Yeah, I remember assuming that the elf situation was going to be challenged at least narratively, and then re-evaluating what I thought of (pre-open TERF) Rowling once the story made it clear she thought that perpetual heritable racialized chattel slavery was fine so long as you’re a “good master”
Chud-ass story arc, in addition to all the :LIB: ones
One of the very last lines of the last chapter of the last book is Harry wondering if his slave would make him a sandwich.
I wish I was kidding.
“That wand’s more trouble than it’s worth,” said Harry. “And quite honestly,” he turned away from the painted portraits, thinking now only of the four-poster bed lying waiting for him in Gryffindor Tower, and wondering whether Kreacher might bring him a sandwich there, “I’ve had enough trouble for a lifetime.”
I think about this post every time there’s some ”the walls are closing in on Drumpf!” news. It really illustrates why libs love Harry Potter so much: the system is inherently good and if a bad person gets into power, that’s just an aberration and the system will self-correct. And of course there’s the whole thing about cops/the wizard cops being on the side of good, because libs don’t want to accept that maybe it’s not just a few bad apples.
There’s also no reason to think about changing any issues within the system, like slavery in HP and (take your pick here) under capitalism, because things are so good for the average person and only some nosy activist would care. Look, maybe there’s problems in this system, but think about how good you have it! Medieval kings didn’t have iPhones :very-intelligent:
the system is inherently good and if a bad person gets into power, that’s just an aberration and the system will self-correct.
That’s not even the arc of the first four books. Rowling’s writing is genuinely good early on, at least from an ideological perspective. The theme of the novels is that you’re coming up in a corrupt system with a ton of historical baggage. You can’t trust your elders to take care of you. You can’t trust the system to work in your favor. All you can trust are your comrades, many of whom may come from unexpected places.
Book 3 is borderline Revolutionary. The climax of the story is Harry coming to terms with his parents being gone. The past is immutable. There are no guardian angels. You are your only savior, and only if you are clear eyed and courageous enough to stand up for yourself. The book is overflowing with anti-racism, radicalization, and collective action.
Then the books begin to slide off a cliff into mass market glop, coincidentally just as Rowling is really hitting the big time and get novels start getting that ghostwritten feel.
Harry Potter is a liberalization pipeline. It slowly transforms from a childhood fantasy of kids versus evil into a Marvel-ized Establishment versus The Bad Guys. And it takes the readers along for the ride.
I mean, it was already pretty consumerist from the start. Like, how does every book begin, after the Dursleys but before Hogwarts? It begins with Harry going on a shopping spree, often seeing many products that he won’t even buy (but have plenty of merchandising potential, nudge nudge, wink wink, publishers). It’s also probably the only piece of fantasy outside of RPGs in which a wizard obtains their magical device by buying it, and that is completely played straight.
It begins with Harry going on a shopping spree, often seeing many products that he won’t even buy (but have plenty of merchandising potential, nudge nudge, wink wink, publishers).
The first book uses the Wizarding Marketplace as a device for world building, since its an excuse for Harry to interact with people he wouldn’t meet at the school. It also sets up the class composition of the main characters and introduces antagonists.
The second book extends on the trope to introduce more new characters (Doby, most notably), to introduce the journal as a plot device, and to parallel the conclusion.
The consumerist angle, particularly early on, is all social parallels with existing English consumerism. Collectible cards and novelty chocolates are hardly a HP invention and the way they malfunction or disappoint is as much a critique of consumerism as a method of it. I particularly liked Book 4, at the stadium, when they get showered with Fool’s Gold coins. The cynicism was nearly tangible.
It’s also probably the only piece of fantasy outside of RPGs in which a wizard obtains their magical device by buying it, and that is completely played straight.
It’s a curious commentary on class. Powerful Wizards get their wands lovingly crafted and maintained by a premier wandmaker. Schlub wizards have to mend their hand me down wands with masking tape. Good sports teams get the best gear. Struggling teams get whatever is at the back of the bin.
Money Buys Success as a parallel to the real world makes this a useful leftist critique.
It isn’t until Book 7 and the Deathly Hallows that you get magic items vested by Adventurous Questing rather than by birthright or by having the right friends.
I know the vibe you’re talking about, but I had always interpreted it as instead Rowling trying to portray childhood innocence and wonder versus how adults are stuck in their ways. I’d have to read them again to see what you’re talking about.
The later books took that inevitable shift because Rowling tried to cater to an audience growing into their teenage and adult years. So there are more adult themes like romance, politics, violence, etc. And I’d argue those showcase Rowling’s inherent ideology better, because they relate more to real world ideology. The earlier books do seem more progressively minded, for instance the Durselys are roundly mocked and are portrayed as stuffy Daily Mail readers. Some of the adult wizards are portrayed as stuffy, uptight and stubborn in the other direction.
There’s definitely some kind of vibe that Hogwarts doesn’t take the safety of the students seriously enough. And how many adult wizards, despite being supposedly educated and more enlightened than muggles, fall victim to superstition and paranoia like how they can’t say Voldemort’s name. So Harry often presents himself as audience surrogate who can see through the stuck ways of both the muggles and the wizards, since he exists in both realms. So there’s where I could see what you mean, Harry exists initially as an innocent child slowly seeing the problems of both realities he’s within, only finding comfort with his friends.
’d have to read them again to see what you’re talking about.
Christ, don’t go that far.
So Harry often presents himself as audience surrogate who can see through the stuck ways of both the muggles and the wizards, since he exists in both realms.
He’s as much a narrative framing device as a character. Hermione and Ron are far better written as characters, with Harry being more of a neutral observer.
That’s also why the conclusions of each book seem so bland. Harry Wins is the foregone conclusion of each volume. The stories are far more about the journey than the destination.
There’s definitely some kind of vibe that Hogwarts doesn’t take the safety of the students seriously enough.
That’s not part of any intended deeper message, the Wizarding World was just portrayed as a comically grim place and the wizards as kinda callous assholes early on
Then the series tried to develop some more serious drama and you were supposed to take the world more seriously
I’d have to read them again to see what you’re talking about.
Or, hear me out - read absolutely anything else.
The Broken Earth trilogy by NK Jemisin is incredible, highly recommend.
The first three Red Rising books are also a complete trilogy story that’s got all the heroics of Star Wars or Harry Potter but is actually really good and doesn’t portray one loser wanna-be-cop as the savoir of a status quo, it’s a story about an actual revolution and the actual overthrow of an evil society. And the audiobook narrator has the sexiest Irish accent.
I’ll take your word on this, because admittedly I haven’t read any of the books, my knowledge is all from second hand sources, especially Shaun’s great video :shrug-outta-hecks:
”the walls are closing in on Drumpf!” news.
He’s just been indicted. The DoJ isn’t going to give up on this one, they’re going to hold on to him like a bulldog and won’t release those teeth.
:sleepi: yawn haven’t heard that before
If they actually, successfully put Trump behind bars, you know what that would do? The floodgates would open. Republicans would go after any and every former Democrat to hold the presidency. Nobody wants to set that precedent. It’s why they’re going after him for convoluted silly things and not, say, failing to put his assets in a blind trust. It’s just spectacle for liberals, the appearance of justice without any of the thorny consequences.
It’s just spectacle for liberals, the appearance of justice without any of the thorny consequences.
I don’t think it is just spectacle. If the charges are true (and it seems watertight) then Trump did exactly the things you’d do if you wanted the US Government to throw you in a black site prison forever. Yeah it’s a problem that the liberals don’t challenge the grifting Trump did in office, but the charges they did bring are still a clear scandal and not mere technicalities. It’s also a lot easier to prove this kind of crime which has little ambiguity versus other crimes which Trump could argue intent, executive power, etc. Class privilege in itself doesn’t explain the whole story.
Voldemort and the Death Eaters are the big instigators of change and Harry never quite gets to Voldy’s level
This was a part of the post that resonated with me when I first saw this years ago. It explains the attraction of right wing movements to people who intuitively understand that Things Need To Change. Going down the fascist rabbit hole will at least give you glimpses of dynamism and vision about a different world. The liberal alternative is… Starmer’s Labour Party.
Matt said something similar about the liberal media’s reaction to the Joker movie - “If this resonates with you - if you feel alienated and confused and alone and think the system needs a complete overhaul - you’re a Nazi. You can either accept things as they are, or you can be a reactionary, those are your only two options. But tons of young men are seeing the movie and realizing it does resonate with them, and going 'okay then I guess I’m a Nazi, cus what the Liberals are selling is absolutely horseshit.”
The far right is the only game is town offering an alternative. That’s the whole point of Fascism - to pervert that revolutionary desire for change and to point the anger away from the top and toward the bottom.
David graber the antropologist has an essay about how in superhero stories the villian is the onlyone exibhiting creativity. And the heroes are almost always reactonary. And how this contrast makes the audience falsley see facism aztbe only alternative to the status quo. I think its one of the chapters at the end of utopia of rules but it also should be posted elswere on the internet.
Average lib media story: villain rightfully points out systemic problems, protagonists think they’re too extreme, villain is revealed to be some cliched cartoonishly evil strawman (or does some out-of-character deranged acts), villain is disposed of, the only potential change is a relatively minor shakeup in leadership of the setting (if at all), everyone pretends systemic problems no longer exist though the status quo is basically preserved at the end
Na, The ending of that Captain America Disney plus show that had Anthony Mackie (a black man who’s now captain America) saving some politicians and then having the cringiest almost parody scene of lecturing them about how their actions and corruption hurt people and it’s all tied up nicely. Played off like the evil career politicians learned their lesson and because of a strong America inspired speech they will stop doing racism. I don’t think ill ever experience a more liberal story in my life.
This is also why liberals will always be on the backfoot compared to conservatives, and why there are inevitable lurches to the right. Liberals can’t actually follow through. At best they can try to maintain what status quo exists now.
Liberals have to believe the system works as intended and that replacing cogs within it will lead to better outcomes. Conservatives instead see the system as a weapon to wield against their enemies and embrace the cruelty of the system in place. Liberals also embrace the cruelty, but pretend it’s just a few aberrations that will correct over time.
It makes liberals always seem seedy and dishonest when they call for things like welfare or curtailing racism.
It’s funny that no liberal ever makes the connection between the political “machine” and real machines. We’re not still using mechanical adding machines with human “computers”. Old machines are superseded by new and better ones. The American “machine” is at its core unchanged from 1776, just with a bunch of shit slapped on and duct-taped to it. It’s like a Sega Mega Drive with a Mega CD, Mega CD Karaoke, 32X, and Sonic & Knuckles with Sonic 3 attached while China and Cuba are like DIY PCs with brand new components (running Arch btw). The Mega Drive monstrosity is limited by the core system and unable to progress beyond weird add-ons that don’t do very much. Those add-ons are extremely costly in terms of wasted time and effort but the libs feel really good when they make a new one. No matter how many modifications are made to the Mega Drive, it’s still functionally limited to the status quo but with discs and other weird cartridges that only with with the 32X.
Meanwhile, China is building 1x10^3578 km of high speed rail and Cuba makes it legal to disown your parents if they don’t support your gender identity.
The Mega Drive is awesome though, why are you insulting it like this? :angery: