House elves WAS: realistic resolutions

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 181007

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

> > 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

Carol:
Elegantly? (Shiver!) It sounds like jargon to me, about as elegant as
"prior to" for "because" and numerous other linguistic abominations
(IMVHO). And, yeah. I know I'm getting carried away, but I'll stick
with using "analogous to" for the point we're disputing here (I say
that House-Elf ownership is not analogous to RL slavery; you say that
it is) and using "inform on" to mean "reporting a rule-breaker" or the
like. Informants inform; informers inform on. Anyway, it doesn't
matter. You like the phrase. I hate it. Sort of like various readers'
reactions to the resolution of the House-Elf subplot. :-)

Betsy:
> 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.

Carol:
Yes and no. It did read that way in CoS, but when we met other
House-Elves, it became clear that the problem in Dobby's case was not
the fact that he was owned by Wizards but the fact that he was abused.
And it was the abuse to which I, at least, viscerally reacted in CoS.
And it was their abuse of Dobby, not their ownership of him, that
marked the Malfoys as "bad Dark Wizards."

I agree that we're meant to sympathize with Dobby's condition and to
see Harry's spontaneous gesture as an act of kindness. But, like many
an action in the HP books, it has unexpected consequences. I'm quite
sure that Harry didn't realize that he was sending Dobby into jobless,
homeless disgrace. If it weren't for Dumbledore, another anomaly, what
would have become of him? (Or Winky, who might have become an Elf!Merope).
> 
Betsy:
> 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:
Then how do you account for the happy House-Elves of Hogwarts?
"Slavery" is Dobby's word (and Muggle-raised Hermione's) but I don't
recall anyone else using it. We're talking about House-Elf ownership,
which may or may not involve abuse. And it certainly appears to be a
"good thing" in the eyes of the House-Elves themselves, as well as
some but not all Wizards. Moreover, it seems to be an indispensable
part of the WW, making debates over what to call it or whether it's
good or bad in itself meaningless.

The condition of servitude or ownership of House-Elves is clearly not
in itself abusive or the Hogwarts House-Elves would not be thriving
and happy. The enchantment that forces House-Elves to punish
themselves, OTOH, is clearly horrible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
think that's a point we all agree on.

> Betsy hp:
><snip> 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. 

Carol:
Good. Let's drop that argument, then.
> 
Betsy:
> 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.

Carol:
Ah, well. You and I agree on the futility of attempting to determine
authorial intention, I think. And on the existence of contradictions
throughout canon, particularly in DH, without even bringing in the
interviews. But, still, canon is all we've got, and those of us on the
House-Elf-servitude-is-natural-and-not-he-same-as-human-slavery side
of the argument *are* using it to support our side. The reason we're
looking for a different word as part of the argument is that the
analogy is only partial. Human slavery is a form of abuse as horrific
as foot binding or forcing women to wear burkhas. But House-Elves
aren't people; they seem to have no purpose (and no desire) other than
to serve Wizards and they *do* derive benefits from their servitude
when they're not abused (food, tea towels, a home, productive if
unpaid employment, praise for "good service," pride, happiness), Just
ask Winky, who is given clothes but stripped of pride, happiness, a
job, and a home by the master she still loves. If only he could and
would take her back into his service, she would have everything her
heart desires. If she were human, she'd look at her new job--wages and
time off and everything!--as an obvious improvement over her inherited
position as a family servant trusted with important work and her
master's (hic!) secrets. But she's not human, so she wants her master
and her home and her old job back.
> 
Betsy:
> 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:
Well, first, you're calling it slavery, and, of course, JKR isn't
going to set up *slavery* as a good thing. But House-Elf servitude or
ownership is presented from a variety of perspectives. Harry must deal
with them one at a time, and, as I think we agree, his perception and
interpretation of events and characters is not always accurate, nor
does he have complete information.

First, we have Dobby, who is owned and horribly abused by "bad Dark
Wizards" whom we later learn are the Malfoys. We also see that Dobby
is under some sort of enchantment that forces him to punish himself
when he disobeys or speaks badly of his "family." Dobby does refer to
himself and other House-Elves as "slaves," but, oddly, no other
House-Elf uses that term. Nor does Dobby express a wish to be free. He
only laments his miserable condition, which is not replicated by any
other House-Elf, not even Kreacher. (Dobby is the only House-Elf we
see who wears a filthy pillowcase. All the others except the miserable
"freed" Winky and the deliberately filthy Kreacher wear clean tea
towels. You'd think that the Malfoys, who display their wealth with
white peacocks and all that, would insist that their House-Elf look
respectable. Ah, well. JKR wants a miserable, pathetic Dobby, so she
puts him in a filthy pillowcase. "'Tis the mark of the House-Elf's
enslavement, sir." Really, Dobby? Why isn't any other Elf wearing one,
then?)

Next, we have Winky, who, aside from having to deal with a fear of
heights, is perfectly happy in her position and highly disapproving of
Dobby's desire for freedom. Her predicament a few pages later has
nothing to do with enchantments and everything to do with having let
Barty Jr. get hold of a wand. (Barty Sr. isn't giving the whole story,
naturally. Funny how secretive all these Wizards are.) And Winky,
though disgraced and "freed," is bound, not by an enchantment but by
the House-Elves' code of honor, to keep those secrets when Harry and
Hermione start "nosing," even though she is technically free. (We see
what she thinks of "freedom" with her drinking and descent into
squalor.) Her relationship with her owner is not painful until it's
severed, and she wants nothing more than to return to it.

Then we have the Hogwarts House-Elves, who disapprove of both Dobby
and Winky, are clean and happy and proud to serve, and refuse to pick
up the hats and socks with which Hermione has insulted their
intelligence and their sensibilities by trying to trick them into
unwanted "freedom."

Then we have Kreacher, who is not *forced* to wear a filthy rag but
*chooses* to do so, just as he "cleans" by collecting family heirlooms
that Sirius is trying to throw out. He has no objection at all to
servitude or to being owned, only to obeying the renegade Sirius. His
attitude toward the Blacks is virtually identical to Winky's toward
the Crouch's. 12 GP is his home, and he is devoted to his old
mistress, even if all he has left of her is a screeching painting. As
soon as Hermione figures out Kreacher's psychology and needs and Harry
acts on them, Kreacher becomes a devoted servant, delighted with his
task of capturing the despised Mundungus, thief of the Black family
heirlooms, and at the first opportunity transforms himself, unasked,
into a clean, properly uniformed, and highly efficient family servant.
The only difference between him and a human cook/butler/maid is that
he's much more efficient and doesn't want to be paid. (He can also
boss "Master Harry" around when it comes to matters like washing his
hands before meals.) So. Kreacher is a happy, typical House-Elf until
Regulus's death. He rebels as best he can against Sirius, the son who
broke his mother's heart, and maintains a fierce and (to Sirius)
inexplicable loyalty to his old mistress as he and Sirius trade
insults and make each other miserable. He reverts to his old role of
Black family retainer the moment Harry takes Regulus's mission onto
himself. Kreacher never wants to be "free." He just wants to serve the
House of Black, even if that means going to Miss Narcissa and her
husband (and, later, to his adored Miss Bellatrix).

Last and least, we have Hokey, who appears to be the typical devoted
House-elf, perfectly happy to wait on her rich, pampered old mistress
hand and foot. She's owned, certainly, and she obeys orders without
question, but she's perfectly happy, just like Kreacher with the
Blacks (or DH!Harry), Winky with the Crouches, and the Hogwarts
House-Elves. That leaves only Dobby, the "Free Elf," who is also
perfectly happy to serve Wizards (other than the Malfoys) because
*that's what House-Elves do.*

None of them, "free" or owned, can escape that self-punishment
enchantment if they disobey their masters, but that has nothing to do
with the masters. Nor can Harry or Dumbledore or anyone else lift that
enchantment, though I imagine Hermione will try to find a way.
> 
Carol earlier:
> > Her House-Elves are obviously derived from antecedents in
folklore, with differences to fit the needs of her plots...<snip>
> 
Betsy Hp:
> Oh, obviously.

Carol:
Good. We agree again.

Betsy:
>  And then she threw in slavery.  And she never pulled us out of it.

Carol:
Well, Dobby threw in "slavery" and called himself a "Free Elf" despite
continuing to serve Wizards when he had the opportunity (what he was
"free" of was the Malfoys' abuse). And Hermione threw in "slavery" and
brilliantly came up with SPEW, roundly rejected by Wizard and
House-Elves alike. Then she came around to the radical idea of trying
to understand the psychology of House-Elves and give them what they
want (which Ron and the Twins and Hagrid had been recommending all
along), focusing her horror on the one unquestionably bad element of
the House-Elf ownership system, the self-punishment enchantment. (She
has no problem with Kreacher's obeying Harry or Harry giving
reasonable and necessary orders. Nor does Kreacher have any problem
with it once he's told his tale. He's more than happy to go after
Mundungus--and whang him with a saucepan into the bargain. Go, Kreacher!)

Betsy:
>  Which, again, I put down to sloppiness more than point making. 

Carol:
Ah, well. Maybe we shouldn't be looking at "point making," which takes
us back to authorial intention. <eg>

Betsy:
> First she needed something to show just how evil the bad wizards
are, so she gave them slaves that were unhappy and abused. 

Carol:
Well, she gives one set of Dark Wizards a House-Elf and has them abuse
him. But it turns out to be the abuse, not the "slavery," that sets
them apart from other Wizards and makes them bad. We see other forms
of cruelty, mostly the Cruciatus Curse but also Umbridge's quill, to
show how evil other bad wizards are. (Barty Jr. gives the Malfoys a
run for their money in GoF, I'd say.) And we see House-Elves who are
owned but not abused (or abused by being "freed"--"freedom" as
punishment, with "freed" meaning "fired." We might as well say that
Lupin and Umbridge were "freed" from the duties of the DADA position).

Betsy: 
> Then she needed Harry to have a slave, so she...  

Carol:
Actually, she needed him to have a House-Elf. And that House-Elf had
to be Kreacher, not Dobby, because of the Regulus subplot. So she had
to turn both Harry's and Kreacher's attitudes around, which required
Harry to understand House-Elf psychology, which is where Hermione
comes in.

Betsy:
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.)

Carol:
Well, let's look at the plot. Harry needs a House-Elf (not a "slave"),
in part because House-Elves have powers that Wizards don't have.

Kreacher was necessary to OoP, and since she needed Harry to inherit
12 GP so that he could stay there at least for awhile in DH. That
means he had to inherit Kreacher, too (or Kreacher and 12 GP could
have gone to Bellatrix, in which case we'd have a completely different
story). She also needed Kreacher for the Regulus subplot and to bring
in Mundungus, which HRH could not have done without him. And there's
the whole theme or motif of Harry's misperceptions of people and
events, extended here to House-Elves. Rethinking his view of Kreacher
and Regulus is a step toward rethinking Snape. (And there's the whole
search for truth about Dumbledore subplot, but that works in the
opposite direction.)

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

Carol:
Dobby and Hermiome call House-Elves slaves. What you're ignoring is
the differences, cited too often in this thread for me to repeat them
here, between RL slavery and House-Elf servitude (and between
House-Elves and humans, including the whole concept of "freedom").

> Betsy Hp:
> <snip>  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. <snip>

Carol:
And yet both Dobby and Kreacher rebelled. And House-Elves reject
"freedom." Could it be that both slavery and freedom are human
concepts, which are essentially meaningless to magical creatures whose
nature and psychology compel them to serve Wizards? They reject abuse,
certainly. But they don't want freedom.

Betsy Hp:
Kreacher was forced to kill himself.

Carol:
If Kreacher were forced to kill himself, he would be dead. He was
forced to drink poison, but not by his owner. That owner died to
avenge him and made sure that Kreacher returned safely to 12 GP,
entrusted with an important mission which, unknown to Regulus, was
beyond Kreacher's power to carry out.

Betsy:
>  He was also forced to inform on (heh) the scion of a family he
adored. <snip>

Carol:
Ah. "Inform on" used correctly. :-) Only he didn't inform on Draco at
all. He couldn't avoid following him, but he didn't report any
valuable information. (Dobby performed that service, voluntarily.)

BTW, human beings are forced to perform duties we don't want to
perform all the time, paying income tax or bills or performing
distasteful tasks at work, for example. And the penalty is being
arrested or having the water turned off or being "freed," erm, fired.
That doesn't make us slaves. It just means that someone else has
authority or power over us. (I'd quote Ishmael again, but I'm sure
everyone is tired of him and his bad grammar.)

> > >>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:
By Voldemort, who was not his owner? And it didn't kill him? (No one
is denying that Voldemort is an evil Dark Wizard who abuses
House-Elves. That abuse is what made Regulus see the light and
sacrifice himself to achieve revenge by stealing the Horcrux.)
> 
> > >>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.  

Carol:
It didn't kill him. Nor did it kill Dumbledore or Regulus. It "just"
made him and them suffer horrible memories and a terrible, burning
agony that could only be abated by drinking water--which, of course,
triggered the Inferi. Kreacher escaped the Inferi because he'd been
ordered to return home, and Regulus, seeing his suffering and hearing
what nearly happened, chose to sacrifice himself, knowing that he,
unlike Kreacher, could not escape the Inferi.

So, yes, Kreacher was forced to drink something that made him suffer
horribly and was supposed to kill him, but not directly. But it was
not Regulus who made him do it, and Regulus's remorse (paralleling
Snape's for revealing the Prophecy) results in *his* truly horrible
death, in full view of Kreacher, who rightly, IMO, regards Regulus as
his hero (paralleling Dobby's worship of Harry but with a more direct
cause) and the champion of House-Elves. <snip>


> 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. <snip>

Carol:
IMO, it's all part of the actions-have-unintended-consequences motif,
which we see throughout the books, most obviously with Voldemort's
attempt to kill Harry and his choice to break his word to spare Lily,
but also with Harry's sparing Wormtail and snape's reporting the
Prophecy to Voldemort. almost forgot Sirius's brilliant idea to switch
Secret Keepers. Just like all of them, Regulus had no idea what the
consequences of volunteering his House-Elf to Voldemort would be, nor
could he have guessed that Kreacher would be unable to destroy the
Horcrux. It has nothing to do with "good ownership," that I can see.
YMMV. 

And good thing Kreacher was compelled to obey that order to return
home, eh? Otherwise, he'd have been eaten by the Inferi and Regulus
would never have found out what happened to him.

Betsy:
> 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.

Carol:
And I think that it's important to examine the differences and not
slap a loaded term onto a relationship that doesn't exist in RL, even
if two, and only two, characters use it. Their views are canonically
opposed by every other House-Elf and/or Wizard in the books.
Hermione's SPEW efforts, as a_svirn admits, were short-sighted and
futile. (Sorry. I can't remember the exact words she used, but it's
one of the few points on which she and I agree. SPEW is aptly named,
and I'm quite sure that JKR did it on purpose.)
> 
> > >>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? <snip>

Carol:
Well, no, because you're asking us to use your term and then argue for
or against slavery, which makes us look like slave-owners in the
ante-bellum South. We can argue whether House-Elf ownership is
mutually beneficial when the owner's powers aren't abused and the
House-Elf is serving a master he respects, if you like. And certainly,
no one is arguing that the self-punishment enchantment is a good thing.

>Betsy Hp:
So wait, we're supposed to like the Malfoys?
> 
Carol:
I thought that you liked Draco. <eg> But, seriously, of course, we're
not supposed to like the "bad Dark Wizards" who abuse Dobby. But we're
supposed to dislike their treatment of him, not their ownership.
Otherwise, Dumbledore, who employs hundreds of House-Elves who doesn't
want paying, is a hundred times worse than the Malfoys. The difference
is that they like their jobs. They're proud to serve Hogwarts and, by
extension, DD. They don't want to be "freed," not only because it
would be a disgrace, in their eyes, but because they're happy. And
yet, as far as we can determine, they're what you're calling "slaves."

> > >>Carol:
> > It was because they *abused* their House-Elf.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Oh.  So we should hate Sirius?

Carol:
<eg>? Again, I don't want to get into what we should or shouldn't do
(JKR's intentions). And some readers *do* hate Sirius. he's not among
my favorite characters, by any means, but I'm going to defend him
here. His "abuse" of Kreacher (more than matched by Kreacher's
muttered insults--for which, BTW, he is not punished) resembles
Snape's "abuse" of Harry. It stems, as does Snape's, from a profound
misunderstanding and loathing, and it results in an intensified hatred
of the "abuser," who is also misunderstood by a "victim" predisposed
to dislike him. Everyone involved is already suffering psychological
damage, but neither Kreacher nor Harry loses any self-esteem, nor does
either become weak and helpless like, say, Merope (or the "frre"
Winky). At most, they, like their oppressors, or whatever term you
want to use for Sirius and Severus, develop an unhealthy taste for
revenge (another theme or motif that we see throughout the series).
Comparing Sirius's treatment of Kreacher to the Malfoy's treatment of
Dobby is like comparing Snape's detentions to Umbridge's or the Carrows'.

Yes, Sirius is a hypocrite for criticizing Crouch's treatment of his
inferiors when he's unkind and dismissive of Kreacher, but saying
"Keep muttering and I will be a murderer!" when Kreacher Mutters,
"Comes back from Azkaban ordering Kreacher around . . . and they say
he's a murderer, too" (OoP am. ed. 110) is a far cry from making him
iron his hands or beating him. And note that Kreacher says, "Master is
not fit to wipe slime from his mother's boots" (109) without the
slightest consequence. 

Betsy:
> 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?

Carol:
Of course I'm not saying that. Winky wants to be owned and Dobby not
only wants to serve Wizards but continues to do so. That's their
nature. They remain House-Elves to the end.
> 
Betsy:
> Kreacher is Harry's property and Harry is cool with that.  So he's 
Harry the slave-owning hero.  
>
Carol:
He's Harry the House-Elf owning hero. Alliterates better, even if it
is a bit of a mouthful. And he's treating Kreacher as Kreacher wants
to be treated, whereas if he fired, erm, "freed" his House-Elf, he'd
be inflicting misery on a fellow creature.

Carol, wondering whether Betsy et al. think that Sam was Frodo's slave
in LOTR