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

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 178976

> 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. 

a_svirn:
Yes. But why do you call it "change"? Change from what? Did they 
fight against the Ministry in the VW1? I don't think so. They always 
wanted good masters and hated bad masters. They would always protect 
their good masters. 

Carol:
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. 

a_svirn:
You don't know it. I am pretty sure that they helped their masters 
then as they do know. If there were no epic battles in the VW1 it has 
nothing to do with elves' attitude and everything to do with 
wizard's. 

Carol:
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. 

a_svirn:
But you yourself quoted Kreacher who cried "fight, fight for my 
master". It is perfectly possible to do something for other peoples' 
sake and yet on one's own volition. 

Carol:
And rather than individually subverting bad masters,
> they are acting as a unit to prevent their takeover. 

a_svirn:
But how could they subvert bad masters when they only had good ones? 
They had to make do without subvertion.


> 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. 

a_svirn;
No. you said upthread that they are fighting for their *right* not to 
be abused. If Kreacher think he has the *right* not to be abused and 
tortured, why then he tortures himself? Perhaps he would not 
understand my logic, but then, I don't think he understands the 
concept of his "rights".

> > 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?

a_svirn;
I mean he didn't want Kreacher to be happy and loyal. He didn't care 
whether his orders (or indeed his ownership) hurt Kreacher's feeling. 
He just made use of him as he pleased and never bothered to be kind 
to him. Then in DH he changed his attitude.


> 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." 

a_svirn:
Except that it does. He was much more like Spartacus in OOP when he 
rebelled against his master. (And I liked him better then.)

> Carol:
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. 

a_svirn;
Othello? Admittedly a fictional character, but he was a slave at some 
point in his career, then rose to be a Venetian general and crushed 
the invading Turks. Then again he had ceased to be a slave long 
before he became a leader. And so had Spartacus. I don't think you'll 
find a great leader who would be simultaneously a happy slave. Those 
two characteristics are mutually exclusive. 

Carol:
 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:
Well, I can't read "master" instead of employer. Not when master is a 
term for a slave-owner. Dobby, by the way, was careful to point out 
the distinction. Besides, you always said that elves are *not* like 
humans, and therefore any comparisons between elves' slavery and 
human slavery wouldn't work. That being the case I must say I find 
the comparison between house elves' slavery and real life employment 
downright confusing. 

> Carol:
> It's not just cleanliness that has changed, and he's no longer
> malevolent or groveling. 

a_svirn:
I guess, I just fail to regard it as an improvement. And 
Surely "eager to serve" and "grovelling" are sort of synonymous? He 
was far less grovelling back in OOP. 

> Carol:
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. 

a_svirn:
Did Dobby want house elves to follow him? I don't remember that. And 
he most certainly did not try to lead them into any battles. So 
change from what? The only change you described so far is from a 
rebellious slave to a loyal one. 


> Carol:
> <snip> 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. 

a_svirn:
Yes, so they did. They stood with their good masters against 
potentially new and evil masters. That proves... what exactly? That 
they are good at heart? I never disputed that. That they can exercise 
free will? Yes, unless their masters forbid them to. Fortunately for 
everyone their masters happened to be as good as their slaves and did 
not forbid them to fight Evil. But that has changed nothing either 
for elves or for wizards. They are as good now as they were before 
the battle. They are still slaves and masters respectively. 

 
> 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

a_svirn:
I think Crassus thought Spartacus was a malevolent conspirator. And I 
am pretty sure he has a slave batman (or whatever they called them in 
Ancient Rome) who made him a Roman version of sandwich after the 
battle of Silarus. In which battle the said batman also participated. 
Perhaps he fought for his right to make Cassius a sandwich among 
other things.