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

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 178930

Carol:
> > 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. 

Pippin:
I think part of our problem is a dramatic convention that says any 
problem recognized by a hero is going to be solved by the end of the 
story unless it turns out not to be a problem after all. People then 
imply that if house-elf slavery  still exists at the end of the story that 
means it wasn't a problem. But I don't think the convention applies.
There are many other problems that aren't solved.

The house-elves seem to be an amalgam of the helper fairies
of tradition with the fairy wife. Like helper fairies, the fairy wife 
takes on household responsibilities and does them well -- but
if she is treated disrespectfully  (which always happens), she 
abandons her mortal husband forever. 

One can imagine the original symbiotic state of elves and
humans: humans like to build houses and accumulate 
possessions, elves like to look after them  as long as they're
treated with respect. But then greedy wizards  enchanted 
the elves so they could no longer abandon humans who treated 
them poorly.

We really can't blame Hermione for not seeking to end the
house-elf enchantments. Horrid as they are, they're not
as bad as magical experimentation on sentient creatures who by 
definition can't give their consent.

But she can urge wizards not to take advantage of their
ill-gotten power over the elves, and she does. It's important
to realize that Harry did not realize or warn Sirius that Kreacher 
was being mistreated and would rebel because of it. 
Dumbledore did that -- but Sirius did not listen, and 
Harry rebelled against Dumbledore's analysis when he 
first heard it. Only after hearing Hermione's interpretation
of Kreacher's tale did Harry accept Dumbledore's view. 

Harry warned Sirius that his  belief that the elf couldn't
leave without express permission might be wrong. 
But Harry had only vague suspicions regarding Kreacher's 
absence and he did not warn Sirius about them. Harry
forgot his doubts that Kreacher had been in the attic
when nothing further seemed to come of it, and he
had no suspicions left when Kreacher lied to him about
Sirius being gone. 


I think Rowling's purpose in creating the house-elves
was threefold. She wanted to show the development of
Hermione's social conscience, she wanted to have Hermione
tackle a problem that was too big for her, and she wanted
to show some of the attractions as well as the problems
of slavery. It's another case of wanting us to know but
not to seek.

> 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. 

Pippin:
Under Voldemort, house-elves are being slaughtered.  I fail to see 
how the outcome will not change anything for the house-elves. It's
not a rebellion against wizard domination of elves, but it *is*
a rebellion against Voldemort, de facto ruler of Wizarding
Britain. 

Pippin