This comment is even more interesting in light of the fact that Rowling herself went through some bad times. So I wonder if she thought she deserved that fate? In keeping with predestination whatever... or did she consider it a test before her true greatness showered her with riches?
It's interesting...it seems like it probably just mirrors the way people think about money a lot of the time. Obviously if the Gaunts were Slytherins they were debauched aristocrats who spent money and disgusting splendor while others starved, so of course they eventually lost it in a fairy-tale-justice sort of way. The Weasleys kind of conflict with that but really don't because they mean something else. They're noble poor--Arthur's held back by his high ideals and other people not being as good men as he is, right? Meanwhile the kids are all doing exceptionally well once they're out in the world. They all have fairly privileged jobs.
Elkins did that post once comparing the series to Christie and I think that's very true. The good people are the ones in the middle of society, not too rich (no artistocrats like the Malfoys who seem kind of foreign and deviant) and not too poor (like the Gaunts who also seem deviant). The good guys are firmly in the middle, sometimes dipping as low as the sons of a milkman or the cheerful bus driver and sometimes going so high as somebody like James. Not that there aren't bad people in this group too (the Dursleys) but when it comes to the stock characters JKR does have a lot of overlap with Christie.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-10-03 09:11 pm (UTC)It's interesting...it seems like it probably just mirrors the way people think about money a lot of the time. Obviously if the Gaunts were Slytherins they were debauched aristocrats who spent money and disgusting splendor while others starved, so of course they eventually lost it in a fairy-tale-justice sort of way. The Weasleys kind of conflict with that but really don't because they mean something else. They're noble poor--Arthur's held back by his high ideals and other people not being as good men as he is, right? Meanwhile the kids are all doing exceptionally well once they're out in the world. They all have fairly privileged jobs.
Elkins did that post once comparing the series to Christie and I think that's very true. The good people are the ones in the middle of society, not too rich (no artistocrats like the Malfoys who seem kind of foreign and deviant) and not too poor (like the Gaunts who also seem deviant). The good guys are firmly in the middle, sometimes dipping as low as the sons of a milkman or the cheerful bus driver and sometimes going so high as somebody like James. Not that there aren't bad people in this group too (the Dursleys) but when it comes to the stock characters JKR does have a lot of overlap with Christie.