Kreacher the Plot Device Elf

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 161814

> >> Magpie:
> > But what's the metaphor? Human slaves don't have a culture where 
> > they're offended at freedom, and enjoy slavery and consider it 
> > an honor, or look down on freed slaves, or feel personally       
> > guilty and want to be punished when they disobey their masters.

> >>a_svirn:
> > Yes, they do. It's actually quite a common thing. Uncle's Tom 
> > Cabin and Gone with the Wind may be different as night and day   
> > in their description of and attitude to slavery, but they both   
> > feature slaves who are affectionate and faithful to             
> > their "families" and for whom parting with those families means 
> > (or would mean) the worst of all disasters. 
> > <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But you can't use Gone with the Wind as an accurate portrayal of the 
attitude of American slaves.  It was written in the 1930's and 
looked back at the South with sepia colored glasses.  And Uncle 
Tom's Cabin, even while giving us "affectionate and faithful" 
slaves, was written expressly to fight *against* slavery.  So it 
wasn't trying to suggest that ending slavery would be cruel to the 
slaves.

But on the flip side, JKR is taking an odd tactic of having only 
Dobby actually express a certain level of unhappiness with the state 
of house-elves.  She's not hinted at a previous house-elf 
rebellion.  No other house-elf has jumped on Dobby's bandwagon.  In 
fact, there's an impression that Dobby would be thrilled to be owned 
by Harry.  And Harry doesn't seem all that bothered to be Kreacher's 
owner, for that matter.

> >>Magpie:
> Basically I guess what I'm saying is...it seems kind of weird to   
> me to say that the house elves are supposed to be an analogy to   
> real life slaves, because real life slaves all loved their        
> masters, and would have been devestated to leave them, and they   
> were just loyal and affectionate with nothing to hold against     
> them. Isn't that kind of a sunny view of slavery? And was it the   
> norm for a slave separated from his/her master to fall into       
> despair the way it actually does seem to be the norm for house    
> elves? Didn't plenty of slaves actively seek freedom? I see the    
> connection that it's owning a sentient being either way, so many   
> of the same morals apply, but just have a problem going beyond    
> that.

Betsy Hp:
For me, I think the analogy goes about as far as the "Lupin equals 
an AIDs patient" analogy goes.  There's definitely some cross over, 
but it's not written as a total parallel.  Honestly, I'm not sure 
where JKR is going to take the house-elf thing.  With one book left 
to go I'm not sure she can squeeze in a freedom for house-elves sub-
plot.

> >>bboyminn:
> <snip>
> So, I think logically some elves would have some degree of ability 
> at reading and writing, but overal I speculate that teaching them 
> to read and write was not a priority for their masters. Their jobs 
> were to cook, clean, and engage in general labor, and therefore   
> had no need to read.
> As a side note: I did not compare Elves to Slaves which I also    
> believe in an inaccurate and unfair comparison. I compared one    
> aspect of Elves to one specific aspect of slaves, and I do think   
> that was an accurate and fair comparason for purposed of          
> illustrating my point.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I would have delved a bit further into my issue with this particular 
comparison earlier, but I really did need to run.  I have the time 
now though, so...

American slaves were not taught to read for one main reason: it 
ruined them as slaves.  Teaching a slave how to read was seen as 
undermining the system.  In fact in "Narrative of the Life of 
Frederick Douglass, An American Slave" Frederick Douglass talks 
about that law and agrees with it (with the full cynicism you can 
imagine).  He agrees that learning to read and write made it 
impossible for him to ever be content with the life of a slave.

House-elves don't require that sort of management or manipulation.  
Not from what we've seen.  We've also seen that a house-elf's magic 
is very different from a wizard's.  So I seriously doubt a wizard 
needs to teach (or is even *able* to teach) a house-elf how to do 
their jobs. (Beyond the, we like lunch at 12:15, fresh flowers 
should go in the yellow room, etc. sort of directions.)  Which means 
that house-elves probably teach each other.

I don't know if house-elves are literate or not.  Dobby understood 
what letters were and that keeping Harry's from him would hurt him 
in some way.  Which does suggest a certain understanding of what 
writing is, IMO.  But if house-elves can't read, I don't think it's 
because of anything wizards may or may not have done.

> >>bboyminn:
> <snip>
> Again, his [Kreacher's] efforts may rise to the level of maginally
> acceptable, but I really don't see them rising above that. He body 
> is old, bent, and weak, and his mind just barely grips reality.   
> That was fine when he was stumbling about the house alone, but his 
> actions when engaging humans show that his mind is clearly
> questionable. Is he really the mad elf you want serving tea to     
> your guest????
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But since Kreacher didn't *want* to serve tea to any of Sirius's 
guests, I think there was a method to his "madness".  Also, I think 
it's important to remember that a house-elf uses *magic* to do much 
of their work.  So what's drudgery to you or me is a snap (literally 
<g>) to a house-elf.  (Though it wouldn't surprise me if we find out 
that Kreacher stooped and stumbled a bit more than need be to add to 
his "I can't do nothing about nothing, I'm just a craaazzzy house-
elf" routine.)

> >>Jeremiah:
> <snip>
> In the USA we have Wallmart and they thrive on individuals who    
> have low self-esteem who can me pushed around (not saying they are 
> all that way, but there is a trend in that company, in            
> particular... plus, it's just an example. There are hundreds of
> others). So, when employees are moved to unionize they are        
> reluctant at first because this would mean hurting/betraying their 
> beloved, abusive corporation.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Oy!  Let's not pick on Walmart, now.  If you live in a rural area 
Walmart can be just about the best thing out there.  That goes for 
both supplies and job opportunities. None of the Walmart employees I 
know have low self-esteem.  Plus, while unions can be good, they 
ain't all that.  Our area is going through some hard times now 
because of a not all that well thought out strike.

Betsy Hp (realizing Jeremiah was just making a point, but too 
dependent on her Walmart to let this one slide by <g>.  Seriously. 
Very small town, big city girl -- if not for the new Super-Walmart 
coming in I couldn't have made my coconut chicken anymore. A divorce 
might have occurred. <bg>)