Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Harry Potter IV (w / spoilers)

Expand Messages
  • Sophie Masson
    A veela is indeed a East European(indeed, Bulgarian)creature of folklore--rather like the Rusalka in Russian folklore, or the Yangammara in Australian
    Message 1 of 13 , Aug 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      A veela is indeed a East European(indeed, Bulgarian)creature of
      folklore--rather like the Rusalka in Russian folklore, or the Yangammara in
      Australian Aboriginal folklore!
      Sophie
      Author site:
      http://members.xoom.com/sophiecastel/default.htm

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Stolzi@... <Stolzi@...>
      To: mythsoc@egroups.com <mythsoc@egroups.com>
      Date: Thursday, 27 July 2000 4:01
      Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Harry Potter IV (w / spoilers)


      >
      >> > The "foreign" elements were interesting. Are the *veela* a real
      creation,
      >> > or did JKR make them up?
      >
      >
      >I think they're real: haven't looked it up, but one of the famous arias in
      >THE MERRY WIDOW by Franz Lehar begins, "Vilya, O Vilya, the witch of the
      >wood..." at least in its English translation.
      >
      >Mary S
      >
      >
      >
      >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      >
    • Julia Palffy
      The veelas in Harry Potter reminded me of the Wilis in the classical ballet Giselle - though it s a long time since I read that story. I guess they do have a
      Message 2 of 13 , Aug 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        The veelas in Harry Potter reminded me of the Wilis in the classical ballet
        "Giselle" - though it's a long time since I read that story. I guess they do
        have a common source, and that the original figure was adapted to the
        respective works.

        Julia Palffy
        Zug, Switzerland
        jupalffy@...

        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Stolzi@... <Stolzi@...>
        > To: mythsoc@egroups.com <mythsoc@egroups.com>
        > Date: Thursday, 27 July 2000 4:01
        > Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Harry Potter IV (w / spoilers)
        >
        >
        > >
        > >> > The "foreign" elements were interesting. Are the *veela* a real
        > creation,
        > >> > or did JKR make them up?
        > >
        > >
        > >I think they're real: haven't looked it up, but one of the
        > famous arias in
        > >THE MERRY WIDOW by Franz Lehar begins, "Vilya, O Vilya, the witch of the
        > >wood..." at least in its English translation.
        > >
        > >Mary S
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
        >
        >
      • Margaret Dean
        ... The next question that comes to mind at this point (at least to mine) is how the house-elves came to have that nature in the first place. What are their
        Message 3 of 13 , Aug 1, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          LSolarion@... wrote:
          >
          > In a message dated 07/29/2000 9:18:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
          > margdean@... writes:
          >
          > <<
          > How do you account for Dobby's attitude? Was he sent round the
          > bend by the Malfoys' cruel treatment? He seems to continue to
          > enjoy working, but wants to be paid as a human would. Is he
          > enlightened or looneytunes? >>
          >
          > s
          > p
          > o
          > i
          > l
          > e
          > r
          >
          > a
          > l
          > e
          > r
          > t
          >
          > h
          > e
          > r
          > e
          >
          > As someone pointed out in the book, Dobby was unusual for a house-elf. His
          > attitude was certainly unpopular, even unnatural, from their perspective.
          > It's an interesting question: who gets to define what a certain group's
          > attitude and values are to be? If the house-elves are happy and fulfilled in
          > their natures by freely offered service (and that choice is important; it
          > would be different if overseers with whips were standing behind them forcing
          > them to work against their will -- which of course Dumbledore would never
          > allow), who is some self-righteous meddler to interfere? Should they be
          > "freed" by force? Is that freedom? If it turns happiness into misery and
          > contentment into frustration, how is it a good thing? If a creature's nature
          > is to serve, they are happiest serving.

          The next question that comes to mind at this point (at least to
          mine) is how the house-elves came to have that "nature" in the
          first place. What are their origins? Did they come to be
          independently, with the impulse toward service already there? Or
          did some primal wizard or group of wizards alter them somehow?
          If the latter, does that count as enslavement?

          > Our natures are disgusted at this, I
          > think, because we are fallen and prone to rebellion against the idea of
          > service (which we label derogatorily as subservience, obsequiousness, etc.).
          > But that's us. We may call a dog's devotion fawning or grovelling (unless we
          > are its object), but to the dog, it's natural.

          It's natural to a dog because it serves a practical purpose in
          the social organization of dogs. That it transfers over to
          humans in some situations turns out to be beneficial for both
          species (by and large. There are dog owners, of course, who take
          just as fearsome advantage of the dog's natural inclinations as
          the Malfoys did of Dobby's). How about house-elves? Same or
          different? Were their impulses directed toward humans (wizards)
          originally, or were they =conditioned= to direct them that way?
          If the latter, is the resulting symbiosis beneficial?


          --Margaret Dean
          <margdean@...>
        • alexeik@aol.com
          In a message dated 8/1/0 2:53:54 PM, Julia Palffy wrote:
          Message 4 of 13 , Aug 1, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 8/1/0 2:53:54 PM, Julia Palffy wrote:

            <<The veelas in Harry Potter reminded me of the Wilis in the classical ballet
            "Giselle" - though it's a long time since I read that story. >>

            They're the same. _Willi_ is just a German spelling of South Slavic _vily_.
            Adam's librettist obviously got the story from a Germanic (probably Austrian)
            source.
            Alexei
          • Sophie Masson
            The idea for house-elves came, I m sure, from the story The Elves and the Shoemaker, in which the naked elves are given clothes and shoes at the end, and thus
            Message 5 of 13 , Aug 1, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              The idea for house-elves came, I'm sure, from the story The Elves and the
              Shoemaker, in which the naked elves are given clothes and shoes at the end,
              and thus lose their servitude. They in turn have echoes in folklore with
              brownies and the like, who are tied to people's houses--and in turn derive
              in a way from the Roman 'genii loci' who had their own shrines in each
              house, and protected it.
              Very clever, as usual, for JK to use these pre-existing things--my only
              problem with it is that the house-elves' language and attitudes sound very
              close to the 'happy slaves' idea of the Deep South..but then, I think that's
              probably meant deliberately. Everyone except Hermione has a blind spot about
              it.
              Sophie
              Author site:
              http://members.xoom.com/sophiecastel/default.htm

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Margaret Dean <margdean@...>
              To: mythsoc@egroups.com <mythsoc@egroups.com>
              Date: Wednesday, 2 August 2000 3:05
              Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Harry Potter IV (w / spoilers)


              >LSolarion@... wrote:
              >>
              >> In a message dated 07/29/2000 9:18:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
              >> margdean@... writes:
              >>
              >> <<
              >> How do you account for Dobby's attitude? Was he sent round the
              >> bend by the Malfoys' cruel treatment? He seems to continue to
              >> enjoy working, but wants to be paid as a human would. Is he
              >> enlightened or looneytunes? >>
              >>
              >> s
              >> p
              >> o
              >> i
              >> l
              >> e
              >> r
              >>
              >> a
              >> l
              >> e
              >> r
              >> t
              >>
              >> h
              >> e
              >> r
              >> e
              >>
              >> As someone pointed out in the book, Dobby was unusual for a house-elf.
              His
              >> attitude was certainly unpopular, even unnatural, from their perspective.
              >> It's an interesting question: who gets to define what a certain group's
              >> attitude and values are to be? If the house-elves are happy and fulfilled
              in
              >> their natures by freely offered service (and that choice is important; it
              >> would be different if overseers with whips were standing behind them
              forcing
              >> them to work against their will -- which of course Dumbledore would never
              >> allow), who is some self-righteous meddler to interfere? Should they be
              >> "freed" by force? Is that freedom? If it turns happiness into misery and
              >> contentment into frustration, how is it a good thing? If a creature's
              nature
              >> is to serve, they are happiest serving.
              >
              >The next question that comes to mind at this point (at least to
              >mine) is how the house-elves came to have that "nature" in the
              >first place. What are their origins? Did they come to be
              >independently, with the impulse toward service already there? Or
              >did some primal wizard or group of wizards alter them somehow?
              >If the latter, does that count as enslavement?
              >
              >> Our natures are disgusted at this, I
              >> think, because we are fallen and prone to rebellion against the idea of
              >> service (which we label derogatorily as subservience, obsequiousness,
              etc.).
              >> But that's us. We may call a dog's devotion fawning or grovelling
              (unless we
              >> are its object), but to the dog, it's natural.
              >
              >It's natural to a dog because it serves a practical purpose in
              >the social organization of dogs. That it transfers over to
              >humans in some situations turns out to be beneficial for both
              >species (by and large. There are dog owners, of course, who take
              >just as fearsome advantage of the dog's natural inclinations as
              >the Malfoys did of Dobby's). How about house-elves? Same or
              >different? Were their impulses directed toward humans (wizards)
              >originally, or were they =conditioned= to direct them that way?
              >If the latter, is the resulting symbiosis beneficial?
              >
              >
              >--Margaret Dean
              > <margdean@...>
              >
              >
              >
              >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
              >
            • LSolarion@aol.com
              In a message dated 08/01/2000 10:10:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, margdean@erols.com writes:
              Message 6 of 13 , Aug 3, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 08/01/2000 10:10:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
                margdean@... writes:

                <<
                The next question that comes to mind at this point (at least to
                mine) is how the house-elves came to have that "nature" in the
                first place. What are their origins? Did they come to be
                independently, with the impulse toward service already there? Or
                did some primal wizard or group of wizards alter them somehow?
                If the latter, does that count as enslavement?

                > Our natures are disgusted at this, I
                > think, because we are fallen and prone to rebellion against the idea of
                > service (which we label derogatorily as subservience, obsequiousness,
                etc.).
                > But that's us. We may call a dog's devotion fawning or grovelling (unless
                we
                > are its object), but to the dog, it's natural.

                It's natural to a dog because it serves a practical purpose in
                the social organization of dogs. That it transfers over to
                humans in some situations turns out to be beneficial for both
                species (by and large. There are dog owners, of course, who take
                just as fearsome advantage of the dog's natural inclinations as
                the Malfoys did of Dobby's). How about house-elves? Same or
                different? Were their impulses directed toward humans (wizards)
                originally, or were they =conditioned= to direct them that way?
                If the latter, is the resulting symbiosis beneficial?
                >>

                :::silky voice of the Enterprise computer answers:::"I'm sorry; insufficient
                data to answer these questions."
                Speaking hypothetically, if a wizard in the past had changed the nature of
                house elves to make them love to serve, I suppose you could make a case for
                saying that the particular elves so changed were enslaved. However, there
                just isn't a mugglish analogy. Elves are magical creatures, with different
                natures than ours. Perhaps they are unfallen, and therefore lack the
                instinctive rebelliousness of our sinful natures (though of course Rowling
                offers no such hints, thank goodness). We just don't know.

                However, service seems to be the current dominant value in house-elf society,
                as can be seen by the sudden hostility that greeted Dobby when he preached
                (somewhat defensively) his ideal of freedom. Much like the village idiot
                spouting the praise of folly at a Mensa convention. Poor Dobby can't help it,
                he's a bit, you know, off...but trying to convert others arouses the social
                defense system.
                The symbiosis seems to work to everyone's benefit, I think; at least,
                everyone but Hermione the meddler and Dobby the house-elf village idiot are
                happy with it. If the house-elves see no harm in it, why should we?
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.