I think one could also just say that slavery is bad in the real world, but it's fun to have fantasy guilt-free brownie slaves in fiction. Harry grew up a child in our universe and adjusts pretty well to it.
I think these are fair comments and potential weaknesses. At the same time, I think it's important to note that while the social justice issues exist in the books, they are still not primarily what the books are about. The books are a snapshot of one particular boy wizard's life in one particular period of history. That period of history happens to be one in which the social conscience of the WW is pretty pathetic, maybe a few hundred years behind our own world.
Still, I don't think the house-elves are "fantasy guilt-free brownie slaves." They're a little too comic for my tastes, and I was disappointed in their rebellion at the end - I was glad they joined the fight, and I've come to realize that the use of kitchen tools was symbolically powerful (using the tools of their oppression against their enemies); but instead of using their proper, powerful magic (they could have apparated al over the place in that battle!), they're meanto to be a moment of comic relief. I didn't like that.
But back to my point, which I strayed from like crazy there...part of the effectiveness of the fairy tale is its ability to let us approach issues in another world that we don't want to touch in our own. So the house-elves are approachable, likable, etc., and a conversation about oppression can open (and has opened!) as a result.
Which would mean sticking with the status quo (and maybe forcing them to do things against their will when you feel it's necessary.)
Well, no...the status quo is to keep them enslaved and make them follow the rules. Dumbledore doesn't do this; he lets the rules go, and lets them do what they have chosen. It's a really, really difficult dilemma; do you respect their free will or not? If you say, "not," you probably destroy the house-elves; look at Winky. If you say, "yes," then they choose slavery, which is not good, of course...except that, once again, under Dumbledore in particular, all the details of their service is chosen, not forced - vacation, pay, etc.
One of the problems (look how much I'm writing after I've said I'd stop...) is, once again, that these aren't fantasy books that are primarily about social justice. They're about Harry, who lives in a complex and unjust world. Much of the sociopolitical commentary is descriptive of the world, rather than prescriptive of a better one. Where it is prescriptive, it's right in line with Fabian gradualism (contra Marxist revolution, and contra post-modern revolution).
I'll quit there for now. I appreciate the dialogue; this has been helpful.
no subject
I think these are fair comments and potential weaknesses. At the same time, I think it's important to note that while the social justice issues exist in the books, they are still not primarily what the books are about. The books are a snapshot of one particular boy wizard's life in one particular period of history. That period of history happens to be one in which the social conscience of the WW is pretty pathetic, maybe a few hundred years behind our own world.
Still, I don't think the house-elves are "fantasy guilt-free brownie slaves." They're a little too comic for my tastes, and I was disappointed in their rebellion at the end - I was glad they joined the fight, and I've come to realize that the use of kitchen tools was symbolically powerful (using the tools of their oppression against their enemies); but instead of using their proper, powerful magic (they could have apparated al over the place in that battle!), they're meanto to be a moment of comic relief. I didn't like that.
But back to my point, which I strayed from like crazy there...part of the effectiveness of the fairy tale is its ability to let us approach issues in another world that we don't want to touch in our own. So the house-elves are approachable, likable, etc., and a conversation about oppression can open (and has opened!) as a result.
Which would mean sticking with the status quo (and maybe forcing them to do things against their will when you feel it's necessary.)
Well, no...the status quo is to keep them enslaved and make them follow the rules. Dumbledore doesn't do this; he lets the rules go, and lets them do what they have chosen. It's a really, really difficult dilemma; do you respect their free will or not? If you say, "not," you probably destroy the house-elves; look at Winky. If you say, "yes," then they choose slavery, which is not good, of course...except that, once again, under Dumbledore in particular, all the details of their service is chosen, not forced - vacation, pay, etc.
One of the problems (look how much I'm writing after I've said I'd stop...) is, once again, that these aren't fantasy books that are primarily about social justice. They're about Harry, who lives in a complex and unjust world. Much of the sociopolitical commentary is descriptive of the world, rather than prescriptive of a better one. Where it is prescriptive, it's right in line with Fabian gradualism (contra Marxist revolution, and contra post-modern revolution).
I'll quit there for now. I appreciate the dialogue; this has been helpful.