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

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 178970

a_svirn wrote:
> <snip> 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. <snip>

Carol responds:
The "great sea change" is that they're voluntarily going into battle
under the leadership of the formerly despicable Kreacher, now
emulating his hero and idol, Regulus, to fight against the evil
wizards who will abuse them as they did during VW1 if they win the
battle. The alternative is to sit out the battle and await the
outcome, which could be very bad for the House-Elves, or to join the
side of the oppressors, which would be foolish if not suicidal. In
VW1, they just let things happen. Now, in the Battle of Hogwarts, they
are joining the forces of freedom--not for the sake of their wizard
masters, who have not ordered them to join the battle, but of their
own volition. And rather than individually subverting bad masters,
they are acting as a unit to prevent their takeover. An ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure, and they are doing everything
they can to prevent the bad masters from taking control. No, they're
not fighting for freedom, but *if* freedom is a good thing, and I'm
not sure that it is in the case of House-Elves, at least they're
fighting for what they want, or rather, what they have and don't want
to lose. It's not a rebellion or a revolution in which they;re
throwing off oppressive masters (thanks to Snape and the teachers that
he's allowed to subvert the Carrows, the DEs haven't really taken
control of Hogwarts yet), it's a resistance movement. It's as if your
country were invaded and you took up arms to protect it. The DEs are
invading Hogwarts and the House-Elves want no part of it because they
know what the consequences to themselves will be--exactly what they
were during VW1 when House-Elves did nothing to protect themselves.
> 
>
> a_svirn:
> Could be. Then he confused on the subject of who his master is. 

Carol:
I wouldn't be surprised. But he knows who his hero is and where his
true loyalties lie--with Regulus Black--as both the locket and the
rallying cry show. He accepts Harry and perhaps respects him (though
he probably thinks that LV has killed him), but he loves and idolizes
Master Regulus.

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 don't follow your logic (nor would Kreacher, probably). The
principle, as I see it, is that wizards shouldn't abuse House-Elves,
which is the cause that Regulus sacrificed himself for and that
Kreacher ends up fighting for. It has nothing to do with House-Elves
punishing themselves, which *Hermione* is concerned about. Meanwhile,
all *Harry* (or any other good House-Elf master) has to do to prevent
House-Elves from abusing themselves is to understand the cause: they
abuse themselves, so far as I can tell from canon, only when they
speak ill of their masters or disobey an order or fail to obey an
order for reasons beyond their control. If a Wizard owns a House-Elf
that he can't free or who does not want to be free, and if he has no
idea how to unbind the charm that makes the House-Elf abuse himself,
then the only thing to be done at that point is to prevent the abuse
from occurring through understanding and respecting the House-Elf's
needs. In future, after completing her education and conducting
extensive research, maybe Hermione can find a more satisfactory
answer. Meantime, we see the results of Harry's good mastership--no
more self-punishment on Kreacher's part.
 
> 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:
Harry "didn't want a happy and loyal slave"? What do you mean? He
didn't want to see Dobby, who was never his own slave, to be abused by
Lucius Malfoy, and he didn't want the miserable, filthy, and seemingly
treacherous Kreacher. But when did he not want a happy, loyal slave?
He was quite content to send Kreacher after Mundungus Fletcher, and
Kreacher was more than happy to bring in the smelly sneak-thief. Harry
changed his attitude toward *Kreacher.* I'm not sure that he changed
his attitude toward House-Elves in general. Likewise, Kreacher changed
his mind about Harry's worthiness to be his master. Neither ever
supported Hermione's free-the-House-Elves agenda. Not even Dumbledore
ever advocated freeing the House-Elves. All he did was to provide a
home and employment for Dobby (and Winky, if she had accepted it).
> 
> > Carol:
> >It's as if a grubby little street orphan had arisen to become
Spartacus.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Er
no. Spartacus fought for *freedom*.  And *against* his masters. 

Carol:
Okay, bad comparison, as I knew when I typed it--you snipped the part
where I conceded that he wasn't fighting for freedom, so I'll repeat
it here: "That 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." I resorted to Spartacus (with
the quoted concession) because I couldn't (and still can't) think of a
hero who rose from obscurity and degradation to protect his home and
(adopted) family. Kreacher is like Spartacus in his heroism and
leadership, not in his cause. As I said before, he's not fighting for
freedom; he's defending himself and his fellow House-Elves from the
consequences of a Voldemortian victory. It makes no sense for
House-Elves to rise up en masse against good masters like Dumbledore
who are giving them what they want, and consequently, we don't see
them doing it. I suppose some future Dobby might persuade them that
good working conditions aren't sufficient--they have the right to
wages and clothes and the choice of masters, which is all that freedom
means to him--but why give up good jobs and homes that make them happy
if they don't have some other employer to go to? It's as if
well-treated employees were to walk out of their cushy jobs because
they'd rather be unemployed than work for a boss (read "master") whose
orders they have to follow and whose assigned tasks take up nearly
half their waking lives. (As Ishmael said in "Moby Dick," "Who ain't a
slave?")

> a_svirn:
<snip>
> 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. <snip>

Carol:
It's not just cleanliness that has changed, and he's no longer
malevolent or groveling. Instead, he's eager and willing to serve
(much the same attitude we see in Dobby despite Dobby's receiving pay
at Hogwarts and his choice to serve Harry as well as the Hogwarts
headmaster). Kreacher is also happy and respectful, a big change from
OoP and HBP. But the 180-degree turn that I'm talking about is the
change from going behind his master's back to subvert him to openly
fighting an evil intruder and leading other House-Elves to follow him,
as Dobby, the sole House-Elf advocate of freedom, failed to do. Maybe
it's the cause itself--Kreacher knows what House-Elves want. Maybe the
abuse that Kreacher suffered at Voldemort's hands aroused their
sympathies. Maybe the fact that he belongs to Harry Potter has
something to do with it, but Dobby seems to be alone in seeing Harry
(as the result of his "victory" against Voldemort at age fifteen
months) as a champion of House-Elves. Now *Regulus's* story they might
find inspiring, especially if Kreacher, locket dangling from his neck,
told it with tears in his eyes. Basically, he would be saying: "Here's
what happened to me at the hands of the Dark Lord. Here's what Regulus
sacrificed himself trying to prevent. If we don't want my master to
have died in vain (Harry's argument, remember?) and if you don't want
what happened to me to happen to you, we have to fight. If we want to
preserve our good jobs and fair treatment and safety and comfort, we
have to fight."

> > 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.
>
Carol:
To nowhere? If he hadn't acted, the DEs might have won, even with
Voldemort gone. And regardless of whether the House-Elves played a
decisive role or not, they fought for a cause, on their own, without
being recruited by Wizards. They defended themselves against evil.
They protected their home. And that, after all, is the reason most
humans fight as well--to protect their home and their country against
invaders. 

Freedom can wait. At this point, it's not even on the agenda. But
safety and happiness and good masters are. And that's what Kreacher is
leading the House-Elves to protect and preserve.

As for the sandwich, Kreacher will be happy to serve it. It's his job,
after all. And far better to be making Harry a sandwich (which he can
do magically and enjoys doing) than being tortured by Death Eaters,
which would have been his fate had Voldemort and his minions won the
battle.

Carol, noting that the transformation of Kreacher is not merely a
matter of Harry's altered perspective (as with Snape and Draco) but a
change in Kreacher himself, from malevolent, half-mad conspirator to
inspired and inspiring leader of his people