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

Carol justcarol67 at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 8 01:38:04 UTC 2007


No: HPFGUIDX 178907

> 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:
Since she wasn't the mistress (owner, if you prefer) of any
House-Elves, of course she couldn't, either on the individual level or
on a larger scale. She can neither free the House-Elves (thank
goodness) nor order them to stop harming themselves because she has no
authority over them. (Kreacher does, finally, give her a nod of
respect, or so it seems to Harry, because she understood him and
explained his thought process to Harry.) Nor was Harry Dobby's master,
so he couldn't order Dobby not to abuse himself, even after Dobby was
free. (Whether Dobby was acting under compulsion or from deeply
ingrained social conditioning and habit is unclear. I think the
latter.) With regard to Kreacher's self-abuse, the only question that
makes sense to me is whether Harry, as Kreacher's master, could order
him to stop. He fails to do so when Kreacher regards *Regulus* as his
master (whom he has failed, despite repeated attempts), but once
Kreacher acknowledges Harry as his master, IIRC, the self-abuse stops.
If Harry gives him no incentive to disobey an order and no reason to
speak ill of him (the only two reasons why the House-Elves we see
abuse themselves), the problem will stop. We don't see the House-Elves
at Hogwarts abusing themselves. (Winky, who regards the Crouches as
her masters and abuses herself through neglect and butterbeer, is
another matter.)

Carol earlier: 
> > 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. <snip>

Carol:
I take it as a sign that Kreacher is capable of independent action and
leadership (maybe, in part, because he's Harry Potter's House-Elf). 
And he didn't deliberately bring about Sirius Black's ruin; he was
helping to lure Harry to the MoM. A *fake* Sirius was only the bait;
the real Sirius was distracted by an injury to Buckbeak. He was never
supposed to go to the MoM at all. That aside, surely leading the
House-Elves in open rebellion against the Dark Lord is better than
secretly plotting with the Dark Lord's supporters to lure his young
nemesis into danger. Of course, he was always capable of independent
acts. But the nature and quality of those acts changed. Now he's
fighting in the name of the hero he regards as the champion of
House-Elves, not Harry but Regulus. IOW, he understands that
House-Elves have the right to fair treatment, the right not to be
tortured and abused. He's fighting for the cause that Regulus died
for. You may not see progress there. I see a complete turnaround. And
Kreacher has a lot more influence over the other House-Elves than
Hermione did in GoF, imposing her human ideas on them without
respecting their feelings and desires. He knows exactly what they
want. It's what he wants himself.

Carol earlier:
> > In the end, it's *Kreacher* who leads the Hogwarts House-Elves to
"glorious rebellion," not against House-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:
I disagree. Yes, it's a wizarding battle, but suppose that Voldemort
had won? Dobby said back in CoS that when Voldemort was powerful
before Godric's Hollow, "House-Elves were treated like vermin." And we
saw how Voldemort's followers, the Malfoys, treated Dobby. Harry
imagines Yaxley torturing Kreacher. And we know how Voldemort himself
treated Kreacher. If the DEs took over Hogwarts with the right of
masters, how do you think they would treat the House-Elves? I don't
think we'd see the happy House-Elves we saw in GoF. The House-Elves
are fighting, not for Harry Potter, who is, so far as they know, dead,
but to prevent Hogwarts from falling to Voldemort, the torturer of
Kreacher. "Fight, fight, fight, for my master, defender of
House-Elves! Fight the Dark Lord in the name of brave Regulus! Fight!"
They're standing up *for themselves*, for the right of House-Elves to
the fair treatment they're used to receiving at Hogwarts, fighting the
abuser of House-Elves in the name of a hero who died for a House-Elf.
It has nothing to do with wizards at all except a choice of masters
(the regular Hogwarts staff or the DEs).

Carol earlier:
> 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 again:

Just to be clear, I meant that they don't want a change from the fair
treatment they received under Dumbledore and, it would appear, Snape.
That's the status quo they want to preserve, the House-Elf's idea of
la dolce vita. They don't want a change to new, cruel masters. I never
said they were rebelling. If they were, they'd be fighting against
McGonagall et al. and joining Voldemort, the would-be usurper who's
trying to invade Hogwarts (which he was under the delusion that he was
already running via Snape). They're fighting for their right to fair
treatment and a job they love. And thanks to Kreacher, they understand
that they can fight against one group of wizards in support of another
group that understands and respects their needs.
> 
Carol, who sees real progress, both in Kreacher's transformation and
the change in Harry's perception, which you snipped in your quotes
from my post





More information about the HPforGrownups archive