Skip to main content

harry potter - Why did Rowling seemingly make light of the house-elf situation?


According to J.K. Rowling, the house-elves are used as an allegory for slavery.



The house elves is really for slavery, isn't it, the house elves are slaves, so that is an issue that I think we probably all feel strongly about enough in this room already. (Source)




However, the books really seem to make light of the whole "house-elf slavery thing." The movement to help them is given the humorous name of "S.P.E.W. Hermione is mostly ridiculed for her efforts to help them, even by "good" characters like Ron. The entire subplot was so thin that it was almost completely dropped from the films, with no real effect on the story. The entire subplot also remains unresolved in the actual series and the house-elves are only vaguely helped, completely off-screen (off-page?).


Why did Rowling make light of this serious issue?



Answer



Hermione's crusade is portrayed as comically misguided because it kind of is comically misguided, but perhaps not for the reasons you think. Rowling commented on this in a 2000 interview with CBC Newsworld:



JK: My sister and I both, we were that kind of teenager. (Dripping with drama) We were that kind of, 'I'm the only one who really feels these injustices. No one else understands the way I feel.' I think a lot of teenagers go through that.


E[van Solomon]: In Britain they call it 'Right On' or something.


JK: Exactly. Well, she's fun to write because Hermione, with the best of intentions, becomes quite self-righteous. My heart is entirely with her as she goes through this. She develops her political conscience. My heart is completely with her. But my brain tells me, which is a growing-up thing, that in fact she blunders towards the very people she's trying to help. She offends them. She's not very sensitive to their…


E: She's somewhat condescending to the elves who don't have rights.



JK: She thinks it's so easy. It's part of what I was saying before about the growing process, of realizing you don't have quite as much power as you think you might have and having to accept that. Then you learn that it's hard work to change things and that it doesn't happen overnight. Hermione thinks she's going to lead them to glorious rebellion in one afternoon and then finds out the reality is very different



Hermione is the stereotype of a teenager who sees injustice in the world, and wants to fix it (which is a good thing), but goes about it in ways that are self-righteous, self-involved, and not really helpful.


I would argue that the in-universe response, then, mostly falls into three camps:



  • The House-elves themselves, who are being condescended to and understandably don't appreciate it1

  • Characters like Ron, who don't see the problem because they've grown up in a system that benefits them. This reaction is most likely intended to make you feel uncomfortable, because it's kind of the stock response to a lot of real-world social issues

  • Characters like Hagrid, who know that Hermione is going about her crusade with the wrong attitude; the sensible adult, in other words.


I couldn't begin to speculate on why this subplot was less prominent in later books2, but I suspect it was mainly for character development reasons; Hermione realizes that she's not helping, so she dials back her over-the-top efforts. And then, of course, after Goblet of Fire there are many more immediate issues at hand.





1 Though there's also likely an element of internalized oppression, but I'm far from qualified to talk about that


2 Although I can speculate on why it was dropped from the film; lots of subplots were dropped from the film, because it's not easy to turn six hundred pages of book into two hours of movie


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...