God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 178859

> > Magpie:
> > No they aren't. They're just commenting on the last line 
> > calling attention to Harry owning a slave. Whether or not 
> > he actually asked him for the sandwich or not isn't really
> > an issue--Nobody's said Harry's bad for being tired and 
> > hungry. 
>

bboyminn:
> 
> There is a certain preceived ...hummm...bitterness???... to 
> you're response of such that I can't tell if you are being 
> serious or sarcastic, or perhaps a blend of both. 
> 
> Here is my point, the last line IS NOT about Harry owning
> a slave, nor is it intended to call attention to Harry owning
> a slave. It is about a hungry boy wanting a sandwich and
> speculating on possible ways to get one. People are objecting
> to Harry 'wondering if /Kreacher/ would bring him a sandwich'. 

Magpie:
I don't feel bitter--and I wasn't meaning to be sarcastic. (I might 
have been at times--can't remember--but the whole post wasn't 
supposed to be.) I didn't really care about the House Elves--I didn't 
like them, and wasn't really invested in them being freed but never 
thought Harry would end owning one. I've no doubt that last sentence 
isn't supposed to be about Harry owning a slave but for me at least 
that's what it says louder than anything else.  I think it's just a 
nice snapshot of Harry back "home" and having a nice snack before 
bed, and Kreacher just happens to be part of that for him now. This 
is their relationship. 

Maybe this reading seems odd to you, but readings where Harry's doing 
anything but thinking of asking the House Elf he owns and has made 
meals for his master before seem equally torturous and odd to me. 
Whether or not Harry followed through on getting his sandwich that's 
the last image of him I have.

I actually do agree with all your arguments about why Harry can't let 
Kreacher go. That's the thing. I really do think that JKR set it up 
so that Harry owns Kreacher while still championing the values she 
wants him to champion. It's not a crime at all for him to think about 
asking for a sandwich or to order one from Kreacher. It's a happy 
ending just the way it would be for Ulysses to come home and have the 
slave bring him wine, only in a book from 2007 that takes place in 
the present.  

Steve:

> I will concede that IF Harry DID ask Kreacher then he was
> probably not being very sensitive. Further, if Harry did
> ask, I certainly don't think it would have been in the form
> of 'Kreacher I order you to bring me a sandwich', knowing
> Harry, it would have more likely been, 'Kreacher, if you 
> can, would you bring me a sandwich when it's convenient'. 

Magpie:
This just seems like an odd reading to me. First, the text doesn't 
seem to indicate that Harry or the narrator would consider it 
insensitive for Harry to ask Kreacher for a sandwich. It seems odd to 
write the line "wondering if Kreacher might bring him a sandwich 
there" to mean "wondering if Kreacher might bring him a sandwich 
there but of course he would never ask such a thing because it would 
be insensitive." If he thought it would be insensitive I don't think 
he'd be thinking it and ending the story on it. And "Kreacher, if you 
can, would you bring me a sandwich when it's convenient" is a bit 
misleading--Kreacher's magically compelled to fulfill the request and 
has no other purpose in life. It's like when you say to a 
waitress, "When you get a chance, can I get some more coffee?" when 
of course you're just ordering coffee. Only Kreacher doesn't have any 
other customers and he lives to serve Harry.


> > Magpie:
> > I think it is simplistic and you and others are describing 
> > why: Harry does want to own a slave at all. ... He'd let him
> > go if only Kreacher didn't need him to be his master, ...
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Yes, exactly. (again...confused...serious or sarcastic?)

Magpie:
Serious. I think the confusion is that you're framing it in terms of 
Harry doing something bad when the weirdness (for some of us) is in 
this fantasy of noble slave-holding the author's created. 


> > Magpie:
> > It's slavery because Harry owns him as property and for all
> > the reasons House Elf slavery works. You can treat your 
> > slave with kindness and respect and still have him be your 
> > slave. House Elves *want* to be slaves as long as they accept
> > you as their master. 
> > 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Well, again, I can't tell the if you are being seriousness or
> sarcastic. But there is one very critical point you have to 
> accept, House Elves REALLY ARE different than Human Slavery. 

Magpie:
They are different from human slavery, but they are slaves. Harry 
does own Kreacher as property. This can't be gotten around, imo. 
Treating Kreacher as not a slave doesn't change his position, only 
freeing him does (for the worse, as it happens). Harry knows Kreacher 
is his property, *his* House Elf, and has since HBP. Kreacher knows 
Harry is his Master (and calls him that). When Harry does make 
requests of Kreacher or is served by him, he knows this is so.

Steve:> 
> Yes, it's true that human slave owners had a long list of
> excuses for slavery, one being that slaves liked being slaves,
> but in the case of House Elves that is exactly true and 
> correct. House Elves are a race of creatures that live to
> server. That is a fact, a fact that does not mirror or
> parallel itself in the real world. 

Magpie:
It does mirror that excuse, though, which some people recognize and 
are made uncomfortable by. House Elves are based on helper elves, but 
I think they also do have things in common with human slaves--helper 
elves, as you point out, choose to help humans. House Elves also 
prefer to serve, but they are not free while brownies and Shoemaker's 
elves are. JKR introduced that aspect to it in the story and in 
interviews.  

Steve:> 
> Elves to not want to be slaves in the traditional human sense,
> but they do very much want to serve wizards, and they do it 
> with generations of honor and loyalty. And their efforts to
> do this far far predate Harry Potter.

Magpie:
Brownies don't want to be slaves in the traditional human sense but 
to me it seems like House Elves do. Brownies choose to serve people 
and leave if they get insulted. House Elves can't leave. They're 
punished when they disobey. They're owned and inherited. Their 
situation is different from human slaves in many ways, but when I 
look at Brownies the word "slave" doesn't come to mind at all, while 
it does with house Elves. 

Steve:
> 
> It is wizards who have most certainly exploited this nature 
> of house elves, and certain most of them have done it in a
> self-serving way. But the exploitation by wizards doesn't 
> erase the core nature of elves. 

Magpie:
No, I agree it doesn't. Which is why it seems like House Elves need 
good masters more than they need freedom, which can destroy them.

 
> > Magpie:
> > JKR did it. But yes, real humans are not House Elves so 
> > it's inaccurate to project the feelings and thoughts enslaved
> > humans would have onto House Elves. ...
> > 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Yes, JKR said House-Elves were symbolic of slavery, but
> symbols are not reality; a symbol of the sun is not the sun.
> House-elves symbolize something that is similar to the plight 
> of human slaves, and equal, or even more, complicated than 
> human slavery. I believe that was part of the point. That this
> is a problem, but it does not have any easy solution. Freeing 
> elves DOES go against their very nature. When freed, they seek
> to encumber themselves with a new wizard/elf association. 

Magpie:
But what kind of symbol? What's the symbol supposed to be saying 
about human slavery? I usually get how a symbol of the sun represents 
the sun. I don't quite get what this story is saying about human 
slavery if you're saying they're a symbol of slavery. I mean, am I 
supposed to look at human slaves and say, "This problem doesn't have 
an easy solution because freedom is against their nature that they're 
born with and if we free them they'll just try to get themselves 
enslaved again." That's the situation Harry is facing, but I don't 
know if too many of his readers can really follow his lead there 
where freeing slaves is too radical. (A position that people have 
held historically, certainly.) That's what the whole story seems to 
most logically be saying to me, even if I don't believe that's the 
author's intention.


Steve:
That's good for Harry, but not
> necessarily good for Kreacher. 
> 
> And, yes, I am aware that Human Slave owners used similar
> arguments, and in reality, there was a small bit of truth in
> what they said. 

Magpie:
I'm not sure what truth you're referring to there. Though as an 
aside, I'm not so sure it's just good for Harry but not for Kreacher--
it's not like Harry's got a bad deal with Kreacher. When somebody's 
making you awesome meals and things there's a point where you can't 
completely pretend it's a sacrifice, as that last line in canon seems 
to imply. He would let Kreacher go, but it's not so bad eating his 
cooking.


> > Magpie:
> > If there's no problem to his owning (He does own him. He 
> > inherited him.) Kreacher what does he have to deal with at 
> > some point in the best possible way? Isn't he already doing
> > that? What's missing that people think Harry and Hermione 
> > ought to do in the future that we're not told they're doing
> > or do?

> bboyminn:
> 
> I see no problem with Harry 'owning' Kreacher /BECAUSE/ I feel
> confident that Harry will face it and deal with it. 

Magpie:
I'm asking what that means--just because it seems like he's already 
doing that. As you say, this story is over. Any radical change in the 
state of Kreacher or House Elves is another story that isn't written. 
Do you mean Harry just will be a responsible owner?

Steve:
> A lot of the so-called unresolved plot points are really
> just atmosphere carrying the story forward and fleshing out
> the wizard world, but when it comes to the last couple of
> books, things need to get focused, and they need to focus
> on Harry and Voldemort, which they did.

Magpie:
Yes, that's how it ultimately seemed to me too. I don't have a 
problem with House Elves not being freed. I do think it's weird to 
end with Harry owning one on that happy note, but it does ultimately 
seem like just atmosphere with the elves providing plot points. He 
gets Kreacher and a magic wand and other magical stuff.

-m