A sandwich/House Elf Storyline/JKR's Intent

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 178764

> Magpie:
> No, it doesn't come up. But the Hermione of GoF and OotP brought up 
> nothing BUT that. Wanting to send them to safety doesn't mean that 
> she can't also want them freed, but it also doesn't mean she is 
> demanding they be freed. She didn't demand it about Kreacher.

zgirnius:
Hermione in GoF and OotP was always bringing up nothing BUT House 
Elves being freed. And her heart was in the right place, but she was 
going about it wrong. We were shown in GoF the plight of an elf who 
is freed against her wishes. It was not a good thing. Winky was less 
happy, less productive,just...less. Why? Because freedom was 
something wizards did to her, without consulting her or respecting 
her wishes. The real solution is to first have elves want to be free, 
and then free them.

> Magpie:
> I thought Kreacher's story made clear they don't think on that 
> level. Kreacher fought for Voldemort by getting Sirius killed, 
> because he wasn't fighting against anybody who "would oppress him" 
> as a political act. He was loyal to people who were kind to him. 
> None of which has to do with House Elves deciding not to be slaves 
> anymore, as is obvious when Kreacher fights the battle and is still 
> mentioned in his old capacity in the last scene. 

zgirnius:
Could you explain, please, which people who were kind to them the 
Hogwarts House Elves were being loyal to, when they joined in the 
fight? They are described as being led by Kreacher, who is shouting 
about the defender of Hosue Elves (Reg, I presume) and fighting the 
Dark Lord. I have already conceded Kreacher if you want him to be 
acting only out of loyalty to poor, dead Regulus - why are the rest 
of them there?

> Magpie:
> No, I think she means the default assumption is that what's 
actually 
> on the page is what's actually in the story. Hermione could have 
> become the Israeli Prime Minister for all we know, but it's not in 
> the story because it's not on the page so that's not the ending she 
> was written. Hermione doing anything whatsoever in her professional 
> life is not part of the epilogue. The ending written on the page is 
> that she has babies. 

zgirnius:
Hermione marrying a totally impoverished, and less smart, and less 
ambitious, and less magically talented Ron, and having babies, seems 
to call for someone in that family to have a career. Food being an 
exception to Gamp's law, and all, and there being no mention of Lupin-
like marks of poverty affecting her, her husband, or her kids. And 
how did Ron get that car? 

Anyway, the canon we do have is Hermione wanting a career (leafing 
through numerous pamphlets in OotP) and wanting to do some good in 
the world (DH, in her conversation with Scrimgeour). I would have 
needed conversation implying stay-at-home-momhood to draw that 
conclusion. (It's not there). 

> Pippin:
> But the whole point of the passage, as I understood it, is that
> no matter how good the master is or how willing the slave,
> one of them may make a mistake and the slave will have to
> punish himself, just as we saw in canon.
  
> Magpie:
> So shouldn't she be opposed to letting Harry act in his position as 
> slave master at all? 

zgirnius:
There are circumstances in which Harry must act. For example, if 
Harry's house is on fire, Kreacher probably still needs Harry's 
permission to leave it. (E. g. Winky was having difficulty running 
during the DE attack in GoF, because Crouch's orders to her had nto 
covered that contingency).

Next, consider the time at 12 GP. Other than matters directly 
relating to Horcruxes (and, that actually benefited Kreacher, who was 
still in the condition of having failed to destroy the locket as 
ordered) what orders did Harry give to Kreacher? I recall none. 

So when breakfast appeared on the table for the young master, and 
Kreacher ordered him to go wash his hands...Harry should go make 
himself a second breakfast?

Of course, Harry could free Kreacher, but even with the issue of 
Kreacher's loyalties apparently resolved, is this really a good idea? 
If Kreacher desired it, or to serve a different master, I would 
agree. But if it led to the disintegration of his personality a la 
Winky...I could not agree it would be the right thing to do.
 
> Magpie:
> That's a nice argument against slavery from outside the books, but 
I 
> don't particularly see how it relates to the books. What's the big, 
> clever warning against slavery I'm supposed to be getting from HP--
> that the author's actually showing in the story? 

zgirnius:
The misery of the three slave figures we meet up close and personal 
seems a big downside, to me. Dobby suffered at the hands of unkind 
masters, true, so his story could be taken to have the moral of being 
kind to slaves, except that he was the one who wanted freedom, got 
it, appreciated it, and died a hero. But Winky? She seems to have 
been treated as a member of that family, until she endangered 
Crouch's reputation. At which point, Crouch did not torture her. He 
set her free, and she became miserable. Kreacher? His master was so 
upset about the mistreatment of his House Elf it apparently inspired 
him to sacrifice himself to make Voldemort mortal once more. In light 
of what we know of him, I don't think he intended the hell he put 
Kreacher through for the next 18 or so years. It was the magic that 
keeps the house-elves slaves that did it to him, really, despite teh 
good intentions of his kind master.

> Betsy Hp:
> If that's the case, it means JKR failed as a writer.  Her imagery 
> overwhelmed her message.

zgirnius:
I walked away with the distinct impression that Slytherin has its 
good points, and that a number of Slytherins opposed Voldemort. The 
lack of Slytherins in the DA did nothing to dispell this impression 
for me.

> Betsy Hp:
> Heh.  When you're writing an epic hero's journey type story?  It's 
> *always* the hero's job.  That's how these things work.  Ender 
> (of "Ender's Game") was about thirteen years old (gosh, maybe 
> younger) when he "saved" humanity.  Mary (of "The Secret Garden") 
was 
> I think around 10 or so when she healed the darkness of 
Misselthwaite 
> Manor.
> 
> Harry didn't need, nor did I expect him to, *lead* the WW.  What I 
> did expect was that he'd *enlighten* the WW.  You know, bring some 
> light into that brutal darkness. Instead, I fear he just made 
himself 
> comfortable with the dark.

zgirnius:
Harry did save the world, in precisely the same sense that Ender did. 
(Though his methods were different. Ender killed numerous sentient 
beings in the process, unlike Harry). While Ender did eventually also 
bring enlightenment to his world, that was as an adult, in...sequels 
to the hero's journey epic.