House elves WAS: realistic resolutions

[Angel Lima]

No: HPFGUIDX 181032

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. :-)


My goodness I welcome such abominations, they have made geniuses of otherwise simplistic eccentrics :) When I read Betsy's comment I had no inkling that "inform on" was so convoluted and hated <g>.  In fact, the definition you have in mind "tell on" had not occurred to me until you queried it because it made no sense in the context of Betsy's comment.. Perhaps if there was a hyphen there then I would have read it as snitching on, because "inform on" literally means speak of, expatriate on, tell of which I gather was Betsy's meaning. After all, they are just two separate words which together shed light on following words.

Advertisers are informants who inform on their products :)  Teachers are informers who inform on subjects, geddit <vbcg>


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."


Angel:

At Dobby's introduction he spoke of his condition as that of slavery.  He did not like being a slave before Voldemort's time although the conditions were better - less abuse.  No, Dobby's problem was that of ownership, the abuse was an exacerbation of his problem not the cause...other elves explained Dobby's problem?  How so?

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.

Angel:

Ron from a long line of pure wizarding blood made no effort to counter Hermione's terminology of slavery when applied to elves.  Moreover in OotP, Dumbledore's reaction to the destroyed fountain implied the wizarding stance on elves and goblins was wrong!  Hogwarts elves do seem happy, hmmm they spurn efforts to free them, a right ol happy bunch lol.  Besides what do they know of freedom?  They cannot miss that which they never had, wizards however are well aware of the restraints and cruelty they have imparted on elves.


>>>>>>
Hermione, it seems to me, has learned that House-Elves are magical
creatures that think differently from humans (whether Wizard or
Muggle) and have different values from teenage girls who lived until
age eleven in postmodern Muggle Britain (with presumably liberal
parents). The pureblood Wizards' view of House-Elves, as represented
by Ron (and that of nonpurebloods who grew up in the WW, like Hagrid)
matches the House Elves' view of themselves much more closely than
Hermione's does. That Ron is right and Hermione is wrong is clearly
shown by Winky's hysterics when Hermione tries to comfort her and talk
about her rights and by the Hogwarts Elves' reactions to Ron's
compliment "Good service!" (they beam with joy and pride) in contrast
to their reaction to Hermione (shooing HRH out of the kitchen, which
as "slaves" you'd think they'd be unable to do). 


Angel:

Well a lot of what came before DH went to custard in my opinion which has been refuted eloquently on here :).  I thought Hermione dropping SPEW or the ideal of ELF-freedom was one more area where the books failed, not wherein one of its character's found enlightenment...that was so weird!!!  One minute I'm expecting elf-liberation the next I'm getting spoon fed happy slave = good.  What the heck was that?  Honestly, author and editor in my view really dropped the tart on this!  I am astounded by the optimism of some readers on here, not once did I think I was supposed to change course on elf-slavery until such comments as the above to explain Hermione's change of heart.

Also I query the beam with joy and pride vs the shooing of the trio out as argument for happy enslavement er free to serve idea.  The elves are happy to serve, that much is made clear propoundingly but who they serve is not always a choice!  The master trumps the elve's natural propensity to serve and please whom they please.  Besides elfish obligence to students was not clarified.  They were Hogwarts chattel not property of individual students :)


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."

Angel:
Then by all means Harry abused Kreacher by getting him to spill Master Regulus' secrets!!!  He exercised his power against Kreacher's will.  But I do get what you mean, it's not the fact that Dobby was owned but that he was owned by bad wizards, but the world is better now that Kreacher is owned by a good wizard!

This is another of those win-win situations, it's heading nowhere.  The arguments against the notion of elves as slaves are elusive and those for it have become repetitive, I mean what is so hard to digest?  We have compared Voldy and DEs from a magical made up world to real world dictatorship and the gestapo yet contrasting elf-servitude to real life slavery is...apparently a merry go round.

So side-stepping the above issue I have a question, well one main question :)

With wizardry ideologies of magic is might, just how mightier are elves than wizards?  We saw that the powerful protections of Hogwarts and Voldy's cave had no effect on them, not wizard tag, not even the draught of death if it counters an order from the master. They do not need wands unlike goblins who aggrieve their lack and wizards who rely on theirs.  My question is, in case someone misses it is:  Are elves enslaved because are the magically mightier?

Please do not reply with: elves are not enslaved, I have read that position clearly yet ask the same question <vbg>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]