8
Been watching anything recently? I watched Unfaithful with my mother : https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/Unfaithful
She has been really wanting to watch this one for a while as she remembers watching it on TV a long time ago and enjoying it... She likes anything with Richard Gere really... XD Although she also said she likes this movie because it is the woman doing the cheating instead of the husband unlike most movies about cheating...
We also watched Indecent Proposal from the same director which my mom also enjoyed : https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/IndecentProposal
And today I watched The Incredibles 2! : https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/WesternAnimation/Incredibles2
I enjoyed The Incredibles 2! Jack-Jack was really cute in it haha... XD I also liked Helen, Evelyn and Voyd especially the team up between Helen and Voyd near the end... :)
I never thought The Incredibles would get a sequel after so long... I remember watching the first movie a long time ago... I still have the toys that McDonald's gave to promote the first movie... The Violet toy in particular was really fun... : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAz__z5NQaA
I think I will watch Wish and Fatal Attraction next...
How about you all? :)
Other commenters have already touched on the world-building aspects, but I think that SPEW gave Hermione some really interesting characterisation. She's fighting for a cause which the reader can easily identify as righteous, but she gets nowhere. Her classmates mock her, and even the house elves are dismissive of her efforts. In some ways, it is a very conservative perspective, because it treats bleeding-heart activism as silly and foolish. But it is also a very realistic portrayal of young people who are convinced that the world is wrong and want to try to change it. Hermione may not be pursuing the best tactics, but her determination and ethical standards are incredibly impressive. I haven't seen such nuanced writing about activism in YA fiction before or since (although if anyone has suggestions, please, leave them). The fact that people are still discussing and debating this plot element shows the strength of some of the writing behind it, even it is an accidental consequence of clumsy world-building.
Really good points.
I agree with other commenters that the HP books are over-analysed in many ways. Some people say they aren't the best-written, and the world building is shallow. But at the same time - it's been over 20 years (or is it 25 years?) and as you said, the fact that there's still a massive fanbase who are coming up with new theories, alternative interpretations and such... there must be something good behind it. Not just any author can achieve this.
If you look at historical independence movements and civil rights movements around the world, it isn’t really that different. Many times class fights are met with violence and it’s easier for underclass people to be where they are than join in a fight because of the power the ruling class has on them. I felt her take was interestingly realistic. Her books deal with nuance all the time which is why I really liked it.
I always thought the point was to show that wizards aren't perfect either. In reading the books, you can get a sense that muggles are just foolish people to be pitied who don't understand higher levels of knowledge like magic. But then... wizards just think it's no big deal to keep sentient creatures as slaves. Their culture is just as flawed, just in different ways.
I always thought it was a commentary about British Imperialism and colonization. I do feel like Americans with their limited world history exposure try to frame everything from their historical context which is such a narrow take on things.
Interesting. They certainly were a useful plot device for that.
It's been a while since I last read HP, but did wizards actually abuse the elves? Or was it just a case of not caring about them, mostly ignoring their existence?
The Malfoy family and Sirius Black definitely abused their elves (this is when Harry realizes Sirius isn't perfect). But Dumbledore treated all his elves with kindness and even gave Winky a job (Winky was free but still worked for Dumbledore because she hated being free). edit: Dobby too. Dobby was happy to be free, but I suspect it was more about being free from the Malfoys than being free in general.
I think you’re overthinking it.
She needed a generic cast of thousands to do the cooking and cleaning, thought of the folklore about pixies and brownies cleaning dairies and houses in exchange for a sauces of milk, and went “right, house elves, cool”, then later she’d thought it through and realised that it wasn’t viable for them to be part of the economy (they hugely outweigh the number of wizards and would skew it), thought “bugger, I’ve accidentally put slaves in the books” and had Hermione get worked up about it to show she didn’t condone it.
But then I think people overthink a lot of things about HP!
I think one issue with this as a theory is that the very first time we ever meet or hear of a house elf is when we meet Dobby, and he’s obviously mistreated and Harry’s desire to free him from what is clearly slavery is a central focus. We only encounter the “conveniently cooking and cleaning” house elves as context for where the mistreated and overlooked, oppressed house elves come from.
We could easily have believed that the cooking and cleaning took place entirely by magic, without any little people at all. As Harry and Hermione assume, before they meet Dobby.
That makes sense now, yeah.
I don't think she intended a SAHM allegory. That's just how it seemed, to ignorant-kid-me. It was so weird that the elves seemed to enjoy their 'slavery' and didn't want to leave - what kind of strange culture is that? Why would she invent such creatures, is it a reference to something? ... but oh, wait, there are some mothers who face similar pressure. It was the only explanation I could think of.
A book can have any interpretation you want, so if that's how you see it then that's fine :) It's an interesting perspective.
Counter argument, though: couldn’t she have just had it be magic? Surely Dumbledore could magic up an entire feast, and magic away all the dishes, all by himself, without requiring house-elves.
I’ve read the HP books several times, but not since being peaked/realizing I’ve been moving RadFemward, so will reread them with these lenses. I wonder what JKR was reading/thinking back then? I wonder if she’ll ever tell us? I’m a fan of the New School, so I think any defensible interpretation of the book’s meaning is as valid as the author’s intent - but remain quite interested in her intent.
Sure, she could. If she’d thought about it, and realised how examined the books would end up being, she probably would have! That’s my point: she was just writing a book, she didn’t know that people were going to be agonising about hidden meanings in it twenty-odd years later.
But then I think people overthink a lot of things about HP!
I agree. The books are really not that deep.
I think there's a lot of symbolism in the Harry Potter books. Yes, they aren't deep at all in some sort of groundbreaking philosophical sense, but they definitely do have layered meanings. Positively packed with symbolism. For example, the first thing Snape says to Harry in book one has a hidden meaning that is perfectly useless to the plot and readers wouldn't understand until book seven (although they don't ever need to understand it).
The books are clever, that's one of the reasons they're entertaining. I just don't think JK Rowling put as much thought into her worldbuilding* as her fans do. At a certain point you have to be doing a symptomatic reading of the text, not looking for her motivations and judging them as such.
One particular example I can think of is that Seamus Finnigan is always exploding things. Irish readers noticed that because they're used to English people associating them with bombs. There's no way Rowling would have done that intentionally, but you can't rule out an unconscious association on her part.
*I was frustrated as a teen reading these books because the worldbuilding didn't hang together for me. Like, why do the racial minorities at Hogwarts seem to resemble the British empire so closely? Are Padma and Parvati Muggleborn or did British wizards colonize wizard India in their parallel world?
Like, why do the racial minorities at Hogwarts seem to resemble the British empire so closely? Are Padma and Parvati Muggleborn or did British wizards colonize wizard India in their parallel world?
Sorry to be replying so long after, but if you look at the 1991 census for the UK, Harry’s year at Hogwarts matches the ethnic make-up pretty perfectly.
It’s entirely consistent with magical people being evenly distributed through the population regardless of race. Why would there need to be a separate wizarding colonisation of India?
Harry’s year at Hogwarts matches the ethnic make-up pretty perfectly.
That's my point, though. The parallel wizarding world has the exact same ethnic make-up as the UK, and the UK's ethnic make-up is a direct product of its colonial history. Given that wizards live in a parallel world, have their own history/culture/economy, and rarely take much interest in Muggles, it doesn't make sense that they would have the exact same immigration patterns as Muggles.
I think it does make sense if you assume wizards are equally distributed through the population, and the muggle and wizarding worlds are much more mingled than the purebloods we meet like to pretend. And why wouldn’t Indian and Pakistani wizards immigrate to a country with strong links to their own?
But I also agree that Rowling is writing more as a satire on British society (and school stories) than as a fantasy writer seeking to create a parallel world, and we probably should be reading the books more through that lens.
Yeah, house elves are women. I've been quietly laughing at the hp fandom for years for their obliviousness.
What a great take! These books just get better and better, every year I discover some new depth. Thanks for the insight!
Were you never a Brownie?
I assumed all British women recognised that House Elves were Brownies from the Brownie Story, placed in a realistic setting. Generations of little girls have been raised with the message that “being human brownies is fun!”. The story with the mother wishing out loud for a brownie to help around the house and do the domestic work, just as Molly Weasley wishes for a house elf, just as Judy Brady wishes for a wife.
Despite the original story having both a boy and a girl, it is only little girls who had this story as their core focus for a national, establishment-supported youth organisation: the little boys got to be Mowgli in the wolf pack.
House elves are wives. House elves are what the little girls in Brownies were being groomed to be. House elves are the women who I cannot tell to take their freedom, but I can support and respect and hope that this helps. Nobody can be forced to be free, and offering help people do not want is just rude. Hermione learns this as painfully as I did, and as I’m sure Rowling did. I have known Dobbies, but I have also known Winkies and Kreachers, and dozens of respectable house elves who would be insulted if anyone suggested their husband or son should do some work around the house. Women who beat themselves up, and won’t hear a bad word said about the man who hurts them.
Symbols are multi-faceted, and I’m sure you can take what you want from fantasy creations. There’s strong elements of class in there, too, with the servants who should do their jobs so perfectly nobody even notices. The old retainer. The families that serve The Family. But I have yet to hear of there being a widespread belief among black American slaves (as opposed to their masters) that their natural role in life was to serve and they would be insulted by freedom, whereas I am painfully aware of how many women I have personally met who hold these beliefs about themselves.
House elves separate (or I hope they do...) the reproductive and sexual labour from the domestic labour, but otherwise are ‘wives’ leaving Wizarding women to be people.
House elves take the role of wife, and remove sex from the equation. And when you do that, strangely, people start complaining that it looks like slavery, and how appalling to say that anyone naturally wants such a thing or to accept it at face value and look the other way just because it makes your life easier. People write endless fics supposing that there is some magic in play, forcing house elves into the role. What magic is in play that made women take on this role century after century?
The roles house elves take on are clearly gendered women’s roles, but because the first one we meet is Dobby (male), and the next most significant is Kreacher (male), people seem to miss that. And not just Americans reading their own slavery in and missing the Brownie story.
" There’s strong elements of class in there, too, with the servants who should do their jobs so perfectly nobody even notices. "
Kind of reminds me of the servants in Downton Abbey. Many seem more than happy with their place in the social hierarchy while some aren't all that keen.
Yes, the serving class who “know their place” and respect their “betters” is a cliché, but one I’m never sure of the reality of rather than wishful thinking on the part of the people writing things, and taking sensible self-preserving behaviour from servants at face value. But given the views I hear from real women about their own positions as servants within their own families, not unimaginable.
I was never a Brownie (tomboy, I mean undiagnosed transboy) but my sister was, and holy hell is that disturbing. I never knew that, pretty sure she doesn’t either.
When you say brownie are you talking about the girls scouts ?
Yeah, it was the entry-level rank for Girl Scouts, starting at 5 IIRC?
In the UK, it’s the 7-10 level of Girl Guides, and it’s the level that the highest proportion of British women have been involved in at some point.
Rainbows are 5-7. Guides are 10-14.
There’s a lot to like about Guides and the whole movement, but the Brownie story and the messaging around it in Brownies is female socialisation writ big. Cubs (Cub Scouts, the equivalent now for all children, then just for boys) “Do Your Best”. Brownies, in those days, “Lend a Hand”.
You're remembering correctly.
No, I wasn't a Brownie. I remember reading Mr Pink-Whistle and other tales, but somehow the helpful brownie mythology completely passed me by. I didn't realise it was common knowledge.
Your analysis is very interesting, thank you.
I should re-read the series, because Winkie and Kreacher aren't ringing many bells.
Here’s the version of the Brownie Story that I would expect most women would have encountered as little girls: the version that would have been in their Handbook, and have been acted out or used in games during meetings.
And if you don’t remember Winky or Kreacher, definitely reread. If you haven’t read them as an adult, they are much more along the lines of social commentary than you might remember.
Well, that story clears it up nicely. Now I wish I'd been a Brownie before reading HP - the 'house elves' might have seemed charming, rather than baffling me for years.
I'm scrabbling around to find my old books. Might have donated them to a charity shop or something. This could be a good excuse to buy the illustrated versions, I hear they're excellent...