House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 180974

SSSusan earlier:
> > What I object to is the, to me, rather offensive assumption that 
> > this is all a reaction to HARRY, the implication that people who 
> > have taken the view that I have [about wishing there were a 
> > different term] are such shallow readers that we are incapable of 
> > handling anything negative pertaining to Harry.  So that when we 
> > encounter something icky that good ol', sweet ol', Hero Harry is 
> > doing, we can't "compute" and so go scrambling for some way to 
> > explain it away.  That bothers me.  
 
Magpie:
> I didn't mean for it to sound so shallow as not being able to 
> believe Harry could do anything bad. It was just easy to refer to 
> Harry because he's a shorthand for generally positive things, or 
> behavior that the book says is okay (or at least forgivable). 


SSSusan:
Thanks.  I guess I really don't like that kind of shorthand, though, 
because it assumes too much, I think.  It's like, pre-DH, when people 
would say that the shorthand DDM!Snaper meant the person believed 
Snape was an all-around good guy or included the belief that he 
didn't he ever abused anyone.  It wasn't fair to use such a shorthand 
because it didn't include a LOT of people's nuances away from that 
position.  (I always thought Snape was a complete & total prick who 
happened to be on the side of good, for instance.)  The shorthand 
assumption was an *extension* of the basic position of "Dumbledore's 
Man," based upon what folks in another camp thought was included with 
that one label.

You may be talking about shorthand for things-in-the-book, though, 
whereas I certainly took it for a shorthand about what certain list 
members must be thinking/reacting to because of the position they've 
taken + their feelings about Harry.  And that I objected to.


Magpie:
> It does seem like the basic idea behind it not being slavery is 
> that it's not bad in the same way, and I think that's because 
> that's the opinion the book puts across--not by having Harry do it 
> but by having the same views as Harry on it. 

SSSusan:
Except that I really have no IDEA whether Harry's views on this are 
the same as mine.  I have no idea whether he wished there was a 
different term for what he saw with House Elves than what he likely
(?) knew about slavery in the Muggle world.  I have no idea whether 
he would have been truly excited to end House Elf 
Slavery/Servanthood/Whatever, if a fabulous mechanism for doing so 
could've been found.  He certainly didn't seem as gung ho to *work* 
on a solution as I like to think I would have been if I'd been in his 
shoes (or Ron's or Luna's or...).  

I guess Harry's views, to me, don't play much into my particular 
position or attempt to understand this issue.

So I don't think, for me anyway, that the idea that it's not the SAME 
kind of slavery comes from a judgment that it's not as bad so much as 
it comes from my sense that it is simply different.  Yes, it IS 
easier to stomach a lot of it BECAUSE of the elf & wizard claims & 
evidence that elves are "designed" to serve and want to serve and 
don't want freedom.  So they go hand in hand in a way – the 
difference in it may make it feel "less bad" to some folks – but I 
don't know that it's that actual "less bad" aspect which makes it 
appear as something different than human slavery so much as just the 
FACTS of those differences themselves.  (Boy, did I ever say that 
poorly.  My apologies for not being able to express that more 
clearly.)


Magpie: 
> The way it comes across in the books to me seems to be that JKR 
> wanted to have these house elves because they're neat. They're like 
> brownies, which would be fine--except then she changed them and 
> used one in a storyline that required Harry to save him from his 
> slavery. In fact, most of the house elf storylines in the books 
> come specifically from their being oppressed and enslaved as 
> individuals. But in the end house elves are a cool part of the WW, 
> as fun as Portkeys or something like that. 

SSSusan:
Maybe, re: the "in the end" part.  I can certainly understand why it 
feels that way to you.  I'm not so sure that it's considered 
*cool*... but it definitely wasn't taken care of by the end, and it 
leaves things up in the air.  For us to wonder about and discuss ad 
infinitem. :)


Magpie:
> I do, I admit, doubt that if Lucius Malfoy were the only house elf 
> owner in canon (along with perhaps Mr. Crouch) we'd generally 
> consider house elf slavery to just be slavery. Not just because 
> Harry wasn't doing it but because it wouldn't be presented as a
> nice thing in any way. We wouldn't have the face of a "reluctant" 
> slave owner to deal with. The distinction between somebody like 
> Lucius and somebody like Harry does seem to be made both in the 
> books and in this thread, as if Harry being a guy who treats his 
> house elves better than we imagine Lucius treating his changes the 
> nature of their contract. I don't think it's about just trying to 
> absolve Harry, I think it's an argument in favor of what Harry 
> happens to wind up doing, which is totally excused in canon. In 
> this case Harry is a stand-in for the reader who has the same 
> attitude that's being argued here. 

SSSusan:
I wish I understood your last remark better, but I'm afraid I don't. :
(  I don't think I'm one of the ones who's been making a distinction 
between Lucius' & Harry's treatment of their elves in the thread, and 
so maybe that's why I'm not getting it.  

All I know is that I've argued that there is something different 
between the elves and RL human slaves and between the versions of 
slavery or servitude at play in RL and in the HP series. I can't NOT 
see those differences that I've mentioned several times (e.g., house 
elves have been presented with free & legal "outs" and have not only 
refused but gone running from the offer).  So I don't know what 
attitude I or some folks are "excusing."  :-|

(I'm not trying to be difficult, really!  I think we're just coming 
at this not only from different positions but also from two slightly 
different angles, and it's causing me trouble in grasping your 
comment.)

 
SSSusan earlier:
> > In this whole discussion, I have been focusing on the ELVES and 
> > how I see them, how I read their  natures, wishes, words and 
> > actions, and from THAT came the desire for a different term.  It 
> > had nothing to do with wishing I could make up some softer word 
> > to get Harry's ass off the hook.
 
Magpie:
> And I'm trying to get away from the elves, not only because it 
> takes away the fact that Wizards are pursuing their own interests 
> in this arrangement (as if they're just giving into what's best for 
> elves, when Wizards do what's best for Wizards), but because the 
> elves themselves don't conform to the position you're giving them, 
> if I understand it correctly. You seem to be arguing that since 
> elves don't want freedom and want to be owned, it's not slavery, 
> yet canon has given us plenty of examples of elves unhappy because 
> they don't have the freedom to follow their own desires. The whole 
> idea that "it's natural" glides over the numerous examples of elves 
> acting against their own desires and wills thanks to their position.

SSSusan:
And yet the whole disregarding of elves not WANTING freedom strikes 
me as gliding over something significant, too.  You want to get away 
from the elves; and I do not want to do so, for that is where I see 
the fundamental difference that makes me see this as something 
different from human, RW slavery.  

I am not even saying it's not slavery; I'm just saying it's 
*different* enough to me that it intrigues me and makes me wish for a 
different reference point.  I can't see it being HANDLED in quite the 
same way -- or eliminated in quite the same way -- as human slavery 
was in the RW because of those differences.  That's the majority of 
what I've been trying to drive at.

I can't make you switch your focus ONTO the elves, because you don't 
want it or see a reason for it to be there.  But similarly, I'm not 
going to see the two versions of slavery as identical, because my 
focus IS there.


Magpie: 
> To use the "just because it looks like slavery doesn't mean it is" 
> argument in yet another way, just because house elves look like 
> they want to be slaves doesn't mean they actually do. 

SSSusan:
Then WHY have they run away from the opportunity to not be slaves?  I 
don't understand why that point gets pooh-poohed.  Several Hogwarts 
HEs are offered freedom via Hermione's hats.  They run away from 
them.  Why do we need to assume they don't *actually* want to be 
slaves, if they're showing us that they don't want to take the 
freedom offered to them?


Magpie:
> They like serving others, but suffer under the institution of 
> slavery as it exists in the WW. We lose the ability to make this 
> point the minute they stop being free.

SSSusan:
And I agree with you that they suffer.  Which is why I would like to 
see the institution eliminated.  I just would want to be careful how 
it's done, because of the elves' different views of who they are and 
what they do and what gives them worth, compared to what most human 
slaves likely felt about those things.  


 
Magpie: 
> It doesn't matter imo whether the overwhelming majority of human 
> slaves wouldn't have eschewed freedom--the very fact that we're 
> talking about freedom being the opposite of the condition implies 
> we're talking about slavery. What's important is that any who *do* 
> want freedom (and any time you wish you could do something other 
> than what your master wants you to do is wanting freedom) don't 
> have it, and if anyone developed that desire they wouldn't have it. 
> That situation has been dramatized plenty with house elves in 
> canon. Dobby can't do what he wants when he's owned by Lucius, 
> Kreacher can't do what he wants when he's owned by Harry. Maybe one 
> of those two still considers it a disgrace to be sacked and out of 
> work, but he's still suffering from a lack of freedom and trying to 
> find ways to be free to act according to his own wishes. 

SSSusan:
And to me it *does* matter, so that's why we're not getting to any 
point of agreement. :) I GET that you're saying, "We're talking about 
slavery because the HEs don't have total freedom."  I GET that.  But 
I'm simply continuing to remark that I see the "variety" of slavery, 
if you will, as something different.  It's like there has to be a 
Slavery/Not Slavery dichotomy and that's ALL that matters.  That's 
fine for folks who see it that way.  All I'm adding is that for some 
of us, it's not that black & white a dichotomy in the sense that we 
do observe some differences within the category which would be 
classed "Slavery" and would like to note that and consider what those 
differences might mean and how it might impact how things play out.


Mike:
> As I've said, that term works for me. But I understand the search 
> for a new word. Take the moving stair cases in Hogwarts.
<snip>
> I don't have another name for them besides "stairs", but they don't 
> have all of the same qualities as real world stairs. So simply 
> calling them stairs seems lacking to explain all that they are, 
> they don't *exactly* equate to real world stairs.
 
Magpie:
> Right--but we still call them stairs because they're stairs with 
> some magical specialties. Just like we call their broomsticks 
> broomsticks, photos photos, portraits portraits. We just 
> distinguish whether we're talking about the Wizard version or the 
> Muggle version. 

SSSusan:
That's actually what I'm saying.  And I personally don't give a rat's 
patootie what term is come up with (i.e., whether it contains the 
word "slavery" or not), as the key to me is recognition that it's not 
identical to the RW version, that it's "stairs with some magical 
specialties."  

No one on this list should insist anyone else use a term they created 
for their own sake, you know?  So if a listee calls what the house 
elves do something besides "slavery," s/he has a right to do that, 
and someone else could object or say, "Why do you do that?"  
Similarly, if most people keep right on calling it "slavery" 
or "House Elf slavery," so be it.  Others are free, always, to argue 
that point, too.  It's not like (heh, I don't think!) anyone is 
actually saying, "NO LONGER SHALL THE WORD 'SLAVERY' BE USED ON THIS 
LIST TO DESCRIBE HOUSE ELVES."  Hee.


Magpie:
> I think there's other things that make it culturally acceptable to 
> Wizards and acceptable to readers, actually. We don't know whether 
> the magical compulsion was created by Wizards any more than we know 
> if Elves were the ones who came up with their being the property of 
> Wizards.

SSSusan:
No, we don't know any of this... for either side of the possibility 
spectrum (Wizards somehow caused or brought it on vs. total Nature-
driven compulsion).  We really can't assume *either,* imo.

Siriusly Snapey Susan