Kreacher
cubfanbudwoman
susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net
Mon Mar 1 19:02:40 UTC 2004
No: HPFGUIDX 91857
--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, tyler maroney <tmar78 at y...>
wrote:
> Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote:
> Yikes! Would *you* want Kreacher working in
> the Hogwarts kitchen? *I* wouldn't! He's such
> an unpleasant little bugger--who could get along
> with him? And I wouldn't trust him w/ my food
> preparation either!
>
>
>
> Tyler:
> But if he'd had his memory removed they could
> re-educate him, maybe make him nicer. After all,
> didn't Dumbledore say he was a nasty little bugger
> cause he was made that way by wizards? If that social
> programming was removed, he'd be a blank slate.
> There might just be a chance of helping him become a
> nice guy then (in theory).
>
> I dunno...I just find it hard to accept that Dumbledore
> had no other option but to continue letting him live at
> HQ knowing he was a potential danger. There just had to
> be another way. Isn't there some way of magically putting
> someone in an indefinite state of suspended animation maybe?
Susan again:
I don't think DD meant that Kreacher is totally and exclusively the
result of how the witches & wizards in his life have treated him. I
took that comment to mean more universally that witches & wizards
bear some responsibility for the condition in which house elves &
other creatures find themselves, and that if those creatures are
suspicious or resentful of wizards, then wizards would be wise to
acknowledge that some of the blame lies w/ themselves for their
treatment of said creatures.
I also have to question how "simple" or even permissible it would be
to remove someone's memory entirely! It strikes me as an AWFULLY
drastic & likely unethical thing to do to someone. And if we're
talking about treating creatures more carefully & respectfully, then
just deciding to REMOVE a memory because the creature seems dangerous
hardly seems an example of such treatment.
Siriusly Snapey Susan
More information about the HPforGrownups
archive