• Alex_Jones [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Actually it's still tuition based. Harry just has his covered from his trust fund. But this is still a setting where magic can substitute most forms of labor and still there's a poor under class and a fucking slave caste.

    • echognomics [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think the tuition can't be that bad, right? Since all 7 Weasely siblings get to go to Hogwarts based on a single low-ranking government employee's salary? Just adds to the point that poverty and class for Rowling is a sentimental and/or aesthetic thing, since the "hardship" arising from poverty just means living in a rustic country house, having second-hand clothes and pets, and not exclusion from social and educational opportunities.

      • Alex_Jones [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        That's true. My gripe is more that there's an unexplored aspect in the books with having a tuition cost for the equivalent of k-12 education. In a setting where an uneducated person can do all sorts of catastrophic things if left untrained in magic. Then there's the lack of mention of the people who can't afford tuition. The poorest people depicted, as you said areare still very comfortable.

        Like you said, poverty is aesthetic and cozy.