This thread is a focused discussion group. Please see the first post below for the current topic and upcoming book discussions. While natter will inevitably happen, we encourage you to treat this like a virtual book club and try to keep your posts in that spirit.
By consensus, this thread is reopened specifically to discuss Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It will be closed again once that discussion has run its course.
***SPOILER ALERT***
- **Spoilers for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows lie here. Read at your own risk***
The Wizards say these things about any number of species. The prejudices and sterotypes and rights involving Centaurs, House Elves, Giants... its all over the books.
They don't just say these things. In many cases, within the universe of the book it is true. Humans have flaws as individuals or organizations. Other species have flaws as species. Fits what I said about good intentions, but hasn't really thought about diversity. Why not have a particular tribe of centaurs be ultra-proud and touchy rather than all centaurs? Why have all (or all but one) house-elves be willing, nay enthusiastic, slaves? And so on....
The world is from the POV of the wizards, not an omnitient unbiased entity.
The world is from the POV of the wizards
The POV who gets most of his wizard knowledge second-hand, at that. Hermione pretty much proves that the wizarding world is an unreliable narrator in re: house elves.
It would be hard for Dumbledore to have problems with the various prejudices if there were none.
As far as I know Hermione can only get house-elves to seek freedom by tricking them. That seems to confirm the wizard view stereotype.
That seems to confirm the wizard view stereotype.
True, it's not a perfect example. But she's willing to take the preconceptions and try to shake the truth out of them. She's just not willing to see the unwelcome results of her shaking.
Dumbledore seems to want fair treatment; not the same thing as denying the truth behind many of the stereotypes - just that the species characteristic does not mean the various species are not valuable with a right to their own viewpoint. Sort of a 19th liberal viewpoint.
Or using actual animal species as your basis for your non-human species. Like the difference in personality between a retriever and a herder. If I say retrievers are all about their toys and herders are all about controlling others, it isn't a stereotype--it's a basic trait of their p species.
If I say retrievers are all about their toys and herders are all about controlling others, it isn't a stereotype--it's a basic trait of their p species.
But it's like Star Trek or D&D or whatever--humans get to be generalists; bad or good is to be determined, but for other species it's in the genes.
Which makes a diversity lesson more like respecting others despite their inherent flaws (which you might as well go and prejudge), and not as useful a parallel as it might otherwise be.
Right. I'm not saying that the universe of the book is badly constructed. Plot, and a certain kind of world building are Rowlings skills. (I actually have never found her world building convincing when I think about it. But her worlds feel real. ) But fictional intelligent species don't have to differ from one another in the ways she has them. And it makes it very easy to read as analogies for racial and cultural stereotypes. Now I don't think an author of fiction is obliged to teach didactic lessons; or even neccesarily avoid teaching the wrong ones. But I think it puts the gay Dumbledore thing in context. If she intended the series to put forth a pro-diversity message to her readers (and I have no reason to think she did) she failed miserably.
