Hogwarts Legacy - Whimsical Wizardry

[Specter Von Baren]

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

I wouldn't know. I've never read the book or watched the film. However, we're no strangers to how people sanitize things that become popular or trendy. A movie like First Blood gets turned into a very actiony movie in Rambo: First Blood Part 2. Alien/Aliens, a HORROR franchise, gets toys made for kids under the age of 10 to play with despite the gruesome nature of the movies. Villains get turned into conflicted or tragic characters or redeemed completely. So people that understand the source of something first hand will get the full picture, but once something gets popular, you end up with a lot of people that only know of it second or third hand, and then base their beliefs on the subject on those second or third hand impressions even if they see the source themselves later.

When something gets popular, we also have a tenancy to try and sand off the edges of it to make it more acceptable to a broader audience. It's a bit like how gameplay can "degrade" as a series goes on in order to speed up the process so it can appeal to more people with less time on their hands.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, this is not an uncommon thing that happens, we are just shocked when we find that it happens with more dark or serious topics. Not sure if that makes sense.

 

[Gordon_4]

I wouldn't know. I've never read the book or watched the film. However, we're no strangers to how people sanitize things that become popular or trendy. A movie like First Blood gets turned into a very actiony movie in Rambo: First Blood Part 2. Alien/Aliens, a HORROR franchise, gets toys made for kids under the age of 10 to play with despite the gruesome nature of the movies. Villains get turned into conflicted or tragic characters or redeemed completely. So people that understand the source of something first hand will get the full picture, but once something gets popular, you end up with a lot of people that only know of it second or third hand, and then base their beliefs on the subject on those second or third hand impressions even if they see the source themselves later.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, this is not an uncommon thing that happens, we are just shocked when we find that it happens with more dark or serious topics. Not sure if that makes sense.

The Rambo series has never lost its undercurrent of tragedy. None of them have been as good as First Blood, true, but all of them have remained visceral experiences that never let us forget that John Rambo is a man in pain and carrying around a weighty darkness.

You can also toss Terminator, Robocop and Predator into that list of stuff that was sanded down for kids. I’m not shocked that they did because even a surface level read of those properties is gonna be like mana from heaven for most boys (and a few girls). We got robots who time travel, a cop who’s bulletproof, an alien who hunts dangerous things and then we’ve got soldiers against aliens. All things that tickle the “Fuck yeah, awesome!” gland.

 

[Eacaraxe]

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.

It's superficial to critically examine, for example, the character of Winky as a victim of internalized oppression? Kreacher's role rebelling to the best of his ability repaying treatment in kind, to the point of directly causing the death of a major protagonist? Dobby's assimilation of wizard ideals, and whether that's compromising to his core identity or genuine character growth? Hermione's ill-conceived early activism and whether it was genuinely respectful to those she was attempting to represent, and her later growth into activism that was genuinely respectful to the wishes of those whose circumstances she wanted to improve?

Naw, Slavery Bad, Wizard Book Bad, Wizard Book Lady Bad. Can't even admit the possibility there may be more under the hood, lest one be branded one of those people by association.

Kind of like how people who want to shit on Harry Potter for alleged antisemitism over the goblins, conveniently overlook for their own purposes how the stereotype of Jews as greedy, conspiratorial, bankers originated not from Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but rather medieval antisemitism itself. I mean, I know you're from the UK -- who, out of raw unadulterated curiosity, was suspiciously absent from England between 1290-1657, and why?

Can't have ourselves admitting any forthcoming analogy there may be better-founded than we might think, and that might speak to cultures in which we're part in ways we find politically inconvenient. Better to leave it at Antisemitism Bad, Wizard Book Bad, Wizard Book Lady Bad.

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?

Like I said, poison the well to prevent discomforting or inconvenient analyses.

 

[Zeke davis]

It's superficial to critically examine, for example, the character of Winky as a victim of internalized oppression? Kreacher's role rebelling to the best of his ability repaying treatment in kind, to the point of directly causing the death of a major protagonist? Dobby's assimilation of wizard ideals, and whether that's compromising to his core identity or genuine character growth? Hermione's ill-conceived early activism and whether it was genuinely respectful to those she was attempting to represent, and her later growth into activism that was genuinely respectful to the wishes of those whose circumstances she wanted to improve?

Naw, Slavery Bad, Wizard Book Bad, Wizard Book Lady Bad. Can't even admit the possibility there may be more under the hood, lest one be branded one of those people by association.

Kind of like how people who want to shit on Harry Potter for alleged antisemitism over the goblins, conveniently overlook for their own purposes how the stereotype of Jews as greedy, conspiratorial, bankers originated not from Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but rather medieval antisemitism itself. I mean, I know you're from the UK -- who, out of raw unadulterated curiosity, was suspiciously absent from England between 1290-1657, and why?

Can't have ourselves admitting any forthcoming analogy there may be better-founded than we might think, and that might speak to cultures in which we're part in ways we find politically inconvenient. Better to leave it at Antisemitism Bad, Wizard Book Bad, Wizard Book Lady Bad.


Like I said, poison the well to prevent discomforting or inconvenient analyses.

"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

Actual Jewish critics compared those books to the medieval history and still hated it. That's barely an argument

You've brought zero textual evidence of your deep analysis and you've deeply much just stated your opinion and insulted people who disagreed with you. That's not even analysis.

Edit: There's also the irony of you not addressing the historical mammy/butler elephant in the room. Along with the fact the very refusal to engage to avoid discomfort is exactly how rowling and her fanbase handled Jon Stewart's criticisms just saying..

 

[BrawlMan]

Rambo series has never lost its undercurrent of tragedy. None of them have been as good as First Blood, true, but all of them have remained visceral experiences that never let us forget that John Rambo is a man in pain and carrying around a weighty darkness.

You can also toss Terminator, Robocop and Predator into that list of stuff that was sanded down for kids.

​

 

[Gordon_4]

​

Huh, I’d forgotten about that show.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

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.

Until book 4, when it was trying to grow with it's audience.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It's superficial to critically examine, for example, the character of Winky as a victim of internalized oppression? Kreacher's role rebelling to the best of his ability repaying treatment in kind, to the point of directly causing the death of a major protagonist? Dobby's assimilation of wizard ideals, and whether that's compromising to his core identity or genuine character growth? Hermione's ill-conceived early activism and whether it was genuinely respectful to those she was attempting to represent, and her later growth into activism that was genuinely respectful to the wishes of those whose circumstances she wanted to improve?

My dude, they *cannot leave* and *cannot disobey an order*. That is a slave. That a slave found a loophole in the rules to kill their master is irrelevant

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.

House Elves cannot choose their masters, cannot leave an abusive master, and must obey an order from their master, even if it's work to rule. Wizards aren't "interpreting" jack or shit in this relationship, they're just occasionally being (more of a) dick about owning slaves

Like, not even mugglenet.com shies away from calling them slaves.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Oh, and hey? remember when Slughorn was legitimately surprised by Lily and Hermione being skilled muggle-born witches, and how that was immediately understood as racism and to interpret in any other way means the interpreter themselves must be racist? Except, Slughorn actually had a point that certain people would rather ignore -- neither Lily nor Hermione lived as small children in the wizarding world, indeed neither had the first idea magic even existed until they were accepted into Hogwarts. Meaning, they started with educational and social disadvantages to overcome first and foremost, which someone like Harry never had to face despite having a muggle-born's background, thanks to the wealth and fame attached to his name.

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

Kind of like how in the real world, HDC's face educational and social disadvantages, that perpetuate and enable downward social mobility and generational poverty. And from that, how implicit racial biases intersect with socioeconomic biases, in ways quite perceptible to those without ulterior motive to protect socioeconomic self-interest. Is it any wonder Harry Potter hate comes not from the evangelical right nowadays, but near-exclusively white and bourgeois, lousy with delusions of beneficent grandeur?

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. 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?

Or in case the point's been missed, this is all identity reductionist bullshit and I'll have none of it.

He says, after saying that nearly everybody he disagrees with is a middle class white person and can be disregarded, before spending many more paragraphs in the conversation.

 

[Thaluikhain]

My dude, they *cannot leave* and *cannot disobey an order*. That is a slave. That a slave found a loophole in the rules to kill their master is irrelevant

House Elves cannot choose their masters, cannot leave an abusive master, and must obey an order from their master, even if it's work to rule. Wizards aren't "interpreting" jack or shit in this relationship, they're just occasionally being (more of a) dick about owning slaves

Like, not even mugglenet.com shies away from calling them slaves.

And when Dobby gets his freedom he's forever going on about being a free elf and being free. Cause it's kinda a big deal not being a slave.

 

[Satinavian]

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?

The problem is that this is not the only possible analogy.
Rowling is not a good writer. But the core of the later half of the house elf stories is about how they were genuinely nonhuman with nonhuman desires and how it was important to know that and consider that to treat them properly, that just treating them as humans was not ideal either.

That is a story that is usually told in SF about AIs : Sentient beings that are not only servile and forced to follow order, but have in their very nature to do particular kind of work and also don't need sleep or food, don't get bored etc. What is the correct way to interact with them, what is taboo ? Many books were written about that.

That is what Rowling tries to have with the house elves. It doesn't really work though. Partly because the wizards did not make the house elves and Rowling did not even afford a single paragraph for how house elves lived before they got taken in by the wizards. I mean, yes, the mythical creatures house elves are based on are working without being forced in any way because it really is their nature, but that is not really explained in the books.

 

[Gordon_4]

That is a story that is usually told in SF about AIs : Sentient beings that are not only servile and forced to follow order, but have in their very nature to do particular kind of work and also don't need sleep or food, don't get bored etc. What is the correct way to interact with them, what is taboo ? Many books were written about that.

Yeah and a significant chunk of the popular stories people remember about those AIs are the ones where they get the robo-shits and decide that they want their freedom and decide to give us a right good kicking to obtain it.

So which one of Dobby's mates is gonna start the Morning War?

 

[Satinavian]

So which one of Dobby's mates is gonna start the Morning War?

Wasn't that Morning war one that was started by the creators because they started to fear their creation and tried to destroy them all without any AI having expressed any wish for freedom up to this point ? Just another example of people just projecting humanoid desires on an AI and breaking everything by doing so ?

 

[Silvanus]

It's superficial to critically examine, for example, the character of Winky as a victim of internalized oppression? Kreacher's role rebelling to the best of his ability repaying treatment in kind, to the point of directly causing the death of a major protagonist? Dobby's assimilation of wizard ideals, and whether that's compromising to his core identity or genuine character growth? Hermione's ill-conceived early activism and whether it was genuinely respectful to those she was attempting to represent, and her later growth into activism that was genuinely respectful to the wishes of those whose circumstances she wanted to improve?

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.

Take Hermione's activism, for example. Her original activism fails to respect the viewpoint of those she wants to help; she grows to be helpful in a way that's more respectful. That's superficial analysis, yes-- it's literally just what the story presents to you. 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.

Naw, Slavery Bad, Wizard Book Bad, Wizard Book Lady Bad. Can't even admit the possibility there may be more under the hood, lest one be branded one of those people by association.

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

Like I said, poison the well to prevent discomforting or inconvenient analyses.

Hypocrisy.

 

[Gordon_4]

Wasn't that Morning war one that was started by the creators because they started to fear their creation and tried to destroy them all without any AI having expressed any wish for freedom up to this point ? Just another example of people just projecting humanoid desires on an AI and breaking everything by doing so ?

Strictly speaking, as I recall it, the Morning War spun out of a farm Geth asking its Quarian boss "Does this unit have a soul?". However, while there was obvious concern about what was happening to the geth, I don't think the game in and of itself actually details who fired the first shot or what broader philisophical debate happened before the violence between the two broke out. Its probably in the Codex somewhere but I confess to not having read that in a long time.

And the wiki is of no help, just outlining the broad stages of the geth becoming sapient, the quarians buttholes puckering big time, the government yelling "Pull the level, Kronk" and another side saying "Wrong lever!" and the geth basically kicking their arses so hard the quarians were still smelling geth feet three hundred years later.

Even so, I think my question is still a fair one.

 

[BrawlMan]

Warner Bros. Discovery continues to lose money despite success of ‘The Last of Us’ and ‘Hogwarts Legacy’ | TechCrunch

Warner Bros. Discovery reported a net loss of $2.1 billion in Q4, despite the success of "The Last of Us" and “Hogwarts Legacy."

techcrunch.com

Easily accessible 'free' downloads of this popular game have security experts sounding the alarm

Best to wait for the game to go on sale instead of risking your computer's integrity on 'cracked' free versions. Here's what the experts say.

sg.news.yahoo.com

 

[immortalfrieza]

Strictly speaking, as I recall it, the Morning War spun out of a farm Geth asking its Quarian boss "Does this unit have a soul?". However, while there was obvious concern about what was happening to the geth, I don't think the game in and of itself actually details who fired the first shot or what broader philisophical debate happened before the violence between the two broke out.

Actually, Mass Effect 3 made it quite clear that the Quarians fired the first shot, and second, and the third, and so on. The Geth would outright refuse to fight back as the Quarians were killing them and the war really only got started because the Geth wanted to stop the Quarians who were killing other Quarians who didn't fall in line and tried to actually defend the Geth from genocide.

The whole war was definitely 100% the fault of the Quarians.

 

[Gordon_4]

Actually, Mass Effect 3 made it quite clear that the Quarians fired the first shot, and second, and the third, and so on. The Geth would outright refuse to fight back as the Quarians were killing them and the war really only got started because the Geth wanted to stop the Quarians who were killing other Quarians who didn't fall in line and tried to actually defend the Geth from genocide.

The whole war was definitely 100% the fault of the Quarians.

Well I was looking for a reason to replay, guess I just found one. Refresher course!

 

[Drathnoxis]

​

I like that Rambo's idea of dressing for a snowy mountain peak is to put on a tank top.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

EDIT*2: Given how easy it is to see the House Elves whole deal as being compelled, it'd be interesting for Hogwarts 2 to actually address like, a blood curse or something they're suffering from. Not that it would change it, if it's still a prequel.

Sorry, I just had to.