Better explanation of what my point was re: institutions vs. individuals.

“Companies cannot act with criminal intent because they have no human capacity for intent,” Reich says. “Arthur Andersen may have sounded like a person but the accounting firm was a legal fiction. . . how can any jury, under any circumstances, find that a company ‘knew’ that ‘its’ actions were wrong? A company cannot know right from wrong. A company is incapable of knowing anything. Nor does a company itself take action. Only people know right from wrong, and only people act. That is a basic tenet of democracy.”

Sure, you can say that Goblins, and only those Goblins, in Gringotts are greedy. But your original statement actually pinged me because the whole giving institutions rights and responsibilities is also reflected, in some ways, with people's anti-ministry stance (Ministry as being ineffectual or Ministry as being outright evil).

Blah blah blah. I personally don't read the non-human species as anything other than non-human species, not as analogs to any particular ethnic group. If you believe Goblins are a stand in for jews, then who are Centaurs a stand in for? And house elves?

If you believe Goblins are a stand in for jews, then who are Centaurs a stand in for?

JKR has stated explicitly that the centaurs are "wild nature" - pure Pan figures of anarchic, sexual energy.

So, in her mind at least, they have a specific metaphorical function. Which is why it is the Centaurs which drag Umbridge away.

it is almost inevitable that they will be read as analogies to human races, ethnic groups, and nations

I don't see the inevitability here.

I just saw a series of fantasy books that engaged the imagination and tried to show that being good might not be easy, but it's better than being evil (or evil's lackey).

I just saw a series of fantasy books that engaged the imagination and tried to show that being good might not be easy, but it's better than being evil (or evil's lackey).

Wrod.

These discussions remind me of all the analyses of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis--except Lewis was doing analogies and Tolkien always said there were none in his stuff.

I stand by the inevitability - not that it is inevitable that everyone will read that way, but that a large portion of the audience will read it that way. I especially see this in terms of goblins and house elves. I can't see how either species can avoid being read as ethnic groups by a large portion of readers. I'm sure JKR did not intend it, but it does not mean it won't be there for many.

Oh, and in terms of this:

Companies cannot act with criminal intent because they have no human capacity for intent,” Reich says. “Arthur Andersen may have sounded like a person but the accounting firm was a legal fiction. . . how can any jury, under any circumstances, find that a company ‘knew’ that ‘its’ actions were wrong? A company cannot know right from wrong. A company is incapable of knowing anything. Nor does a company itself take action. Only people know right from wrong, and only people act. That is a basic tenet of democracy.”

OK - if you are saying that only people have moral responsibilities - fair enough. (Though some day we may have to extend the definition of people to include electronic persons.) But it is also important to understand that an institution can be evil in the sense that its only function is to let or help people do evil things. That is why certain organizations are illegal in the U.S.

I can't see how either species can avoid being read as ethnic groups by a large portion of readers. I'm sure JKR did not intend it, but it does not mean it won't be there for many.

I can absolutely see many people not reading it that way in absolutely the same way I doubt JKR intended to write it that way.

But it always (and has since Klingon days of yore) made me wonder. Too rarely for my interest do writers say how humans are summed up in the same way they capsule describe other species in the story. And not all of them are doing it in a PoV way.

I can't see how either species can avoid being read as ethnic groups by a large portion of readers.

I think that they're different enough from humans that that reading is far from inevitable. Especially since we've already got a much more obvious ethnic group analogy among the humans.

The conversations about "The house elves want to do what they're doing" gave me a slight bit of pause, but that was very slight, because any thinking about it pretty quickly lead to "They're not human." And we were frequently reminded by Dumbledore that house elves have their own kind of magic. (The most obvious being that they can Apparate within Hogwarts.)

Similarly, with the goblins, we weren't told that they were greedy. We were told that they believe that anything goblin-made belongs to them. As far as I can recall, the only two objects that we're told Griphook looked at greedily were the tiara and the sword, both of which were goblin-made.

Isn't it possible that what appear as species attributes are really cultural ones? That centaurs don't have high-handedness somehow written into their genes but as a cultural trait? We don't really ever see any of these non-human groups in isolation from their species.

I can't see how either species can avoid being read as ethnic groups by a large portion of readers.

Then I would think that has more to do with the individual reader than how the author presented it. Like ita and Hil, I never read the books and thought, "Oh nice. The Goblins are obviously supposed to represent Jews." I mean, I can *see* how it can be read like that now, but I needed it pointed out to me.

I'm sure JKR did not intend it, but it does not mean it won't be there for many.

But is that JKR's responsibility in the end? Or any author's for that matter? Are authors responsible for how their readers will take something in their story? Should authors read through their texts and edit themselves because some readers might take issue with how a fantastical species/race of being is being portrayed and what parallels some readers draw from it?

(And I'm not asking this specifically of you, Typo. Just wondering out loud.)