Yet in the Potter books, the costs and limits are too often arbitrary.While some might just say "they're just books; get over it," I would still like to address some of her criticisms. I think she misunderstands what it takes to cast a spell. In Rowling's imagined world, it seems that successfully casting a spell demands a combination of what might be called academic skill - you have to study hard as Hermione does to learn all the spells. But for many of them, that is not enough. Sometimes it is important for the wizard to clear his or her mind of all other thoughts or to fill the mind with happy throughts. To cast evil spells such as a death curse, the wizard must truly mean it and wish the victim to die in order for the spell to work. Just as in our real world, it is not enough sometimes simply to study hard to do well academically. Students also need a blend of talent and will as well as intelligence to succeed.
A patronus charm, for example, is awfully difficult - until Rowling wants a stirring scene in which Harry pulls together an intrepid band of students to Fight the Power, whereupon it becomes simple enough to be taught by an inexperienced fifteen year old. Rowling can only do this because it's thoroughly unclear how magic power is acquired. It seems hard to credit academic labour, when spells are one or two words; and anyway, if that were the determinant, Hermione Granger would be a better wizard than Harry. But if it's something akin to athletic skill, why is it taught at rows of desks? And why aren't students worn out after practicing spells?
The low opportunity cost attached to magic spills over into the thoroughly unbelievable wizard economy. Why are the Weasleys poor? Why would any wizard be? Anything they need, except scarce magical objects, can be obtained by ordering a house elf to do it, or casting a spell, or, in a pinch, making objects like dinner, or a house, assemble themselves. Yet the Weasleys are poor not just by wizard standards, but by ours: they lack things like new clothes and textbooks that should be easily obtainable with a few magic words. Why?
And it is clear that the wizards don't have the ability to create something out of nothing. The Weasleys aren't shown just waving their wands and creating wealth because that is not how magic works in this system. There are property rights to possessions. Harry Potter inherits from his parents and from Sirius Black. If any wizard had the ability to simply create wealth, there would be no need for such transferrable property rights. It might seem like an artificial scarcity to Ms. McArdle to accept that this is how things work in Harry Potter's world, but it certainly makes for a better story. You can't just criticize the "low opportunity costs" while ignoring the premises under which the magic world works.
For a better look at economics in the world of Harry Potter, try this analysis from a couple of years ago looking at all sorts of examples of basic economic concepts in Harry Potter.
Harry Potter may seem like he lives in a world where wizards wave a wand and receive instant gratification but that's a view that needs to be demolished by the womping willow.Read the rest for those principles.
Scarcity exists in the magic world just as much as in the muggle world. There are a limited number of tickets to the quidditch world cup, magical creatures only shed so many feathers or hairs to go into wands and not everyone has an invisibility cloak.
JK Rowling's fictional world of magic, the latest instalment of which has just hit the bookshops, has its own central government (the Ministry of Magic), owl postal system, jail, hospital, news media, public transport (both train and bus), not to mention Gringotts Bank and a special wizard currency. There are enough institutions to make Adam Smith salivate.
With scarcity and a monetary system, the Harry Potter series should be a case study for any economics course. Here are the top 10 economic principles in Harry Potter:
0 comments:
Post a Comment