House elves WAS: realistic resolutions

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 180993

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > It's not really me "insisting" that house-elf slavery "must"     
> > inform on RW slavery.  It's JKR in introducing us to the concept 
> > through a slave aching to be free, and then introducing us to two 
> > other slaves in moments when their owners are subjecting them to 
> > a great deal of anguish.  IOWs, it's really hard for me to work   
> > with the idea that all house-elves are happy with their lot when 
> > the three we get to know are so obviously miserable. <snip>

> >>Carol responds:
> First, forgive me, but I don't know what "inform on" means. I      
> thought it meant reporting a rule-breaker. <eg>

Betsy Hp:
Beauty of the English language, many meanings for various phrases.  
Here:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/inform%20on

Drop past the first two and there you go. ;)

> >>Carol:
> As for JKR "insisting" that House-Elf slavery must, erm, comment on?
> be analogous to? be the same as? RW slavery, that's your
> interpretation.

Betsy Hp:
Let's stick with "inform on" as I think it manages to convey all 
three suggestions (and more) quite elegantly. ;D

But yes, I am interperting that JKR meant for us to sympathize with 
Dobby's condition, see his owners as morally bad, and cheer for Harry 
figuring out a way to get Dobby his freedom.  All of which depends on 
us seeing house-elf slavery as a bad thing, as we see RL slavery.

And I do suspect JKR expected her audience to have an immediate 
response to the use of the word "slave".  That she backed our natural 
interpertation by giving us an abused slave longing to be free 
strikes me as suggestive that she wasn't trying to show a form 
of "good slavery".

> >>Carol: 
> <snip>
> You can't just read the text to fit your interpretation or assume
> that, because sci-fi and fantasy literature in general equates      
> fantasy slavery to RL human slavery (an unprovable contention,      
> BTW), that JKR is also doing so.

Betsy hp:
Well, *of course* I can, Carol.  That's the whole point of the list.  
Also, much as I'm sure you'd enjoy me falling into one of your false 
arguments, I'm not actually saying all sci-fi and fantasy 
literature "equates fantasy slavery to RL human slavery."  You're 
absolutely right, it's an unprovable contention, and beyond that, 
it's not germane. 

As to what JKR meant to do... well that's a tangled question because 
I really feel JKR had no clue really. She threw things at a wall and 
hoped some of it stuck, no matter if there were contradictions.

However, by introducing us to the concept of house-elves with an 
abused house-elf who wanted to be freed, by continuing down that road 
by having all three house-elves we meet also have a painful 
relationship with their owners, JKR certainly did a piss poor job 
setting up house-elf slavery as a good thing. 

> >>Carol:
> Her House-Elves are obviously derived from antecedents in folklore, 
> with differences to fit the needs of her plots...<snip>

Betsy Hp:
Oh, obviously.  And then she threw in slavery.  And she never pulled 
us out of it.  Which, again, I put down to sloppiness more than point 
making.  First she needed something to show just how evil the bad 
wizards are, so she gave them slaves that were unhappy and abused.  
Then she needed Harry to have a slave, so she...  well, she screwed 
up royally, IMO.  Harry the happy slave-owner just doesn't have that 
heroic ring to it, IMO.  (*Why* she wanted Harry to own a slave I 
really have no idea.  Seriously, none.)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I see the reluctance to call a slave a slave as avoiding the      
> > delving.  

> >>Carol:
> And perhaps the insistence that House-Elf servitude is "slavery,"
> ignoring canon evidence and rational arguments to the contrary, is,
> erm, begging the question?

Betsy Hp:
Since canon calls house-elves "slaves" I don't see what I'm ignoring.

> >>Carol:
> We are "delving," believe me. No one here is blithely taking the   
> position that House-Elf "slavery" is different from human slavery   
> for granted, and the idea that it perhaps ought to be called by a   
> different name is not "avoiding the delving" or hiding from the    
> truth...

Betsy Hp:
Actually, I'd say it's very much hiding from the truth.  House-elves 
are slaves.  They are owned.  They have no freedom of choice.

> >>Carol:
> <snip>...and some sort of enchantment that has no parallel, none    
> whatever, in the history of RL slavery, in which *some* human       
> beings are compelled by other human beings to be slaves.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Right.  House-elves are even more slaves than human slaves could ever 
be.  Because of the use of magic, house-elves are in an even more 
horrifying condition than African slaves were.  House-elves can be 
magically forced to not rebel.

> >>Betsy HP:
> We are talking about creatures who are in a position where their
> owners can do *anything* to them. 

> >>Carol:
> "Creatures." *Not* humans.

Betsy Hp:
Yes.  Like Fluer or Hagrid or Flitwick.

> >>Carol:
> And, again, you are exaggerating.

Betsy Hp:
Am I?  Kreacher was forced to kill himself.  He was also forced to 
inform on (heh) the scion of a family he adored.  From what I've seen 
in canon, house-elves cannot refuse a direct order.  Which means, 
their owners can make them do whatever they want.  IOWs, anything.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> ANYTHING. Kreacher was forced to kill himself for his owner. 

> >>Carol:
> Erm, what?

Betsy Hp:
Erm... the deadly poison he was forced to drink?

> >>Carol:
> Kreacher is still alive at the end of the story.

Betsy Hp:
Lucky Kreacher. He was still forced to drink something that killed 
him.  Just, he'd also been ordered to come back.  (Good Lord, there's 
some ugly implications in that.  Think what a true sadist could do if 
they didn't need to worry about permently killing their house-elf?)

> >>Carol:
> If you mean that Regulus "forced him to kill himself," Regulus     
> didn't know why Voldemort needed a House-Elf and naively           
> volunteered Kreacher for the "honor."

Betsy Hp:
Which is why this "good owner" argument is so much crap.  Humans 
aren't gods (not even the wizard version) and an order thought to be 
good could turn into something horrible before the "good owner" even 
realizes what they've done.  With the house-elves compelled to obey, 
they are completely dependent on their owners thinking out every 
angle of each order.  Which is, I think, an impossibility.

> >>Betsy: 
> > It's a horror, imo.  And to try and back away from it by calling 
> > it something *other* than slavery seems an attempt to candy-coat 
> > it. <snip>

> >>Carol:
> The "horror" is the enchantment that makes them punish themselves, 
> not their service to wizards in and of itself. No one is trying to
> "candy-coat" it. we're trying to examine it objectively to determine
> its nature and its differences from RL slavery. PLEASE don't       
> attribute motives to fellow posters that they don't have just       
> because we disagree with you.

Betsy Hp:
Like accusing them of ignoring "rational arguments"? Hi, Pot! *eg*  
Though I still think an attempt to call a sentient being owned and 
controlled by another sentient being something *other* than slavery 
is...  ah hell, it seems like trying to force something into 
something it's not.  House-elves are slaves, they're called slaves in 
canon, and trying to find another word seems a bit silly, to my mind.

> >>Betsy HP:
> > Of course, House-elves *are* different. The parallels aren't      
> > exact.

> >>Carol:
> Which is exactly what the rest of us have been arguing. Thank you.

Betsy Hp:
You're welcome. :)  Can we trash the "they're not slaves" argument 
then, please, and focus on whether slavery is a good thing for house-
elves?  That seems to be the actual argument.  Am I wrong?
 
> >>Betsy Hp: 
> > Because while JKR wanted us to hate the Malfoys for owning a     
> > slave, she wanted us to still love slave-owning Harry. <snip>

> >>Carol:
> However, for the sake of argument, if she did "intend" for us to   
> hate the Malfoys, it was not because they were "slave owners" (or, 
> more correctly, House-Elf owners).

Betsy Hp:
No, no "slave" works fine.  It's what Dobby uses after all. Let's not 
get cutsy with it. So wait, we're supposed to like the Malfoys?

> >>Carol:
> It was because they *abused* their House-Elf.

Betsy Hp:
Oh.  So we should hate Sirius?

> >>Carol:
> Harry, who inherited a House-Elf against his will, cannot free him 
> even after the defeat of Voldemort because Kreacher doesn't want to 
> be freed. (Even Sirius says as much, IIRC.) We are not supposed    
> to "love slave-owning Harry." We are (assuming that I've guessed   
> JKR's "intention" correctly) supposed to admire Harry as the savior 
> of the WW who has come to terms with Kreacher and learned to treat 
> his House-Elf (not slave) as that House-Elf (not slave) wants to be 
> treated--and that includes letting him serve "Master Harry" Master 
> Harry's favorite treacle tarts--or bacon sandwiches. 

Betsy Hp:
But as you've demonstrated upthread, even the best intentions on the 
part of the *slave* owner can lead to really bad consequences for the 
*slave*.  Unless, are you saying Winky is no longer a house-elf?  
Dobby died as something other than a house-elf?  If a house-elf is no 
longer owned does he or she cease to be?

Kreacher is Harry's property and Harry is cool with that.  So he's 
Harry the slave-owning hero.  

Betsy Hp