Slytherins/ Dobby /Selwyn

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 177786

Carol earlier:
> 
> << Love takes the form of respect and affection for a house-elf in
Regulus's case--note that Kreacher is inspired by him to lead the
house-elves in the final segment of the battle. >>
> 
Catlady responded:
> Lucius and Narcissa were quite abusive of Dobby, and Dobby said that
when the Dark Lord was in power, all House Elves were treated just as
badly ("treated like vermin"). Regulus, a follower of the Dark Lord,
loved his Kreachur, and Narcissa and Bellatrix treated Kreachur with
enough kindness to move him to betray his owner. Was Dobby just
*wrong* about how non-Malfoy Dark Wizards treat their House Elves? Not
according to Hermione, who said it was perfectly normal for wizards
(not just Dark Wizards) to test a poison on a House Elf...

Carol again:

I wondered the same thing, and I'm not sure that we have enough
information to answer the question. 

We know that the Malfoys, including Narcissa and Draco, were regarded
by Dobby as "bad, Dark wizards," and it's likely that Lucius was not
the only one who abused him. Kreacher, in contrast, had been a loyal
servant of the Black family while their aunt and uncle were alive and
since Kreacher kept photographs of both Black sisters in his "den," it
seems likely that they knew that. They, or rather Narcissa and,
presumably, Lucius (Bellatrix was still in prison when Kreacher ran
off to Narcissa during the Christmas holiday) would know how Kreacher
felt about Sirius, whom he was betraying just by being at Malfoy
Manor. They treated him kindly, no doubt, but only for their own ends,
the Malfoys at that point being loyal to Voldemort. (Sidenote: It's
not clear whether Bellatrix and her husband were hiding at the
Malfoys' after their escape from Azkaban in OoP; it's not clear where
they and the other DEs got wands, either. In any case, unless Kreacher
made more than one visit to Narcissa, Bellatrix would not have been
with her.) It's unclear whether Bellatrix's hatred of the renegade
Dobby, whom she murders, extends to House-elves in general or just to
him, but her treatment of the goblin Griphook suggests that unless she
has an ulterior motive, she would abuse them horribly as nonhuman
creatures inferior to wizards. If Kreacher had accompanied her to the
cave, I don't doubt that she would have behaved like Voldemort rather
than like Regulus, forcing Kreacher to drink the poison and regarding
him as expendable. I suspect that Kreacher told his story to the
Hogwarts House-Elves, who otherwise would have had no particular
reason to follow him into battle and heed his rallying cry.

That still doesn't answer the question of whether House-Elves in
general were treated like vermin during VW1 (I'm hearing film!Dobby's
voice in my head and wondering now if that line is actually in the
book, but I know that the general idea is). I doubt that the Hogwarts
Elves were, and the Crouches, who owned Winky's mother and grandmother
before her, certainly inspired loyalty in their elves, and Hokey,
Hepzibah Smith's House-Elf, seems devoted to her mistress and not
abused by Dobby's standards. The tradition of beheading House-Elves
when they got too old for work seems peculiar to the Black family. And
yet, for the House-Elves to follow Kreacher, his story and Dobby's
can't be the only examples of abuse. If someone like Slughorn can
without compunction test bottles of mead on a House-Elf to see if
they're poisoned, we can imagine what someone like Yaxley, the
persecutor of Muggle-borns, would do to them. Or Travers, who refers
to the begging Muggle-born Stunned by Ron as "it." (Another case, BTW,
of not-so-admirable behavior by the Trio "for the greater good"?)

I think that while it's likely that the House-Elves were perfectly
happy working at Hogwarts under Dumbledore or Snape (who would not
have abused them any mor than DD did), they were afraid of what would
happen if Voldemort took over the school and every post was held by a
Death Eater--especially if Kreacher had told his story. (It would not
have mattered that the story's hero was a Slytherin and a Death Eater;
its villain was Voldemort, against whom the hero--and, eventually,
Kreacher--had turned. So they would fight "in the name of Master
Regulus, champion of House-Elves" and then, having helped to defeat
the would be oppressors, return to their daily lives and work.
 
Carol earlier:
> << Even Phineas shows love at one point, rushing to 12 GP to search
for his great-great-grandson Sirius, refusing to believe that he's 
dead. >>
> 
Catlady:
> I thought Phineas Nigellus was anxious about the continuance of his
family name, not about the survival of his great-great-grandson. That
is, he wouldn't have cared that Sirius died if only Sirius or Regulus
had fathered a child on a pureblood witch before death.

Carol:

I don't see that. There's no indication that Sirius was ever
interested in marrying and passing along his "pure" blood or his name,
and if he had married, his wife probably would have been another
Gryffindor, possibly a Muggleborn on principle. He certainly seems to
consider only the people who have been burned off the tapestry as
"decent": I can't see Phineas expecting him to follow the path of a
"good" son as Regulus would have done in other circumstances. I think
that despite himself, old Phineas feels affection for his prodigal
great-great-grandson, and he seems shocked to hear that he's dead.
When he goes off to look for him, he does not return, and Harry's
imagined picture of him wandering from painting to painting in the
house asking for him is poignant, IMO. He's angry later that Mundungus
has dared to steal Black family heirlooms, but there's no indication
that his indignation is not as much for Sirius himself as for the
Black family heritage, both of which have been dishonored by
Mundungus's thievery. It's all in how you read it, of course, but I
saw Phineas's departure, leaving the portrait without even asking DD's
leave, as affection and the denial he would feel on hearing on the
death of someone close to him (even though he was dead himself and
only a portrait). I liked him for it, and I don't even care for Sirius
(who would, at a guess, have died a bachelor, anyway--had he survived
the MoM, he'd probably have been killed in the Battle of Hogwarts). 
> 
Carol earlier:
> << Theo Nott and Blaise Zabini, probably have "human" stories, too,
and reasons why, unlike Draco, they chose not to join the DEs >>
> 
Catlady:
> In Theo's case, readers could draw a connection to the recollection
 that the DE team in the Department of Mysteries left his wounded 
father to die or be captured and put in Azkaban. 

Carol again:

I always wondered if he learned that story. Who would tell him? We do
hear in HBP that his father is in Azkaban, but nothing after that.
Where was he during DH? He may have been at that table at the Malfoys,
but Theo definitely wasn't.
> 
Catlady:
> As you know, JKR stated on her website that she had written and
deleted a scene in which Theo and Draco converse while Nott Sr is 
visiting Malfoy Sr. She stated that "Together these two Death Eaters'
sons discuss Dumbledore's regime at Hogwarts and Harry Potter, with 
all sorts of stories that the Death Eaters tell about how this baby 
boy survived the Dark Lord's attack." I don't think there's anything 
to indicate that they were debating whether the Dark Lord's return
would be a good thing (with Draco:Pro and Theo:Con) but I'm under the
impression that some fans think that was the conversation, indicating
that Theo disliked the DE thing even before his father was wounded. 
<http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=5> 

Carol:
All we know is that it would have had to occur before the battle at
the DoM in OoP, that Theo was a loner but did associate with Draco
briefly in both OoP and HBP after their fathers were arrested, and
that he was rejected as a member of Slughorn's Slug Club because his
father was a DE. Not much to go on. And yet he clearly didn't become a
DE and he isn't mentioned along with Crabbe and Goyle as Crucioing
fellow students. I'd really like to know what became of Theo, and who
took care of him while his father was in Azkaban since he would have
been only about sixteen, perhaps still fifteen, at the time and he was
already motherless. Altogether, lost potential, a story like Dean
Thomas's that was abandoned because it didn't fit with the focus on
Harry. I really hope that she publishes that chapter and any other
background she has on Theo. (If she says that he joined the DEs, I'll
just cease to believe anything she says offpage.)

Carol earlier:
 
> << We're introduced briefly to a new DE, Selwyn, whom we'll see
again and whose chief significance appears to be his connection with
Dolores Umbridge. >>
> 
Catlady:
> I was certain that Umbridge was lying about being related to the
Selwyns. If the locket had had a different letter on it, she would
have chosen a different Pureblood family to pretend to be related to.
Of course, my track record suggests that I'm wrong and even Umbridge
tells the truth.
> 	Anyway, I have been unable to get my act together to make a
timeline of when in the events of OOP Umbridge acquired the locket,
and did it co-incide with a distinct increase in her nastiness?

Carol again:

Regarding the timeline, the robbery occurs in HBP shortly before
Mundungus shows up with the silver cups and so forth outside the Hog's
Head. The incident occurs just before the Christmas holidays in
Harry's sixth year ("Silver and Opals"). Umbridge could not have taken
the locket until some time later--so no effect on her nastiness. The
whole of OoP features the pre-locket Umbridge.

Regarding the Selwyn connection: I don't think that Umbridge is a
pure-blood (that cardigan is just to Muggleish), but she's probably a
Half-Blood who would make the most of her Pure-blood connections.
Considering that she's working with Yaxley, I don't think she could
have claimed a connection to Selwyn if she didn't have one. The "S" on
the locket would have been a convenient way to exploit that and part
of what attracted to the locket. (That the "S" stands for "Selwyn" is
obviously a lie from our standpoint as readers, but who in the WW,
other than Harry and Co., could have known or proven or cared to prove
that the story was false?)

Umbridge ends up with Mad-eye Moody's magical eye. How did she get it?
It makes sense to me that she really did have a connection with the DE
Selwyn, who persuaded the Dark Lord that it would make a useful
addition to dear cousin Dolores's office in the new Muggle-born
Registration department (or whatever it was called). At any rate, I
can think of no other way that she could have obtained the eye, so a
connection between Umbridge and the DE Selwyn (who seems to be
introduced for no other reason though he appears again in the Lovegood
chapter) makes sense to me. Or maybe the locket added to her powers of
persuasion and she requested it of LV herself, but that seems unlikely
in the extreme.

Carol, mostly speculating throughout this post