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

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 178963

> 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:
Then it's just as well that I didn't use it. I mean, Hermione and 
Kreacher
 eww!


> > 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.

a_svirn:
I wasn't. But since the implication us that I was being rude without 
even trying, I don't know which is worse. However I apologise if I 
sounded rude. 

> Carol
> 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:
I rephrase my statement then. "Bring about the ruin" does sound a 
little vague. Kreacher hated his master and wanted to avenge himself 
and the Noble House of Black. To that end he went – on his free will –
to his master's enemies and offered his services. They devised a plan 
to lure Harry to the Ministry, because it was Harry Voldemort wanted 
most. But he wouldn't (and didn't) say no to killing any other member 
of the Order including Sirius. No did Kreacher mind such outcome. And 
in the end he did brought about Sirius's ruin. Without him neither 
Harry, nor Sirius would have ended up in the Ministry. My point is 
that Kreacher acted against his master's best interests on his 
(Kreacher's) free will. 

 
> 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. 

a_svirn:
With what? You seem to say they freely chose good masters over bad 
ones. But where do you detect the great sea change? It's not like 
they wanted to have bad masters before. As for free will, they have 
always been capable to exercise it – to a point. Witness the 
Kreacher's actions in OOP.


> > 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.

a_svirn:
Could be. Then he confused on the subject of who his master is. 
 
> Carol:
> Can you please show me an instance in which Kreacher abuses himself
> after he accepts the locket? <snip>

a_svirn:
That doesn't matter. It is the principle that matters. If he thinks 
that house elves shouldn't be tortured, then he shouldn't torture 
himself. 

> Carol:
>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. 

a_svirn:
Oh, yes. He was an unhappy and rebellious slave and now he is happy 
and loyal one, because Harry finally started to behave as a 
responsible owner. A change indeed. But it is Harry who changed his 
attitude, not Kreacher. Kreacher *always* wanted a good master. It 
was Harry who didn't want a happy and loyal slave at first.

> Carol:
>It's as if a grybby
> little street orphan had arisen to become Spartacus.

a_svirn:
Er
no. Spartacus fought for *freedom*.  And *against* his masters. 

> Carol:
> 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.

a_svirn:
Because I don't think Kreacher was such an insignificant creature 
before. It was Sirius who thought it and he paid for his arrogance. 
Kreacher was never insignificant. He was to be sure filthy, groveling 
and brainwashed. Now he is groveling clean and brainwashed. An 
improvement certainly, but as to 180 degree? Hardly. 


> > 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_svirn:
I thought you stand is that they aren't at all like humans. Because 
if they are, you know, maybe they have the right to be free, after 
all? 


> 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

a_svirn:
Except that he led them to nowhere. In the aftermath of the battle he 
is expected to serve his master a sandwich just as he was expected to 
do it *before* the battle.