from thinking too hard about it on threat of being labeled a bigot.

This is about as far from an "oompa-loompa" situation as it gets, given what I already mentioned about how internalized oppression destroyed Winky's life, and how Dobby and Kreacher resisted servitude and poor treatment in their own ways. And I really have to wonder about those who treat the two identically.

Dig just an inch more and you notice that the activism the book presents as bad and disrespectful is... activism that aims at systemic change. Systemic change is portrayed as naive, laughable, doomed to fail, and not in the interest of the workers who just love to work. The activism that really works, and is respectful, is portrayed as... ameliorating the conditions within the existing system, rather than challenging or changing it.

Or, the systemic change she's after is to stop getting wizards to conceptualize their relationship to house elves as slavery. You know, attacking the root cause -- the underlying psychology on the part of wizards that strips house elves of individuality, agency, dignity, and thereby enables the abuses against which she takes issue.

Kind of like how in the real, post-industrial, world there will be no progressive movement towards equitable treatment of underclasses (in the west, defined by work in the service industry) until the citizenry stops conceptualizing them as a servant class.

The irony of saying this, and then accusing someone else of poisoning the well, ain't lost.

You mean, calling the situation for what it actually is?

Would you care to posit a reason there were blacklists of streamers, content creators, and social media personalities being shared online other than to invoke a chilling effect on game coverage, perchance?

 

[Hawki]

There's an elf called Winky?! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Fucking winky! Winky the elf! Ha ha ha ha ha jesus christ winky the elf.

...you didn't have a fun chiildhood, did you?

 

[Baffle]

...you didn't have a fun chiildhood, did you?

I did! There was a kid at my school we called Winky Bumsniffer because he had a persistent hard wink (which i now recognise was a twitch and was cruel of us) and was constantly ramming his hands in the back of his pants then sniffing them (that one wasn't our fault).

Edit: in my defence, and this isn't a particularly good defence, i had loads of twitches as a child, new one every week. Parents despairing.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Or, the systemic change she's after is to stop getting wizards to conceptualize their relationship to house elves as slavery.

It doesn't really matter how they conceptualize it though, does it. Whether someone is a slave doesn't depend on how you feel about them or even whether you treat them well.

You know, attacking the root cause -- the underlying psychology on the part of wizards that strips house elves of individuality, agency, dignity, and thereby enables the abuses against which she takes issue.

House elves as depicted simply don't have the same capacity for individuality, agency or dignity as wizards. They can't be stripped of what they never had.

If house elves are compelled by nature to act as slaves (to the point of being willing to tolerate abuse or harm themselves) then the solution isn't to just let them be slaves, agree to call it something else and pat yourself on the back for acknowledging their agency, it's to recognize that these are people who need special consideration and help. They need more protection and support than most people because they are intrinsically more vulnerable.

This isn't an issue of culture, taken seriously and at face value it's an issue of disability. There are obvious ways to help house elves beyond simply pretending that slavery isn't slavery, if you're willing to look beyond individual changes in perception and into material, systemic approaches.

 

[Eacaraxe]

House elves as depicted simply don't have the same capacity for individuality, agency or dignity as wizards. They can't be stripped of what they never had.

Did you get that from how the dimples on Dobby's skull were described in the books?

Now that's out of my system, so the argument is that house elves are no different than any other magical beast in the setting, particularly those depicted as every bit as sapient as humans or wizards regardless of form?

I'd certainly like to be pointed in the direction of people taking issue with how literally any other magical beast in the setting is depicted save goblins, at least to the point of blacklisting people covering Hogwarts Legacy in anything but the harshest terms. Surely there's at least one very sad person with far too much time on their hands, out there comparing kneazle-breeding to eugenics, yes? It's not as if a (half) kneazle's sapience was one of the biggest plot points of Prisoner of Azkaban, or anything.

Am I really to understand this is all down to cultural relativism with a dash of Bambi syndrome, a heaping spoonful of bigotry of low expectations, and a double dose of benevolent racism, on readers' part? I admit, this is a damned novel way to backtrack, but you really can't have this both ways. They're either sapient creatures to whom the term "slavery" with all its implications applies, or not.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I did! There was a kid at my school we called Winky Bumsniffer because he had a persistent hard wink (which i now recognise was a twitch and was cruel of us) and was constantly ramming his hands in the back of his pants then sniffing them (that one wasn't our fault).

Edit: in my defence, and this isn't a particularly good defence, i had loads of twitches as a child, new one every week. Parents despairing.

You should've gone with "In my defense, I was a child and we all know what evil little shits children are. Most of us grow out of it."

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Your argument would land if that was actually my point. My point was not whether the stereotype was invoked at all, but rather in what context, why, what thematic purpose it serves, whether that thematic context is well-founded, what message does that invocation convey, and whether that invocation was therefore justified.

Historically, Jews were excluded from any gainful profession and guild, and forced into moneylending and tax collection specifically because Catholic dogma forbade it. Which in turn made them easy targets for further dehumanization and demonization, and even easier to steal from, expel, and murder when it came time for (predominantly Christian and noble) debtors to actually pay up.

And when Jews actually did what you would expect any reasonable person to do under those circumstances -- resist and revolt -- it "proved" they were really "nothing but" greedy usurers loyal to no one but their own. Thereby turning justified acts of resistance against oppression against the oppressed, to rationalize further oppression. And in the post-industrial world, that centuries-long externally-enforced stereotype -- and its ramifications -- were weaponized against them to justify further antisemitism, up to and including the Holocaust itself.

You know, kind of like how goblins are portrayed in the damn books. But naw, just the mere invocation of the trope means Wizard Book Bad, Wizard Book Lady Bad, regardless of any actual context that might make us consider how some of these stereotypes came to be, and what it says about us as a people.

Would be a fantastic point if the books or game *did* anything with that. But they didn't, so...

Like, the reason that the Goblins are bankers in Harry Potter is because Wizards didn't want to bother with it and Goblins are *racially* good with money. That's not calling the stereotype into question, it's just the stereotype.

Case in fucking point about this whole "analysis" being superficial, reductive, and denialist towards any deeper context.

Or are you going to argue HDC's don't face educational and social disadvantage, that plays an integral role perpetrating generational poverty and downward social mobility?

Sure they do. And pointing to smart Black people didn't change any of that, because that's not how racists operate.

Can't help but notice those folks only come up now, once you need a shield against criticism. As opposed to other groups who tend to suck all the oxygen out of the room, and pull attention away from people who actually need help.

The fuck are you talking about, Mr "the hate for Harry Potter comes nearly exclusively from middle class white people"? What "criticism" was I supposed to respond to, "you only hate Harry Potter because you're white and middle class"? 'Cause I'm only one of those things, and most people i know who criticize Harry Potter are 1 or 0 of those things

 

[Terminal Blue]

Did you get that from how the dimples on Dobby's skull were described in the books?

Well, no.. I got it from the various times house elves are forced to do things against their will through compulsion. You seem to be operating on the pretense that any of this is subtext, but it's not. It's text.

Now that's out of my system, so the argument is that house elves are no different than any other magical beast in the setting, particularly those depicted as every bit as sapient as humans or wizards regardless of form?

What exactly are we talking about.

Because if we mean centaurs, then yes. People have taken pretty extensive and very obvious issue with that, although in proportion to the fact that their role in the stories is far more minor.

If we mean magical animals, then I don't think this is a good faith argument so much as an attempt to substitute criticism of the very obvious implications of the depictions of clearly humanlike "races" such as house elves, goblins or centaurs with a hypothetical weaker argument.

It doesn't really matter whether the Harry Potter universe has a consistent approach to the issue of non-human intelligence. It doesn't matter if there's no obvious reason to distinguish things that resemble humans and things that resemble animals in this setting. That distinction isn't just diegetic, it's also non-diegetic. We, the reader, are meant to view Dobby as a person. We're not meant to view Aragog as a person, but as a talking animal.

You can view Aragog as a person, and I think that could be a productive excercise, but it requires a hostile reading. Viewing house elves as people does not, because they are consistently presented a such.

I admit, this is a damned novel way to backtrack, but you really can't have this both ways. They're either sapient creatures to whom the term "slavery" with all its implications applies, or not.

And the answer is incredibly obvious, but it doesn't require that they have exactly the same capacities as everyone else. You can't enslave people just because they aren't capable of understanding that they're being exploited.

I don't want to overstate this point. It's not intentional, it's not part of some greater agenda to repeal worker protections or decriminalize peonage. What it is, in tandem with a lot of other generally questionable stuff, is indicative of a general inability to conceive of systemic problems. "People should be allowed to be slaves if they want to" isn't a good argument, because even if that were how it works it is incredibly obvious that someone wanting to be slave (outside of specific, temporary kink contexts) represents a problem.

 

[Absent]

You people should really play the Geneforge series. If you haven't, they will blow your minds. They're essentially house elves moral conundrums simulations.

You belong to a cast of wizards who can create life and use it more all sorts of tasks, including combat (as you level up, you can create, conjure, develop, more powerful creatures). But as the story goes you're more and more confronted to the Unfortunate Implications™ of it all. And I remember it as, by far, the most intricate cRPG in terms of sides rationales, conflicting causes, factions dilemmas, etc. Its graphics are a bit on the rough, minimalist side, but damn does its world, lore and philosiphical rabbit holes swallow you whole.

Also, pokemons ? I don't know pokemons at all, how does it work ? Willing slavery ? Rebellions ? Rationalizations, spectators outrage ?

There's one thing also about world building. I feel that quite often (and it annoys me), people who create a big universe tend to create plots that, instead of just taking place in it, have the whole universe at stake, and end up collapsing it or something. But I can also see the opposite : people creating a universe, with its rules and laws, and wanting it maintained. Conservatism about fiction. And if you create one with Familiars or with folklore-inspired house protective spirits (that you have to elaborate on, because it's the sort of book that elaborates on stuff), you can quickly paint yourself in a corner, with a system that wouldn't be stable in "reality". And stabilize it artificially (a world-scale status quo à la "inspector gadget and doctor claw will never defeat each other", the kind that keeps the Joker or Luthor threat eternal). The alternative, fully following where it'd go given the premises, could just transform the world, and erase many of its magical components - be them "good" or "bad" in-universe. You don't want peace in WH40k, you don't want civilization in Mad Max, etc. In that kind of universes, something must and will happen to maintain its features. Something will rationalize its permanence. I don't think it's a things that, in itself, tells much about real-world attitudes.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You people should really play the Geneforge series. If you haven't, they will blow your minds. They're essentially house elves moral conundrums simulations.

Oh, fellow Spiderweb Software enthuisiast? Though, I'm going to be insufferable and say Vogel peaked at E3 and BoE. No, I haven't played all his later games, I just know they aren't as good because reasons.

I feel that quite often (and it annoys me), people who create a big universe tend to create plots that, instead of just taking place in it, have the whole universe at stake, and end up collapsing it or something.

Argh, yes.

But I can also see the opposite : people creating a universe, with its rules and laws, and wanting it maintained. Conservatism about fiction.

Also Argh, also yes.

EDIT: Argh, one end quote was missing a bracket.

EDIT EDIT: Argh, argh, and there was an extra end quote.

 

[Satinavian]

I always said that the house elf story is poorly written. And the main reason is that it is never really properly explained where the compulsion comes from.

The compulsion to follow orders is obviously different from the inclination to do housework that house elves seem to have. Because that inclination means they like doing housework but the compulsion can explicitely go against their will.

Is the compulsion something wizards did to the house elves ? Well, that would obvioulsy be a horrible crime.

But as we see with Harry and Kreacher, the ability to give commands does come automatically as soon as the relationship is established.

It it something that is inherent to house elves ? Does belonging to a house mean beholden to the owners or other inhabitants orders ? Well, then the question arises whether Dobby, after having been "freed" is actually free at all. Dobby moved to Hogwards and basically does the same work there as the other Hogwards House elves. Sure, he gets a salary. But can Dobby even leave Hogwarts behind ? Can he be commanded by the headmaster like all the other elves ? If the compulsion is something specific to house elves, after having settled into Hogwards, Dobby should be under effect of orders from there and also unable to leave again without getting new clothes.

But if Dobby doesn't have the same restrictions as other house elves, where exactly do those restrictions even come from ?
Pity that Rowling never bothered to actually expore the condition of house elves properly. It is as shallow as many other things.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I thought Dobby wasn't under magical restrictions, at least by the time he was at Hogwarts, but he'd been conditioned to obey the rules and hadn't been deprogrammed.

 

[Silvanus]

So, let me see if I get this straight. Wizard Book Lady invokes stereotypes that are harmful against people in the real world, perpetuate bigotry, all that good stuff, but now -- only once someone suggests n actual, critical, thematic analysis -- and only now is it just a book that doesn't really have anything to say? Yeah, that absolutely doesn't punctuate my point all this is a reductionist smoke screen to keep people from thinking too hard about it on threat of being labeled a bigot.

Unsurprisingly, you do not have it straight. I'm not saying it's "just a book that doesn't really have anything to say"-- it's been central to my argument that the books frequently tackle real-world themes and topics, and did so here.

This is about as far from an "oompa-loompa" situation as it gets, given what I already mentioned about how internalized oppression destroyed Winky's life, and how Dobby and Kreacher resisted servitude and poor treatment in their own ways. And I really have to wonder about those who treat the two identically.

If only any of the three of them had been allowed to make their own decisions about where to work or who to work for in the first place!

Or, the systemic change she's after is to stop getting wizards to conceptualize their relationship to house elves as slavery. You know, attacking the root cause -- the underlying psychology on the part of wizards that strips house elves of individuality, agency, dignity, and thereby enables the abuses against which she takes issue.

Kind of like how in the real, post-industrial, world there will be no progressive movement towards equitable treatment of underclasses (in the west, defined by work in the service industry) until the citizenry stops conceptualizing them as a servant class.

So now you're saying wizards even treat Elves as slaves, and the Elves cannot leave, but they're simultaneously not slaves because... under a different conceptualisation that the masters could move towards, there wouldn't be abuse.

K.

Would you care to posit a reason there were blacklists of streamers, content creators, and social media personalities being shared online other than to invoke a chilling effect on game coverage, perchance?

I'm sure it was.

And your lazy, hostile attempt to associate me with behaviour I'd never actually exhibited is poisoning the well.

 

[Drathnoxis]

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

Artemis Fowl (film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Artemis Fowl is also just not nearly as good. Doesn't have half the charm of the wizarding world and the characters are all annoyingly perfect.

 

[bluegate]

Hogwarts Legacy Certainly Seems Like It Was Supposed to Have Quidditch

There are flying, broom upgrades, Quidditch uniforms, and a surprisingly detailed pitch—but the wizard sport is conspicuously absent

kotaku.com

I don't know about it having supposed to have had Quidditch.

Even if the decision to not bother with coding this mini game was made from the outset, it makes sense lore wise to have references to the sport and have the actual field there. It is a major sport in the world and there is a major field next to the school where the game takes place, so not having anything quidditch related would be a non starter.

 

[Drathnoxis]

I don't know about it having supposed to have had Quidditch.

Even if the decision to not bother with coding this mini game was made from the outset, it makes sense lore wise to have references to the sport and have the actual field there. It is a major sport in the world and there is a major field next to the school where the game takes place, so not having anything quidditch related would be a non starter.

It also makes sense not to have Quidditch in the game, because Quidditch is a stupid sport that makes no sense.

 

[BrawlMan]

I don't know about it having supposed to have had Quidditch.

Even if the decision to not bother with coding this mini game was made from the outset, it makes sense lore wise to have references to the sport and have the actual field there. It is a major sport in the world and there is a major field next to the school where the game takes place, so not having anything quidditch related would be a non starter.

I admit that I only posted this, because it was something different and related to the game. Otherwise, I have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Gordon_4]

It also makes sense not to have Quidditch in the game, because Quidditch is a stupid sport that makes no sense.

Only thing about Quidditch that irks me is the Golden Snitch being an instant win condition. Sure catching it can mark end of play but if it’s (significant) point allocation isn’t enough to simply win by highest score then it’s just a mercy killing for your side. Otherwise it seems simple enough.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It also makes sense not to have Quidditch in the game, because Quidditch is a stupid sport that makes no sense.

If you start taking out stupid things that make no sense, well...

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Don't mind me, just snagging that #1000.