I’m going to use the format of an academic essay. I chose to do this because I feel like what I want to communicate is all through my writing, rather than other creative modes. I will also create some kind of visual that represents the beauty in said novel to go along with my essay.

Texts: 

Jethro Elsden – https://capx.co/harry-potter-and-the-economics-of-the-wizarding-world/

& 

Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (film)

Numerous attempts have been made to analyze Rowling’s famous economy—insightful analysis found focused on the societal structure in relationship to Harry Potter’s economy: Jethro Elsden’s article The Economics of the Wizarding World. Many studies have been done to determine types of currency used and analyze the world J.K. Rowling created. The realism is present in many elements of modern life, despite a magical setting. Elsden’s analysis takes into account many factors that contributed to the economic running of Harry Potter’s world. The text gives its own analysis of the wizarding word, not only economically but politically. I’m hoping to provide a fresh take on the wizard’s economy in comparison to Elsden’s analysis and also using economic terminology from Lanham, Selzer, etc. 

In his analysis, Elsden discusses the ties between the economy and the social and political within the Harry Potter realm. He is thus making connections between our world and parallels to Rowling’s created world. Rowling is British. Making the assumption she is using the English economic system as a basis for her own, we can attempt to analyze how the currency would operate in real life. 

If we look at Lanham’s analysis of the new world economy and apply his reasoning to the novel of Harry Potter, we see the attention economy created by wizards. Wizarding families accumulate the most wealth over generations, having few main “pureblood” families that are seen as prosperous socially (due to their bloodlines) but also economically. This relates back to Elsden, looking at how the social effects the economical. These pureblood families are symbols of status but also of wealth: their families. These families receive the most attention due to their pureblood ties. They have the flashiest robes, homes, etc. Those who receive the most attention have the most continuing economic access throughout history.

Elsden looks at the politics of the world, and the control the Minister of Magic has—he analyzes the negative effects of politics on the wizards. However, I feel his theory ties to the idea that those who receive the most attention have the most political influence over the Minister of Magic. Mr. Malfoy, a pureblood who receives attention, is able to exert his political influence in the Ministry of Magic. Thus, even an imaginary economy illustrates Lanham’s attention theory. 

The rhetoric in Elsden’s article is negative towards the subject matter. Elsden is persuading us that the idealized world of Harry Potter is not as pretty or enviable as it first seems. He describes the economy as having “virtually no innovation” (Elsden). He also comments there is a “lack of a modern financial system” (Elsden). His language using negative adjectives depicts the subject in a negative light. 

What I gathered from Elsden’s article is that he feels Harry Potter’s economic system would be disastrous if put into real life. 

Also, the money itself is an indicator of attention: galleons are described as fat, gold coins, fat is a blunt adjective, gold already with the connotation of wealth. In real life gold is no longer used as a monetary form because it is problematic. In Harry Potter this limit does not apply. Wizards have a limited amount of currency: 3 pieces of currency (galleons, sickles, and knuts).

I want to eventually understand how to save money long-term and how some people are able to ammass way more wealth than others. I want to understand how people’s actions lead them to be either profitable or poor in their lifetimes. I feel like so much of the economy is just up to chance, or what class a person is born into…it seems to be based on opportunities and luck as much as hard work. I’m also thinking about how to get a job that I love, but a lot of creative jobs seem to be less profitable than science or business jobs.

The author says on page 15 that “A college education…has become an individual good.” Do you agree?

On page 12, the author says she signed-up Jason “in a college considered by many to not be real.” Do you feel a technical college degree has the same equivalence as a regular college degree? Why do you think so many people look down on technical colleges?

Do you think that growing up wealthy is the main factor that determines social class for life?

The author says on page 15 that “education is inherently good and moral.” Do you agree? Why do we have this view/will it ever change?

Do you consider education to be part of the gospel?

Was Jason wronged by the Technical College/is college becoming about making money more than furthering students and helping their ambitions? 

Do you feel education has lessened/widened the gap between lower and upper classes? 

The economy is apparently better than ever before—there are supposedly more jobs than in our parent’s time period—but aren’t all these jobs needing secondary education? So is it more economically profitable for students long-term?

Jason to me seemed to have been wronged by the technical college coaches. He was trying to further his education and instead was met with further roadblocks to his quest for knowledge. But was it a quest for knowledge? I think it was a quest not for knowledge but for money. Jason wanted to make more money for his family someday, and the easiest way, potentially the only way to do that, it by getting a degree. The reading elaborated on how most jobs in today’s economy want a secondary education for their employees. This to me encourages the gap between the lower and upper class and depletes the existence of the middle class. The economy in our parents time created a greater middle class, lessening the gap. In a way, we are going backwards, and undoing this work by making education financially inaccessible to those born without lots of money. Thus, money is required for getting a good job, not education. Technical colleges like this one pretend to be interested in helping Jason, but are just furthering their own economy. This scares me for the economy that we will pass along to our children someday. Soon, it feels like all jobs will require more and more education until not having secondary education is obsolete. 

The article interested me as early as page 3, where the author first started to discuss education accessibility in relationship to social class. This field of study has interested me in the past, dealing with whether the social class a person is born into will determine how educated they become. There definitely seems to be a correlation between wealth and education; those with more money to pay for education end up going to more expensive schools, which generally have higher standards for education than less economically stable schooling environments. This raises the question of how successful a person can be in secondary education. To take the example of Ivy League schools, the majority of children going to these schools are stereotyped as being spoiled, as most students come from money. College is not the ultimate determiner of success; to use Steve Jobs as an example, he as a college dropout became one of the most successful people in history. However, it is a well-known fact that those with more education make more money and are more financially successful in everyday life. So, the question is broached, that taking out the obvious factor of hard work, are kids coming from a privileged background more likely to be successful economically? Unfortunately, this usually proves true. The article continued in this vein. On page 9, the author pointed out that a college degree can be looked at as a form of capital. I found this point to be spot on because when hiring an unknown person to work at a company, the employer will most likely higher whoever is college educated over whoever has just a high school diploma. The final pages of the article analyzed social capital, which to me connected back, because job interviews are conducted socially.

Aileen Wagner & Olive Lemberger

Question 1: Letter and Replying Letter between professor and students, meant to be educational, informative

Question 2: The professor is thorough in responding and gives counterarguments to each argument. There is also history supporting his arguments, showing in-depth thought.

Question 3: Restricted in that it’s a stream of consciousness…but also freed by this, as it allows to say what you are actually feeling. Common knowledge used without research, without having to give evidence.

Aileen Wagner

Stephen Tragesser

Julia Myers

Maria Popieluch

Artifact: Economy of Harry Potter

Rhetorically: relates back to reality, makes us examine our own economic system. Looking for the multiple devices in the film that contribute to the rhetoric. In a film course, it would have different techniques used in each scene. Close-ups of the money used, analyze the economy in the film. Movie persuades us that Harry Potter’s economy is real, because of the detail involved. World-building is more complex than other movies. Harry has more money than Ron, but no family.

I find Zelizer’s article connects back to our class as it examines the narrative behind the economic. It provides the social part on why people categorize their money a certain way (the narrative part) rather than just how people spend their money (the economic part). It connects together the human element that controls the economy, much like our class focuses on the connections between writing and economics. It also introduces psychology: the part that caught my attention the most was when the article interviewed a hairdresser, who also worked in prostitution, who said she categorizes her “dirty money” (Zelizer 491) from her socially-approved earnings from her barber work. This story to me highlights one of the main points of the article, and one that I agree with, that not all economic choices are impartial and logical. This judgement connects back to the other examples of Christmas bonuses made earlier in the article. Zelizer explains that one part of our economy is comes from gifting. I find the gift economy example to contradict Zelizer’s conclusion, where he talks about how the economy is advancing. The part of gifting reminds me of the past time period where a bartering system was used in the economy. Objects with monetary value were used instead of cash. To me, Zelizer’s point that a gift economy makes up today’s economy is valid, but he contradicts his point that our economy is moving forwards. This comment shows regression, whereas other points he made about the new Internet currencies (I assume he was referring to Bitcoin) show forward movement.

A piece of culture (a song, movie, book) I encountered recently that has to do with money is the first Harry Potter movie–Harry goes to pick up his savings from the bank, but it’s in wizard currency (galleons, sickles, etc).

To write a rhetorical analysis, I would start with figuring out how the monetary system of Harry Potter would translate to real life. I would also look at the real life consequences of the book itself being published. I could do research on the number of book sales and how the sale of Harry Potter books helped contribute to the British and American economies.