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

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 183722

Carol earlier:
> > > 
> > > 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. 
> 
Montavilla47 responded:
> I think it depends on what you look at as the problem.  I'm quite
willing to agree that staying on as Harry's slave and bringing him a
sandwich is fine for Kreacher.  It's what he wants to do from all that
we can see.

Carol again:

Exactly. And surely it's Kreacher's happiness, not Harry's, that
matters most here. If they're both happy, all the better.

Montavilla 47: 
> I thought what JKR did with the House Elves was really interesting
in GoF.  Because, you know, there have been societies in which the
institution of slavery did seem to work.  The concept of consistently
being paid for your labor is only a few hundred years old.

Carol:
True, and the WW is medieval in some respects (class structure and
technology, for example). But human slaves never had the psychological
need to serve that characterizes House-Elves, so the analogy is imperfect.

Montavilla47:
> Does it seem like I have a problem when I point out that the
conclusion she reaches is that slavery is okay as long as you treat
your slaves well?

Carol responds:
I'm sorry if my use of the word "problem" offended you. But I don't
quite agree with your conclusion. JKR is not condoning human slavery;
she's dealing with a single House-Elf and a single House-Elf owner who
didn't choose his situation. Harry must deal with the situation as
best he can, and the short-term solution is certainly to treat
Kreacher as he wants to be treated and let him be a typical House-Elf
(which is a whole lot better than mistreating him so that he rebels by
living in filth and muttering to himself). It's even possible that
Kreacher may pick up more enlightened views from his new master. But
poco a poco. You can't ethically free a House-Elf who still views
freedom as a threat and an insult and you certainly can't ethically
send him from his home with no prospect of employment elsewhere.
(Maybe Hogwarts would accept him, but what if he'd rather stay with
Master Harry at 12 GP?)

It's not a matter of "the House-Elf question." It's a matter of what's
best for the individual House-Elf in Harry's care, Dobby being dead.
(Wouldn't Dobby also have chosen to serve Master Harry, for small
wages and clothes, if he'd lived?) Why not make Kreacher happy, as he
would have done for Dobby if Dobby had survived?

Montavilla47: 
> What I mind is having to deal with Hermione's obsession on the
subject for two books--then have her completely drop the S.P.E.W.
project as soon as her friend acquires a slave.
> 
> But, then in DH, Hermione takes a *different* stance (she adopts
Ron's stance, actually, that the slaves ought to do what they want to
do and ought to be treated kindly about it), and we're supposed to
pretend that this was her perspective all along.
> 
> Now, it's not like you can't connect the dots between anti-slavery
Hermione of GoF and pro-slavery Hermione of DH.  But, in order to do
so, you have to make up a couple of the dots yourself.
> 
> It does a certain violence to a character when you give her a
burning passion for two years, have her completely drop it in a third,
and then have rekindle that passion in a different direction without
filling in the spots between.  It makes her seem very shallow.
<snip>
>
Carol responds:

I understand your feelings and I agree that there's a gap during which
Hermione's view apparently changes but the reader doesn't know what's
going on in her mind. But I disagree that her changed perspective
makes her shallow. (If it appears that way, perhaps it's a flaw in the
writing.)

What about the possibility that Hermione was *wrong* in GoF and OoP,
too radical and not thinking about the House-Elves from their
perspective? It seems to me that Ron was right all along. The
House-Elves didn't want to be freed, as evidenced by their refusal to
clean the Gryffindor common room. (Their being "slaves" didn't prevent
them from making that decision; neither Wizards nor some magical
compulsion forced them to clean that room against their will.) They
*are* happy because they *are* treated well. Kreacher, in contrast, is
*unhappy* because he's treated like scum (a view that he reinforces
with his filthy loincloth and rebellious muttering) and because he has
no respect for his masters (Sirius and then Harry). IMO, Hermione
finally understands House-Elf psychology in DH, which enables her to
help Harry and Kreacher to understand and respect each other. (Ron has
understood it all along, but has failed to apply it to Kreacher.)

Because most human slaves, even those who are well treated, naturally
want to be free (as long as they still have employment and a place to
live; freedom that leads to destitution and homeless is a very dubious
gift), GoF/OOP!Hermione thinks that House-Elves want the same thing.
In HBP, we don't see her views on House-Elves, but she's obviously
aware that her friend Harry now has an unwanted House-Elf who can't
safely be freed and must, like it or not, be controlled in some way,
the most humane being to send him to Hogwarts where he can choose to
work or not. (The other House-Elves must have been as embarrassed and
disgusted by him as they were by Winky.) Possibly, Harry's dilemma
(and Kreacher's predicament) cause her to rethink the matter off-page,
to start thinking about House-Elves as beings different from human
beings with different needs and a different psychology. I don't *know*
that that's what happened, but it seems to me that she arrives at a
more mature and realistic perspective in DH. Meantime, it seems from
her conversation with Griphook that she still wants to free the
House-Elves, but it becomes a long-term goal that must be accomplished
with the House-Elves' consent and cooperation, not imposed on them
unwillingly by Wizards acting for them in their supposed interest, not
so different from missionaries converting the natives "for their own
good."

At any rate, House-Elf liberation was never a goal that HRH could
realistically accomplish, and never a concern of Ron's or Harry's,
only of Hermione's. Just as we're free to believe that Harry installed
Snape's portrait in the Headmaster's office (and, if we like, to
believe that he arranged for Snape to receive a posthumous Order of
Merlin), we're free to believe that Hermione, who seems to have a high
position in the Department of Magical Law (or Law Enforcement) in the
epilogue, continued her quest for House-Elf rights, if not for
liberation, at least for fair treatment and representation. What's
needed, IMO, is not freedom for House-Elves who don't want it, but
some way of making their voices heard. (Do they want education or
training in something besides housekeeping? Do they want opportunities
in other fields? do they want retirement benefits or vacations?
Probably not, unless they're Dobbies, but only the House-Elves know
for sure.)

But all of that is outside the scope of the books and outside Harry's
quest, which was to rid the WW of Voldemort and his Death Eaters. Any
other problems facing the WW must wait to be resolved, off-page, not
necessarily by our heroes. And meanwhile, Harry has his own personal
House-Elf. He knows exactly how that House-Elf wants to be treated.
And there's nothing for it, IMO, but to give old Kreacher what he
wants, fair treatment and the chance to serve a master he respects,
until Kreacher dies. (I'm torn about honoring Kreacher's wish, if he
still holds it, to have his head mounted in the hallway along with
those of his ancestors. I'd say that once Kreacher dies, it's time to
find a new home!)

Carol, who thinks that Hermione changes from radical idealism to a
more practical liberalism as she matures