JKR, Harry, and the nature of House-Elves: (Was: "Morality" and "tolerance" in

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 178905

> a_svirn:
> > When and what did do anything in the last two books to stop their
> self abuse? She did no such thing. She hasn't done a thing to 
improve
> Kreacher's lot. Kreacher's lot is exactly as it was – Harry still 
owns
> > him and still makes use of him. And Harry never was a cruel 
master to
> > begin with: he might have loathed his slave, but he never abused 
him.
> > Granted, he stopped loath Kreacher, but Hermione can't claim 
credit
> > for that. It was Kreacher's story that made the difference. What
> > Hermione did do, Jen, she used her newfound insight in the elvish
> > nature and psychology to help her slave-owning friend to convert 
an
> > unhappy, rebellious and potentially dangerous slave into happy, 
loyal
> > and obedient one. That's what her social activism came to. She 
changed
> > sides.
> >
> Carol responds:
> 
> Forgive me. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just puzzled. What *should*
> or *could* Hermione have done differently? 

a_svirn:
Nothing, apparently. Not in the world of HP books as we know it. And 
I am not being sarcastic either. The point of my post was that social 
activism proved a failure and Hermione accepted that. And by 
accepting it she sided with slave-owners. Because it was the only 
thing she could do, poor girl. Because that's how Rowling created her 
world. 

> Carol:
Should she (and Harry) have
> ldft Kreacher as he was, miserable, filthy, hostile, and dangerous? 
Or
> worse, set him free in that state, forcing him to leave what he
> considered to be his home?

a_svirn:
The point under that particular discussion was self-abuse, though, 
not house-elves emancipation as such. Did Hermione stop or try to 
stop or plan to try to stop house elves and more particularly 
Kreacher from inflicting self-punishment on themselves? She didn't. 
she was distressed by the sight but she did nothing to prevent its 
repetition. And before you ask again, yes, I think she couldn't. I 
believe I stated it time and again: she couldn't do it because they 
are different and she cannot change it. And by DH she had accepted it.

> Carol: 
> Kreacher is not only clean and happy now, no longer spouting
> pure-blood superiority propaganda and epithets like "Mudblood," he
> actually *led the Hogwarts House-Elves* in the battle against the 
DEs
> and Voldemort--an independent action that had nothing to do with an
> order from Harry (who is actually talked out of issuing such an 
order
> by, of all people, Ron(. Kreacher and the House-elves *chose* to 
fight
> in the battle (and then return to work, which is what they like to 
do).

a_svirn:
So what? Do you take it as an encouraging sign of Enlightenment and 
Reformation? Do you think it indicates that he is going to be less 
servile hereafter? Could be, but I think not. He was perfectly 
capable of independent acts when we first met him. That's how he 
managed bring Sirius's ruin about. 

> Carol:
> If Hermione "changed sides," might it be that she was wrong in the
> first place? Or rather, that she realized that the House-Elves 
really
> did not want freedom and perhaps could not be freed, at least en 
masse?

a_svirn:
It would appear so, yes. The fact still remains that she *did* change 
sides despite Rowling's assurances to the contrary.

> Carol:
 Until and unless that fundamental need to serve a
> human master changes, kind treatment and understanding are all that
> can be done. And the worst thing possible is to give a House-Elf 
like
> the unreformed Kreacher whom no family would employ, much less pay,
> his "freedom." That would be sick and heartless and cruel.
> 
> You can't force a House-Elf into a human mold any more than you can
> turn a boy into a girl by dressing him as one (or vice versa). If 
you
> own a House-Elf that you can't free and who does not want to be 
freed,
> you treat him the way he wants to be treated. That's what both Harry
> and Hermione eventually understand. (Ron, I think, knew it all 
along.)

a_svirn:
Yes. I do not dispute that. I do, however, question Rowling's 
motivation in inventing such sickening creatures. 

> Carol:
> While I don't consider JKR's interviews as having any value myself,
> people in this thread keep sying that she equated House-elf slavery
> with human slavery (an idea suggested to her by a questioner, BTW).
> However, she also said, "House-elves are different from wizards; 
they
> have their own brand of magic, and the ability to appear and 
disappear
> within the castle is necessary to them if they are to go about their
> work unseen, as house-elves traditionally do," which indicates that
> House-Elves really are based on brownies or hobs or some similar
> creature from folklore with different values and traditions from
> humans. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=73 

a_svirn:
I'd like to point out though that brownies are NOT slaves. They 
exchange their services for clothing and footwear. That is to say, 
exactly the things house-elves abhor. It would appear therefore, that 
their values and customs are closer to human values and customs than 
to their many times removed cousins' ones. 


> Carol:
> In the end, it's *Kreacher* who leads the Hogwarts House-Elves to
> "glorious rebellion," not against Houese-Elf "enslavement" but 
against
> the enemy of both of Kreacher's acknowledged masters, Harry Potter 
and
> the beloved Regulus Black, "champion of House-Elves." 

a_svirn:
I beg to differ. He leads them into a battle. More specifically, into 
a *wizarding* battle, which outcome will change not a thing for his 
own kind. Nor would he want it to. 

> Carol:
The Hogwarts
> House-Elves don't want change 

a_svirn:
hear, hear! One either preserves status quo or rebels, but not both 
at the same time.


> Carol, hoping that Harry took the opportunity to thank and praise
> Kreacher when he requested that sandwich and imagining Kreacher
> smiling for the first time in seventeen years

a_svirn:
Yes I was sort of imagining this kind of scene myself:

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
She made them high or lowly,
And order' d their estate

All things bright and beautiful...