Asymmetrical Information

Frog noticed this too, but Frog has noticed that socialists (and American “liberals”) tend to see what they want in the books and say that J.K. Rowling is with them. Are libertarian thinkers seeing what they want to see? For example socialists tend to think that libertarian leaning Hogwarts students would be put in Slytherian (business) because of ambition and self-interest. But the primary heroes of the book are not in Ravenclaw (academics) or Hufflepuff (workers), but Gryffindor (military). Frog thinks that J.K. Rowling is not so easily placed in any one category but if Frog had to choose Frog would say she is mostly aligned with those libertarian leaning people who support effective voluntary military action for humanitarian purposes as well as defense; but perhaps Frog is just reading his own views into the books.
Of course Frog is one of those who think Harry Potter is going to have to sacrifice his life in order to defeat Voldemort as the theme of the books seems not to be political, but “moral.” There is something worse than death, to live in shame because you could have stopped some great evil but did not.

I noticed a long time ago that there are no lawyers in the wizarding world, and they still haven't shown up. JKR probably did this because making Voldemort a lawyer would be too scary.

I think we have to bear in mind that Rowling has some plot constraints, in that she's trying to write about teenagers facing a serious adult enemy. If the adult institutions are not corrupted, stupid, and/or incompetent, there's a lot less for the kids to do.

I found a parallel between the war with Voldemort and the war on terror.

Both have enemies that you "cannot name". In fact, if you say "Voldemort" in the books, people wince and cringe. Name Islam as the enemy in the WOT, people either wince and cringe, or leap to the defense of the "good ones".

At least Rowling hasn't created "good Death Eaters" and "bad Death Eaters"...yet.

I have way, WAY too much free time.

"At least Rowling hasn't created "good Death Eaters" and "bad Death Eaters"...yet."

Snape? Of course, if it's Snape, then there's only one :)

I'm not sure you can be certain of Rowlings ideology, especially if you've never read Harry Potter and the Practioners of Ka-Boom

I'd say that Rowling is more like a libertarian than anything else, but it's more a matter of emotional habits than an ideology.

She's deeply cynical about most respectble institutions, notably government and the press. I wouldn't say Hogwarts is competently run, but I get some disagreement on that--Rowling's underlying premise seems to be that the only way to get anything done is to have capable people in charge of small organizations, and sometimes those people in charge are good.

However, she trusts commerce. If you buy a magic wand, it will be what you've been told it was. You don't have to worry about your gold being stolen by the management of Gringott's.

Weirdly enough, the O.W.L.S seem to be be honestly run, or at least trusted. I have no idea how that's possible, considering what a lot of the wizarding world is like.

It's hard to imagine what the twins would be like as employers, but they're probably not exactly a pleasure to work for--it's nothing Rowling addresses.

OK, OK, what if she's just writing "young adult fiction" - GOOD young adult fiction rather than cookie-cutter Babysitters' Club books that tell us how fun it is to share and to say "no" to drugs? (Apologies to any B.C. fans out there - I've never actually read one of those books, but they look mighty light & cheerful compared to Harry's world.) Revisit Alexander's Prydain Chronicles (including The Black Cauldron, which I believe won a Newberry? Some kind of award - absolutely fantastic series, based loosely on oral history of Wales) for more GOOD young adult fiction: similar theme of coming-of-age experiences of a teenage hero who starts off as the disadvantaged runt of the litter - coming-of-age experiences that also happen to have life-or-death consequences in the larger world. It's how you write to draw teens (esp. young teens) in, I think: by starting your hero as a helpless kid, endowing him/her with some kind of gift that isn't obvious and isn't invincible, then setting up situations where only s/he can prevail, and only if s/he makes the right choices, the right choices being the ones that equate to a pinnacle of adult behavior. Noble choices, in other words.

I think kids near the beginning of adolescence are desperate for nobility. They recognize that you can be decent or bad or middlin', or you can be good, really good, and (unlike some of us once we survive adolescence) they still believe that being really good may have intrinsic rewards that have nothing to do with worldly success - but they like it when worldly success accompanies - or better yet, rewards - nobility. The good guys have to win against terrible odds, and then the world recognizes their sacrifice and their gift, and they're rewarded.

See also Mulan, which I highly recommend to parent of girls - though boys can also benefit. In contrast to other Disney movies, this one deals with nobility on the part of the "Disney princess" rather than on the part of her suitor. (I haven't seen Mulan II and from the brief trailers I've seen, I won't.)

Agreed that no single ideological overlay will fit the stories without a whole lot of trimming and squeezing. Still, I defy anyone to read about Percy Weasley's memo on cauldron-bottom standards and not think of Eurocracy. (Yes, they do need some lawyers. On the plus side, Rowling's Latinate spells tend to sound like legal terms and vice versa.)

If you haven't noticed Jane, Harry Potter is an adolescent boy. To be 'in charactor' Potter has to have an rebelious streak. This is one of the things that makes her books so attractive to young kids. They bridle at adult supervision and can easily identify with the charactors in her books.

As far as seeing libertarianism in her work you are probably correct as libertarianism is itself just an expression of immaturity. If you read any adolescent liturature you can find similiar themes throughout.

I agree with Ken. Grown-ups all know that fascism is best.

Indeed, it's the very height of immaturity to not want one's life run, one's money spent, and one's decisions made by people like ken. Once we all outgrow those silly childish desires, and learn the adult values of obedience and passivity, we'll be much happier.

Indeed, Harry is an adolescent boy whether Mindles has noticed Jane or not.

Not so quick, Paul - Ken seems to be saying that - provided I haven't noticed Jane* - Harry Potter is a female author with 'an rebelious streak' whose 'books are attractive to young kids'. This is apparently 'in charactor' for an author of Childrens' books. But are childrens' books the same as 'adolescent liturature'?

Enlighten us, O mature statist one!

*how can you not notice Jane?

As long as the adults remain in controll libertarians are free to act out their juvinile fantacies. Watching you guys pretend to be self-made economic geniuses is fun. It is like watching a playground full of young children playing king of the hill. No one gets hurt and it makes the 'king' feel good about himself.

Carry on kids.

Dreck, sorry to confuse you with Jane. It is hard to tell libertarians apart. You are are all so predictable. Almost interchangable.

Anyway if you want some good literature that demonstates the consequences of libertarianism I recommend Lord of the Flies.

I sincerely hope ken shoots himself in the head someday. What a worthless excuse for a human being.

25 minutes later I am ashamed of myself for posting that. I guess I have shown that when the right buttons are pushed, some of us libertarians are capable of sinking all the way down to ken's level of "argumentation".

Noticing Jane is kind of like seeing the fnords; you have to re-think everything you believe. One day you're living your dutiful sheeple life thinking Harry Potter is nothing more than a rebellious adolescent author with gender-identity issues; than you notice Jane and it makes you realize that Harry is actually a misunderstood genius who single-handedly solved all the problems of economics only to have second-handers like Milton Friedman steal all the credit.

I see no particular evidence in the books either for or against business. What DOES jump out at one is the eerie parallel between Cornelius Fudge -- the incompetent head of the Ministry of Magic who homes in obsessively on the wrong enemy, and then uses one political dirty trick after another to force the other wizards to go along -- and a certain incumbent President.

Funny you should say that. The article Instapundit linked likens Rufus Scrimgeour to Bush.

Like I said, it's the Mirror of Erised

I find Ken's unjustified condescension hilarious. It's enough to make a 'juvinile' lose 'controll' of his spelling and pronouns, or deliberately confuse libertarians and anarchists.

I guess the real message is that Saddam Hussein is really a misunderstood good guy like Sirius Black.

Alternative title for Barton's paper: "Yes, Minister of Magic".

"a certain incumbent President,"

Much as the US affects foreign countries, I think I am justified in saying that as a Brit, Rowling probably had other parallels in mind.

(I was incensed when a UK publication blithely stated that a character in Firefly was CLEARLY George W. Bush, because you could only get that if you really, really wanted to see it and were utterly blind to other interpretations. Besides that, there's the fact that Whedon is aware that a) short-lived political allegory doesn't last well in story terms, and b) he has fans who may have different political views from him. In other words, he's not going to take that kind of cheap shot.)

(Your statement did not incense me, FWIW.)

I recall a variety of businesses that come off rather well in Rowling's books, including the Weasley twins' burgeoning joke business, now located and thriving in Diagon Alley along with Gringott's and an assortment of other interesting commercial ventures. They needn't be the size of Microsoft to be commercial. However, to return to the point, Rowling would have to show an anti-commercial streak for this argument to carry any weight.

You're missing something here. Several businesses are shown to be willing to sell anything to anyone, especially some decidedly nasty items.

You're missing something here. Several businesses are shown to be willing to sell anything to anyone, especially some decidedly nasty items.

Yes, but even Borgin and Burkes clearly marks cursed items as such.

It's interesting that you bring up the libertarian issue, because I've been wondering on the bizarre state of wizarding economics for a little while.

We know that people can conjure food; Mrs Weasley creates hollandaise sauce with her wand, and enough inexpensive objects are transfigured into edible animals that the chance of anyone with basic knowledge and a working wand facing malnutrition is pretty much nil.

Wizard lifespans seem to be significantly longer than muggles, which is almost certainly the result of superior medical technology. The moral questions raised by a government prohibiting the sale of beneficial pharmecuticals to the disabled (us) hasn't even been touched. Also, medicine and education seems to be fully subsidized by the ministry, though taxes are never mentioned (which is not surprising as Harry is underaged).

Gringotts apparently stores all gold in the account holder's safe deposit box. It's possible that the gold in the individual vaults is teleported up from a central vault when the door is opened, but we never hear about that if it happens; from the description it just sounds like you toss your money in a pile and it just sits there. They do loan out money, and apparently take bets on sporting events, though where they get the money for this is a mystery.

There's probably a lot of stuff I've completely forgotten. Overall, though, the wizarding world seems like a fully functioning socialist utopia, the sort that only exists with magical aid.

Comments are Closed.