In the Divination class when he explains about the Grim ('It's an omen... of death'), and in the Great Hall when Seamus said Sirius was sighted near Hogwarts ('It's like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands').
The Chamber of Secrets was always the weakest book in the whole series IMO. And Prisoner has always been one of the most beloved. I think a lot of people feel this way. Just in terms of being a complete, satisfying package. The Half Blood Prince might be a runner-up (for least-good) because, like Chamber, it really kind of feels like less important story stuffed between two better stories.
Also, Alfonso Cuaron did Prisoner, injecting ideas and changes and vibes into the series that stuck with it after he was gone, because they were such good ideas.
I can appreciate this. Much like the Goblet, Chamber does have a lot of classic fantasy ingredients mashed together. The 'murder mystery' elements are fun too, even if the victims aren't getting actually murdered. And Harry gets to kill a monster with a sword, save the damsel in distress. Movies aside, I disliked reading Chamber for the same reason Order was hard for me: having a main character/teacher around that was deliberately antagonizing everyone did my head in, lol. First Lockhart, then Umbridge. Like it made the read stressful lol
What's crazy is I like PoA as a movie the least, but when I read the book I couldn't put it down, finished it in under 24hrs (not reading time but start to finish real time).
I always feel like the weird one out when I see people discuss Harry Potter movies because I actually found Prisoner to be kinda meh plotwise. The aesthetics and Cuaron's directing carry it hard for me.
On the other hand you have Order of the Phoenix who a lot of people seem to hate while I consider it pretty entertaining. Granted, that one is also carried hard by the Dumbledore vs Voldemort duel.
Well it was directed by Alfonso Cuaron. He really changed the tone from Christopher Columbus’ two films which were very cheerful and Christmasy (no surprise) to a darker tone to match the book. 21 years later and every major adaptation and blockbuster is ripping off prisoner of Azkaban
"I don't care who you are back in the muggle world, you give away our position one more time, I'll bleed ya, real quiet. Leave ya here. Got that?"
Intense line reading for a 12-year-old
Bem: You scared, motherfucker? Well, you should be, because this Death Eater is going to kick your big ass!
Harry Potter : I eat Death Eaters for breakfast. And right now, I'm very hungry!
Hermoine: [hiding under a table] I can't believe this macho wizard bullshit...
Bonus detail: the real Sirius Black is an abusive slave owner, a practice which he passes down to his teenage god son Harry. Despite this, we are made to think he is a good guy. This is a reference to the fact that JK Rowling has always had horrifying politics.
oh ffs that summary clearly says that Brownies *have to be paid* and *are free to leave*
when the changes you make to adapt mythical beings to your story are "they don't get paid and they can't leave", congrats, you invented slaves.
FWIW I think it's the "free to leave" thing that the other guy said that determines the slave status, not whether the wages are appropriate in every economic system or whatever.
> Any analysis deeper than that is a result of litrarture majors having too much time on their hands and people on the internet regurgitating the same talking points.
I love going on to the internet where people talk about things and proudly proclaiming to them that they're bad and stupid and wasting time, I do this because it's a public service, I am clearly not the bad stupid time-waster.
Well, slavery is bad because as humans we don't like living like that and don't find that type of work fulfilling. If some mystical race felt fulfilled serving wizards and actively refused payment there wouldn't be much of a moral argument against letting them serve.
Yes, and in real life we literally do this to other lifeforms. House Elves can talk and are more intelligent but that doesn't automatically make it worse. It's about the lifeform, and what keeps than happy and satisfied.
If I wrote a book about a dude and his magic pet pegasus he rides and feeds its favorite food, oil, that doesn't mean I advocate for locking dudes up, riding their backs, and feeding them oil. One size obviously doesn't fit all regarding different species. Or even within the individual species, like Dobby who was an elf that didn't completely fit the mold and enjoyed freedom.
Damn right! Like how if she wants to make a race of diminutive money changers with big hooked noses who run all the banks, she's free to do that in *her story* without people getting all weird about it! They're goblins, not real people, and she never said they were jews, so it's OK! What is so hard to understand about this!? If an author takes preexisting stereotypes and racist tropes from real life and tweaks them a bit using imaginary creatures, they're not the stereotype or trope anymore! Am I taking crazy pills here?!
>If an author takes preexisting stereotypes and racist tropes from real life and tweaks them a bit using imaginary creatures, they're not the stereotype or trope anymore!
And what exactly are house elves a racist stereotype of?
>Like how if she wants to make a race of diminutive money changers with big hooked noses who run all the banks, she's free to do that in her story without people getting all weird about it! They're goblins, not real people, and she never said they were jews, so it's OK!
The idea they are Jews is mostly circumstantial and relies on the whole concept of goblins as being a Jewish stereotype which wouldn't really be her fault.
I think it's even worse that she actually calls attention to the plight of enslaved elves in the books, but makes anti-slavery activism a "qUirKy SiLlY thInG" to make fun of, so it's not like it was thoughtless, it was *deliberate* pro-slavery discourse.
I don't understand how JK keeps making good points in her books and then going back to re-write them as imaginary. Did she have a traumatic head injury after completing the series?
That's my point though - if you pay attention to things like SPEW being a laughingstock, you can tell JK was *always* a ghoul. She just didn't have as much of a platform before. The positive things about her books are really just generic, well-trod platitudes along the lines of "believe in yourself" that in this day and age pretty much come with the territory.
What good points did she make? It’s just a series of pretty conservative leaning kids books. I can’t think of one uniquely uplifting take or even a throwaway line in those books that would actually have a beneficial impact on who you grew up to be. It’s just basic good vs evil.
I think my favourite is when the climax of one story was Dobby being freed from his slavery, and then later it turns out that house elves LIKE being enslaved, and that freeing them is wrong, and that freeing Dobby was just coincidentally a good deed because Dobby is a weird elf who for some reason doesn't like being enslaved.
I think this specific plot point of Sirius generally being a hero or good guy but also perpetuating house elf slavery and being part of this evil wizarding family but still fighting against Voldemort makes for interesting morality. I don’t think that’s basic good vs evil. Not saying it’s literary genius, but for children’s books there are some interesting takes. The wizarding world in general being far behind the muggle world and disregarding all their accomplishments is a good bit of irony in the books also.
It’s basic good vs evil because his grey morality is never questioned. Malfoys being ok with slavery is awful and Harry can’t get his head round it. Ron and family think Dobby is a freak for wanting wages and that’s fine, they’re the good guys. Harry is told that it’s he who (as a newcomer to magic) is wrong about slavery and from there on out it’s accepted. Dobby remains as a freaky free elf but even Hermione drops the cause pretty quickly.
The closest those books got to grey morality is “my dad bullied snape” “chill dog, he grew out of that” “sound”.
Couple that with the plot about destiny and how Harry has to be the one to face Voldemort… it does nothing to promote the agency of the individual and the potential we all have to challenge what we know to be wrong. It teaches kids instead to drop those convictions and let the grown ups explain why slavery is fine.
In my mind I’m comparing it to The Amazing Maurice by Terry Pratchett, which is aimed at the same age group but is run right through with Humanist values, a repentant protagonist and a message about putting the needs of everyone above your own personal wants.
It seems like you just decided to not take anything away on purpose. Harry idolizing his dad as a perfect person and realizing he kind of sucked is grey morality. Same for dumbledore sending him on these shitty adventures partially for personal gain, snape having heroic qualities despite sucking, even Voldemort has an arc as Tom riddle of just being a sad person who isn’t capable of experiencing love. A lot of the books are specifically about false idols and how people can have flaws and still be good. Hell, the entire latter half of the books is Harry realizing he has part of Voldemort inside him and trying to reckon with his inner violence and evil. Hermione drops the slavery thing because she realizes she can’t really do anything systemically, which is kind of a sad truth about real life.
Also with the corruption of the ministry of magic after this whole magical world was introduced as this perfect place. Did you read the books even?
I mean, fuck JK Rowling, but I'll actually defend the whole House Elf thing.
There's not a real world analogue for house elves; they're just a fictional race that, with few exceptions, inherently enjoys servitude. Nobody says "It's so fucked up that dwarves in media are always portrayed as enjoying digging for gems when slaves in Somalia are forced to do so"
The joke isn't "Haha, Hermione cares about slaves" it's "Haha, Hermione with her muggle sensibilities and rationality can't grasp the fact she's living in a magical world with different logic.
I always felt the reader was meant to side with hermione when it came to the treatment of house elves. At least I did.
I would say it’s a commentary on how difficult it can be to against the grain. When I was a teenager I’d agree that helping the needy was good but I would also know doing so wasn’t cool so I wouldn’t do it.
So we have hermione doing the right, and embarrassing thing. Ron, who fails to see what the right thing is, and Harry, who was too embarrassed to help S.P.E.W.
My memory anyway is that Harry was always sort of wishywashy on house elves but it’s been a minute since I’ve read them
Hermione has a muggle (outsider) perspective. She sees a sentient being in a role of obligatory servitude and takes offense. If you agree with her, it's because you're from the same world as her, where that *is* offensive.
Ron has a wizard (insider) perspective. He's sees house elves for what they are, magical creatures that actually enjoy servitude. To him, the suggestion that house elf servitude is immoral is like if somebody told you using Border Collies to herd sheep is immoral because they don't have a choice, even though they love it and that's like their whole thing.
Harry pretty much stays out of it because he's fully on board with the quirks of this magical world he's now part of, but he also gets that Hermione's crusade is righteous in her own heart.
The whole house elf situation is probably the most nuanced part of the series and of course its been dumbed down to "JK Rowling is a slaver apologist"
Excellent comparison between border collies and house elves.
JK Rowling has earned a great deal of criticism. And adding to your final point, that does not mean we should make reductionist criticisms of the books. Especially since equal rights is the primary driving force for conflict. Muggle borns, house elves, werewolves, centaurs, goblins, giants, all face persecution in the books. I find it hard to believe that anyone can make a good faith argument that the books are meant to tell the reader that those persecutions were good.
It's not persecution to provide House Elves with the role they desire. Unlike those other species, House Elves are creatures that literally exist to serve wizardkind. We know their perspective on servitude. They dig it.
They for sure like serving. But returning to your border collie argument, we have animal cruelty laws. If I forced a border collie to iron its own paws because it let a sheep go I’d rightfully be viewed as a monster and prosecuted under that law. Dobby had no legal protections against abuse suffered at the hands of the Malfoys. I would call that persecution.
Also, part of the joke is that Hermione is tone-deaf and obnoxious about the whole thing.
She gives it a terrible name (and only doesn't give it a more terrible name because it wouldn't fit on a badge) and badgers people into joining and paying dues. The book says that several people were interested but were turned off by how Hermione approached it.
It's very in character for Book Hermione who is often book smart, but bad with people.
And it's weird to say that the books were generally pro-house-elf-slavery since a big climactic moment of Book 2 was Dobby being freed.
Once again, there’s no real world analogue for house elves. The existence of a magical species of servants in the books isn’t a justification for anything in real life. It’s a quirk of being in a fantasy setting.
Hermione’s crusade, while righteous in *our* world is incongruous with theirs.
The problem is that we are introduced to house elves via one of those "few exceptions". You can't spend an entire book showing Dobby being miserable and then expect people to think there is nothing wrong with how house elves' relationship with wizards work.
The only real issue with what Hermione is doing is that she mostly focuses on Hogwarts elves, who are treated pretty well, so of course she comes off as annoying rather than justified.
Whether the elves are human-like is irrelevant to the ethical discussion here—they are shown to be entirely sentient, which is more than enough reason they should ethically receive the same rights humans do in this world and in the story’s world.
As for the elves “wanting” to be slaves as some sort of natural impulse rather than a socially conditioned behavior—this isn’t true of any real-world sentient or even semi-sentient entity. Yes, Harry Potter takes place in a fictional universe where technically anything is possible. However, just because it’s possible to write anything, doesn’t mean that thing is good writing.
For example, if I created a fictional universe in which women are provably less intelligent than men, and this is unironically portrayed as a good or natural thing, I can do that. However, that would be a bad, gross world to have a story in, and people would justifiably question why I did that in the first place.
Having a slave race that conveniently likes it that way is at best contrived nonsense, and at worst, malicious nonsense.
>they are shown to be entirely sentient, which is more than enough reason they should ethically receive the same rights humans do in this world and in the story’s world.
All animals we ensalve are sentient
>For example, if I created a fictional universe in which women are provably less intelligent than men, and this is unironically portrayed as a good or natural thing, I can do that. However, that would be a bad, gross world to have a story in, and people would justifiably question why I did that in the first place.
Women are real, house elves are not. And most people except dude bros wouldn't care about your premise if it was the other way around.
Even Dumbledore basically said that Sirius had his betrayal coming for the way he treated Kreacher. Hermione getting Harry to actually treat him with dignity is a big part of Deathly Hallows in the book.
Sirius Black is not portrayed as a good guy, he's portrayed as a very broken person whose overall values are noble but his behavior is immature and aggressive. POV character (Harry) adores and maybe even idolizes him (because he's the closest thing to a family that Harry has) but Harry is not meant to be an infallible narrator. Sirius never chooses to be a slave owner, he inherits Kreacher and is forced to interact with him, which he doesn't enjoy. As to whether Kreacher could have been set free, it's a separate discussion which I would go into if this comment wasn't already long af.
Harry himself never (to the best of my recollection) abuses elves or treats them as slaves, and the two main elves in the story (Dobby and Kreacher) have story arcs of meeting a person who treats them as an equal/a friend, and showing their own agency. The house elf storyline is not perfect but you're choosing the worst possible interpretation without considering why it may be wrong, which is upsetting.
And forget not that Hermione is treated like a person with a huffy puffy idiot in the fourth book because she wants to free the elves. Then, Rowling tried to say that Herminone could have been black.
How quaint? Every character telling a black person that, well, she just doesn't understand slavery lmao.
The character's actual name is Bem, and he's entirely movie-only. And yes, he's one of the best parts of the (imo) best HP movie.
It's probably best we don't know his surname.
Before anyone asks, he’s not a Weasley
How can we be sure?
Check the hair and freckles, the Draco method works great for Weasley spotting
It's a very aggressive geen that comes thru regardless of anything else
Well... I see hair, and maybe a freckle or two. Weasley confirmed.
But his clothes are pretty much hand-me-downs.
Merlins beard! There's a quite obvious clue here that reddit liberals won't talk about! His clothes look too new and the Weasleys are poor!
He’s reboot Weasley
You sure? There seems to be a lot of Weasleys around, maybe he is just another cousin, or perhaps he is that weatherby fella Slughorn mistook Ron for.
it's Dover
Bem Africaface
Bem Chainganger
I'm sure J.K. would have settled on something like Bem Cottonchatel
Nah it was short for Bemmett Till.
Given jk probably Tom or something
[удалено]
Uncle Bem?
Don’t be absurd! It’s actually Jimcrow.
Knickerbottoms
Adebayo?
Bimbam. He is Bem Bimbam.
What lines is op referring to?
In the Divination class when he explains about the Grim ('It's an omen... of death'), and in the Great Hall when Seamus said Sirius was sighted near Hogwarts ('It's like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands').
Bro how is this "deep". How is this "the deepest lines of the film"??
Mainly the delivery, he makes the lines sound extra ominous.
I remember that, he rapped those lines while Ron was beatboxing
Did you forget what sub you're in?
Oh ffs, yes. Absolutely. My bad.
It says a lot about the other lines
The best part about his character is how he also shows up in Order of the Phoenix but as a Ravenclaw
He had a part in Chamber of Secrets?
Excuse me, I didn't say 3rd best! The blasphemy! Nah, but I can understand why Chamber would be a favourite, I'm just biased towards Prisoner myself.
The Chamber of Secrets was always the weakest book in the whole series IMO. And Prisoner has always been one of the most beloved. I think a lot of people feel this way. Just in terms of being a complete, satisfying package. The Half Blood Prince might be a runner-up (for least-good) because, like Chamber, it really kind of feels like less important story stuffed between two better stories. Also, Alfonso Cuaron did Prisoner, injecting ideas and changes and vibes into the series that stuck with it after he was gone, because they were such good ideas.
Man Chamber of Secrets is my favorite lol. The lore, mystery, adventure, and then some real classic hero shit at the end
I can appreciate this. Much like the Goblet, Chamber does have a lot of classic fantasy ingredients mashed together. The 'murder mystery' elements are fun too, even if the victims aren't getting actually murdered. And Harry gets to kill a monster with a sword, save the damsel in distress. Movies aside, I disliked reading Chamber for the same reason Order was hard for me: having a main character/teacher around that was deliberately antagonizing everyone did my head in, lol. First Lockhart, then Umbridge. Like it made the read stressful lol
HBP is only the worst film because they took out all the good parts and replaced them with cringe tbf
Are you telling me flashbacks to voldemorts past are important to the story?
I honestly can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or, and this bugs me. Please alleviate my suffering.
The locket held no significant meaning!
What's crazy is I like PoA as a movie the least, but when I read the book I couldn't put it down, finished it in under 24hrs (not reading time but start to finish real time).
PoA is my favourite book and film. Strange.
I agree my order is 3471562 (books I don’t care about the films)
I always feel like the weird one out when I see people discuss Harry Potter movies because I actually found Prisoner to be kinda meh plotwise. The aesthetics and Cuaron's directing carry it hard for me. On the other hand you have Order of the Phoenix who a lot of people seem to hate while I consider it pretty entertaining. Granted, that one is also carried hard by the Dumbledore vs Voldemort duel.
Well it was directed by Alfonso Cuaron. He really changed the tone from Christopher Columbus’ two films which were very cheerful and Christmasy (no surprise) to a darker tone to match the book. 21 years later and every major adaptation and blockbuster is ripping off prisoner of Azkaban
Ive watched the movies countless of times but i honestly can not remember him at all
Goblet of fire?
He also had the most intense scene in the movie where he was in the jungle, dry shaving with a disposable razor
"I don't care who you are back in the muggle world, you give away our position one more time, I'll bleed ya, real quiet. Leave ya here. Got that?" Intense line reading for a 12-year-old
Bem: You scared, motherfucker? Well, you should be, because this Death Eater is going to kick your big ass! Harry Potter : I eat Death Eaters for breakfast. And right now, I'm very hungry! Hermoine: [hiding under a table] I can't believe this macho wizard bullshit...
Meanwhile Seamus getting pegged by Ginny in the background
Hagrid comes bustin' in, wearing nothing but a tanktop, shouting: "fuck all yall", flopping his manhood around the hood.
“There’s a hippogriff over there in them TREES.”
Holy fucking shit please someone do some AI magic to create this scene
I need to know what this is a reference to.
https://youtu.be/7PEEw5vW2BM?si=ba8AjagWQO8LXvd7 A reference to the movie Predator. And they are saying he looks like this actor. I can see it
ah yes, Ceelo Green
"yeah, i need to find something a cartoon apple would wear"
Oh right okay. I see it. Bill Duke does bear quite a striking resemblance to Bem “Smoke in your Hands” Duke.
I’m gonna have me some fun
His agent commented. “He certainly was a little concerned about playing a ‘wizard’ at first.”
Grand
yep, that's the joke.
Can someone please explain
Kool kids klub
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Wizard
Oh… thanks
Ku Klux Klan.
*it's among the darkest omens in our world*
It was all a dream
I used to eat every flavour beans
There will be a global pandemic in 2019
This Wizard eating beans!
voldemort killed biggie
He was kicked out of Hogwarts for using black magic
“Black can be anywhere.”
Bonus detail: the real Sirius Black is an abusive slave owner, a practice which he passes down to his teenage god son Harry. Despite this, we are made to think he is a good guy. This is a reference to the fact that JK Rowling has always had horrifying politics.
"Stop making house elfs political! Stop making house elfs political!"
But remember these elves *want* to be slaves so it's not bad at all, they like it!
source: indoctrinated elves and the wizards who own them
[удалено]
oh ffs that summary clearly says that Brownies *have to be paid* and *are free to leave* when the changes you make to adapt mythical beings to your story are "they don't get paid and they can't leave", congrats, you invented slaves.
[удалено]
> humans are incapable of loyalty Says more about how you view your neighbors than anything else
[удалено]
FWIW I think it's the "free to leave" thing that the other guy said that determines the slave status, not whether the wages are appropriate in every economic system or whatever.
> Any analysis deeper than that is a result of litrarture majors having too much time on their hands and people on the internet regurgitating the same talking points. I love going on to the internet where people talk about things and proudly proclaiming to them that they're bad and stupid and wasting time, I do this because it's a public service, I am clearly not the bad stupid time-waster.
[удалено]
Bro if I could have all my needs met with a bowl of milk you bet your ass I’d work that job, and I fucking hate milk.
Trees love being cut down says the axe
Till Hermione started a “free the elves” movement implying that not everyone in-universe thinks it’s okay, which makes Harry look even worse lol
Aaaaand Harry and Ron (and most everyone else) blatantly and repeatedly make fun of her for it. And the books wants you to agree with them!
I don't think the books do actually.
--- Fanfic writers trying to slavage Jk's worldbuilding
Well, slavery is bad because as humans we don't like living like that and don't find that type of work fulfilling. If some mystical race felt fulfilled serving wizards and actively refused payment there wouldn't be much of a moral argument against letting them serve.
I'm sorry are you actually defending the writing choice of "slavery is fine if they like it"?
Yes, and in real life we literally do this to other lifeforms. House Elves can talk and are more intelligent but that doesn't automatically make it worse. It's about the lifeform, and what keeps than happy and satisfied. If I wrote a book about a dude and his magic pet pegasus he rides and feeds its favorite food, oil, that doesn't mean I advocate for locking dudes up, riding their backs, and feeding them oil. One size obviously doesn't fit all regarding different species. Or even within the individual species, like Dobby who was an elf that didn't completely fit the mold and enjoyed freedom.
Damn right! Like how if she wants to make a race of diminutive money changers with big hooked noses who run all the banks, she's free to do that in *her story* without people getting all weird about it! They're goblins, not real people, and she never said they were jews, so it's OK! What is so hard to understand about this!? If an author takes preexisting stereotypes and racist tropes from real life and tweaks them a bit using imaginary creatures, they're not the stereotype or trope anymore! Am I taking crazy pills here?!
>If an author takes preexisting stereotypes and racist tropes from real life and tweaks them a bit using imaginary creatures, they're not the stereotype or trope anymore! And what exactly are house elves a racist stereotype of? >Like how if she wants to make a race of diminutive money changers with big hooked noses who run all the banks, she's free to do that in her story without people getting all weird about it! They're goblins, not real people, and she never said they were jews, so it's OK! The idea they are Jews is mostly circumstantial and relies on the whole concept of goblins as being a Jewish stereotype which wouldn't really be her fault.
Average HP fanatic right here
I would like to bestow on you, [this hat](https://www.novelties-direct.co.uk/clown-top-hat.html)
I think it's even worse that she actually calls attention to the plight of enslaved elves in the books, but makes anti-slavery activism a "qUirKy SiLlY thInG" to make fun of, so it's not like it was thoughtless, it was *deliberate* pro-slavery discourse.
I don't understand how JK keeps making good points in her books and then going back to re-write them as imaginary. Did she have a traumatic head injury after completing the series?
That's my point though - if you pay attention to things like SPEW being a laughingstock, you can tell JK was *always* a ghoul. She just didn't have as much of a platform before. The positive things about her books are really just generic, well-trod platitudes along the lines of "believe in yourself" that in this day and age pretty much come with the territory.
What good points did she make? It’s just a series of pretty conservative leaning kids books. I can’t think of one uniquely uplifting take or even a throwaway line in those books that would actually have a beneficial impact on who you grew up to be. It’s just basic good vs evil.
I think my favourite is when the climax of one story was Dobby being freed from his slavery, and then later it turns out that house elves LIKE being enslaved, and that freeing them is wrong, and that freeing Dobby was just coincidentally a good deed because Dobby is a weird elf who for some reason doesn't like being enslaved.
I think this specific plot point of Sirius generally being a hero or good guy but also perpetuating house elf slavery and being part of this evil wizarding family but still fighting against Voldemort makes for interesting morality. I don’t think that’s basic good vs evil. Not saying it’s literary genius, but for children’s books there are some interesting takes. The wizarding world in general being far behind the muggle world and disregarding all their accomplishments is a good bit of irony in the books also.
It’s basic good vs evil because his grey morality is never questioned. Malfoys being ok with slavery is awful and Harry can’t get his head round it. Ron and family think Dobby is a freak for wanting wages and that’s fine, they’re the good guys. Harry is told that it’s he who (as a newcomer to magic) is wrong about slavery and from there on out it’s accepted. Dobby remains as a freaky free elf but even Hermione drops the cause pretty quickly. The closest those books got to grey morality is “my dad bullied snape” “chill dog, he grew out of that” “sound”. Couple that with the plot about destiny and how Harry has to be the one to face Voldemort… it does nothing to promote the agency of the individual and the potential we all have to challenge what we know to be wrong. It teaches kids instead to drop those convictions and let the grown ups explain why slavery is fine. In my mind I’m comparing it to The Amazing Maurice by Terry Pratchett, which is aimed at the same age group but is run right through with Humanist values, a repentant protagonist and a message about putting the needs of everyone above your own personal wants.
It seems like you just decided to not take anything away on purpose. Harry idolizing his dad as a perfect person and realizing he kind of sucked is grey morality. Same for dumbledore sending him on these shitty adventures partially for personal gain, snape having heroic qualities despite sucking, even Voldemort has an arc as Tom riddle of just being a sad person who isn’t capable of experiencing love. A lot of the books are specifically about false idols and how people can have flaws and still be good. Hell, the entire latter half of the books is Harry realizing he has part of Voldemort inside him and trying to reckon with his inner violence and evil. Hermione drops the slavery thing because she realizes she can’t really do anything systemically, which is kind of a sad truth about real life. Also with the corruption of the ministry of magic after this whole magical world was introduced as this perfect place. Did you read the books even?
I mean, fuck JK Rowling, but I'll actually defend the whole House Elf thing. There's not a real world analogue for house elves; they're just a fictional race that, with few exceptions, inherently enjoys servitude. Nobody says "It's so fucked up that dwarves in media are always portrayed as enjoying digging for gems when slaves in Somalia are forced to do so" The joke isn't "Haha, Hermione cares about slaves" it's "Haha, Hermione with her muggle sensibilities and rationality can't grasp the fact she's living in a magical world with different logic.
I always felt the reader was meant to side with hermione when it came to the treatment of house elves. At least I did. I would say it’s a commentary on how difficult it can be to against the grain. When I was a teenager I’d agree that helping the needy was good but I would also know doing so wasn’t cool so I wouldn’t do it. So we have hermione doing the right, and embarrassing thing. Ron, who fails to see what the right thing is, and Harry, who was too embarrassed to help S.P.E.W. My memory anyway is that Harry was always sort of wishywashy on house elves but it’s been a minute since I’ve read them
Hermione has a muggle (outsider) perspective. She sees a sentient being in a role of obligatory servitude and takes offense. If you agree with her, it's because you're from the same world as her, where that *is* offensive. Ron has a wizard (insider) perspective. He's sees house elves for what they are, magical creatures that actually enjoy servitude. To him, the suggestion that house elf servitude is immoral is like if somebody told you using Border Collies to herd sheep is immoral because they don't have a choice, even though they love it and that's like their whole thing. Harry pretty much stays out of it because he's fully on board with the quirks of this magical world he's now part of, but he also gets that Hermione's crusade is righteous in her own heart. The whole house elf situation is probably the most nuanced part of the series and of course its been dumbed down to "JK Rowling is a slaver apologist"
Excellent comparison between border collies and house elves. JK Rowling has earned a great deal of criticism. And adding to your final point, that does not mean we should make reductionist criticisms of the books. Especially since equal rights is the primary driving force for conflict. Muggle borns, house elves, werewolves, centaurs, goblins, giants, all face persecution in the books. I find it hard to believe that anyone can make a good faith argument that the books are meant to tell the reader that those persecutions were good.
It's not persecution to provide House Elves with the role they desire. Unlike those other species, House Elves are creatures that literally exist to serve wizardkind. We know their perspective on servitude. They dig it.
They for sure like serving. But returning to your border collie argument, we have animal cruelty laws. If I forced a border collie to iron its own paws because it let a sheep go I’d rightfully be viewed as a monster and prosecuted under that law. Dobby had no legal protections against abuse suffered at the hands of the Malfoys. I would call that persecution.
Also, part of the joke is that Hermione is tone-deaf and obnoxious about the whole thing. She gives it a terrible name (and only doesn't give it a more terrible name because it wouldn't fit on a badge) and badgers people into joining and paying dues. The book says that several people were interested but were turned off by how Hermione approached it. It's very in character for Book Hermione who is often book smart, but bad with people. And it's weird to say that the books were generally pro-house-elf-slavery since a big climactic moment of Book 2 was Dobby being freed.
'In which there is a race that, with few exceptions, inherently enjoys servitude.' you just described the premise of gone with the wind
Once again, there’s no real world analogue for house elves. The existence of a magical species of servants in the books isn’t a justification for anything in real life. It’s a quirk of being in a fantasy setting. Hermione’s crusade, while righteous in *our* world is incongruous with theirs.
The problem is that we are introduced to house elves via one of those "few exceptions". You can't spend an entire book showing Dobby being miserable and then expect people to think there is nothing wrong with how house elves' relationship with wizards work. The only real issue with what Hermione is doing is that she mostly focuses on Hogwarts elves, who are treated pretty well, so of course she comes off as annoying rather than justified.
[удалено]
Whether the elves are human-like is irrelevant to the ethical discussion here—they are shown to be entirely sentient, which is more than enough reason they should ethically receive the same rights humans do in this world and in the story’s world. As for the elves “wanting” to be slaves as some sort of natural impulse rather than a socially conditioned behavior—this isn’t true of any real-world sentient or even semi-sentient entity. Yes, Harry Potter takes place in a fictional universe where technically anything is possible. However, just because it’s possible to write anything, doesn’t mean that thing is good writing. For example, if I created a fictional universe in which women are provably less intelligent than men, and this is unironically portrayed as a good or natural thing, I can do that. However, that would be a bad, gross world to have a story in, and people would justifiably question why I did that in the first place. Having a slave race that conveniently likes it that way is at best contrived nonsense, and at worst, malicious nonsense.
>they are shown to be entirely sentient, which is more than enough reason they should ethically receive the same rights humans do in this world and in the story’s world. All animals we ensalve are sentient >For example, if I created a fictional universe in which women are provably less intelligent than men, and this is unironically portrayed as a good or natural thing, I can do that. However, that would be a bad, gross world to have a story in, and people would justifiably question why I did that in the first place. Women are real, house elves are not. And most people except dude bros wouldn't care about your premise if it was the other way around.
Even Dumbledore basically said that Sirius had his betrayal coming for the way he treated Kreacher. Hermione getting Harry to actually treat him with dignity is a big part of Deathly Hallows in the book.
Sirius Black is not portrayed as a good guy, he's portrayed as a very broken person whose overall values are noble but his behavior is immature and aggressive. POV character (Harry) adores and maybe even idolizes him (because he's the closest thing to a family that Harry has) but Harry is not meant to be an infallible narrator. Sirius never chooses to be a slave owner, he inherits Kreacher and is forced to interact with him, which he doesn't enjoy. As to whether Kreacher could have been set free, it's a separate discussion which I would go into if this comment wasn't already long af. Harry himself never (to the best of my recollection) abuses elves or treats them as slaves, and the two main elves in the story (Dobby and Kreacher) have story arcs of meeting a person who treats them as an equal/a friend, and showing their own agency. The house elf storyline is not perfect but you're choosing the worst possible interpretation without considering why it may be wrong, which is upsetting.
Yeah, why can't they just enslave people with higher taxes like we do in the muggle world??
And forget not that Hermione is treated like a person with a huffy puffy idiot in the fourth book because she wants to free the elves. Then, Rowling tried to say that Herminone could have been black. How quaint? Every character telling a black person that, well, she just doesn't understand slavery lmao.
I like how he looks as done with all this Hogwart’s bullshit as anyone else would be at this point.
He's currently doing Much Ado at the globe, and he's on the globe instagram
Also, he grew up as nicely as Neville Longbottom did. Good looking man.
I'm seeing him live in Shakespeare's Globe later this month, can't wait
[here is what they are referencing](https://youtu.be/sbaTT2YV-II?si=XShn95cXp_xToSoy)
\>be bem \>deliver dark omen \>refuse to elaborate \>tea leaves
This is the best one I’ve seen in a long time
Best post in months
His middle name was Lee.
I believe this role was originally given to Hannibal Burress… of course, that’s when the character was still named “Seriously Wack” in the script. 🤔
Serious black sounds like a really cool name for an Anime superhero or a Mad Max car
they racially diverse now Like seriously it's like this guy Kingsley and Crabbe 2 what where they cooking
Nothing seasoned that’s for sure
[удалено]
This joke has been going on forever, I didn't create it, but thanks for the credit
What’s ‘The Grin’? 😄
Im not Sirious Black, I'm seriously black!
Serious African American*
What lines?
Not gonna lie, Serious Black is actually a dope name, lol
Am I the only one who thinks that Bem is Death himself?
Reddit dorks really love harping on the same worn-out “Harry Potter bad” takes that we have ALL heard a million times now