I Can't Believe It's Not An Index CCXXXIII - Jasdoif's Random Banter #233

[Fyraltari]

And here I was, going to ask you to elaborate.

I won't touch the greedy bankers.

As for the house elves: the idea itself is rather interesting and I think it could make for a great source of conflicts and social commentary, but unfortunately, it was handled as it was handled.

Which is understandable in its own way: it would take too much space to cover it sufficiently and it could be a separate book (Harry Potter and Elven Revolution?). Wouldn't be as popular with the kids, maybe...

There are certain things that, when inserted into a story instantly become the focus of the story. Time travel or gods for example, once you have them, you have to adress why they can't help. There are certain themes that are a bit like that. Slavery, in this case. Once you've established that your fictionnal society includes an underclass of servants by birth, you have to adress it somehow because that's more than judt worldbuilding.

Never actually thought about it - but mostly because based on what he stated several times, he had some romantic experiences behind him and I considered him to be already burnt enough by the relationships to be interested in further ones.

After all, knowing what he knows and what he has to do (especially expecting to be dead in certain time), I'd also decide to steer clear of anyone who could keep me away from the decision.

Also: if we consider Dumby to be attracted to intelligence, ambition and ability, where could you find a suitable match for him?

...which leads me to an idea. He was in a relationship, but the other person could not live in Hogsmeade... prison, somewhere in Bulgaria?

Yes, that is, alledgedly the intent. Dumbledore and Grindelwald were dating until **** went downnand Dumbledore never dated anyone ever again. But the books just kinda obliquely point towards that, so unless you already know it, you are extremely unlikely to interpret it that way.

Insert a mother-in-law joke.

Oh. Oh no.

[Anonymouswizard]

I can't decide whether I am envious of you

I'm sure that next time you log onto the dating site you'll have at least one message.

Also, there's nothing wrong with jealousy in moderation. If it wasn't for jealousy I'd have never had the motivation to stay on the dating site.

I don't think the cisnormativity was negotiable. And let's not kid ourselves, had Dumbledore had a boyfriend he'd have been described as a "special friend" or something like that.

Oh, darn, I meant hetetonormativity, serves me right for posting pre-coffee.

Which also seems to have been non negotiable. None of the Hogwarts students seem to have been anything other than straight.

Becuase Dumbledore was about 150 when he died... And he died in 1997, canonically. He just barely lived to see homosexuality start to be kinda sorta accepted in the mainstream in western cultures.

While I get what you mean, it sounds like you're suggesting that 150 year olds shouldn't have boyfriends.

Plus I'd argue that the WW as shown is separated enough from the MW to have potentially developed different views on such things, and having been historically persecuted by muggles might have been more accepting of other kinds of people also persecuted by muggles.

For context, Dumbledore died the same year that John Waters had to explain to the writers of the Simpsons that the F word was a slur and that they probably shouldn't have Homer Simspon use it unironically, even if he's meant to be in the wrong, in an episode about how homophobia and toxic masculinity are stupid.

And over here it means a kind of meatball and leads to bad jokes come dinner.

You're also saying that like it means anything to me. I might have seen the end of that episode years ago, but that series is now mostly something I try to erase from my mind.


Yes, I do know how silly it is for a retro SF fan to be arguing that a book series should have had an explicitly gay character. #Elijah♥Daneel

[Rater202]

house elves: Hey look, it's an entire species of people who feel better when they're enslaved, the people who want to free them are goodie-two-shoes who don't know what they're talking about and the only actual issue with their enslaving is bad masters. It's all fine, don't question it.

I mean, really?

Not gonna touch the goblins because we can argue about that indefinitely.

but for House Elves... You're kind of presenting it in the worst possible light there.

I could see your point if they were like, something that Rowling made up, but "House Fey" are a trope that goes back centuries and occurs in some form all over Europe and parts of Asia.

The implementation of a "modern, complicated" take on it House Fey is.. Kinda clunky, but I mean, let's look at the plot with Dobby in the second book...

It's basically just a gritty reboot of The Cobbler and the Elves.


IT's also notable that Hermione isn't treated as wrong for wanting to help House Elves, she's treated as wrong for not asking them what they want and assuming that they're stupid for having different cultural values than her.

We also don't know how the arrangement came to pass so...

Basically, the whole thing is a very complicated question that doesn't really have a good answer.

While I get what you mean, it sounds like you're suggesting that 150 year olds shouldn't have boyfriends.

I'm saying that he had well over a century of living in time periods here Homosexuality was considered a sign you were using or affected by dark magic, a mental illness, a sign that you were a sexual deviant, or otherwise the kind of thing that could ruin your life if it became publically known because of unfair and untrue ideas that people have.

Even ignoring the implications in later materials that he never quite got over his field relationship with Grindelwald, it's quite understandable that Albus wouldn't want to do anything that would risk it being publically known that he was into dudes, considering that he is very much a public figure.

[Peelee]

It's only illegal to use the spells on a human being. It's perfectly legal to use it on something that isn't human, assuming that there are no other laws preventing its slaying or destruction.

And there are no laws against destroying a Horcux. Partly because their existence isn't common knowledge and partly because almost everyone who knows they exist consider them an abomination tha t must be destroyed at all costs.

And Harry had already used the other two curses on human beings so honestly, it's a moot point.

Firstly.... wow that's bad. So you can use it on an elf without issue? Or the banking goblins? The more I find out about the books the more amazed I am that it took so long for people to realize what kind of person the author is.

Anyway, as you yourself point out, that spell can be used by anyone at all. The other methods are incredibly difficult and rare and special. The Killing Curse.... Isn't. So why would you expect such a mundane bit of dark magic to be as effective as incredibly rare, difficult to obtain or control, remarkably special dark magic is otherwise required? Plus, we can always go back to the Gaints comments on assumptions that work with the text. We can reasonably infer that it won't work since they Dumbledore is with Harry for at least one horcrux and doesnt do it.

[Rater202]

Firstly.... wow that's bad. So you can use it on an elf without issue? Or the banking goblins? The more I find out about the books the more amazed I am that it took so long for people to realize what kind of person the author is.

Well, Elves an Goblins are considered "beings."

Using the Unforgivable Curse on an Elf or Goblin would still be considered murderer, it just woulnd't be an automatic life sentence

But uh... The Wizarding World's strong human bias, at least in England, is noted and presented as a problem in the books.

MASCU, wizard America, is presented as being more egalitarian when it comes to species and magical lineage(Elves and Goblins are shown to be allowed to own wands), but is even worse than magical UK in terms of separation of Magic and Mundane.

They're also kind of kill-happy.

Anyway, as you yourself point out, that spell can be used by anyone at all. The other methods are incredibly difficult and rare and special. The Killing Curse.... Isn't. So why would you expect such a mundane but if dark magic to be as effective as incredibly rare, difficult to obtain or control, remarkably special dark magic is otherwise required? Plus, we can always go back to the Gaints comments on assumptions that work with the text. We can reasonably infer that it won't work since they Dumbledore is with Harry for at least one horcrux and doesnt do it.

Technically anyone can breed a basilisk. all you have to do is put a fertilized chicken egg under a toad and wait.

And anyone can use Fiendfyre. It's just, not everyone can control it once it's there.

The issue isn't the commonality of the substance.

The issue is that the Killing Curse forces a soul out of a body and then kills the body.

Since "magic can't raise the dead" is one of the few hard rules of the setting's absurdly pointed and versatile system of magic, I would assume that that counts as "destroyed beyond the ability to magic to repair."

Again, my problem isn't that it wouldn't work. IT's that nobody tries it and nobody says that it won't work. It would be literally one sentnece.

Dumbeldore is also not in any condition to be casting spells by the time they get what they think is the Locket Horcrux. Drinking a poison that physically weakens you and forced you to relive all your worst memories does that to you.

[Peelee]

Well, Elves an Goblins are considered "beings."

Using the Unforgivable Curse on an Elf or Goblin would still be considered murderer, it just woulnd't be an automatic life sentence

But uh... The Wizarding World's strong human bias, at least in England, is noted and presented as a problem in the books.

MASCU, wizard America, is presented as being more egalitarian when it comes to species and magical lineage(Elves and Goblins are shown to be allowed to own wands), but is even worse than magical UK in terms of separation of Magic and Mundane.

They're also kind of kill-happy.
Technically anyone can breed a basilisk. all you have to do is put a fertilized chicken egg under a toad and wait.

And anyone can use Fiendfyre. It's just, not everyone can control it once it's there.

The issue isn't the commonality of the substance.

The issue is that the Killing Curse forces a soul out of a body and then kills the body.

Since "magic can't raise the dead" is one of the few hard rules of the setting's absurdly pointed and versatile system of magic, I would assume that that counts as "destroyed beyond the ability to magic to repair."

Again, my problem isn't that it wouldn't work. IT's that nobody tries it and nobody says that it won't work. It would be literally one sentnece.

Dumbeldore is also not in any condition to be casting spells by the time they get what they think is the Locket Horcrux. Drinking a poison that physically weakens you and forced you to relive all your worst memories does that to you.

Look, you can make all the semantic arguments you want, but you yourself were the one who called out basilisk venom and fiendfire as remarkably difficult to obtain or control. The murder spell is neither. It's thematically bad if it works just as well for that purpose.

[Rater202]

Look, you can make all the semantic arguments you want, but you yourself were the one who called out basilisk venom and fiendfire as remarkably difficult to obtain or control. The murder spell is neither. It's thematically bad if it works just as well for that purpose.

I'm just saying, the book has Hermione summarizing how Horcruxes can be destroyed, having literally read the book on them

She specifically mentioned that Tom feeling genuine remorse for those specific murders would have destroyed them, something that is pure trivia and in no way has any effect on the plot. It would have been literally one additional sentence to say "The killing curse doesn't work to destroy them, unless they're a living creature" and then we wouldn't be having thi s conversation.

[Peelee]

I'm just saying, the book has Hermione summarizing how Horcruxes can be destroyed, having literally read the book on them

She specifically mentioned that Tom feeling genuine remorse for those specific murders would have destroyed them, something that is pure trivia and in no way has any effect on the plot. It would have been literally one additional sentence to say "The killing curse doesn't work to destroy them, unless they're a living creature" and then we wouldn't be having thi s conversation.

I'm not defending how the book was written. I wholly agree with you that it could very easily have been added in, and probably should have been. You're absolutely correct. But I am going to stand by that it's easy to infer that it wouldn't.

[Anonymouswizard]

Surely to destroy an object you'd want an object destruction curse. A killing curse, while a useful weapon of war in a society with as advanced medical magic as the Wizarding World, by definition kills rather than destroys.

Now I know that your point is about forcing the soul out, but this is the one situation where binding (part of) your soul so that it can't leave is exactly the point. I presume sone of the function of the horcrux spell is to keep the soul piece in an unnatural container, the reason the Killing Curse would work on [redacted] but not the diary is because, as a living being they are a natural soul receptive and thus the soul part has no desire to leave, and being unintentionally created there's no additional magic at play to lock the soul down.

That would be my theory anyway. Honestly Voldemort's efforts at immortality seem rather poorly thought out, if I was in his position I'd be looking at the Fullmetal Alchemist methods (I mean, wasn't there a world war coming up or something? You could reap a bunch of souls from that and nobody would notice).

[Rater202]

Tom was a child during WWII. It's implied that the reason he stopped his attempted killing spree at Hogwarts in the 40s, and framed Hagrid and his pet spider for the attacks, was because he realized that if Hogwarts was closed down he'd be sent back to the orphanage in London in the middle of the Blitz.

And yes, Tom's immortality was poorly thought out. He never stopped to think that there was a reason why nobody before him ever made more than one Horcrux, for example...

And turn s out, making Horcrux means that if you do die, you can't pass into the afterlife because your soul is too mutilated and damaged. Tom is basically trapped in Limbo for all eternity after he's finally killed.

And permanently muliting your soul in that manner warps you in body and mind. Tom was always a narcissistic sociopath, but as we learn of his backstory in HBP it becomes clear that he became worse the more times he split his soul, which is also what is implied to have changed him from someone who is consistently described as handsome to someone who is inhumanly pale with monstrous eyes and no nose.

He used to be a functional sociopath, able to hide it behind a veil of civility and like, you know, hold down a job.

After all the Horcruxes he explodes into a murderous rage whenever something doesn't go his way.

Anyway, double-checking it, According to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, using the killing curse on an inanimate object makes the object either explode or catch fire.

[Peelee]

Anyway, double-checking it, According to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, using the killing curse on an inanimate object makes the object either explode or catch fire.

If horcruxes cannot be destroyed by being exploded or lit on fire, then that would seem perfectly consistent.

[Rater202]

If horcruxes cannot be destroyed by being exploded or lit on fire, then that would seem perfectly consistent.

Re: Exploded, we don't know. No one tried or gave any indication that it was tried in the past.

Re, fire. We know it works, if the fire is hot enough. Fiendfyre's destructive capacity comes from being supernaturally hot and from the fact that it's sentient and actively tries to burn things.

[Anonymouswizard]

If horcruxes cannot be destroyed by being exploded or lit on fire, then that would seem perfectly consistent.

And to be fair it read more like an inclusive list than an exclusive one. Especially as Fiendfyre is okay but fire apparently isn't.

Like, as far as plot holes in Harry Potter goes it's a pretty minor one, they know of something that can definitely destroy the things (the Sword of Griffindor), do what they can to get that thing, and after they lose said thing they end up in a place where they have relatively easy access to an alternative. As we don't know what the effects of trying to destroy a horcrux without the right tool are it does make sense you'd get your hands on one you know works before trying things that might.

I don't want to know how much energy an exploded soul releases.

[LaZodiac]

IT's also notable that Hermione isn't treated as wrong for wanting to help House Elves, she's treated as wrong for not asking them what they want and assuming that they're stupid for having different cultural values than her.

We also don't know how the arrangement came to pass so...

Basically, the whole thing is a very complicated question that doesn't really have a good answer.

"Oh that silly Hermione, thinking our slave race might want to be FREE. Isn't that right, Browne? Slavery is good right?"

And then Browne the brownie, who is compelled to help his master no matter what, says yes because he can't NOT say no.

Also her attempted support organization for elf rights is called "Spew" as an acronym, it's overtly presented that she's a screaming harpy who doesn't know better. The story frames Hermione as Being Wrong, and regardless of why in universe (the alleged truth that house elves like being slaves) the reality is that it is the book saying "Hermione says this slave race deserves freedom and the book says she's dumb for this".

It is very complicated a question but I do feel the answer is very simple, namely; it was a really really bad idea to put this into her universe.

[Rater202]

"It is very complicated a question but I do feel the answer is very simple, namely; it was a really really bad idea to put this into her universe.

And that's fair read.

Personally, since supplementary materials establish that she made great strides for elfish rights after she stopped being condescending to the elves, I think it's maybe more matter of bad presentation.

Like, that's the issue. She wants to help what she perceives as an oppressed group of people, but at no point does she ever actually talk to them to find out what they think the problem is.

The elves in the Hogwarts kitchens make it clear: They like the current arrangement.

But instead of accepting that and either finding other ways to help or looking for elves who aren't happy with the current arrangement to try and free, she assumes that the Hogwarts Kitchen elves are stupid and brainwashed, she doesn't take their feelings into consideration, and sh tries to force "help" that they don't want on them.

That's the problem.

[Fyraltari]

I'm sure that next time you log onto the dating site you'll have at least one message.

I'd suggest we bet on that, but then I don't know who would win if you lost.

While I get what you mean, it sounds like you're suggesting that 150 year olds shouldn't have boyfriends.

Well, I am told they shouldn't have boyfriends under 82.

Plus I'd argue that the WW as shown is separated enough from the MW to have potentially developed different views on such things, and having been historically persecuted by muggles might have been more accepting of other kinds of people also persecuted by muggles.

Also, they're wizards.

Also it's entirely possible to have gay characters in a setting that isn't gay friendly. Abelforth could have been clearer about Dumbledore a'd Grindelwald's relationship for example.

And over here it means a kind of meatball and leads to bad jokes come dinner.

It also helps american airmen let witchfinders into the premises. That's a Good Omens reference.

#Elijah♥Daneel

I hadn't thought of that, but it fits. Gotta add Giskard, though.

.I could see your point if they were like, something that Rowling made up, but "House Fey" are a trope that goes back centuries and occurs in some form all over Europe and parts of Asia.

Except... They're not slaves the House Fey can leave whenever they want. And the humans don't abuse them. In fact most of those stories are about them abusing a human who disrespected them in some way.

The implementation of a "modern, complicated" take on it House Fey is.. Kinda clunky, but I mean, let's look at the plot with Dobby in the second book...

It's basically just a gritty reboot of The Cobbler and the Elves.

And?

IT's also notable that Hermione isn't treated as wrong for wanting to help House Elves, she's treated as wrong for not asking them what they want and assuming that they're stupid for having different cultural values than her.

But she's still the only character that's shown actually trying to do something to help them.
Like when Harry sees a statue of a centaur, a goblin and a House Elf looking in admiration at a wizard he thinks to himself how wrong that is... except for the Elf

We also don't know how the arrangement came to pass so...

You assume it was an arrangement. Also whatever became of the non-house elves?

Basically, the whole thing is a very complicated question that doesn't really have a good answer.

Because the author made it that way! She simply could have had the elves who do Hogwarts' chores be free people who culturally like cleaning a lot instead of people who culturally want to be slaves. Or have it be another prejudice of the Wizarding World and they're set free by the end.

it's quite understandable that Albus wouldn't want to do anything that would risk it being publically known that he was into dudes, considering that he is very much a public figure.

Dumbledore not caring one zilt about his reputation is a big part of his character, though.

Firstly.... wow that's bad. So you can use it on an elf without issue? Or the banking goblins?

No, I don't remember exactly but I don't think it's that bad.

We can reasonably infer that it won't work since they Dumbledore is with Harry for at least one horcrux and doesnt do it.

To be fair, by the point they get the (fake anyway) Horcrux, Dumbledore is reliving the memory of the death of his sister and begging Harry to kill him out of guilt. And he's dying of magic-cancer because he acted recklessly with the last Horcrux he touched.

[Peelee]

Liike, as far as plot holes in Harry Potter goes it's a pretty minor one

Aye. The entire plot OG Goblet of Fire comes to mind, for example.

"Oh that silly Hermione, thinking our slave race might want to be FREE. Isn't that right, Browne? Slavery is good right?"

.... Was there really a house elf called Browne? Please tell me your making that up to emphasize the point with the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

Well, I am told they shouldn't have boyfriends under 82.

OK that got me to laugh.

[LaZodiac]

Aye. The entire plot OG Goblet of Fire comes to mind, for example.


.... Was there really a house elf called Browne? Please tell me your making that up to emphasize the point with the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

I made up the name, don't worry.

Also, I used the name "Browne the brownie" for a specific reason; as Fyraltari said, she had NO reason to make the House Elves be explicit, obligate slaves. There are UK/British area folk lore that talks of fairy spirits that explicitly DO enjoy cleaning up and helping around the house, so long as they're treated politely,called Brownies, and that is a WILLING help, if you are nice to them. It raises the question of "Why did Rowling not just do that?" and there aren't a lot of good take-aways from that.

Incidently I want to specify this is not me trying to take away enjoyment from someone. I'm just presenting my thoughts. I'd also like to note that as an author myself, definitely call me on stuff like this too. I'm aware of some of the unfortunate implications of things in my writing and I'm going to do my best to correct them in house, so to speak.

[Qwertystop]

"Oh that silly Hermione, thinking our slave race might want to be FREE. Isn't that right, Browne? Slavery is good right?"

And then Browne the brownie, who is compelled to help his master no matter what, says yes because he can't NOT say no.

Also her attempted support organization for elf rights is called "Spew" as an acronym, it's overtly presented that she's a screaming harpy who doesn't know better. The story frames Hermione as Being Wrong, and regardless of why in universe (the alleged truth that house elves like being slaves) the reality is that it is the book saying "Hermione says this slave race deserves freedom and the book says she's dumb for this".

It is very complicated a question but I do feel the answer is very simple, namely; it was a really really bad idea to put this into her universe.

There's possibly a bit of history behind the acronym – the Society for Promoting the Employment of Women was an early British feminist organization, still extant but renamed. It's not too implausible that Hermione was thinking about that, and pretty likely that Rowling was on writing it.

And, yeah, the usual narrative about fey in folklore isn't "they're bound to help no matter what", it's "you treat them well and they help you, you break the rules and they cause you problems." It's a trade, just with really steep rates. Leave out some milk and they'll do chores and keep food from spoiling, forget to do that and your house gets termites. Treat them politely when they look like an old beggar, be given a huge pile of treasure. That sort of thing.

[Rater202]

In fact most of those stories are about them abusing a human who disrespected them in some way.

Reminder: Kreacher actively arranged for Sirius Black to be killed because he didn't think Sirius was a worthy master.

After Harry inherited the house that Kracher was bound to serve in, Kreacher on one occasion tried to trick him into eating live maggots for the same reason.

Both of which would be typical in a story about a House Fey who doesn't feel appreciated or that the person they've chosen/been compelled to serve is worthy.

[LaZodiac]

There's possibly a bit of history behind the acronym – the Society for Promoting the Employment of Women was an early British feminist organization, still extant but renamed. It's not too implausible that Hermione was thinking about that, and pretty likely that Rowling was on writing it.

And, yeah, the usual narrative about fey in folklore isn't "they're bound to help no matter what", it's "you treat them well and they help you, you break the rules and they cause you problems." It's a trade, just with really steep rates. Leave out some milk and they'll do chores and keep food from spoiling, forget to do that and your house gets termites. Treat them politely when they look like an old beggar, be given a huge pile of treasure. That sort of thing.

That is a VERY good point, actually, about SPEW being a historically used acronym for that kind of stuff. Nice catch.

[Fyraltari]

Reminder: Kreacher actively arranged for Sirius Black to be killed because he didn't think Sirius was a worthy master.

After Harry inherited the house that Kracher was bound to serve in, Kreacher on one occasion tried to trick him into eating live maggots for the same reason.

Both of which would be typical in a story about a House Fey who doesn't feel appreciated or that the person they've chosen/been compelled to serve is worthy.

That "/" does a lot of work here. I hope it doesn't hurt its back.

[Rater202]

Reminder: Kreacher actively arranged for Sirius Black to be killed because he didn't think Sirius was a worthy master.

No, actually, let's go over this again.

Kreacher doesn't believe that Sirius is a worthy master because from Kreacher's perspective, Sirius was a bad son to his "Beloved Mistress."

Becuase of this, Kreacher actively sabotages attempts to clean up the House and get rid of all those dark magic artifacts that Sirius family kept around, he betrays seirects of the Order of the Phonenix to the Death Eaters, conspired with the Death Eaters to set a trap at the department of mysteries, lied to Harry about Sirius's wearabouts to send Harry into said trap, all to get Sirius killed.

Dumbledore himself says that Kreacher is effectively resposnible for Sirius's death... And then blames Sirius for it. "If Sirus had put asside his feelings about his horrible childhood aside and treated Kracher decently, Kreacher wouldn't have arranged for Sirius to be murdered" is the gist of it.

That's not House Fey stuff. That's Fair Folk stuff.

[Fyraltari]

No, actually, let's go over this again.

Kreacher doesn't believe that Sirius is a worthy master because from Kreacher's perspective, Sirius was a bad son to his "Beloved Mistress."

Becuase of this, Kreacher actively sabotages attempts to clean up the House and get rid of all those dark magic artifacts that Sirius family kept around, he betrays seirects of the Order of the Phonenix to the Death Eaters, conspired with the Death Eaters to set a trap at the department of mysteries, lied to Harry about Sirius's wearabouts to send Harry into said trap, all to get Sirius killed.

Dumbledore himself says that Kreacher is effectively resposnible for Sirius's death... And then blames Sirius for it. "If Sirus had put asside his feelings about his horrible childhood aside and treated Kracher decently, Kreacher wouldn't have arranged for Sirius to be murdered" is the gist of it.

That's not House Fey stuff. That's Fair Folk stuff.

"The problem with slavery is unkind masters" isn't a very good take.

[Peelee]

Wonder Years reboot with Dulé Hill has apparently been announced. Already I am all about that, sounds awesomthen I hear they're sticking with the 60s and not shooting for the 90s like I expected. And in Alabama. So that sounds like it's going to be awesome, a whole different take on another perspective on the same topics. I can't wait.

[Rater202]

"The problem with slavery is unkind masters" isn't a very good take.

That's not the take. Not by far.

The take is... Are we sure that they're slaves? It looks like slavery on the surface, but... Kreacher got off scot-free for murdering a man. Kreacher is not condemned for killing a man that he didn't want to serve.

Like, Kreacher disliked Sirius because Sirius wasn't a murderous racist bastard like the rest of the Black Family. And Kreacher effectively killed him for that... And received no punishment for it. Dumbledore sympathized with him, even though Sirius's mistreatment of Kracher amounted to telling Kreacher to be nice and stop saying racist things.

And Kreacher killed him over it. No consequences. Kreacher even gets to be a hero in the last book.

I mean, the only hint we have as to how House Elves came to serve wizards is Dumbledore saying that "they're bound to serve by the enchantments of their kind" and that can be interpreted to say that the Elves bound themselves...

...So much supplementary material has come out in the decade and a half since the last book came out, but no explanation for Where House Elves Come from and Why they're bound to serve wizards.

We literally only have that one line.

[Fyraltari]

That's not the take. Not by far.

The take is... Are we sure that they're slaves?

Hmm, let's see. They do unpaid work, they have masters who can treat them as poorly as they want short of actual murder and they can't leave even if they want to. I don't know man, are they slaves, I have a really hard time figuring it out.

It looks like slavery on the surface, but... Kreacher got off scot-free for murdering a man. Kreacher is not condemned for killing a man that he didn't want to serve.

He didn't commit any crime, though. Bellatrix killed Sirius. Kreacher just snitched.

Dumbledore sympathized with him, even though Sirius's mistreatment of Kracher amounted to telling Kreacher to be nice and stop saying racist things.

Didn't Sirius yell at and beat Kreacher?

And Kreacher killed him over it. No consequences. Kreacher even gets to be a hero in the last book.

What were they supposed to do?

I mean, the only hint we have as to how House Elves came to serve wizards is Dumbledore saying that "they're bound to serve by the enchantments of their kind" and that can be interpreted to say that the Elves bound themselves...

...So much supplementary material has come out in the decade and a half since the last book came out, but no explanation for Where House Elves Come from and Why they're bound to serve wizards.

We literally only have that one line.

Sounds like the wizards bound them to their service.

[Rater202]

He didn't commit any crime, though. Bellatrix killed Sirius. Kreacher just snitched.

He was part of a conspiracy to commit murder.

That's a crime in most places.

Didn't Sirius yell at and beat Kreacher?

I don't recall him hitting Kreacher.

Sirius yelled at Kreacher... For making a burden of himself and complaining about the "filthy mudbloods and blood traitors despoiling [Kreacher's] poor mistress's house."

"Stop being racist!"
"No! You stop being a disappointment to your mother!"

Is the gist of their dynamic up until Sirius orders Kracher to get "out" which Kreacher tasks as permission to leave the house and then he colludes with terrorists in order to manipulate a minor into a trap for the sake or sending Sirius into the same trap where he would hopefully be killed.

[Fyraltari]

He was part of a conspiracy to commit murder. That's a crime in most places.

I don't think you could prove that. Certainly not without having to explain breaking in government buildings. Besides I don't think Kreacher was planning to have Sirius killed specifically. All he did was tell Lestrange what he could about the Order knowing she would use that information against them. Murdering Sirius wasn't something they planned together. Not that Kreacher wasn't happy about it, of course or wasn't expexting something along those lines.

I don't recall him hitting Kreacher.

It's been a long time, and I am not going to look into it.

Sirius yelled at Kreacher... For making a burden of himself and complaining about the "filthy mudbloods and blood traitors despoiling [Kreacher's] poor mistress's house."

"Stop being racist!"
"No! You stop being a disappointment to your mother!"

I'm pretty sure he did insult him a lot.

Is the gist of their dynamic up until Sirius orders Kracher to get "out" which Kreacher tasks as permission to leave the house and then he colludes with terrorists in order to manipulate a minor into a trap for the sake or sending Sirius into the same trap where he would hopefully be killed.

Remind me, what does any of this have to do with whether House Elves are slaves?

[Rater202]

Remind me, what does any of this have to do with whether House Elves are slaves?

Slaves usually aren't allowed to get off scot-free for conspiring to kill their masters.

And that...

Like, I'm not trying to argue anything right now.

I just think the fact that Kreacher was able to essentially get off scot-free for conspiring to murder Sirius Black(and, had the plan gone of properly, Harry would also be dead) adds an interesting wrinkle to the debate.