Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no.

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 178579

> > Magpie:
>  
> > If you're suggesting that Harry called on Kreacher due to yet 
another 
> > convoluted way of saying exactly the opposite of what seems to be 
> > being said--that Harry is here asking Kreacher for a sandwich 
because 
> > he hopes that if Kreacher objects to making him a sandwich at 
that 
> > moment he will say so and so Harry will not really be acting like 
a 
> > slavemaster, I don't buy it. 
> 
> Pippin:
> No, I'm suggesting that Harry knows that Kreacher will be as hurt
> and miserable as Winky if Harry were to insist on making his own 
> sandwiches, and that if making a sandwich at that moment would
> create difficulties for Kreacher, Kreacher would let him know and
> Harry would care about it. If Kreacher were a wage slave,
> how would it be  different? 

Magpie:
I don't know what wage slaves have to do with anything here. It's not 
like Harry has to be either one, or you have to choose one or the 
other. 

Regardless, Harry is thinking of himself in that last line. He's just 
thinking of having Kreacher make him a sandwich and that brings in 
all the baggage that comes from having a slave race and making your 
hero an owner of one. Harry's thoughts are about what he wants in 
that last sentence. 

Pippin:
> 
> As for whether Harry *would* care...
> 
> If the dementors blew a different personality into Dudley, then
> Snape blew a different personality into Harry. Harry, on the floor 
> in Dumbledore's office, had a spiritual death and re-awakening.
> He had hit bottom, nothing he could learn in the pensieve was as bad
> as the reality he was facing (canon paraphrase.) And what he 
learned 
> in the pensieve was where seeking glory and vengeance, as Snape
> did,  would lead him. 
> 
> We don't see him soul-searching just as we
> don't see Dudley doing it, because while Harry has grown up,
> the narrator still has the outlook of a bright, interested preteen.
> As Bettelheim says, the child does not grow sad and then cry,
> he just cries. He does not get angry and hit, he just hits. Harry,
> from a child's perspective, would not feel remorse and change his
> ways, he would just change. And that's what we see, IMO.

Magpie:
I don't see "Maybe I'll have Kreacher fix me a sandwich" as a sign of 
his great spiritual awakening or mature growth. I think he just wants 
a sandwich and by now asking his slave to make him one is the thing 
that comes into his head. He's never been particularly interested in 
abusing House Elves. He would have preferred it if Kreacher had been 
eager to serve him before, too, I'd guess, but if he needed something 
done he just had to tell him to do it. I think he'd do the same thing 
now. He's already settled into a smooth master/servant relationship 
back in Grimmauld Place long before he "died."

Asking his now loyal House Elf to do something isn't like asking Ron 
to do something, where there'd be some discussion about whether Ron 
felt like making him a sandwich and why Harry wasn't making it for 
himself to begin with. Ron's an equal who might be willing to make 
Harry a sandwich as a favor or if Harry gave him something in return, 
but Harry probably wouldn't ask him. If Kreacher said stuff 
like, "Kreacher is a little worn out right now, maybe Master could 
skip his sandwich?" he wouldn't be a House Elf. 

Pippin:
> As for the implication that by not abolishing slavery, JKR is 
somehow
> saying that it's good...
> 
>  I seem to remember from history class that back when slavery 
> was a live issue in America, there were abolitionists who were in 
> favor of gradually abolishing  slavery, and radical 
> abolitionists who wanted slavery ended at once. While the moral
> purity of the latter position can't be doubted, there was
> very little those people could do for actual slaves, because they
> (the radicals) were regarded as cranks and few people would listen
> to them. 
> 
> Although we remember the Civil War now as having
> been fought to free the slaves, that was not the perception of
> people at the time, and they probably wouldn't have gone to war
> over it. JKR's world reflects that reality, not history as we would
> like it to have been, IMO. 

Magpie:
I didn't say that JKR said that slavery "was good" meaning that she 
supports slavery in our world, I said she presented it as a perfectly 
acceptable (to Harry) part of the WW. I don't think she's saying 
anything much at all about slavery to anybody--except maybe that it 
can be really cool to have a sentient being who lives to serve you 
and would be upset by your not ordering them around so you get to be 
a slaveowner and be considered to be treating others well. I don't 
think she's teaching anybody any lessons about the history of how 
slavery was abolished in the US or anything about history at all with 
them (and slavery was an important issue at the time of the Civil War 
and stated as a reason for going for war). In fact, I think one could 
argue that creating a slave race who is happier as slaves is writing 
history the way many people would want it to have been--people who 
wanted slavery to be considered the natural state of the enslaved 
race. Nobody's abolishing slavery one way or the other in the WW. 

In short, I think she just came up with the House Elves as a wholly 
fictional creation--one that happens to have a lot in common with 
romantic notions of real world slavery, but is not supposed to be an 
argument for it. But now that it's done I don't think Harry Potter 
the slave owner has anything to teach the non-slave owners reading 
the books about anything on the subject. He's the one who's taken the 
big step back here in having a slave, and I don't see the House Elves 
as saying much of anything about the history of slavery in the real 
world. 

Lizzyben:
People have said that the house-elf issue wasn't resolved, but I think
it was. It was resolved in that last line - the crazy elf who wanted
freedom has died, the conventional elf that accepted slavery has
survived, & the hero has accepted his proper role as master and slave
owner. 

Magpie:
That's the way I read the last line too. Everything in its proper 
place and Harry has his real life back. He can sleep in his own bed 
at Hogwarts with his friends and have his loyal Elf make him a 
sandwich. It's Voldemort who wanted social reform (albeit for the 
worse), not Harry. If Harry met another Dobby who wanted to be free 
he'd happily free him, just as Dumbledore offered the House Elves at 
Hogwarts freedom and they rejected it. As a Wizard it's Harry's noble 
duty to show noblesse oblige. Harry has just returned to the life he 
was living in Grimmauld Place where Kreacher cooked and cleaned and 
fawned over everyone and they accepted it as their due and the way 
things were supposed to be. Harry's doing Kreacher a favor by asking 
him to do stuff instead of doing it himself. Whether or not she 
supports slavery in our world--which I highly doubt she does--she's 
defended and justified it in her fictional world.

> 
> Dana:
> I never thought of House-Elves in regards to slavery and thus I 
never 
> perceived Harry wondering if Kreacher would bring him a sandwich as 
> Harry embracing the role of a proud slave owner. 
> I think it was supposed to be an indication that Harry now 
considered 
> Kreacher as part of his family.

Magpie:
The same way he was a part of the Black family--he's the family 
servant. He's not a Black. Kreacher waits on Harry. He doesn't have 
an equal relationship. He cooks and cleans for him.

Dana:
 Which is not the same thing as 
> you suggest because if Kreacher wouldn't have wanted to serve Harry 
> and thus still not acknowledge him as his master, then Harry could 
> order Kreacher to make him a sandwich but be better off not eating 
> it, because it would probably contain something that wouldn't be 
> agreeable for a human being to eat. Just like Kreacher followed 
> orders to spy on Draco but essentially gave Harry nothing useful in 
> regards to what Harry wanted to know. 

Magpie:
The fact that Kreacher is a better slave when Harry's done something 
to make Kreacher consider him his rightful master does not make 
Kreacher no longer a slave. Kreacher had to acknowledge Harry as 
Master in HBP. Now he likes him being his master. He's still his 
master. Once Kreacher has accepted Harry as his *rightful* master, 
all his thoughts become about what's best for Harry. Kreacher no 
longer has wants of his own. He might sometimes disagree with Harry 
on what's best for Harry. That's what makes the whole idea such a 
fantasy--and I would think a bit of a threat to one's character 
myself.

Dana:
> Of course one could argue about the fact if this was specifically 
> well written to support such an interpretation but I think if you 
> look at everything that is written about house-elves then it is 
less 
> hard to see it like that(IMO). 
> The house-elves at Hogwarts are appalled not only at Winky for 
being 
> disowned by her family but also about Dobby's embracement of 
freedom. 
> It is not the house-elves way of living. 
> When the trio visited the kitchen for the first time all house-
elves 
> practically fell over one another to serve the kids to whatever 
they 
> wanted. 

Magpie:
We're not disagreeing over whether House Elves like to serve. I know 
they like to serve and that it's in their nature. I know how they 
show they're displeasure within their abilities when they don't 
really want to do something. They're born to be slaves. Harry has 
accepted being master to one of these born slaves. The willing slave 
who serves out of love is a tempting idea, isn't it? That's what 
Harry's got now and he knows it. (And I think it's a bit of a stretch 
to now claim, just because Harry's thinking about having Kreacher 
make him a sandwich, that it's also in a House Elf's nature to be 
hurt any time his master lifts a finger for himself--that doesn't 
always seem to be the case.)

Dana:
> The issues surrounding SPEW where, in my opinion, never really 
about 
> elf rights or the condemnation of slavery but all about Hermione's 
> ill attempts to impose her own ideas on what house-elf rights 
should 
> be with total disregard to the needs of the elves themselves. 

Magpie:
Yes, because the story here isn't about the abolition of slavery for 
House Elves. Slavery's fine in this universe when it involves House 
Elves. As Harry and Hermione both seem fine with in DH.

Dana:
> JKR's point was never about slavery but about understanding that 
> different people or different groups of people have different needs 
> and you can't just assume that all they ever need is precisely the 
> same as your own needs in life or even that all of them should 
accept 
> change because one person from such a background chooses to life 
> differently.

Magpie:
Yes, but she also created a sentient slave race and eventually made 
her hero a slave owner. Harry can't "understand" the House Elves 
needs without accepting his own place as a master of slaves as a 
member of the superior race, the ones born to be served rather than 
serve. She's made a form of slavery that actually conforms to things 
that were claimed about real people (that they were better off being 
slaves and happier that way). 

It's understandable that people can find Harry's casual acceptance of 
his position distasteful even while understanding that House Elves 
really aren't like people and some how are made to be slaves. You 
don't have to not get House Elves' nature in order to not like 
Harry's position in the end. It's hardly "dumping" a slavery issue 
into it when we're introduced to House Elves via Dobby who actually 
acts like a human and not an animal because he wants freedom. Then we 
get Hermione also talking about elves like they're being oppressed by 
slavery--and JKR I think even said she thought Hermione was right. 
Later both Harry and Hermione are fine with being waited on by 
Harry's slave, but can't you see why people would find this version 
of "respect other peoples' needs" to be a bit distasteful and 
suspicious given the only way to apply it in the RW? It's one thing 
for me to respect the right of a Muslim woman to dress herself in a 
way she thinks shows respect for God, or give anyone the right to 
stay in an abusive situation. It's quite another for me to believe 
another woman should correctly be treated as a piece of property 
because that's what she believes she should be treated as, which is 
what the House Elves are. Yes it's telling us to respect other 
peoples' ideas, but it's also telling us to see other people as 
potentially biologically made to serve us--of course people find it 
confusing.

Dana:

For a house-elf to be happy he must be allowed to do 
> what he has been doing for centuries -> serve wizarding kind and 
the 
> only thing that can be changed is how wizards treat house-elves.  
To 
> change the bad conditions of the house-elf you do not need to 
change 
> the house-elf but the behavior of wizards in regards to house-elf. 

Magpie:
That's exactly what I said. Harry's only duty lies in noblesse 
oblige, to accept that it is his rightful place to be served by House 
Elves and to treat his inferiors well. He's a "good slave owner." 

Carol:
Hermione educates Harry on the House-Elf mentality. It isn't slavery
they resent. It's their nature to serve. It's having to serve a master
they don't respect. And Kreacher now respects Harry--perhaps almost as
much as he respects his beloved Regulus.

Magpie:
Yes, I know. Kreacher is a sentient being who actually does have the 
nature to serve. So Harry's just taking his responsible place by 
being a great master and allowing Kreacher to serve him. He's Harry's 
slave, happy or not. There's no point in talking around it and 
pretending that that isn't the whole structure of the relationship or 
making Kreacher "love" Harry enough (this being the House Elf version 
of love as well, which reflects their foreign nature as well) that 
he's no longer a slave. The point really isn't that Kreacher will be 
unhappy at Harry asking him to make him a sandwich, it's people 
saying they don't like this kind of situation no matter how justified 
it is in this universe. They don't want their hero having a slave and 
don't much admire him when he's thinking about what food he wants his 
slave to bring him in bed. They might not see any reason for him to 
have a servant at all.

-m