Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
a_svirn
a_svirn at yahoo.com
Sun Nov 26 19:06:32 UTC 2006
No: HPFGUIDX 161995
> a_svirn wrote:
> <snip>
> > So I think it is rather clever of Rowling to give us a perfect
> > excuse on a silver platter – slaves who aren't human. And how
eager
> > are folks to leap to this excuse! Even Harry went from being
> > revolted to being noble and thinking of slave-holding in terms
> > of "responsibility" in a blink of an eye. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
> But what choice does Harry have? He can't set Kreacher free. To do
so
> would be extremely *irresponsible* and dangerous.
a_svirn:
Of course he can't set Kreacher free. I did say that sending
Kreacher to Hogwarts was a very good temporary solution. Provided,
that is, that Harry would have stuck to it. He didn't, though. As
soon as he found himself in a difficulty he used his power over
Kreacher without much ado.
> Carol:
He's in a position
> similar to that of Petunia when he was placed on her doorstep
(except
> that he doesn't have to feed and clothe his charge--I've already
> expressed my wish that Harry would order him to at least wear a
clean
> loincloth!). Granted, Kreacher isn't an infant, but he can no more
be
> set loose to fend for himself than Baby!harry could, however
different
> the reasons.
a_svirn:
Now, that's a strange thing to say. Kreacher can fend for himself
very good indeed. It is not the touching anxiety for his well-being
that stoped Harry (and indeed Dumbledore) from freeing him. The real
reason was that Kreacher was too dangerous for them to set loose.
Dumbledore made no bones about that, too. *He* didn't speak of
responsibility. He just pointed out that Kreacher knew far too much
and was far too deep in Bella's confidence. That makes him more like
a prisoner of war, than a defenceless infant. Except that Harry
would have afforded more courtesy to a Death Eater than to a house-
elf. No Geneva Convention for non-humans.
More information about the HPforGrownups
archive