Rowling expects that her readers are intelligent and see things headed in that direction.
Bu how??? I can see equally intelligent readers leaning eithe rway. The only reason I can think of for assuming it will go that way is that we all know that slavery is bad so it should go away. Even though we have no idea how they would begin getting rid of it and our heroes have spent the last book enjoying the benefits of it. I've read plenty of things by intelligent readers who think House Elf slavery is fine and simply doesn't relate to human slavery. You yourself say it would be insulting to say it could be wrapped up in the near future, so why would it be obvious it will be wrapped up in the distant future--and why would that have any bearing on the story we're reading?
And therein lies the dilemma and the complexity of the whole thing.
Which makes it also makes it a very convenient situation for slave owners. You can be totally against slavery but have to keep them enslaved because they'd be upset otherwise. If they are unhappy being owned by a particular master that master can free them...but so far they only ever free elves when it's convenient to them. It's really not complex at all if you accept that this is the natural order of things for the most part. It becomes more complicated when you try to make it fit an anti-slavery stance because the author is anti-slavery in real life regarding people but you don't have to make it fit that.
He wonders if Kreacher would...he doesn't command him, and clearly, he decides against the sandwich anyway.
He doesn't decide against the sandwich. But more importantly, it's that exact impulse to say that it's not really slavery if Harry isn't commanding him rudely, that makes me think House Elf slavery is here to stay.
Would those positions be, based on everything else we know about the WW, top positions of power? Unlikely, given that there is no woman at the top of any chain of power in the entire series.
I don't know if the few women we see in positions of power is supposed to indicate that women face problems there. I don't see that Hermione is facing institutional barriers due to her status as a woman or as a Muggleborn at all--except when Voldemort is in charge. I don't mean to say there's no prejudice against her anywhere, but no, I never got any sense that Hermione couldn't attain any position of power she set her mind to while I was reading the books. And even if she was discriminated against due to being Muggleborn or female, her having a problem with it isn't a blow for other groups outside the wizard groups. I'd say prejudice against Wizards of varying situations is given privilege in the narrative.
Anybody can say what's obviously going to happen after the series is over, but I don't know if that changes what's actually written. As I think other people have written here, often an author can say one thing when she's consciously saying what should be true but not actually have that come out in the situations she writes. Dumbledore is I think a good example of that. More than once I think he's been a mouth piece for good ideas that aren't actually being dramatized in the story.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 06:20 pm (UTC)Bu how??? I can see equally intelligent readers leaning eithe rway. The only reason I can think of for assuming it will go that way is that we all know that slavery is bad so it should go away. Even though we have no idea how they would begin getting rid of it and our heroes have spent the last book enjoying the benefits of it. I've read plenty of things by intelligent readers who think House Elf slavery is fine and simply doesn't relate to human slavery. You yourself say it would be insulting to say it could be wrapped up in the near future, so why would it be obvious it will be wrapped up in the distant future--and why would that have any bearing on the story we're reading?
And therein lies the dilemma and the complexity of the whole thing.
Which makes it also makes it a very convenient situation for slave owners. You can be totally against slavery but have to keep them enslaved because they'd be upset otherwise. If they are unhappy being owned by a particular master that master can free them...but so far they only ever free elves when it's convenient to them. It's really not complex at all if you accept that this is the natural order of things for the most part. It becomes more complicated when you try to make it fit an anti-slavery stance because the author is anti-slavery in real life regarding people but you don't have to make it fit that.
He wonders if Kreacher would...he doesn't command him, and clearly, he decides against the sandwich anyway.
He doesn't decide against the sandwich. But more importantly, it's that exact impulse to say that it's not really slavery if Harry isn't commanding him rudely, that makes me think House Elf slavery is here to stay.
Would those positions be, based on everything else we know about the WW, top positions of power? Unlikely, given that there is no woman at the top of any chain of power in the entire series.
I don't know if the few women we see in positions of power is supposed to indicate that women face problems there. I don't see that Hermione is facing institutional barriers due to her status as a woman or as a Muggleborn at all--except when Voldemort is in charge. I don't mean to say there's no prejudice against her anywhere, but no, I never got any sense that Hermione couldn't attain any position of power she set her mind to while I was reading the books. And even if she was discriminated against due to being Muggleborn or female, her having a problem with it isn't a blow for other groups outside the wizard groups. I'd say prejudice against Wizards of varying situations is given privilege in the narrative.
Anybody can say what's obviously going to happen after the series is over, but I don't know if that changes what's actually written. As I think other people have written here, often an author can say one thing when she's consciously saying what should be true but not actually have that come out in the situations she writes. Dumbledore is I think a good example of that. More than once I think he's been a mouth piece for good ideas that aren't actually being dramatized in the story.