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

[Dana]

No: HPFGUIDX 178621


Magpie:
> Of course they're JKR's creations. The fact that she based them on
brownies doesn't change that or mean nobody can react to their
servitude in any way the way they want. 

Dana:
No I disagree, the characters are her creations, the concept came 
from somewhere else, just like what she did with the werewolf thing. 
Werewolves are mythological creatures and JKR used that as a basis to 
create some characters (well two to be more precise). Both these 
concept are used to relay a story of morality in the way JKR wanted 
it to be portrayed within her books (if she succeeded is not the 
point I am trying to make here). Hippogriffs are not her creation 
either and neither are globins. She just used these concepts to build 
characters and with some, she not only used the mythological figures 
but also used parts of their folklore backgrounds. 

Brownies are literally elves of the house and they serve the 
inhabitants of that house as long as they find these inhabitants 
agreeable enough to serve, if not well the inhabitants will do better 
to move. 
This tale has been told to me by my English teacher a long time ago, 
although I did not remember how they were named until I looked it up. 

I am not stating that you can't react to the issues of house-elves in 
any way you want but when you state your opinion on a discussion 
board, I just assumed you wanted to discuss your opinion and not just 
post it so it can be read passively by others. I am not attacking you 
for your opinion just try to give a visual description of why I read 
it so differently from the way you do.  

What I was trying to say with pointing out the mythological 
background the house-elves are based on is that I do not think that 
JKR probably ever thought about the comparison people would make to 
slavery because house-elf servitude is part of almost all elf-like 
creatures in mythology and this part is not what she made up herself, 
she just personified the concept. Of course JKR did not do a whole 
lot of thinking about many of the concepts she put in her books, of 
which many are interpreted or give a different sense to how she 
probably intended them to be. 


Magpie:
> Then you don't understand my point of view, because I haven't argued
anything about house elves not being allowed to do what makes them
happy. I said it was guilt-free slavery with Harry being naturally
deserving of a loyal slave and being waited on in bed while still
being the champion of freedom because House Elves would actually
fall apart and be miserable if they were freed. That's how JKR made
them. I can find the fantasy being depicted obnoxious without
being "disrespectful" of house elves or trying to force my own
concept of living on house elves or claiming that people should be
able to mistreat their servants. Harry's in a win-win situation
here. He gets to be selfless by allowing himself to be waited on.


Dana:
First I want to apologize if I gave the idea that *you* were trying 
to force your own concept of living on house-elves, Hermione was but 
not you ;o). It was meant as a general comment and not a personal 
one. I was not trying to make a point that it was YOU who was 
disrespectful because your ideas on how you perceived the house-elves 
issue are differently from mine. 

Hé, I do not like Harry either well I liked him for a moment in OotP 
where he actually seemed to be more active (as in personality) then 
in previous books but then he got all docile again in HBP and all 
love was lost forever LOL

I know JKR wanted to make him the epitome of perfection and it is 
surely not working for me either so maybe it is just me looking at 
some topics trying my hardest to bypass Harry as central point of 
view on how things should or shouldn't be. I do not look at what 
Harry wants but what Kreacher would have liked. And it is not even 
because I like Kreacher's story arc because Kreacher's tale totally 
put me off; give the creature some bling bling and he will kiss your 

 insert whatever comes to mind
 forever. 

There are many things about the Kreacher angle that rube me the wrong 
way but I will not bore you with that. 
Of course it can be argued why Harry did trick Lucius in setting 
Dobby free while it was not his elf, while he never even makes such a 
suggestion towards Kreacher. 

Maybe it is just me imagining that the difference was predominantly 
in their personality that gives me the feel that Kreacher actually 
would not want to be set free in the way Dobby did but sure that 
should not be a reason for Harry to not even offer it to Kreacher. 

Still I think JKR was going for the Regulus vs. Kreacher thing when 
it comes to Kreacher vs. Harry. Although I am not sure there is a 
real likeliness to Regulus actually marched to his death because LV 
mistreated his house-elf but it does seem to be the angle JKR was 
going for. 
Somehow making Kreacher the center point to the death of the two 
brothers Black and then being a central point to Harry's living as a 
Black heir. 

Yes, Harry is in a win-win situation but then again he was from book 
one onwards because you know he is the author's favorite ;o) but 
still even if his supposed perfectness is giving me the creeps I 
still do not see Harry as a perfect slave owner because I fail to see 
the house-elves as a metaphor for slaves. And Harry's obnoxious 
perfection should not stand in the way of the idea that house-elves 
like to be house-elves or that the even more obnoxious Hermione 
actually was wrong about something for a change (well to bad the 
author needed to change that too by give her omniscient house-elf 
knowledge).  

Anyway I think I still got the idea about your objection but it is 
just my annoying habit to look at everything from a different angle. 
If house-elves want to serve wizards then I see no objection to Harry 
having a house-elf as long as Kreacher wants to be Harry's elf. 

JMHO

Dana