Yes, he’s also compassionate- always, but in this case he said he had been thinking (as an administrator) of getting rid of the subject altogether. I think he would have kept her at Hogwarts post Dolores sacking her out of compassion too, but it was critical that he keep her with everyone on the lookout for the prophecy.

“We’ve already mentioned Voldemort and his belief about power. We can add to that his taking up Slytherin’s crusade against Muggle-borns. The belief that only pureblood wizards should be accepted and valued is nothing short of an oppressive metanarrative, meant to destroy Muggles and Muggle-born wizards.”

Voldemort strikes me more as a power-hungry maniac, willing to do anything to gain power (There is only power and those too weak to seek it (Voldemort, PS)). While his detestation of muggles is well-known, it is a daring bit of extrapolation to equate it to his desire to `wipe-out muggle-borns’. I see him more akin to Timur-i-lang (Tamerlane), for whom the world and all its capacity existed only to boost the greater good (and glory) of Timur. In fact, I seem to recall that the author made a remark about there being muggle-born Death Eaters (cannot find the post now, will try to find it). However, the rabid antipathy of certain purebloods makes it easy for Voldemort to utilise that prejudice and exploit the fanatics as his power-base. Then, we have him attacking Harry (the half-blood) and not Neville (the pureblood) for preference.

Voldemort must be uncomfortably aware of his own half-blood status – and judging by Bella’s reaction in the DoM, she knows of it as well – and he is ruling over the purebloods only because they are afraid of him.

Further, think of his followers. Who follows Voldemort? The corrupt (symbolised by Malfoys), the crazed (Bellatrix), and the cowardly (Pettigrew). Given the diverse crowd at his disposal, we have to ask ourselves, how much of his desire is pure power-lust, and how much of it is ideologically driven.

“Rowling has been explicit in saying that the house-elf story is about slavery”

The problem with this theory is that they are, in some cases at least, `happy slaves’. Hogwarts elves throw out Hermione when she preaches the values of liberty to them (GoF). While it is indeed laudable of Hermione to attempt to free them from their enslavement, the question is – can liberty be forcibly given to them? Can they even keep it and will it be beneficial to them? Further, once liberated, what becomes of house-elves? Hermione does not seem to consider the latter point at all. Naive idealism is unlikely to work.

“Dumbledore entreated Fudge to “extend [the giants] the hand of friendship;” otherwise, “Voldemort will persuade them, as he did before, that he alone among wizards will give them their rights and their freedom!”

There is a rather bitter irony here. We know that the giants were banished during the previous war (Rita’s article, GoF) for supporting Voldemort. Is there any evidence that Dumbledore (or anyone else, for that matter) wanted to end the banishment of the giants before the return of Voldemort? We have no evidence of it. In fact, the statement `if you do not help them, they will go to the enemy’ occurs to wizards only when the enemy is on the doorstep, so to speak. Of course, it is perfectly possible that Dumbledore is using this argument because it is the one most likely to appeal to Fudge, who is the typical `dumb and blind politician’, of the HP series.

Actually, I thought that it was perfectly understandable that the giants send away Hagrid with a flea in his ear because they are remembered only during times of adversity. There is no evidence that anyone tried to help the giants during the peaceful years between the two wars. So – it is no wonder they chose to support Voldemort (for most part, anyway).

But I agree with you that the author is approaching the story keeping a larger perspective. An excellent analysis and I must congratulate you on it.
Regards,
Maidros

Again, wonderful post!

JOhn

We’ll see