House-Elves yet again

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 181323

> > > Magpie:
> > > Liking to *serve* is not the same as wanting to be *owned.*
> > 
> > Shelley:
> > But again, it is us humans who are making that artificial 
> distinction. I do 
> > not see in canon where the House Elves themselves make that 
> distinction. 
> > Kreacher's fight is that he was taken away from "serving" his 
> mistress, the 
> > portrait, not necessarily that ownership was transferred to 
Harry. 
> Once he 
> > respected Harry, then he was more than happy to "serve" Harry.
> 
> Magpie:
> You don't see in canon where house elves make that distinction? 
> Dobby and Kreacher both make it very loudly--"I won't! I won't!" 
> says Kreacher when the will is read. Of course Kreacher's fight is 
> against the trasferring of his ownership to Harry! He doesn't want 
> to serve Harry and he didn't want to serve Sirius, which is who he 
> was serving before Harry--not his mistress' portrait. (And even if 
> his problem was that he was taken away from serving the portrait he 
> wanted to serve, that's still making the same distinction--Kreacher 
> doesn't get to serve who *he* wants to serve.) 

a_svirn:
And I'd very much like to know what is so artificial in this 
distinction. Do you (Shelley) think that a distinction between a 
waiter in a restaurant and a slave serving you a dinner is 
artificial? I'd say it is totally artificial (to say the least) to 
link these two very separate meanings in one semantic monster. I've 
yet to see any dictionary that would give "being owned" as a meaning 
for *serve*. 

> Magpie: 
> Yeah, once he respected Harry he was happy to serve Harry--he's 
> happy when he's serving somebody he respects. He was *not* happy 
> serving Harry in HBP and he was *not* happy serving Sirius in OotP. 
> That's most of his part in canon he suffers as an unwilling slave 
in 
> service to masters he doesn't want that you're glossing over 
> with "once he respected Harry..." The slavery was most obvious when 
> he didn't respect Harry. His coming to respect him might give the 
> illusion that it's not slavery, but the real test comes when 
> Kreacher doesn't want to serve him, at which time he's forced to 
> serve him because he's a slave. As long as they are slaves, House 
> Elves' well-being rests on trusting the good will of their 
> individual masters. 
> 

a_svirn:
Exactly so. And unlike Sweeney Todd and Mrs. Lovett who would "serve 
anyone and to anyone at all", elves are actually pretty 
discriminative. They would like to serve wizards of their own 
choosing and do not want to serve anyone they deem unworthy of their 
services. They are prevented from doing what they want, however, 
because they are property of wizards, e.g. slaves. There is ample 
evidence for that in canon. It is only through some *very* artificial 
and selective reading one can overlook the instances of elves making 
this distinction.  
a_svirn