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

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 178929

Carol earlier:
> > Since she wasn't the mistress (owner, if you prefer) of any
> > House-Elves, 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Is there a difference in the distinction? 

Carol again:
Only that "mistress" has certain connotations that don't have anything
to do with ownership. <g>
> 
> a_svirn:
> I agree. I guess I need to take a blood oath for you to finally 
believe me. 

Carol:
Glad we agree on something.
> 
> > Carol:
> 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. <snip>
> 
> a_svirn:
> We don't see them at all for the most part. They are unobtrusive 
little things. 

Carol:
Nevertheless, when we *do* see them in the kitchen in GoF, they are
quite content and quite outspoken in their disapproval of Dobby and,
especially, of Winky, whom they cover with a tablecloth, IIRC. And
Dobby makes their refusal to clean the Gryffindor common room clear.
They also show that they like being praised for "good service" and
profoundly dislike busybody Hermione's attempts to "help" them. (So
does Winky, who goes so far as to tell Harry that he is "nosing" into
her (ex-)master's business.) For "unobtrusive little things," they're
pretty good at expressing their opinions and acting on them.

Moreover, I can think of only two reasons why the House-Elves that we
do see abusing themselves (Dobby and Kreacher) do so; one is
disobeying their masters or failing to fulfill an order (both Kreacher
and Dobby punish themselves for this reason); the other is speaking
ill of their masters (only Dobby seems to punish himself for this
reason; Kreacher goes so far as to imply that Sirius is a murderer
without punishing himself in the least). Since the Hogwarts
House-Elves have no reason to complain about their treatment under
Dumbledore (or snape?), they have no reason to disobey an order or
speak ill of their master(s). And there's no indication that they
punish themselves for delegating the Gryffindor common room to Dobby
or refusing to pick up the hats.

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_svirn:
> Very well, I stand corrected. He tried to bring both Harry's and 
> Sirius's ruin about as well as the ruin of as much members of the 
> Order as possible. He did it deliberately on his free will and in 
> open defiance to his master's will. And was glad to learn about his 
> master's death. 

Carol again:
I'll ignore your tone here as I'm sure you're not trying to be rude.
If you look again at OoP, you'll see that Kreacher's contribution to
the plot was to reveal little details about Harry, such as his
affection for Sirius Black, which led to the plot to lure Harry and
Harry alone to the MoM to retrieve the Prophecy. Kreacher, who happily
accepted orders from any member of the Black family except Sirius,
then injured Buckbeak (for which he apparently ironed his hands,
considering that they're bandaged like Dobby's when Harry sees him)
and went along with Harry's suggestion that Black was held captive at
the MoM, when in fact he was upstairs nursing Buckbeak. His statement
that "Master won't come back from the Ministry" (quoted from memory)
is nothing but an attempt to egg Harry on. The Order wasn't supposed
to show up at all (that was Snape's doing), and Snape specifically
told Black to remain behind and wait for DD (which, of course, he
didn't do). Black *chose* to go to the MoM; he *chose* to carelessly
fight Bellatrix on the dais of the Veil. His arrogance in taunting her
as they fight just before she kills him is echoed in Bellatrix's
arrogant taunting of Molly Weasley just before Molly kills her.
Kreacher may, and indeed does, celebrate Sirius Black's death (just as
Sirius would have celebrated his--cf. his hope that Kreacher has
hidden in a cupboard and died), but he's not responsible for his
death. There was no plot to kill any Order member (however happy
Bellatrix was to kill her cousin and would have been to kill her
niece). The plot was to get Harry to the Hall of Prophecies, have him
take down the Prophecy orb, take it from him by force and give it to
Voldemort, and perhaps either kidnap or kill Harry. There was, once
again, no plot to kill Sirius or bring about the ruin "of as [many]
Order members as possible." I'm not sure where you're getting that
idea, but I don't see it anywhere in OoP.

a_svirn:
> <snip> But we seem to wander from the point. The point being that 
elves do *not* fight for their freedom. They fight alongside their
masters and against their masters' enemies. They are, however, 
equally capable to fight against their masters if their masters aren't
careful. Ergo, masters must be careful and responsible and all will be
well. Free will is neither here, nor there in this grand scheme of things.

Carol again:
I never said that they fight for their freedom. We agree, as I
understand it, that they don't want freedom. What they're fighting for
is, as I see it, the right to live happily at Hogwarts, which will not
be possible if Voldemort wins. Why else would they fight? No wizard
asked or ordered them to. Snape is dead; Dumbledore has been dead a
year; Harry is seemingly dead and has had no contact with them.
Kreacher is their leader; he's the one with the locket and the
rallying cry. Maybe he's fighting for his old master's cause, the
right of House-Elves not to be tortured and abused (forced to drink a
horrrible potion and left to be murdered by Inferi, in this specific
instance), but it's still fair treatment of House-Elves. And far from
rejecting Kreacher as they rejected Dobby, the Hogwarts House-Elves
*choose* to follow him into battle. Of course, they're not fighting
for their freedom. They don't want freedom. They're fighting to
maintain the working conditions they've always enjoyed at Hogwarts and
will lose if Voldemort and the DEs win. Understandably, they don't
want to be "treated like vermin" as they were during VW1. (Of course,
their masters must be responsible, but that's neither here nor there.
We're talking about the House-Elves' decision to fight the DEs without
having ordered or even requested to do so by any witch or wizard. Free
will has everything to do with it. They *choose* to follow Kreacher.
And lest we fail to understand exactly why they're there, we have
Kreacher's locket and rallying cry. They're fighting the Dark Lord
(the one who cruelly abuse Kreacher and left him to die) in the name
of the heroic Regulus, who died trying to bring down the Dark wizard
who so horribly abused his House-Elf. They don't want freedom any more
than Muggles want unemployment. They want fair working conditions,
even if it means fighting a battle in which they might die rather
going on strike (which they probably couldn't do if Voldemort won and
became their master).

Whether or not House-Elf freedom is a good thing (and IMO it isn't if
it means unemployment and homelessness), it's not their goal at the
moment. That goal is fighting the Dark Lord, not because Harry or any
other wizard wants them to but because a Voldemort victory would be a
return to persecution and suffering of the kind they suffered in VW1.
(We've seen how Bellatrix treats House-Elves and Goblins. Would
Dolohov and his ilk be any kinder? Or Travers, who refers to a
Muggle-born as "it"?)
> 
> > Carol:
> 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. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Well, I always knew he was sadly confused. He did say "Harry Potter,
defender of house elves".

Carol:
No, he didn't. The only wizard he names is Regulus. I quoted his
words, but here they are again: "Fight, fight, fight, for my master,
defender of House-Elves! Fight the Dark Lord in the name of brave
Regulus! Fight!" I suppose that "my master" could refer to Harry, but,
is so, why doesn't he name him? It's "brave Regulus, defender of
House-Elves" in whose name Kreacher is asking them to fight.

> 
> > Carol:
> IOW, he understands that House-Elves have the right to fair
treatment, the right not to be tortured and abused. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Then why he persists in self-abusing? Or do you think he reserves 
right to punish solely to himself? Surely that would put Harry into 
an impossible position. How one can hope to become a responsible 
master, if one cannot even punish one's own slave, let alone stop him
from punishing himself? 

Carol:
Can you please show me an instance in which Kreacher abuses himself
after he accepts the locket? Hysterical tears of joy are not
self-abuse. And he evidently escapes to Hogwarts to avoid the abuse of
Yaxley and his ilk, who are not his masters. (Unless Voldemort wins.)
When Harry fails to stop Kreacher from abusing himself, Kreacher has
not yet accepted Harry as his master. He's still, in his own mind and
heart, serving Regulus. (And Regulus remains his hero and true master
even after he's also acknowledged Harry, who shares Regulus's desire
to destroy the locket that Kreacher was ordered to destroy.)

And, to repeat, if a House-Elf respects his master and neither
deliberately disobeys nor fails to obey an order because he can't obey
it (e.g., Kreacher's failure to destroy the locket), the House-Elf
will have no reason to abuse himself. Whether a wizard that a
House-Elf regards as his rightful master could order the Elf not to
abuse himself is unclear. Kreacher is punishing himself for failing to
obey Regulus. Probably, only Regulus could have stopped him, and, of
course, Regulus is long dead. (As I also stated, Harry can't order
*Dobby* to stop punishing himself because he's not Dobby's master.
Only Dobby can stop himself if he unlearns the behavior.)
> 
> > Carol:
> 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.
> 
> a_svirn:
> And that would be? That's right -- a good master. Why do you call it
a "complete turnaround" is beyond my understanding. 

Carol:

Of course he's always wanted a good master and now he has one again.
But that's not what I'm talking about. I'll try one more time to
explain what I mean. Not only is Kreacher now a "normal" House-Elf,
clean and happy with a master he respects (surely a noticeable change
in attitude and behavior???), he's also a leader among his own kind as
opposed to a filthy, half-mad recluse wih no influence over anyone.
Instead of sneakily aiding the bad guys by telling them his master's
small secrets, he's joining the battle against the bad wizards and
persuading other House-Elves to join his cause. It's as if a grybby
little street orphan had arisen to become Spartacus. Thet he's
fighting to preserve the status quo (as anyone who fights an invader
or usurper is doing) rather than fighting for freedom (which neither
he nor the other House-Elves wants) does not make him any less a
leader or a hero. 

Do you not see that Hermione had no influence over the House-Elves,
yet Kreacher (Kreacher, who once wore a filthy rag and muttered about
Mudbloods and never lifted a finger to do the work most House-Elves
enjoy and consider honorable) succeeds in rallying them to his cause?
Surely, when you first saw the grovelling, filthy, brain-washed little
creature, you didn't expect to see him charging into battle with a
host of House-Elves at his command? Oh, well. I say it's a 180-degree
turn from filthy insignificance to influence and leadership. If you
choose to regard his situation and attitude as no different than it
was, I'm clearly not going to persuade you otherwise.

Carol earlier:
> > 
> > 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. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Sensible of them.
 
Carol:
Yes, it is. No sarcasm intended.
 
> a_svirn:
> No, they aren't. They don't have the "right" to have a good job and
likable masters. They are just lucky to have them anyway. They don't
want to change that, naturally. But they do not have any rights and
never will. They are slaves.

Carol:
I think you're mistaken. The fact that they *choose* to fight against
Voldemort to preserve the good working conditions they enjoy at
Hogwarts shows that they *do* have the right to fair treatment, just
as human beings have the right to fair treatment. A right is natural
and inalienable; a privilege is earned. Perhaps that right will be set
into law once Hermione enters the Ministry (and Umbridge's
anti-werewolf legislation will be repealed). We don't know. But we do
know that House-Elves can and will fight against tyranny and evil that
affects their lives. They are not fighting for their masters, not if
Kreacher's rallying cry is any indication of their motives. They are
fighting for the right of House-Elves, slaves or no slaves, to fair
treatment. If they had no rights, they would not be able to fight at
all unless ordered to do so by a witch or wizard. Instead, they chose
to fight, led only by Kreacher, of all people. (They would not, IMO,
have followed the eccentric Dobby, who had no more influence over them
than Hermione did. But Kreacher, who wants what they want, who has
personally suffered at the hands of Voldemort, whose beloved master
sacrificed himself to avenge Kreacher and try to destroy the Dark
Lord, they understand and accept as their natural leader.)

Carol, who thinks the transformation of Kreacher from a filthy menace
into a leader of his people is comparable to Neville's transformation
from timid "nobody" to hero