What are House Elves (was: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 180155

> Mike:
> Even Dobby didn't reveal the Malfoy's secrets, he never came out 
and 
> told Harry of the Diary that Lucius had. He never actually 
> participated in a plot that ran counter to his master's objectives. 
> Dobby just wanted Harry to be safe, he did nothing that would 
thwart 
> Lucius from getting his revenge on the Weasleys. Kreacher not only 
> revealed things about Sirius to Narcissa, he actively took part in 
> the plot to get Harry to the MoM.

a_svirn:
Of course he did. He rebelled against Sirius (as far as he was able). 
Good for him. 

> Mike:
> How should we interpret the House Elf condition? They speak in 
> simplistic terms and for the most part adopt their master's 
positions 
> towards others. They keep their master's secrets and aren't 
supposed 
> to speak ill of them. Only Dobby called this 
condition "enslavement", 
> the rest of them and DD, if I'm remembering correctly, called it 
> their "enchantment". Their reason d'etre is to serve.

a_svirn:
Yes, but not to any master. They want to serve a good and true 
master. Kreacher simply did not accept Sirius as one. Because Sirius 
had rebelled against his family and was disowned by them. 

> Mike: 
> So, are house elves cognizant of their master's political leanings, 
> or are they simply reiterating what they've heard their masters say 
> about a particular subject? 


a_svirn:
I think Hermione answered this particular question. They aren't 
concerned in the wizarding politics. They only want to serve their 
true masters' interests. 


> Mike:
Does their internalizing of their 
> master's positions mean they understand the ramifications of those 
> positions, or are they reacting instinctively with just a little 
more 
> intelligence than a dog?
> 
> To my way of thinking, house elves as a group may be magical 
beings, 
> but they have only the intelligence needed to perform their duties 
> according to their enchantment. Kreacher doesn't understand Harry's 
> question about escaping the Cave's Inferi. He doesn't comprehend 
the 
> meaning behind the question, because he only knows he did as he was 
> told by his master. The esoterics of the question eludes Kreacher, 
> even though he too is a magical being.

a_svirn:
What is so esoteric about that question? Elves aren't the world' best 
thinkers, yes. But they aren't completely stupid either. Certainly 
they can follow instructions and keep secrets better than, say, 
Hagrid. 

> Mike:
> Dobby's simplistic approach to thwart Harry's return to Hogwarts, 
and 
> his follow up effort to get him to leave doesn't show significant 
> depth of thought. I'll take the approach that House Elves are 
simple 
> minded automatons, for the most part, unless someone wants to 
> convince me otherwise.

a_svirn:
You'll have to cancel the entire OotP plot, for that approach to hold 
water. 
 
> 
> > a_svirn:
> > Sirius had rebelled against his family. I think it is only  
> > fair that his family paid him back by disowning him 
> > <snip> 
> > Sirius rebelled against the family, and Kreacher rebelled 
> > against Sirius. Seems logical to me.
> 
> Mike:
> The family disowned Sirius, sure, I've no problem with that. 
Kreacher 
> taking it upon himself to rebel against Sirius on behalf of the 
rest 
> of the deceased Black family is what I'm not buying. 
> 
> If Kreacher was shown as inable to move off the dime towards 
> transferring his allegiences, as seen in OotP and HBP, I'd have 
> bought it. But in DH, Kreacher comes to think of Harry as his 
master. 
> So it should have been easy for him to transfer his allegience to 
> Sirius, an actual Black. 

a_svirn:
It's like saying that it would be easy for Harry to pledge his 
allegiance to Sirius Black on the grounds that Sirius was his 
godfather. Never mind, that as far as Harry knew at the time Sirius's 
had betrayed his parents to Voldemort. For Kreacher Sirius was the 
family traitor, the black sheep of the family, pardon the pun. (Red 
sheep, actually.) It would have been wonderful indeed if he had 
greeted him as a loyal elf should greet his master. 

> 
> > > Mike: 
> > > Shouldn't Kreacher have had more of a reason to betray Sirius 
> > > than he broke his mother's heart by leaving? Shouldn't his 
> > > returning have been an occasion for celebration for Kreacher? 
> > 
> > a_svirn:
> > Was it a cause for celebration for Walburga?
> 
> Mike:
> If it broke her heart when Sirius left, as Kreacher seems to 
believe, 
> then wouldn't it have been joyful if he were to return? Shouldn't 
> that be the thinking of Kreacher if he is just mimicking his dead 
> mistress' attitudes?

a_svirn:
It was his lawless ways that broke her heart, mostly. His betrayal. I 
am sure she would rather see her eldest son dead, than fraternizing 
with mudbloods and werewolves. 

> Mike:
> I'm not counting the portrait of Walburga, mind you. She was little 
> more than than a raving banshee, screaming at everything and 
> everyone. 

a_svirn:
You may not count it, but Kreacher certainly did. And frankly, I 
don't understand why you shouldn't count her portrait. If 
Dumbledore's portrait could happily pull strings throughout DH, why 
couldn't Walburga influence Kreacher? 


> Mike:
> <snip> Harry looks upon 
> every being as an individual until he learns to see differently 
from 
> his friends (Ron) or how the rest of the WW treats them as a whole.
> When The Trio meet Winky, Ron says "So that's a house-elf".^4 Harry 
> then meets a whole lot more of them at Hogwarts. He soon lumps 
Winky 
> in with the rest, albeit as a dismissed house elf. He starts to 
look 
> at them as a species, not as individuals. Dobby was a special case 
> from the beginning and stayed a special case because of his oddball 
> leanings.

a_svirn:
On the contrary. It was only because Hermione explained him about 
generic house-elves' psychology Harry managed at last to understand 
Kreacher. 

> Mike:
<snip>But, a_svirn, I think you're doing what 
> Hermione did, assigning human values to house elves. 

a_svirn:
No, I don't. I am saying that from purely human point of view it is 
impossible to treat your own slave with respect, because owning him 
or her is in itself disrespectful. How it is translated into elvish 
way of thinking is a different matter. Perhaps he would think that 
kicks and slaps are the expression of respect and affection, but we 
know better, don't we?  

> Mike:
What is respect 
> as far as Kreacher is concerned? Serving the noble house of Black 
is 
> my answer. 

a_svirn:
There is some semantic confusion here. Serving noble house of Black 
may be a respectful occupation for a decent house-elf, yes. But for 
Harry to treat someone with respect would mean at the very least to 
treat them as an equal. 

> Mike:
That's what Harry gives back to Kreacher and suddenly 
> Harry is his new master. Sirius never gave that back to Kreacher 
> because Sirius couldn't get over his hatred for everything Black. 
> Still, I don't get why Kreacher shouldn't be pleased to have a 
Black 
> to serve again. 

a_svirn:
Because Sirius was not a true Black. He was a blood traitor, who had 
denounced his family. 

> > a_svirn:
> >  All in all I'd say Harry could be pardoned if he saw all 
> > Slytherins as a group, and an unpleasant one at that. But in 
> > fact his attitude towards them was always personal <snip>
> 
> Mike:
> I disagree. I think Harry started out thinking of individuals, but 
> during his time in the WW came to think of all Slytherins as 
> belonging to that hated class of people that align themselves with 
> Voldemort. He's not simple minded, like the elves, so he 
understands 
> there are degrees of Slytheriness. It's not until DH when he 
becomes 
> aware of Slytherins that actually fought against Voldemort that he 
> modifies his view of *all* Slytherins. 

a_svirn:
I didn't notice that his view on all Slytherins has been modified. 
And why should it? It's like judging all elves by Dobby's example. 

a_svirn, wishing everyone a very happy New Year!