This is why Rowling fails, you know

[branchandroot]

Just tripped over a particularly clear moment of idiocy on Wikipedia, pointing to a Rowling chat transcript. It's about Gryffindor's sword, and the goblins.

Now, I recall fairly clearly that there was, shall we say, cultural conflict at work in that case. A goblin work was handed to someone for money. In human understanding it was sold. In goblin understanding it was leased.

(See, we even have human ideas for the difference.)

So later on, when Gryffindor died and the sword was not returned, the goblins came all over pissed, because that, by their lights, was theft.

The wiki entry says "Gryffindor did not steal the sword from Ragnuk and that this belief is merely part of Griphook's goblin mistrust and prejudice against wizards." Rowling herself said "Griphook was wrong - Gryffindor did not 'steal' the sword, not unless you are a goblin fanatic and believe that all goblin-made objects really belong to the maker."

Which tells me that the writer herself could not wrap her brain around the idea that by goblin laws the goblins were right, and that, while the humans were right by their own laws, those laws were not the only ones involved in this case and not the only standard by which it should be judged. This despite having written the situation herself.

That, right there. That's how she could write the house elves the way she did and not think it was problematic.

Comments

[annotated_em]

*whistles* Wow. Major fail, right there.

[branchandroot]

Yeah. Every last one of her stand-in Others is systematically denied agency or subjectivity, even while she is writing them with enough characterization to make them 'human' to the reader.

[ldybastet]

So very true. And then she boggled at how so many people could *like* the stand-in Others that she'd written... or even just see their viewpoint. :( I thought that was, like, something a writer just did, see the different viewpoints and motivations of their different characters. Rowling proved to me how silly I've been thinking that.

[branchandroot]

Big time. I've come to the conclusion that she just has zero in the way of writerly awareness. Either that or she's a hypocrite of the first water, but I think it's just galactic sized cluelessness.

[jetsam]

Bk7 fell to pieces in so many ways

I rather like the goblins, myself

[branchandroot]

I'd say this particular problem started /way/ before that.

[jetsam]

This is true

7 in particular, though. I've been poking holes in 7 all afternoon, so

[branchandroot]

Yeah. She may think 7 was some kind of logical conclusion, but, um. Really kind of not, based on what actually went down on the pages before that.

[ysobel]

...whaaaat.

[branchandroot]

I shit you not.

[flourish]

Yeah.

Sigh.

[branchandroot]

*wry* Every now and then I'm tempted to write the full study of how Rowling treats the Other in those novels, and then I think I'd have to read them all again, including the last three. And then I go back to gender in anime instead.

[afuna]

Oh. I'd been hoping that issues like these were some kind of subtle and clever commentary; it is pretty disappointing to find out that it's being played straight.

[branchandroot]

Yet another argument for the death of the author! I mean, just from what's on the page I thought it was a pretty clear-cut case of unresolved culture clash. Better in this case to ignore "what she meant".

[bell]

...........That explains so much. Unfortunately. :[ Like how the house elves are basically still enslaved, and how Hogwarts remains mostly human, how Hagrid is never really/completely/truly accepted in the wizard community, etc. Despite the theme of "be more accepting!!!" 0rz

[branchandroot]

Seriously. If Rowling's moral really was supposed to be "more tolerance" it obviously comes with the codicil "as long as they keep their place". Total fail.

[bell]

"We'll like you as long you don't defy the status quo! We'll decide how much progress you get."

[mitsuhachi]

...this is why authorial intent as TEH WURD OF GAWD makes me break out in hives.

[branchandroot]

For serious. That whole passage is so much more interesting and tolerable if we totally ignore anything Rowling has to say about it.

[kaigou]

Oi, the post is locked. May I quote you as the benevolent mind who enlightened me as to Rowling's total fail, or just reference the general content and let people live in mystery as to what brilliant soul carries blame for some of my madness?

[branchandroot]

*laughing* Okay, I'll unlock it.

[kaigou]

thanks!

[krait]

I. I just. Wot.

I can't even imagine how someone can create two sets of laws for two sets of creatures, and then not being ABLE to see them as equal.

I just. HOW?

[branchandroot]

Yeah, I don't quite get it either. The most charitable explanation I can think of is that she's pulling a George Lucas and re-writing her understanding and intention in order to defend her favorite characters after the fact.

[krait]

I keep concluding that she's "keeping in character" -- i.e. were the Wizarding World real, she (as a human, and presumably a witch since she knows about the WW) would naturally back her fellow humans/wizards, because that's how wizarding society works at this current point in time.

...I knew that I've always sought Watsonian workarounds for canon issues in my various fandoms, but I hadn't realised it was so strong a tendency I could build something like that.

[branchandroot]

*can't help laughing* Yeah, that's a Watsonian approach in spades! *rueful* I'd feel better if I imagined she'd put that much thought into it.

[krait]

I know. *rueful* I have this tendency to bend logic and motive into pretzel knots if it will keep a universe I love intact. :D

And I don't think she's necessarily thought it out per se, but in her head she sees herself (on the Wizarding scale) as One of Them, and her answers are coloured by that even if she can't explain why.

[branchandroot]

*nods* Yeah, that does make a lot of sense; certainly she's always seemed to identify with that side in her narrative.