Wands and Wizards...Again (Was: Epilogue ...)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 183707

> Carol responds;
> 
> IMO, Harry's still owning Kreacher at the end of the book, and still
> treating Kreacher as he did at 12 GP where Kreacher was happy (once 
he
> accepted Harry as his master) is only a problem for readers who
> expected Harry to free the Houwe-Elves at the end of the book. 

Magpie:
>From what I've read it seems like it's a problem for people who 
wanted the Elves freed and also for people who figured if they 
weren't freed Harry wouldn't own one happily like that was a fine 
thing. I personally never saw how House Elves would be freed and I'm 
not really bothered by Harry owning Kreacher at the end. But it does 
read to me as Harry accepting his place as a master with a non-human 
slave. The system is okay, flawed as it is.

I'm trying to imagine the ethical problem of a House Elf abolitionist 
with an elf who didn't want to free the elf because it would hurt the 
elf--though again we should note that House Elves' desire not to be 
free is probably the only House Elf wish that always gets respected 
by Wizards. I mean, Harry *could* free Kreacher. He could have let 
Kreacher choose his master and then hand him over--it's Kreacher who 
*can't* do things due to enchantment. Harry's the master and can 
always do what he wants. He *didn't* let Kreacher choose his own 
master because that would have been dangerous. (And then he gave him 
orders against Kreacher's wishes because it was useful to Harry.) I 
suppose an abolitionist who didn't want to free the elf (to avoid 
Winky-like despair) would try to refrain from ever give orders and 
try to work something out with the Elf.

Carol:
At that point, the obvious solution is to
> let Kreacher be a typical House-Elf, clean and happily subservient.

Magpie:
Exactly. The obvious solution appeared when Kreacher's wishes 
supported Harry. Before that the solution was to have Kreacher serve 
Harry against his will. Being a slave isn't a problem until he had a 
wish that went against his orders. I'm not worried about the 
character of Kreacher himself--presuambly he'll spend the rest of his 
life happy now that he likes Harry. It probably doesn't bother him 
that he could still be owned by someone he didn't like. 


Carol:
> I really don't see what else Harry can do with Kreacher, nor do I 
see
> anything to be disturbed about. (It's not as if Kreacher were a 
human
> slave who would naturally resent his servitude and would not be
> capable of magic. A human slave would *want* his freedom. Kreacher
> doesn't, and freedom would be an unmerited punishment rather than a
> reward.)

Magpie:
I'm not disturbed by it, but I do think it's weird for there to be 
nothing else Harry can do with Kreacher than to accept his service as 
a loyal slave. For me it's not as simple as saying that a human slave 
would want his freedom and therefore if Kreacher doesn't there's no 
problem. This is what I've tried to explain before but I don't seem 
to do it very well, that it seems somehow sneaky for it always to 
come down to the problem lying with the House Elves. I'm not 
articulate enough or maybe educated enough in this sort of thing to 
describe what rubs me the wrong way about the argument, but it just 
sounds suspiciously convenient for the masters. House Elves aren't 
human but it seems like in the abstract the argument could apply to 
slavery as a concept, whoever is involved in it. It's like an 
abstract problem: can you find something wrong with slavery if a 
person wants to be a slave? And I feel like it would still be wrong. 
And I suspect there have been plenty of human slaves throughout 
history who did have reasons to want to be slaves.

-m