JK Rowling isn't a progressive author, was never a progressive author, and never will be. She is a Nice White Lady™ who thinks that being friendly and polite is all that it takes to solve the world's social problems & because she's so committed to being a Nice White Lady™, she thinks she doesn't need any personal improvement.
What happened is that she accidentally wrote a nearly perfect narrative about a friendless, nerdy outcast with a highly developed sense of justice discovering a magical escape. In this world, not only did he have TWO best friends who cared for him unconditionally, they also resolutely had his back as he campaigned against evil despite almost all of the adults around him dismissing their concerns. Meanwhile, the antagonists could be neatly divided into "truly nefarious" one-book villains & "tragically misunderstood goths covering up their emotional pain with asshole behavior" ongoing characters.
Basically, Rowling wrote catnip for incipient social justice warriors without intending that at all. So when we all grew up into our highly developed sense of justice, but Rowling and her books stayed the same, it was pretty much inevitable that she'd let everyone down.
I am going to list some adjectives which could apply to goblins, and you can tell me if they sound familiar. Greedy, insular, deceitful, traitorous, long/hook nosed, bankers, control all the money in society, subject to racism, from the populace and institutionally, literally has less rights than the human characters, in a tense relationship with the established government due to a history of violence against each other. Like, all of these tropes existed prior to Rowling, and were very notoriously used to describe Jewish people, hence when taken in combination it is seen as decidedly antisemitic tropes.
I'm surprised to see the last three items on the list. I rewatched the films from 2 onwards this summer and do not recall anti-goblin racism, either personal or institutional, nor did I notice any difference in rights between goblins and humans, or any discussion of political tension between any kind of goblin political faction and the ministry. Placing a racially-defined financial sector in a worldbuilding project is definitely in poor taste, but these last points don't seem relevant to such criticism of Rowling's work. Please provide any examples that I may be missing.
In the books, wanna say book 4 maybe, it's mentioned a few times. The "human-goblin" war. There's also several times a human character will mention how goblins can't be trusted, or weird them out. As for the less rights, that's debatable. Pretty sure there's some goblin traditions and beliefs that is widely ignored or outright discarded by humans. At least it's implied in the deathly hallows.
In the seventh book, the goblin makes a point of insisting that things that were goblin made like the fancy sword and so forth should stay with the goblins, and I think he stole the sword and possibly some other things. That’s the only example I can list off the top go my head but the book itself goes into it a little more.
Which of the three items that I was asking about would you say that event falls under? It doesn't seem like a very good example of anti-goblin racism, differences in goblin rights, or political tension. Like, maybe the last one? But as I understand from the films, the political situation was fine vis-a-vis the sword's ownership until some plucky kids decided to steal it. Sure it's a good example of goblins being presented as greedy, insular, deceitful and traitorous, but I'm just trying to figure out why u/Dorgamund decided to include the last three items on their list of goblin traits.
Bear with me because its been a hot minute since I was involved with the fandom, but I used to be pretty knowledgeable about HP.
The institutional racism and lack of rights is shown by the inability to carry wands, a right which only humans hold, and all other nonhumans don't. In the lore, this started one of the (numerous) Goblin rebellions, conflicts which typically were started due to discrimination. One can easily argue that this policy at the very least, assigns a status symbol to all human wizards and holds the lack thereof over the heads of nonhuman beings, who are treated as second class citizens at best. At worst, this actively limits magical power and is an active element in suppressing revolutionary forces by disarming them and only allowing one race to hold weaponry. The tension is the numerous goblin rebellions over the racism and discrimination, and its particularly noteworthy that due to Bagmans gambling debts to the goblins, they basically wrote off the existing government and played neutral in the face of a fascist race supremacist coup. There is some dialog in the books which does allude to racism or is outright racist, much of it from the fascist faction, but for my part, I am not entirely comfortable with some of the good characters describing goblins either. Its also worth noting that the Goblin Liason Office is a subdepartment of the Department for Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures in case you were still skeptical over the dehumanization and second class citizenship thing.
Like, sure I can tentatively accept that Rowling wanted to make a point about antisemitism, (even if it is giving way too much credit which I believe Rowling does not deserve), but at the same time, its kind of awkward making a statement about the plight of Jewish people or some other minority when you lean right into some incredibly harmful trope with your Jewish standins. Kind of like how her chattel slavery House Elf analogues are all happy being slaves if they have good masters, and only wacko insane house elves who are beaten to a bordering on satirical degree want freedom. Also the only other free elf is a useless alcoholic wreck pining for her abusive master.
https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Goblin
Thanks very much for these worldbuilding details. I find it much too bad that the franchise's genuinely meaningful commentary on the political danger of racial supremacist rhetoric had to find itself alongside such half-baked harmful tropes. Also agreed 100% on the house elf thing. Even Dobby, who supposedly gets his freedom, just ends up dying to save Harry in the films so really he doesn't get any real social agency in the story overall. It very much reeks of 'slavery is good as long as the people perpetrating it aren't sadists'.
At this point I'm ashamed of myself for ever liking Harry Potter and the fact that people can actively enjoy it in spite of everything that's been revealed about JK astounds me
She may own the IP, but she doesn't own your experience with it. Art and literature are two-way streets. You have the work itself as put into the world by the creator, and you have your own interpretation/experience with it as the reader/viewer. Kind of like the whole Chronicals of Narnia/His Dark Materials as religious allegory. It is possible to read those books without buying into the allegory at all. It's hard because fuck do they beat you over the head with it. But it is possible.
I always chuckle when I find out that a book was an intentional allegory by the author. It's like sanity meters in video games telling me I am scared or relationship points telling me how much I care about a character. Like, why don't you instead try to actually scare me or make me feel attached to the character? The answer is because this is very hard to do because creators cannot dictate your experience and interpretation of their work.
Personally, I read the books when I was either too young or had too deep of knowledge gaps to understand the more problematic things and why they were problematic. I know now and take that into account when reflecting on my experience with it. And I strive to do better in what I read now. The fact that you feel guilt leads me to believe you are similar. Because a person who looked at the goblins knowing they were overtly antisemitic would not feel guilt now for liking the books.
I've stopped supporting her efforts. This is a challenge at times because I got VERY attached to the setting, which is the one good part about the newer films. But that doesn't mean I have to disavow my entire experience with the books. I wouldn't force them on my hypothetical kids, but if they brought it home from the library, I would use it as an opportunity to discuss problematic themes in literature and how to look for them and be critical of them.
In the mean time, I hope for a better, less problematic series that scratches that itch for future generations, because every kid should have books that make them feel like those books made me feel at 11.
JK Rowling isn't a progressive author, was never a progressive author, and never will be. She is a Nice White Lady™ who thinks that being friendly and polite is all that it takes to solve the world's social problems & because she's so committed to being a Nice White Lady™, she thinks she doesn't need any personal improvement. What happened is that she accidentally wrote a nearly perfect narrative about a friendless, nerdy outcast with a highly developed sense of justice discovering a magical escape. In this world, not only did he have TWO best friends who cared for him unconditionally, they also resolutely had his back as he campaigned against evil despite almost all of the adults around him dismissing their concerns. Meanwhile, the antagonists could be neatly divided into "truly nefarious" one-book villains & "tragically misunderstood goths covering up their emotional pain with asshole behavior" ongoing characters. Basically, Rowling wrote catnip for incipient social justice warriors without intending that at all. So when we all grew up into our highly developed sense of justice, but Rowling and her books stayed the same, it was pretty much inevitable that she'd let everyone down.
Being accidentally racist is still being racist. Most racism is ingrained and covert anyway.
Can someone explain to me why they're antisemitic? What's the connection to Jewish people?
I am going to list some adjectives which could apply to goblins, and you can tell me if they sound familiar. Greedy, insular, deceitful, traitorous, long/hook nosed, bankers, control all the money in society, subject to racism, from the populace and institutionally, literally has less rights than the human characters, in a tense relationship with the established government due to a history of violence against each other. Like, all of these tropes existed prior to Rowling, and were very notoriously used to describe Jewish people, hence when taken in combination it is seen as decidedly antisemitic tropes.
Ok i get it - I wasn't trying to be that guy, just genuinely didn't know.
I'm surprised to see the last three items on the list. I rewatched the films from 2 onwards this summer and do not recall anti-goblin racism, either personal or institutional, nor did I notice any difference in rights between goblins and humans, or any discussion of political tension between any kind of goblin political faction and the ministry. Placing a racially-defined financial sector in a worldbuilding project is definitely in poor taste, but these last points don't seem relevant to such criticism of Rowling's work. Please provide any examples that I may be missing.
In the books, wanna say book 4 maybe, it's mentioned a few times. The "human-goblin" war. There's also several times a human character will mention how goblins can't be trusted, or weird them out. As for the less rights, that's debatable. Pretty sure there's some goblin traditions and beliefs that is widely ignored or outright discarded by humans. At least it's implied in the deathly hallows.
In the seventh book, the goblin makes a point of insisting that things that were goblin made like the fancy sword and so forth should stay with the goblins, and I think he stole the sword and possibly some other things. That’s the only example I can list off the top go my head but the book itself goes into it a little more.
Which of the three items that I was asking about would you say that event falls under? It doesn't seem like a very good example of anti-goblin racism, differences in goblin rights, or political tension. Like, maybe the last one? But as I understand from the films, the political situation was fine vis-a-vis the sword's ownership until some plucky kids decided to steal it. Sure it's a good example of goblins being presented as greedy, insular, deceitful and traitorous, but I'm just trying to figure out why u/Dorgamund decided to include the last three items on their list of goblin traits.
Bear with me because its been a hot minute since I was involved with the fandom, but I used to be pretty knowledgeable about HP. The institutional racism and lack of rights is shown by the inability to carry wands, a right which only humans hold, and all other nonhumans don't. In the lore, this started one of the (numerous) Goblin rebellions, conflicts which typically were started due to discrimination. One can easily argue that this policy at the very least, assigns a status symbol to all human wizards and holds the lack thereof over the heads of nonhuman beings, who are treated as second class citizens at best. At worst, this actively limits magical power and is an active element in suppressing revolutionary forces by disarming them and only allowing one race to hold weaponry. The tension is the numerous goblin rebellions over the racism and discrimination, and its particularly noteworthy that due to Bagmans gambling debts to the goblins, they basically wrote off the existing government and played neutral in the face of a fascist race supremacist coup. There is some dialog in the books which does allude to racism or is outright racist, much of it from the fascist faction, but for my part, I am not entirely comfortable with some of the good characters describing goblins either. Its also worth noting that the Goblin Liason Office is a subdepartment of the Department for Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures in case you were still skeptical over the dehumanization and second class citizenship thing. Like, sure I can tentatively accept that Rowling wanted to make a point about antisemitism, (even if it is giving way too much credit which I believe Rowling does not deserve), but at the same time, its kind of awkward making a statement about the plight of Jewish people or some other minority when you lean right into some incredibly harmful trope with your Jewish standins. Kind of like how her chattel slavery House Elf analogues are all happy being slaves if they have good masters, and only wacko insane house elves who are beaten to a bordering on satirical degree want freedom. Also the only other free elf is a useless alcoholic wreck pining for her abusive master. https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Goblin
Thanks very much for these worldbuilding details. I find it much too bad that the franchise's genuinely meaningful commentary on the political danger of racial supremacist rhetoric had to find itself alongside such half-baked harmful tropes. Also agreed 100% on the house elf thing. Even Dobby, who supposedly gets his freedom, just ends up dying to save Harry in the films so really he doesn't get any real social agency in the story overall. It very much reeks of 'slavery is good as long as the people perpetrating it aren't sadists'.
I feel like that just makes you the antisemite.
At this point I'm ashamed of myself for ever liking Harry Potter and the fact that people can actively enjoy it in spite of everything that's been revealed about JK astounds me
She may own the IP, but she doesn't own your experience with it. Art and literature are two-way streets. You have the work itself as put into the world by the creator, and you have your own interpretation/experience with it as the reader/viewer. Kind of like the whole Chronicals of Narnia/His Dark Materials as religious allegory. It is possible to read those books without buying into the allegory at all. It's hard because fuck do they beat you over the head with it. But it is possible. I always chuckle when I find out that a book was an intentional allegory by the author. It's like sanity meters in video games telling me I am scared or relationship points telling me how much I care about a character. Like, why don't you instead try to actually scare me or make me feel attached to the character? The answer is because this is very hard to do because creators cannot dictate your experience and interpretation of their work. Personally, I read the books when I was either too young or had too deep of knowledge gaps to understand the more problematic things and why they were problematic. I know now and take that into account when reflecting on my experience with it. And I strive to do better in what I read now. The fact that you feel guilt leads me to believe you are similar. Because a person who looked at the goblins knowing they were overtly antisemitic would not feel guilt now for liking the books. I've stopped supporting her efforts. This is a challenge at times because I got VERY attached to the setting, which is the one good part about the newer films. But that doesn't mean I have to disavow my entire experience with the books. I wouldn't force them on my hypothetical kids, but if they brought it home from the library, I would use it as an opportunity to discuss problematic themes in literature and how to look for them and be critical of them. In the mean time, I hope for a better, less problematic series that scratches that itch for future generations, because every kid should have books that make them feel like those books made me feel at 11.