|
|
Post by RogueNya on Jun 30, 2012 15:48:57 GMT -5
Well this subject actually comes up quite a bit in the books yet you never really learn a whole lot about them, so leaves us to figure things out and we each have our own thoughts on the matter. So feel free to speak your mind on the subject. ^^
My own thoughts are rather complex really but I only sort of agree with Hermione in the Elves do need certain rights in that they need to have protection from being abused like Dobby was with the Malfoy's. But more later wanna get other peoples thoughts.
|
|
sherza
Head Boy/Girl
Posts: 705
|
Post by sherza on Jun 30, 2012 16:04:09 GMT -5
Hermione's heart was in the right place, but she went about things about as wrongly as was possible.
Firstly: Regardless of all else, house-elves have been slaves for hundreds, maybe even thousands, of years. Tossing clothes at them and going 'have a nice life' WILL NOT WORK.
Instituting laws that forbid the owner from abusing (or forcing the elf to abuse itself) elves is a good place to start ... and will be about where it ends for a damn long time, because the little buggers can and will punish themselves for perceived failures, even if their masters don't tell them to. And you can't forbid every possible method of self-punishment. For everything you think of that they might do to punish themselves, they've probably got a list of ten more possibilities. And a blanket 'don't punish yourself' ban is as prone to ... interpretation ... as any other order, if the elf's in that kind of mood.
I don't know if freeing the elves could ever happen ... we don't know if they can survive long-term. As they're a magical creature, it's entirely possible that they *need* to be bound to survive.
|
|
|
|
Post by 19811945 on Jun 30, 2012 16:18:25 GMT -5
Talk to the house elves to see what they want and see what they want to improve. Dobby may be the odd one out regarding the house elves, but at least he is loyal to Harry. I agree with sherza regarding laws which forbids the owner from abusing and/or forcing the elf to abuse oneself. Possibly need a guardian/mentor relationship between owner/house elf, and they need to talk to one another in areas which are working and which are not working.
There might be other explanations going on, but it's more to do with RtB's in itself, and off hand I can remember two authors who cover this in their RtB's:
In A Being of Violent Fire's The Power is a Sword: The Secret (currently up to chapter 6 on the AO3 site - Archive of Our Own), in the first couple of chapters, it descripts a bit about her versions of house elves rights.
Also with Lady Celestial Star's Exploring Harry Potter (up to chapter 44/45 on livejournal) at some point during the story depicts her own version of house elves.
Both of these authors are on this site but they are not up to date, as such with the amount of chapters they have typed. I am sorry if I am creating extra work to read, but it would be worth it in the end.
Warning: If you haven't read any A Being of Violent Fire's The Power is a Sword's stories/series - both The Sword and The Secret, both stories involve graphic child abuse to Harry, ie types injruries, but the story in itself would be worth it in the long run.
|
|
|
|
Post by RogueNya on Jun 30, 2012 16:45:07 GMT -5
Very true there in a number of points stated. Though I kinda get the feeling that House Elves need to be bonded and do not think it is Slavery in the traditional sense, after all there are a number of other creatures that need humans in order to survive. Dementors being the most prevalent to come to mind, they feed off the emotional power of a human, more in the case of Magical beings.
And in the case of House Elves, Winky is the perfect example of what could happen to a released elf. And I doubt that they can last long doing that. But Winky is also the best dressed Elf you see in the series.. That is actually one the things that drives me batty in that, I mean a house is only as elegant as the staff they have, so if their staff is filthy and dressed in Rags it just gives a bad impression in my books. They should be clean and in a uniform or a series of uniforms depending on what they do and the situation.
I mean really who wants a servant that is wearing a dirty, ratty pillowcase to represent their house? If you mistreat your servants how do you treat your co-workers?
So anyways I think they need the bond, maybe as a way to supplement or ground their own magic?
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jun 30, 2012 16:50:22 GMT -5
Well in My opinion the malfoys as the prime example for mistreating their house elves would most likely not want their guests to see the elves. Kind of like hogwarts were the students also never see the elves.
And I think to them the house elves are also not just servants but also a reminder that malfoys are better than other living beings.
|
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Jun 30, 2012 17:02:02 GMT -5
They should be clean and in a uniform or a series of uniforms depending on what they do and the situation. I agree. Though I always wondered what Dobby's job actually was. When he was working for the Malfoys, he may have been the one to clean all the fireplaces and other areas that get dirty quickly, like stables, if the Malfoys had horses. |
|
|
|
Post by 19811945 on Jun 30, 2012 18:10:35 GMT -5
If the house elves job includes getting dirty, maybe they should be able to provide overalls/jumpsuits in order to keep their uniform, or other clothes/uniform that they wear clean as part of their working arrangement/agreement.
|
|
|
|
Post by RogueNya on Jun 30, 2012 18:49:00 GMT -5
Perhaps true but surely they cleaned their own uniforms even if it was only a pillowcase, I would not think it would be healthy for them or the humans, after all they do, do the chores in the home...
That is why I listed it as series of uniforms, where they wear something specific for each job, that would require the changing of uniform.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ithiarel on Jul 1, 2012 3:41:33 GMT -5
I don't know. I'm very undecided on the whole House-Elf topic.
*start rant*
The problem that I have is: I can't honestly believe in the whole "magical bonded" thing. If that was true, than putting in a line that says "A house elf will be freed as soon as his owner hands him clothes" is spectacularly stupid! Who would do that? It makes no sense considering that they are supposed to be servants and handling clothes is big part of being servants.
Then, there is the situation with Dobby which proves that a house elf can interpret a randomly thrown away sock (!!!) as being "given clothes"!
No, I just can't believe in a magically binding contract or bond. Everything we have been told about those says that (a) someone who breaks one will die, and (b) they are very rigid in their exact wording. In my opinion, a magical contract or bond would not allow the house elf to "interpret" its meaning.
So, that said, it leaves only one possibility for me:
I have to believe that a big chunk of the whole house elf slavery situation is based on tradition (human and elfish alike). Elves punish themselves, because it is tradition that they do so. They follow their masters wishes, because it is tradition that they do so. Kreacher had been told by his parents that the greatest honour to aspire to was having his head cut off after death so that it could join his ancestors heads on the wall!
Winky's problems after being let go by Mr Crouch migth just as well have been psychosomatic. She turned into the elf equivalent of a heavy alcoholic (!). That alone must have had consequences for her magic ability.
Dobby on the other hand proved that an elf who doesn't care much for tradition (he wanted to get paid in his next job after all) seems to be able to re-interpret any order given to him at will.
Now, it might be that there is a slight physical dependency between a house elf and a human. But I seriously doubt that. I think that the whole dependency is psychological in nature. Perhaps, a long time ago there actually was a situation where it became essential for the elf's survival to be bonded with a human. But imo that has long passed. By now, the elves are just as caught in their rigid traditions as the whole Wizarding World is.
*end rant*
So, if you've read through my rant, you'll know most of the problems I have with house elves.
The whole slavery system need to be abolished.
There is no "if" or "maybe" or "but" for me.
It needs to go. Simple as that.
The only real problem lies in the "how". How do you help a whole species that has been enslaved for so long it can't live on its own anymore into becoming independent?
(On a completely inappropriate level it strikes me as similar to returning a zoo animal to the wild...)
|
|
sherza
Head Boy/Girl
Posts: 705
|
Post by sherza on Jul 1, 2012 3:52:15 GMT -5
Ahhh, but the clothing has to be handed directly to the elf. The owner can toss the stuff into a laundry basket, and the elf take it from there, to not activate that clause.
Also, we only ever see magical contracts as enacted between *wizards*. We never see a contract or bond enacted between a wizard and a non-wizard magical creature, or two non-wizard magical creatures. Just as magical creatures can have different thought-patterns and magic from wizards, (Centaurs, goblins, and house elves all three fit under this, at the very least) contracts and bonds might act/react diffently.
Whatever else we think, it's made clear that elves are subject to their masters' will until they're somehow released. Even Dobby, defiant Malfoy-hater that he was, was compelled to punish himself for defying them.
Whether or not they need the bond to survive is definitely debatable, but something that needs to be investigated before action is taken, unless someone *wants* to be responsible for wiping out an entire race by accident ...
Really, the only way to end house-elf slavery would be to take newborn elves from their parents as soon as they were born and raise them as 'normal beings'. At this point, there's no saving the bulk of the existing, adult elves. A rare few like Dobby would manage fine with freedom, but even with extensive intervention, most of them wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by viralic1 on Jul 1, 2012 4:01:04 GMT -5
I've always seen Dobby as the exception, not the rule. For example, I can't see everyone treating House Elves like shit, Dobby was just mistreated because he was working with the Malfoy's, and no other reason. I hate people who make every single house elf an abused, tortured thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Jul 1, 2012 4:12:54 GMT -5
I've always seen Dobby as the exception, not the rule. For example, I can't see everyone treating House Elves like shit, Dobby was just mistreated because he was working with the Malfoy's, and no other reason. I hate people who make every single house elf an abused, tortured thing. Which was basically what Hermione did, IMO. She couldn't even fathom that there would be some who liked their job and weren't abused. And she just decided she knew best and wanted to decide the fate of a whole race just on basis of her own opinion, without proper research. (Which she can't have done, or she would realise that she can't free the Hogwarts elves and just insulted them). If there were a way for the elves to report when they were abused and wanted out, and it were possible to help them, that would be a beginning. After centuries of slavery, they won't change overnight, it would probably take at least two generations to get that way of thinking out of the way. |
|
|
|
Post by Ithiarel on Jul 1, 2012 4:14:02 GMT -5
Ahhh, but the clothing has to be handed directly to the elf. The owner can toss the stuff into a laundry basket, and the elf take it from there, to not activate that clause. It's still a stupid clause in a bond or contract. You cannot honestly believe that whoever came up with it in the first place (someone had to) never thought about the situation that a wizard might carelessly throw a shirt at his elf and say "oh, and remember to wash this, too." The rule is a loophole waiting to be explored. For me, it looks more like a security directive that the elves themselves put in just on the off chance of having to escape from an abusive relationship. Also, we only ever see magical contracts as enacted between *wizards*. We never see a contract or bond enacted between a wizard and a non-wizard magical creature, or two non-wizard magical creatures. Just as magical creatures can have different thought-patterns and magic from wizards, (Centaurs, goblins, and house elves all three fit under this, at the very least) contracts and bonds might act/react diffently. That is true. But this could be seen in a different way, too. Are we actually certain that it is even possible to enact a magical contract or bond between a wizard and a magical creature? If it was, how could the goblin wars start up over and over again - you'd think that the wizards or the goblins would have defined their relationship with each other through magical contracts and bonds to ensure that they would never have to go to war again. And the Dementors are not actually bound magically either. They just prefer to feed of humans, and because of that agreed to guard Askaban. Whatever else we think, it's made clear that elves are subject to their masters' will until they're somehow released. Even Dobby, defiant Malfoy-hater that he was, was compelled to punish himself for defying them. Okay. Point taken.  There is something at work, alright. But I'm not sure how much of it wasn't Dubby himself. After all, he was certain that he could only leave if "given clothes". To me, it seems entirely possible that Dobby unconsciously bound himself in order to adher to rules he has been taught as inflexible since his birth. Whether or not they need the bond to survive is definitely debatable, but something that needs to be investigated before action is taken, unless someone *wants* to be responsible for wiping out an entire race by accident ... Absolutely. That's why I think that Hermione went about it all wrong. She didn't give one thought about what might happen to all those elves she might have freed with her hats (had the idea actually worked). In a sense, her attitude nullifies her whole actions, which while admirable in idea were rather self-righteous in execution. Really, the only way to end house-elf slavery would be to take newborn elves from their parents as soon as they were born and raise them as 'normal beings'. At this point, there's no saving the bulk of the existing, adult elves. A rare few like Dobby would manage fine with freedom, but even with extensive intervention, most of them wouldn't. That's the same idea I had. Which is probably while it reminded me so much of the whole "animal born in a zoo trained to survive in the wild" situation. It's an incredible amount of work and energy that needs to be put into even one case - and even then it will probably not work. *sigh* The house elf problem is incredibly frustrating to me. |
|
sherza
Head Boy/Girl
Posts: 705
|
Post by sherza on Jul 1, 2012 4:22:25 GMT -5
Agreed, it's a stupid as hell clause. *any* tossed bit of clothing would be fair game, and ... yeah. Stupid clause.
Again, a good point about bonds and contracts with magical beings ... it might be that some creatures cannot be dealt with in that way, but others can. Also, possibly, in both the cases of the dementors and the goblins, they really had the wizards over a barrel. Face it ... goblins, at *some* point, were given control of wizarding finance. No idea when that happened, but would *you* want to try to force someone who can bankrupt the entire country into a punitive contract or bond? I sure wouldn't. A treaty might have been the only way to go in that case. The dementors ... that was probably more about damage control than anything else. These things were *going* to feed on people, no matter what ... so let's convince them they want to feed on our criminals, all kept in one place, so they don't have to bother themselves with going out and hunting someone down ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ithiarel on Jul 1, 2012 4:30:46 GMT -5
sherza:
Your idea on how the dementors got their role seems very likely to me. And I think you're right about the Goblins, too. But with all we've been told and shown about house elf magic, elves seem to be incredibly strong magicwise. More so than most wizards.
That's why I keep wondering if the whole "enslavement" story isn't just another made-up wish belief of wizards.
Maybe, back when the elves where independent, something happened that made them ask the wizards for help. The wizards agreed, but only if the elves entered that contract/bond. The elves back then thought it was a bad idea, but there was no alternative at that point, so they agreed but entered a clause that was so open to interpretation that they believed they could get out of it any time they wanted. And then, over the centuries, they fell into the same trap the whole Wizarding World did - namely to repeat their ritualistic traditions endlessly instead of evolving like the muggle world around them did...
|
|
|
|
Post by RogueNya on Jul 1, 2012 13:27:10 GMT -5
Yay the thread took off, I was afraid it wouldn't...
And wow quite a few good thoughts here on the subject. It is true that I have always had some issue in how Dobby was released, it really made little sense. I can only come up with perhaps Lucius added his magic to the sock unconsciously when he threw it with the intent of getting rid of it. Then Dobby caught it and felt the intent in the magic and took it to mean him and not the sock, after all we have already seen Dobby interpret things differently then what they are or should be.
Also about there not being contracts between humans and creatures, I think you are forgetting what Dobby tried to do in second year with the Pudding on Harry's Birthday. You cannot tell me that Magic would not have taken the agreement to what Dobby was demanding as anything but a Magical Contract, one that both of their magics would have followed through on, perhaps just to force Harry to stay if he had agreed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ithiarel on Jul 1, 2012 13:52:26 GMT -5
Also about there not being contracts between humans and creatures, I think you are forgetting what Dobby tried to do in second year with the Pudding on Harry's Birthday. You cannot tell me that Magic would not have taken the agreement to what Dobby was demanding as anything but a Magical Contract, one that both of their magics would have followed through on, perhaps just to force Harry to stay if he had agreed. I never saw that as Dobby trying to trick Harry into a magical contract. Because (a) Dobby is very naive, even for a house elf. In my opinion he could have just relied on the belief that "the great, honourable" Harry Potter would (of course) never break his word once it was given; and (b) We have seen examples of proper magical contracts and all of them involved the participants being fully aware of what they were doing. Even Ron said that "Fred tricked him into making a contract" and that they were so far as to hold hands when Arthur interrupted. Meaning, that Ron knew he was making a contract - even if he didn't knew the consequences of breaking it. I firmly believe it is impossible to "accidentally" and "unknowingly" enter a fully binding magical contract. If it was possible, that would be even more stupid than the "elves go free if given clothes" rule. Imagine how many people would be dying each year because they break contracts they didn't knew they had entered??? |
|
|
|
Post by lucyolsen on Jul 1, 2012 13:55:05 GMT -5
Right, which is why it was a binding magical contract for someone else to enter Harry's name in the GoF under a school that doesn't even exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Jul 1, 2012 14:00:18 GMT -5
You are taking the words out of my mouth ... I mean keyboard That so-called binding magical contract was another thing that doesn't make much sense to me. It it was that easy, then you could sign the property of someone else over to a third party, for instance, and it would be legal, too. Or something like that. Even wizards can't be that idiotic. |
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 14:03:23 GMT -5
Well I always thought that the way Dobby is released made sense. It would just put the condition on the masters of house-elves to never undress in front of a house-elf. And I think that is actually very easy to do. Because the only condition for a release would be that the house-elf had to receive the article of clothing directly from his master. And therefore Hermione's SPEW agenda would never have worked as she never tried to give her hats and whatnot directly to the house-elves
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Jul 1, 2012 14:05:12 GMT -5
It wouldn't have worked anyway, as she's not their master/mistress in the first place. Still wondering how she could overlook that, seeing how she has that compulsory need to learn every detail about everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ithiarel on Jul 1, 2012 14:05:18 GMT -5
Right, which is why it was a binding magical contract for someone else to enter Harry's name in the GoF under a school that doesn't even exist. I'm not sure how the Goblet works. But maybe it's really that simple: You throw a lot of names (with schools attached) into it, and it randomly chooses one from each school. It would make sense, after all whoever created the goblet centuries ago, might have created it with the possibility of more than three schools participating in mind. And maybe the Goblet is actually one of the few instances that can create binding magical contracts. Maybe those things were done differently 800 years ago. Who says that there really was a binding magical contract related to the participation in the tournament. That might just have been something to tell the champions so that they wouldn't backtrack. Or maybe, it was just Dumbledore who wanted Harry in the Tournament? That seems the most likely explanation for me. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyolsen on Jul 1, 2012 14:05:57 GMT -5
Maybe there is some way to keep others from entering into biding magical contracts on your behalf...like the wizarding equivalent of freezing your credit.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 14:09:16 GMT -5
Well I think Moody could have easily asked for signed essays in his class and then torn of Harr's Signature and thrown it in the Goblet of Fire which then would be the same as Harry having thrown the paper in it on his own. Also the Goblet of Fire in his origin never should have searched for anything other than the ability to compete in the tournament. Therefore it nothing else but the ability mattered not even if the student wanted to enter the tournament. And ithiarel it was Crouch or Bagman who said that it was a magical binding contract not Dumbledore. Oh, but of course Dumbledore had them bewitched beforehand. And the headmasters of the other school, too, as he bewitched all teachers. |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Jul 1, 2012 14:11:27 GMT -5
Who says that there really was a binding magical contract related to the participation in the tournament. That might just have been something to tell the champions so that they wouldn't backtrack. Or maybe, it was just Dumbledore who wanted Harry in the Tournament? That seems the most likely explanation for me. While I can totally see that, why did the other adults not really do anything to prevent Harry from participating? Maxime and Karkaroff were against it, but they didn't mention that it wasn't a true contract? Reminds me once again of this oneshot: www.fanfiction.net/s/3941656/1/Magical_Contracts where the author plays with how easily it is to trick others with the ability to enter others into contracts without their knowledge and consent. |
|
|
|
Post by Ithiarel on Jul 1, 2012 14:11:48 GMT -5
Oh. Those are very good points, werwulfking!
The idea with the signed essay is great. That would never have occured to me. But it does make sense, and might actually work...
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Jul 1, 2012 14:15:16 GMT -5
Actually, I've seen that in some fanfiction. Makes sense, yes, but shouldn't have Dumbledore thought of the possibility that an older - of age - student did that for a younger, too? So, why was ist so stupidly easy? And should the goblet accept that in the first place? With the death toll, that would have been a nice way to get rid of others in earlier times - why did they not do anything to prevent it?
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 14:19:04 GMT -5
Well normally all older students would refuse such a request. And perhaps Dumbledore had a protection against that too but Crouch Jr. was able to overcome it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ithiarel on Jul 1, 2012 14:23:31 GMT -5
I think, it might have been a mix of the Goblet simply judging ability (it might have chosen an 11 year old if it weren't for the age line, after all) and Crouch Jr. tricking it (i.e. making it look as if he was Harry Potter.)
Has anyone thought that Crouch might have polyjuiced into Harry in order to put his name in? The age line would still read him as an adult, but maybe the polyjuice could trick the Goblet, because the Goblet was created before polyjuice potion came along...
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Jul 1, 2012 14:24:37 GMT -5
And Dumbledore still asked Harry if he had put his name in or asked someone else, if I remember correctly, which would imply that he thought Harry might have done it. Wouldn't that imply he didn't really do such a protection?
|
|
