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

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 183736

> 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:
I don't know if the point is worth arguing, but if humans don't have a
psychological need to serve, then I wonder how volunteer organizations,
monasteries, convents, and temples ever get organized.


> 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;

Montavilla47:
I would wholeheartedly agree with you, except that JKR drew the 
connection between the House-Elves and the horrors of slavery in an
interview.  Now, granted, she didn't specify the horrors of "human"
slavery in the interview, but I think it was implied.  

If she intends to connect House-Elves and human slavery, then
she's deliberately creating an ambiguous view of slavery.  On one
hand, it's terrible and the slaves suffer from it.  On the other hand,
the owners seem to have no choice but to go along with the system,
because the alternative, freeing the slaves, is worse.

And the best solution within the books is to accept one's place as
a slave owner and treat your position responsibly by acting in a 
kindly manner toward your slave.  In other words:  Slavery is okay
as long as you treat your slaves well.

There is absolutely no indication from the books that Hermione 
will continue to work for House-Elf rights, or to end the institution,
however poco a poco.  Just as there is no indication in the books 
that the anti-werewolf legislation will ever be overturned, now 
that the only civilized werewolf in the wizarding world is dead.

Carol:
> 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:
Again, you seem to think I want something different to happen.  
I don't actually.  I'm simply telling you what message I'm getting from 
what *does* happen.

You can get a different message, if you like.  I certainly don't mind.
But I can't help noticing that, in order to get that different message,
we would need to infer things that don't happen in the books.  Such
as Hermione taking up House-Elf rights at a later point.



> 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. 

Montavilla47:
I agree with you.  It seemed perfectly obvious to me that Ron 
was right and that Hermione was wrong about the House Elf 
situation.  

But, since Hermione never acknowledges that she was taking
the wrong approach, it's really hard to decide whether she
matured in her thinking or simply dropped it because it became
inconvenient.   

Now, had there been a moment when she said, "You know, Ron,
you were right about the House Elves," it would have been clearer.


Carol:
>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.)

Montavilla47:
So, when the heck does she come to this understanding about House-Elf
psychology?  That's what I don't understand.

Carol:
> 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. 

Montavilla47:
Possibly, but we don't see her address that at all in HBP, when she
reasonably ought to have, such Harry was certainly wrestling with
the issue of owning an unwilling slave.