The Status Quo: Thoughts on the Flaws of the Wizarding World
ignipes wrote a marvelous essay about the Harry Potter series vs. actual subversive fantasy that alters or transcends the genre. Go and read it, for it is brilliant.
I concur with ignipes--Rowling's world is not subversive. It is a traditional battle between good and evil, with Harry on one side and Voldemort on the other. The general belief of the wizarding ( Read more... )
I concur with ignipes--Rowling's world is not subversive. It is a traditional battle between good and evil, with Harry on one side and Voldemort on the other. The general belief of the wizarding ( Read more... )
If they were the highest court in the land, I could tolerate that. The problem is, they seem to be the only court, since the Wizengamot is the court that holds the hearing on whether Harry should be expelled from school for underage wizardry. It would be more logical if there were a court for minor crimes, or a court for civil matters as well as criminal...but no. The only court we ever hear of is the Wizengamot. And if that is the only court, then there is no court to whom anyone can appeal, either.
I was surprised that Harry didn't ask something along the lines of, "Why do I have to have a hearing in front of the Wizengamot? Isn't that the highest wizarding court?" And then Mr. or Mrs. Weasley could have explained that yes, it was, but they considered the welfare of children to be of paramount importance so they handled juvenile law as well. Or "Yes, it is, and they don't normally hear such cases, I suppose they're making an exception for you." Just a couple of sentences to explain this. That's all it would have taken.
Yeah. Scrimgeour's lucky because he can claim it's a war interest to send people to jail without one.
Crouch did the same thing. And Fudge didn't even bother. Hagrid was accused of freeing the monster from the Chamber of Secrets, and that was enough. The wizarding world doesn't even try to prove or disprove accusations.
She does say that there's an afterlife for some wizards, but she's never showed anyone actually change into a ghost.
Maybe most people don't have unfinished business, or aren't afraid to go on to the afterlife? But I agree. It IS weak.
it's possible that the whole Pureblood superiority thing can only exist because there's a general prejudice against Muggles - basically, that's the underlying motive of the "patronizing" attitude.
I agree completely. I just wish one or two of the characters would notice it, and comment on it.
I think elf slavery is comical in itself.
See, I don't. I look at the elves, with their easy acceptance of slavery and their odd dialect, and I see an old-time minstrel show. It reminds me of "historical " stories I read and was read in elementary school. The American Civil War stories always featured a scene involving happy black people picking cotton in the field, singing Negro spirituals and being immensely satisfied with their lot in life.
Now, in the wizarding world, that's not a stereotype--the elves DO like being slaves. But if you check Fantastic Beasts and How To Know Them, you find that the wizard who bound elves in slavery in the first place put something in the spell to compell them to like it. (Apparently Dobby is one of the few who can shake free of this compulsion.)
So the very wills of the elves are not their own. It's like a centuries-long Imperius Curse on the entire race: Be slaves, and enjoy it.
I can picture a Klansman or a member of the John Birch Society saying that. I can picture it easily.
If she made people recognize their flaws and act in an organized way against DEs, they'd eliminate Voldie pretty quickly and Harry would be deprived of a good deal of character development.
Oh, I don't know. I'd like it a lot better if wizards--more than the kids at Hogwarts and the twenty-to-thirty-odd members of the Order of the Phoenix--did try acting in an organised manner against Voldie and failed. At least I'd feel as if they cared about freeing themselves, and weren't just sitting around on their arses, waiting for a seventeen-year-old boy to do it for them.
Reply
That's true. I don't agree with that either. Still, I guess it could be explained away - it's a close thing, I admit, but there's an explanation. The www.statistics.gov.uk page says there are approx. 13 million kids in the UK. JKR in her Mugglenet interview says that there are 600 wizarding children in the UK. Now, counting with these data, you get an x=2751 total of wizards and witches in the UK, where 600(wiz kids)/13000000(all UK kids)=x(all UK wiz population)/59600000(all UK population).
A population of 2751 - that's the size of a village. And villages usually don't have more than one group of people to deal with law issues. So, I think the reason why there's only one Wizengamot might be that it would be expensive to have more courts. The Ministry of Magic already seems like a huge monstrosity compared to the size of the Wizarding population.
I was surprised that Harry didn't ask something along the lines of, "Why do I have to have a hearing in front of the Wizengamot? Isn't that the highest wizarding court?" And then Mr. or Mrs. Weasley could have explained that yes, it was, but they considered the welfare of children to be of paramount importance so they handled juvenile law as well.
Harry might have forgotten it for a while - he was late for his hearing, and very nervous. BTW, in Chapter 9, when the hearing is over, Arthur seems to be stunned by the fact that Harry was interrogated by the whole Wizengamot. He just can't press on the matter further, because he meets people like Fudge, Percy or Lucius.
The wizarding world doesn't even try to prove or disprove accusations.
True.
So the very wills of the elves are not their own. It's like a centuries-long Imperius Curse on the entire race: Be slaves, and enjoy it. I can picture a Klansman or a member of the John Birch Society saying that. I can picture it easily.
Yeah, I know, I'm just trying to say that if, from the storyteller's POW, some bad things seem justifiable, that doesn't mean the author really means the same. In fact, JKR always says racism, esp. prejudice against house elves is bad. But she also says, "I do not write the books thinking what is my message for today, what is my moral [...] I am not trying to criticise or make speeches to you in any way..." (See the CBBC interview) I mean, we know racism is bad. She knows racism is bad. But this doesn't mean people in the books have to know that, too. You say it's bad that the book doesn't have a "NO RACISM" message - well, it does have, I think. If you can see elf slavery is bad, and I can see too, and, well, most of the fandom can see it, too - then don't you think JKR has made a point, after all?
BTW, when I said "comical", I was referring to the style in which it was presented, not the thing itself. (I'm not a native speaker - I'm sorry, sometimes I can't find the right words and what I want to say doesn't come out right.)
Reply
If you can see elf slavery is bad, and I can see too, and, well, most of the fandom can see it, too - then don't you think JKR has made a point, after all?
No, I honestly don't. I get the "no racism" message from society, not from her books--where it's played for laughs, after all. Wizarding society is very bigoted in many respects (often to the point where the prejudice is being exploited by Voldemort), but it's presented as "good, if it weren't for Voldemort." So on one side you have something that's supposed to be completely good, threatened by something on the other side that's supposed to be completely evil.
And that's really not the way it is. Wizarding society has flaws. But they're never explored--not even for a couple of sentences or two. They're rarely even mentioned.
This is undoubtedly why I prefer George R.R. Martin. He doesn't have heroes or villains in his books--just people on different sides. And he shows you both sides, and he makes you want both sides to win, even though they can't. People get confused, get things wrong, lie, cheat, cozen and get wounded and killed. Martin's world is heartbreakingly believable and never simple.
Glen Cook's Black Company series follows a group of mercenaries. They switch allies constantly--and they worry about what's going on behind the scenes that they don't know or understand. Sometimes they know the people they have to meet in battle, as well. They're completely credible soldiers who have been fighting an exhausting war for a very long time. They are cynical, sardonic, unsettling...and very, very human.
There are ways of showing the imperfections of a world without preaching (which JKR doesn't do) and without idealising one side to the detriment of the other (which JKR does).
Reply
No, I honestly don't. I get the "no racism" message from society, not from her books--where it's played for laughs, after all. Wizarding society is very bigoted in many respects (often to the point where the prejudice is being exploited by Voldemort), but it's presented as "good, if it weren't for Voldemort."
OH. I see your point now. Still, I don't think it's presented as entirely good. There are some details which point out racism as a very bad thing. For example, in the Department of Mysteries scene, when Harry arrives at the empty Atrium, he notes that the figures on the Fountain of Magical Brethren look stupid - especially the centaur and the goblin; they look upon the statues of the wizard and the chesty witch with "blatant adoration" on their faces; something they'd never do in real life.
I guess people like Harry, Hermione and Lupin know quite well that prejudice isn't okay. In fact, I think most Order members know that. The problem is that this isn't enough. So, I can see some effort on JKR's part to deal with racism - but I can also see this is far from sufficient. And she isn't too consistent about the issue, I give you that.
I know there are authors who are less controversial than JKR, and I know there are authors who present problematic issues from more aspects than JKR does. I've never read anything from Martin or Cook, but I've checked them out on Amazon, and the excerpts were very interesting - I'll try to learn more about the guys.
There are ways of showing the imperfections of a world without preaching (which JKR doesn't do) and without idealising one side to the detriment of the other (which JKR does).
I admit I love nice safe cliches and idealized worlds ;) Maybe that's the reason why I'm willing to overlook JKRs mistakes and her sloppy treatment of some important issues. I guess I just accept the elf issue as it is because I know they're a fictional species. If I started blaming JKR for not dealing seriously with them, I'd have to start blaming other authors. Think of Roald Dahl, for example. In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the oompa-loompas are treated almost like house elves; they can't leave the factory, they work day and night for a handful of cocoa beans - and they enjoy it.
So, it's simply easier for me to leave the whole issue in peace - I don't want to start hating my favorite authors. I'd have to start hating Tolkien for mistreating the Orcs, and I'd have to start hating Feist because the tsurani are, in fact, Asian people in disguise, and Feist doesn't say too flattering things about them. But as far as these authors stay more or less in the realm of fantasy, fine with me.
If JKR or any other fantasy author ever tried writing about a historical issue like in that fashion, I'd be really mad with them. That would be a serious problem for me. I admire your sense of justice - you're much more sensitive about these issues than most people, and I respect that.
Reply
Actually, Harry's hearing was supposed to be before Amelia Bones only, and was to take place in her office. Fudge (and probably Umbridge) changed it themselves, rather last minute - or at least Harry's notice was last minute - as was Dumbledore's - in what looked like an attempt to hold the hearing without Harry being present, therefore finding him guilty in absentia. When Harry comes out and the Wizengamot members file out behind him, Arthur is literally stunned that it was a full trial. (Not to mention that he is both surprised and confused that not only was the time changed, but that it was down in the old courtrooms to begin with. There wasn't time to elaborate though - they were already late and rushing to get there.) Of course, as Harry was found not guilty and the charges were dismissed, it was pushed aside - at least in front of Harry. It's quite possible Sirius raged about it later on. And really, considering Sirius never actually had the luxury of a trial, Harry was apparently lucky to get a hearing at all.
Reply
Leave a comment