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

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 178634

Random:
> Some people have read "bound by the enchantments of his kind" as 
meaning
> that wizards, at some point in the distant past, placed some sort 
of
> magic spell on elves, enslaving them, and so this isn't a 
biological
> thing, it's artificial. I think that the key word is "of" - 
they're the
> enchantments "of" house elves, not of wizards on house elves. 
There is
> no reason, particularly giving that wording these "enchantments" 
cannot
> be naturally occuring in a magical species.

Magpie:
Just for my own perspective, I've always read "of his kind" to refer 
to House Elves and not Wizards--iow, that this kind of binding 
enchantment occurs in House Elves for whatever reason--it's not put 
on a House Elf like a Wizard. Like Remus is "bound" by the 
enchantments of his kind (werewolf) in a way--he transforms at the 
full moon.

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.

Magpie:
Oh yes, I know that the inspirational foundation for House Elves are 
brownies. But her versions of them follow her rules so looking to 
brownie behavior has limited uses. Brownies don't usually have 
interactions with people face to face, and as you said, they serve 
people if they want to serve them. They refuse if they're 
mistreated. House Elves, by contrast, don't have the same freedom, 
do interact with people and are forced to punish themselves if they 
disobey. You couldn't treat a brownie like a house elf or order it 
around however you wanted. They don't have the same enchantments 
that Random mentioned above.

> Pippin:
> Who are these confused people?
> I haven't heard from anyone who finished the book and thought,
> gosh, what the world needs is to train/breed a bunch of people to
> serve us as House Elves. I think canon shows clearly that although
> the idea has attractions, if you could do that, it would be cruel
> and unwise.

Magpie:
I didn't say anything about any hypthothetical "confused" people. I 
was describing how some people feel about the house elf situation. 
One can not like the set up of something without thinking anyone 
else is going to be compelled to go out and recreate it, or not 
understanding fact and fiction. (Not, of course, that people 
actually haven't thought it was a good idea to breed and train 
people to serve us like House Elves in the past.) I think it's 
perfectly valid for people to feel that it hits a sour note for 
them, or works against the alleged message of the books. I don't 
think canon says anything one way or the other about whether it 
would be cruel or unwise to breed a bunch of people for any 
particular thing. 

Montavilla47:
But the parts that are cruel, demeaning, and just plain weird
are shown to be due to masters who are cruel, demeaning, and
just plain weird.

When it's Harry who, after an initial discomfort with slave-owning,
practices good master behavior, the master/slave relationship
is okay. Therefore, in order to come away with the message that
slavery is bad, you need to come into the story with that idea.

And say to yourself, "Well, it's all very good that Harry is
responsible and kind, but we know that isn the way that
slavery really works."

Magpie:
Yes. I don't see why it's considered even surprising that some 
people don't particularly like this particular side to canon or are 
reminded of certain human ideas about "ruling classes" or slavery by 
it. Even in this thread I'm not getting the feeling that the idea of 
Harry the slavemaster with Kreacher the slave who loves him now that 
he's identified him as a worthy master is all that attractive. If 
nobody had anything to go on but the books I think they'd more 
get "this is how a master should treat his slave" not "slavery is 
bad." Even if they noticed that House Elves aren't actually human, 
the fact that they talk makes them human enough. I don't think the 
story's going to make somebody go out and force someone to be 
his/her slave, but I also can't imagine that a person who actually 
owned slaves, say a person from a place and time where that was 
common, wouldn't read the story as validating their situation.

Geoff:
Supposing Harry had wondered whether Molly Weasley or Hermione or
even... Draco(!) might bring him a sandwich in Gryffindor Tower. What
would you read into that? Sometimes a cigar is just a... cigar.

Magpie:
Err...what's to read into it? It's not Harry's having a sandwich 
that bothers Katie, it's Harry having a slave that he accepts as 
such. That's not reading anything into it, it's just not 
particularly liking that aspect of the book's. A cigar's a cigar, a 
master is a master.

-m