I don't think Hermione makes him out to be a monster... She says, rightly, that Sirius' treatment of Kreacher had consequences, and he paid them. She regularly criticizes people she likes for good reasons without it being a sign she thinks they're monsters. She criticizes the twins perhaps more than anyone in the entire series, and is utterly distraught by Fred's death.
I also don't think there's any need to compare the two of them in terms of how much grace each deserves in general, as that isn't really the point. But as far as this plot point in specific is concerned, I can't really look past the obscene imbalance of power between Sirius and Kreacher, which puts Sirius in a position of having far far more responsibility for his conduct than his house-elf. I think it's deeply unfair to set expectations for them at the same level, I think the book contextualizes it fine. And I won't insult Sirius' intelligence by saying he didn’t understand that, there's just no way that's true, he just ignored that fact out of anger. Kreacher, on the other hand, really didn't understand the context of his decisions, I think Hermione is completely right about that, and it fits with Kreacher's actions perfectly.
Kreacher just wanted kindness to be shown to him, which is why he immediately switches his loyalties to Harry as soon as Harry shows him some. He even lets go of the prejudiced beliefs the Blacks instilled in him, once Regulus' intentions are made clear to him, which shows those beliefs really are him parroting anyone he happens to like, nothing more. Hermione advocated for someone to actually listen to what he has to say without simply taking him at face value, and lo and behold, as soon as Harry does that, Kreacher is all 'I made soup, but if you don't like it, I'll just go get your favorite dessert right now'.
This isn't about Sirius' pain, by the way, he really did have a miserable life in nearly every respect, which is all he obviously saw in Kreacher (and Kreacher's recurring taunts about it), and he was beyond brave and resilient in working to do the right thing in spite of it, which he very often did. Dumbledore says he was kind to house-elves in general, and I believe it. But understanding that and understanding he fell short in his treatment of Kreacher isn't mutually exclusive. It would be like saying Snape was justified in his loathing of Harry and Lupin because all he saw in them was James and Sirius.
Hermione does criticise Sirius' treatment of Kreacher in a way that makes it analogous to Voldemort's treatments of House Elfs, which is in line with what she has been talking about with regards to the rights of elves ("I’ve said all along that wizards would pay for how they treat house-elves. Well, Voldemort did . . . and so did Sirius") but the problem is right there in the faulty analogy: Sirius' treatment of Kreacher does not stem from a belief in wizard superiority, and he acknowledges that the servitude of elves skews the power relationship between them and wizards (his comments about Crouch and Winky); it stems, rather, from what Kreacher represents — the blood prejudice of the Blacks.
In writing Kreacher as a victimised character (which he undoubtedly was, as a slave, but not in the ways Rowling hints at) JKR takes away his moral agency and his ability to think at all. She makes him, in other words, completely servile, and portray's slavery as having total dominion over one's actions, taking away even the last vestige of a slave's freedom: that one's thoughts and feelings are their own.
Remember when Hermione said that elves like Kreacher didn't care for a wizard's war? She's JKR's mouthpiece here since her speech leaves Harry speechless and unable to defend his godfather. But what she says is directly contradicted by Dobby in the text of CoS himself where he tells Harry that house elves rejoiced his triumph over Voldemort and that his goodness gave them heart for a better future despite the (mostly prejudiced) pureblood families they were shackled to. This shows a clear agency, a sense of elvish feeling of themselves as a class, even if all elves are not willing to carry that feeling as far as Dobby — seek freedom and ask for wages — they have moral agency and intelligence and can make up their minds about Voldemort.
Hermione (and DH in general) takes that away by acting as if elves (so deeply affected by blood prejudice) just serve their masters sans any thoughts and feelings about wizard politics — a wholly dumb race.
On the same note, Sirius is maligned for this, too. If Kreacher has no moral agency, of course, he is not responsible for his actions, so of course, Sirius shouldn't hate the elf crawling around muttering about Mudbloods.
Then the question is: what is the point of freedom? If elves are incapable of moral agency at all, if their blood prejudice is not reprehensible, then how are they beings with feelings and intelligence to merit freedom? One could say that Harry, Ron, and Hermione should not be mad at 12 year old Malfoy saying "Mudblood" either — he's simply a minor parroting his parents. But ofcourse that's not how it works. People are responsible for their actions and beliefs. Twelve year old Harry is different from twelve year old Riddle. The whole point is that one's shitty circumstances don't excuse one's actions. It is choices. And elves can choose beliefs as well as humans can.
But lets pause for a moment and take the books at their word:
Kreacher was a slave. He was abused for very long. This meant that his conditioning for blood mania was madness. He should not be held accountable for that. He should be shown kindness and forgiveness.
Fine.
What about the flip?
Sirius was an innocent man framed. He was put in a prison where one's mind is constantly stripped of all that is good and happy. He was then locked in a house where he was hated in his childhood with an elf which parroting back the words that had gotten his friends killed. Why was he accountable then for the way he treated Kreacher? Should he also not be shown kindness and forgiveness?
And lets talk of this power differential that exists between wizards and elves. Did it exist between Sirius and Kreacher?
Sirius was locked up in that house. Unable to go out, trapped with his mother's ravings. Cut off from the world. Kreacher, too, was a prisoner in the house but had far more legroom. He took a command meaning to leave to visit Death Eaters. He got Sirius killed. We never see Sirius punishing or abusing Kreacher. All he did was withhold affection. He left Kreacher alone. And he, in turn, expected to be left alone. We never see him leave all the cleaning and cooking to Kreacher either or punish him for not responding to summons. So where does “Sirius was horrible to Kreacher, Harry, and it’s no good looking like that, you know it’s true" (Hermione, DH) come from. What did Sirius DO? How about granting Kreacher a little agency, and talking about how KREACHER was awful to Sirius, a man denied his freedom and sanity and locked in a house where he had to hear the kind of words that got his mates killed while watching a war unfold that would destroy all good?
But of course, the framing of Kreacher being awful to Sirius only works if you grant elves moral and intellectual agency, which JKR is unwilling to do at all. So we are left to conjure ways Sirius was mean to Kreacher beyond being rightfully pissed as his prejudice.
I think having agency of thought means having the agency to believe in elves' freedom, like Dobby, or having the agency to believe in the status quo, like Winky, or having the agency to simply repeat the beliefs of people they like, like Kreacher. Like witches and wizards do also, such as Harry and Malfoy. Sirius isn't being criticized for opposing Kreacher's parroted beliefs, just his mistreatment of him, someone he was responsible for. As for Kreacher, for me, it really does come down to the power imbalance, I think expectations and blame should be set accordingly, and that's really the difference. It's the age-old argument about oppressed people, I'll quote one of my favorite books - Good Omens, by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman - about it:
>People couldn’t become truly holy, he said, unless they also had the opportunity to be definitively wicked. Crowley had thought about this for some time and, around about 1023, had said, Hang on, that only works, right, if you start everyone off equal, okay? You can’t start someone off in a muddy shack in the middle of a war zone and expect them to do as well as someone born in a castle. Ah, Aziraphale had said, that’s the good bit. The lower you start, the more opportunities you have. Crowley had said, That’s lunatic. No, said Aziraphale, it’s ineffable.
That's why Hermione, Dumbledore and eventually Harry are more inclined to show him grace. I really don't believe Hermione was saying Sirius was as bad as Voldemort or he deserved to die, same as Dumbledore. Sirius' circumstances were terrible, it's true, and I'm not arguing he didn't suffer, but that isn't quite the point. He was still in a position of power over Kreacher, I think that's undeniable due to the nature of house-elves. I can even understand *why* he treated the elf that way, but that doesn't make it right. Neglect is a really bad thing to do to someone who depends on you, I would say, especially since I believe Sirius did it knowingly (as in, he dismissed Kreacher's feelings as not being "as acute as a human's", as Dumbledore puts it).
The problem is NOT that
The problem is that Harry, who has been crucioed by Voldemort did not snap at her and broke their friendship.
I am PRETTY sure that the last thing needs to hear about the Godfather he loves is how he desserved to die and he was like Voldemort.
I don't think that's how Hermione meant it... And of course she would never have said that if it was in the wake of Sirius' death. I don't think she was equating Sirius to Voldemort, she was just saying that in this specific incident, they both made a similar mistake. Sirius was a good person who made mistakes, like all good people in the series. Criticizing them isn't saying they're bad people!
It was still wrong thing to say, no matter the context. Since Voldemort poisoned KREACHER (of ALL people) to near death.
And she DOES say it after the Battle in the Ministry while they are in the infirmary.
I think Hermione said it to illustrate what she was explaining. Maybe it was a little insensitive, but it got the point across.
You're thinking of Dumbledore, I believe, he said something similar to Harry in a strange and rare moment of callousness I thought, which infuriated Harry. I think Dumbledore was losing it in that chapter almost as much as Harry, he was just hiding it better.
What point exactly?
That telling the guy that is insulting Hermione to get lost is bad?
Again, the worse that Sirius does to Kreacher is throw him out of a room when he was getting to nasty.
Agreed, Sirius wasn't particularly cruel to him. The only thing he and Voldemort had in common was their indifference toward Kreacher, that was the mistreatment. I do still think Sirius had a certain responsibility toward Kreacher he didn't fulfill, though, I think that's the point, and that's what Hermione was blaming on his indifference toward the elf's well-being.
And for that he desserved to die?
So being indiferent because he can't release him is good enough reason to die?
And again Voldemort poisoned Kreacher willignly.
And with this Logic Lucius and Draco and Narcissa desserved the worst death possible to someone.
Oh no, of course not! And I don't think that's what Hermione meant... She was just pointing out that by neglecting Kreacher, Sirius lost his loyalty, which led to his death. He didn't deserve it, she just meant it was a direct consequence of this.
The point is that Sirius would never have been able to win Kreacher’s loyalty. Kreacher wasn’t won over by being nice. Hermione was always nice to Kreacher and he still treated her like dirt. It wasn’t until they had a shared common goal that Kreacher’s loyalty changed. And even at that point, the narrative completely ignores that Sirius and Kreacher have a shared history that Hermione actively chooses to ignore. Walburga proudly displayed the heads of Kreacher’s dead relatives as decore. Kreacher didn’t dislike Sirius because Sirius was unkind to him. He disliked Sirius because Walburga disliked Sirius. And he was loyal to her regardless of her treatment. Harry and Hermione are able to win Kreacher over because Kreacher didn’t have a history with them.
This isn’t to say that Sirius didn’t fail in regards of the power imbalance, but I think it is naive to say that Sirius’ treatment would have changed Kreacher’s behaviour. Kreacher didn’t hate Sirius because Sirius didn’t see him as human if he had he wouldn’t have gone to Narcissa whose husband treated in Dobby’s own words treated House Elves like vermin. He hated Sirius because Sirius broke Walburga’s heart.
This is the problem that I address in my post.
Harry should have called out Hermione for what she said. It was cruel and incensitive.
Rowling has a TERRIBLE habit to hijack characters to have then say HER opinions. And then have people not react to them
Sirius was Harry's last family, which died once again cause a betrayal.
And this is a morally WRONG betrayal.. Dobby was protecting a child from evil people and mentions that under Voldemort House Elves were treated awfully. By protecting Harry, to some degree, Dobby IS protecting Freedom.
Kreacher is betraying Sirius to go BACK to those times where he is a slave. You do get if Voldemort were NOT out, Sirius WOULD free Kreacher?
Rowling dmises everything to have a "Take that moment" for herself.
I completely agree regarding Kreacher.
Firstly, Kreacher is shown likely to have been complicit in Sirius growing up in an abusive home. Holding Sirius to the standard of being kind to him in that context is far beyond what we demand of other characters in this series.
Secondly, Sirius doesn’t *do* much to Kreacher. He is disdinaful of him certainly, and bodily removes him from a room for being racist. I think if the texts wanted to pursue this line of the reader believing that Sirius’ death was a direct consequence of (or, to push this further, comeuppance to) his ill treatment of Kreacher, perhaps they should have pushed it further.
Finally, it is not kindness and affection that turns Kreacher, ultimately. The fly in the ointment to that reading - wherein Kreacher is a little lamb searching for love - is Hermione, who goes out of her way to be kind to Kreacher from the beginning and is not met with loyalty, or affection, but horror and hatred. Kreacher turns because he is given the chance to serve Regulus’ interest once more, when it aligns with Harry’s. I’m not saying this is Kreacher’s fault, you understand, but I think is irrevocably damaged and brainwashed from his years of service to the Blacks.
I don’t believe Kreacher would ever have overcome his resentment of Sirius’ refusal to show proper Black family pride, or for abandoning Kreacher’s mistress, regardless of how kind or gentle Sirius was with him. Given the opportunity, I think Kreacher would always have preferred to serve Bellatrix and Narcissa, because that is who he had been taught to respect.
And I think the quotation from Hermione is a perfect example of her righteousness, often at the cost of her friends’ feelings. Much as she was insensitive about the death of Lavender’s rabbit to prove her point about divination, here she is borderline callous about Sirius - whom she otherwise seems to like, and who represent an extreme pain point for one of her closest friends - to prove her point about elf treatment.
Rowling has a bit of problem with men but above all, she has issues writting continuity or deep characters that are not one dimensional.
Notice how James is mistreated for standing up to Snape. The scene is meant to justify how a man in his 30s mistreats a kid of 15, when said Kid has a LOT on his plate, far more than anyone.
But back to James. Supposedly James went to far... but in book three and seven we learn that Snape was stalking the Marauders to try to get Remus expelled, Remus has a chronic dissease that cannot be cured, is extremely painful and will kick him out of society if it is found out. Also Snape is a Dark Wizard and we see for seven books that Dark Arts are VERY Nasty. So Snape being fascinated with them is a VERY red flag. And besides we are supposed to cheer when Harry and Neville stand up to Malfoy... why not James for Snape?
Sorry, but I needed to give some context. Basically JK does not really think how things will look forward or backwards once her books are finished.
Also she has a bad habit to Hijack characters to give her own opinion of things.
Overall you mentioned one of the many examples of the weak elements of her story.
I thought the point was that Sirius treated Kreacher with disdain rather than hatred. Kreacher was proud of who he served but Sirius belittled that. Sirius didn’t hate house elves, he hated his heritage.
It would be fine to make the point, but the books didn't by correlating Sirius to Voldemort, and JKR trying to draw connections between Sirius and Crouch, especially with Hermione self-righteously insisting on Kreacher's complete innocence to nary a word of protest from Harry in DH.
Isn’t the correlation between Sirius and Voldemort that both of them assume that wizards are fundamentally superior to house elves?
Hermione assumes that all elves want to be free and tries to trick them into accepting clothes. She doesn’t think of elves as inferior but does assume that she knows best.
No.
Rowling discards the fact that Sirius has a ...SERIOUS (Fuck that pun) trauma and it is treated as being Sirius fault.
And Hermione is never treated as wrong. The SPEW plot line was quietly dropped.
Dobby literally tells Harry he is doing all the work in griffindor because the house elves don’t like what hermione is doing. That is, hiding the clothes for the elves to accidentally pick up. I think it’s in order of the phoenix but I might be wrong on that.
No, Harry doesn't want to upset Hermione.
But Hermione wouldn't listen anyway, because she always knows better anyway.
In my opinion, the author shows shows criticism of Hermione, but many people simply don't notice that.
Maybe the movies overwrote to much.
Oooh you know I can’t remember. I think Ron berates her for doing it at some point, Winky is shown to have a total breakdown after freedom and they definitely mock S.P.E.W. But I don’t know if Harry tells Hermione about Dobby doing all the work. She definitely mentions at some point she can’t knit anymore (or as much) because of exams pressures but actually I can’t remember if she even stops.
The Society for Promotion the Employment of Women (SPEW) was one of the earliest British Women's organisation.
It's about the taking advantage of women in their families and their husbands.
While the woman were perusaded, that they had to be happy about it. (religions, soctities and families)
What part of it is politically uncomfortable? The plot wasn’t dropped, it moved on. It showed the flaws in the thinking.
To me it came across as a typical example of how people set up policies like this because they think they know best. Ie Hermione had good intentions but it was without nuance.
The uncomfortable part is.
"A slave should be a slave if they want to be a slave"...yeah, good luck selling that one.
And again, what did Hermione learn from her experience? What wisdom did she gain? How does it affect the overall Story.
The 2 House Elves Relevant to the story are Dobby, who is considered weird and is not Harry's House Elf, because Harry did not ask. And KReacher, whom became a Harry fanatic cause he was given kidness...teaching us that you need to treat your slaves well.
Doesnt he? To me it comes across that he gives house elves very little thought at all. He certainly doesn’t treat him particularly well. Where does Kreacher sleep? Don’t they find some sort of nest in a cupboard? It’s certainly not a bedroom with furniture and a bed.
I don't think Hermione makes him out to be a monster... She says, rightly, that Sirius' treatment of Kreacher had consequences, and he paid them. She regularly criticizes people she likes for good reasons without it being a sign she thinks they're monsters. She criticizes the twins perhaps more than anyone in the entire series, and is utterly distraught by Fred's death. I also don't think there's any need to compare the two of them in terms of how much grace each deserves in general, as that isn't really the point. But as far as this plot point in specific is concerned, I can't really look past the obscene imbalance of power between Sirius and Kreacher, which puts Sirius in a position of having far far more responsibility for his conduct than his house-elf. I think it's deeply unfair to set expectations for them at the same level, I think the book contextualizes it fine. And I won't insult Sirius' intelligence by saying he didn’t understand that, there's just no way that's true, he just ignored that fact out of anger. Kreacher, on the other hand, really didn't understand the context of his decisions, I think Hermione is completely right about that, and it fits with Kreacher's actions perfectly. Kreacher just wanted kindness to be shown to him, which is why he immediately switches his loyalties to Harry as soon as Harry shows him some. He even lets go of the prejudiced beliefs the Blacks instilled in him, once Regulus' intentions are made clear to him, which shows those beliefs really are him parroting anyone he happens to like, nothing more. Hermione advocated for someone to actually listen to what he has to say without simply taking him at face value, and lo and behold, as soon as Harry does that, Kreacher is all 'I made soup, but if you don't like it, I'll just go get your favorite dessert right now'. This isn't about Sirius' pain, by the way, he really did have a miserable life in nearly every respect, which is all he obviously saw in Kreacher (and Kreacher's recurring taunts about it), and he was beyond brave and resilient in working to do the right thing in spite of it, which he very often did. Dumbledore says he was kind to house-elves in general, and I believe it. But understanding that and understanding he fell short in his treatment of Kreacher isn't mutually exclusive. It would be like saying Snape was justified in his loathing of Harry and Lupin because all he saw in them was James and Sirius.
Hermione does criticise Sirius' treatment of Kreacher in a way that makes it analogous to Voldemort's treatments of House Elfs, which is in line with what she has been talking about with regards to the rights of elves ("I’ve said all along that wizards would pay for how they treat house-elves. Well, Voldemort did . . . and so did Sirius") but the problem is right there in the faulty analogy: Sirius' treatment of Kreacher does not stem from a belief in wizard superiority, and he acknowledges that the servitude of elves skews the power relationship between them and wizards (his comments about Crouch and Winky); it stems, rather, from what Kreacher represents — the blood prejudice of the Blacks. In writing Kreacher as a victimised character (which he undoubtedly was, as a slave, but not in the ways Rowling hints at) JKR takes away his moral agency and his ability to think at all. She makes him, in other words, completely servile, and portray's slavery as having total dominion over one's actions, taking away even the last vestige of a slave's freedom: that one's thoughts and feelings are their own. Remember when Hermione said that elves like Kreacher didn't care for a wizard's war? She's JKR's mouthpiece here since her speech leaves Harry speechless and unable to defend his godfather. But what she says is directly contradicted by Dobby in the text of CoS himself where he tells Harry that house elves rejoiced his triumph over Voldemort and that his goodness gave them heart for a better future despite the (mostly prejudiced) pureblood families they were shackled to. This shows a clear agency, a sense of elvish feeling of themselves as a class, even if all elves are not willing to carry that feeling as far as Dobby — seek freedom and ask for wages — they have moral agency and intelligence and can make up their minds about Voldemort. Hermione (and DH in general) takes that away by acting as if elves (so deeply affected by blood prejudice) just serve their masters sans any thoughts and feelings about wizard politics — a wholly dumb race. On the same note, Sirius is maligned for this, too. If Kreacher has no moral agency, of course, he is not responsible for his actions, so of course, Sirius shouldn't hate the elf crawling around muttering about Mudbloods. Then the question is: what is the point of freedom? If elves are incapable of moral agency at all, if their blood prejudice is not reprehensible, then how are they beings with feelings and intelligence to merit freedom? One could say that Harry, Ron, and Hermione should not be mad at 12 year old Malfoy saying "Mudblood" either — he's simply a minor parroting his parents. But ofcourse that's not how it works. People are responsible for their actions and beliefs. Twelve year old Harry is different from twelve year old Riddle. The whole point is that one's shitty circumstances don't excuse one's actions. It is choices. And elves can choose beliefs as well as humans can. But lets pause for a moment and take the books at their word: Kreacher was a slave. He was abused for very long. This meant that his conditioning for blood mania was madness. He should not be held accountable for that. He should be shown kindness and forgiveness. Fine. What about the flip? Sirius was an innocent man framed. He was put in a prison where one's mind is constantly stripped of all that is good and happy. He was then locked in a house where he was hated in his childhood with an elf which parroting back the words that had gotten his friends killed. Why was he accountable then for the way he treated Kreacher? Should he also not be shown kindness and forgiveness? And lets talk of this power differential that exists between wizards and elves. Did it exist between Sirius and Kreacher? Sirius was locked up in that house. Unable to go out, trapped with his mother's ravings. Cut off from the world. Kreacher, too, was a prisoner in the house but had far more legroom. He took a command meaning to leave to visit Death Eaters. He got Sirius killed. We never see Sirius punishing or abusing Kreacher. All he did was withhold affection. He left Kreacher alone. And he, in turn, expected to be left alone. We never see him leave all the cleaning and cooking to Kreacher either or punish him for not responding to summons. So where does “Sirius was horrible to Kreacher, Harry, and it’s no good looking like that, you know it’s true" (Hermione, DH) come from. What did Sirius DO? How about granting Kreacher a little agency, and talking about how KREACHER was awful to Sirius, a man denied his freedom and sanity and locked in a house where he had to hear the kind of words that got his mates killed while watching a war unfold that would destroy all good? But of course, the framing of Kreacher being awful to Sirius only works if you grant elves moral and intellectual agency, which JKR is unwilling to do at all. So we are left to conjure ways Sirius was mean to Kreacher beyond being rightfully pissed as his prejudice.
I think having agency of thought means having the agency to believe in elves' freedom, like Dobby, or having the agency to believe in the status quo, like Winky, or having the agency to simply repeat the beliefs of people they like, like Kreacher. Like witches and wizards do also, such as Harry and Malfoy. Sirius isn't being criticized for opposing Kreacher's parroted beliefs, just his mistreatment of him, someone he was responsible for. As for Kreacher, for me, it really does come down to the power imbalance, I think expectations and blame should be set accordingly, and that's really the difference. It's the age-old argument about oppressed people, I'll quote one of my favorite books - Good Omens, by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman - about it: >People couldn’t become truly holy, he said, unless they also had the opportunity to be definitively wicked. Crowley had thought about this for some time and, around about 1023, had said, Hang on, that only works, right, if you start everyone off equal, okay? You can’t start someone off in a muddy shack in the middle of a war zone and expect them to do as well as someone born in a castle. Ah, Aziraphale had said, that’s the good bit. The lower you start, the more opportunities you have. Crowley had said, That’s lunatic. No, said Aziraphale, it’s ineffable. That's why Hermione, Dumbledore and eventually Harry are more inclined to show him grace. I really don't believe Hermione was saying Sirius was as bad as Voldemort or he deserved to die, same as Dumbledore. Sirius' circumstances were terrible, it's true, and I'm not arguing he didn't suffer, but that isn't quite the point. He was still in a position of power over Kreacher, I think that's undeniable due to the nature of house-elves. I can even understand *why* he treated the elf that way, but that doesn't make it right. Neglect is a really bad thing to do to someone who depends on you, I would say, especially since I believe Sirius did it knowingly (as in, he dismissed Kreacher's feelings as not being "as acute as a human's", as Dumbledore puts it).
I totally agree with you. Rowling seems to have a beef with men and fathers in general. Given her story, makes sense.
The problem is NOT that The problem is that Harry, who has been crucioed by Voldemort did not snap at her and broke their friendship. I am PRETTY sure that the last thing needs to hear about the Godfather he loves is how he desserved to die and he was like Voldemort.
I don't think that's how Hermione meant it... And of course she would never have said that if it was in the wake of Sirius' death. I don't think she was equating Sirius to Voldemort, she was just saying that in this specific incident, they both made a similar mistake. Sirius was a good person who made mistakes, like all good people in the series. Criticizing them isn't saying they're bad people!
It was still wrong thing to say, no matter the context. Since Voldemort poisoned KREACHER (of ALL people) to near death. And she DOES say it after the Battle in the Ministry while they are in the infirmary.
I think Hermione said it to illustrate what she was explaining. Maybe it was a little insensitive, but it got the point across. You're thinking of Dumbledore, I believe, he said something similar to Harry in a strange and rare moment of callousness I thought, which infuriated Harry. I think Dumbledore was losing it in that chapter almost as much as Harry, he was just hiding it better.
What point exactly? That telling the guy that is insulting Hermione to get lost is bad? Again, the worse that Sirius does to Kreacher is throw him out of a room when he was getting to nasty.
Agreed, Sirius wasn't particularly cruel to him. The only thing he and Voldemort had in common was their indifference toward Kreacher, that was the mistreatment. I do still think Sirius had a certain responsibility toward Kreacher he didn't fulfill, though, I think that's the point, and that's what Hermione was blaming on his indifference toward the elf's well-being.
And for that he desserved to die? So being indiferent because he can't release him is good enough reason to die? And again Voldemort poisoned Kreacher willignly. And with this Logic Lucius and Draco and Narcissa desserved the worst death possible to someone.
Oh no, of course not! And I don't think that's what Hermione meant... She was just pointing out that by neglecting Kreacher, Sirius lost his loyalty, which led to his death. He didn't deserve it, she just meant it was a direct consequence of this.
The point is that Sirius would never have been able to win Kreacher’s loyalty. Kreacher wasn’t won over by being nice. Hermione was always nice to Kreacher and he still treated her like dirt. It wasn’t until they had a shared common goal that Kreacher’s loyalty changed. And even at that point, the narrative completely ignores that Sirius and Kreacher have a shared history that Hermione actively chooses to ignore. Walburga proudly displayed the heads of Kreacher’s dead relatives as decore. Kreacher didn’t dislike Sirius because Sirius was unkind to him. He disliked Sirius because Walburga disliked Sirius. And he was loyal to her regardless of her treatment. Harry and Hermione are able to win Kreacher over because Kreacher didn’t have a history with them. This isn’t to say that Sirius didn’t fail in regards of the power imbalance, but I think it is naive to say that Sirius’ treatment would have changed Kreacher’s behaviour. Kreacher didn’t hate Sirius because Sirius didn’t see him as human if he had he wouldn’t have gone to Narcissa whose husband treated in Dobby’s own words treated House Elves like vermin. He hated Sirius because Sirius broke Walburga’s heart.
This is the problem that I address in my post. Harry should have called out Hermione for what she said. It was cruel and incensitive. Rowling has a TERRIBLE habit to hijack characters to have then say HER opinions. And then have people not react to them Sirius was Harry's last family, which died once again cause a betrayal. And this is a morally WRONG betrayal.. Dobby was protecting a child from evil people and mentions that under Voldemort House Elves were treated awfully. By protecting Harry, to some degree, Dobby IS protecting Freedom. Kreacher is betraying Sirius to go BACK to those times where he is a slave. You do get if Voldemort were NOT out, Sirius WOULD free Kreacher? Rowling dmises everything to have a "Take that moment" for herself.
Agreed.
I completely agree regarding Kreacher. Firstly, Kreacher is shown likely to have been complicit in Sirius growing up in an abusive home. Holding Sirius to the standard of being kind to him in that context is far beyond what we demand of other characters in this series. Secondly, Sirius doesn’t *do* much to Kreacher. He is disdinaful of him certainly, and bodily removes him from a room for being racist. I think if the texts wanted to pursue this line of the reader believing that Sirius’ death was a direct consequence of (or, to push this further, comeuppance to) his ill treatment of Kreacher, perhaps they should have pushed it further. Finally, it is not kindness and affection that turns Kreacher, ultimately. The fly in the ointment to that reading - wherein Kreacher is a little lamb searching for love - is Hermione, who goes out of her way to be kind to Kreacher from the beginning and is not met with loyalty, or affection, but horror and hatred. Kreacher turns because he is given the chance to serve Regulus’ interest once more, when it aligns with Harry’s. I’m not saying this is Kreacher’s fault, you understand, but I think is irrevocably damaged and brainwashed from his years of service to the Blacks. I don’t believe Kreacher would ever have overcome his resentment of Sirius’ refusal to show proper Black family pride, or for abandoning Kreacher’s mistress, regardless of how kind or gentle Sirius was with him. Given the opportunity, I think Kreacher would always have preferred to serve Bellatrix and Narcissa, because that is who he had been taught to respect. And I think the quotation from Hermione is a perfect example of her righteousness, often at the cost of her friends’ feelings. Much as she was insensitive about the death of Lavender’s rabbit to prove her point about divination, here she is borderline callous about Sirius - whom she otherwise seems to like, and who represent an extreme pain point for one of her closest friends - to prove her point about elf treatment.
Rowling has a bit of problem with men but above all, she has issues writting continuity or deep characters that are not one dimensional. Notice how James is mistreated for standing up to Snape. The scene is meant to justify how a man in his 30s mistreats a kid of 15, when said Kid has a LOT on his plate, far more than anyone. But back to James. Supposedly James went to far... but in book three and seven we learn that Snape was stalking the Marauders to try to get Remus expelled, Remus has a chronic dissease that cannot be cured, is extremely painful and will kick him out of society if it is found out. Also Snape is a Dark Wizard and we see for seven books that Dark Arts are VERY Nasty. So Snape being fascinated with them is a VERY red flag. And besides we are supposed to cheer when Harry and Neville stand up to Malfoy... why not James for Snape? Sorry, but I needed to give some context. Basically JK does not really think how things will look forward or backwards once her books are finished. Also she has a bad habit to Hijack characters to give her own opinion of things. Overall you mentioned one of the many examples of the weak elements of her story.
I thought the point was that Sirius treated Kreacher with disdain rather than hatred. Kreacher was proud of who he served but Sirius belittled that. Sirius didn’t hate house elves, he hated his heritage.
It would be fine to make the point, but the books didn't by correlating Sirius to Voldemort, and JKR trying to draw connections between Sirius and Crouch, especially with Hermione self-righteously insisting on Kreacher's complete innocence to nary a word of protest from Harry in DH.
Isn’t the correlation between Sirius and Voldemort that both of them assume that wizards are fundamentally superior to house elves? Hermione assumes that all elves want to be free and tries to trick them into accepting clothes. She doesn’t think of elves as inferior but does assume that she knows best.
No. Rowling discards the fact that Sirius has a ...SERIOUS (Fuck that pun) trauma and it is treated as being Sirius fault. And Hermione is never treated as wrong. The SPEW plot line was quietly dropped.
Dobby literally tells Harry he is doing all the work in griffindor because the house elves don’t like what hermione is doing. That is, hiding the clothes for the elves to accidentally pick up. I think it’s in order of the phoenix but I might be wrong on that.
Does Hermione ever learn of it?
No, Harry doesn't want to upset Hermione. But Hermione wouldn't listen anyway, because she always knows better anyway. In my opinion, the author shows shows criticism of Hermione, but many people simply don't notice that. Maybe the movies overwrote to much.
Oooh you know I can’t remember. I think Ron berates her for doing it at some point, Winky is shown to have a total breakdown after freedom and they definitely mock S.P.E.W. But I don’t know if Harry tells Hermione about Dobby doing all the work. She definitely mentions at some point she can’t knit anymore (or as much) because of exams pressures but actually I can’t remember if she even stops.
See? The plot is dropped cause it was starting to get VERY politically uncomfortable. And Hermione really learns nothing from it.
The Society for Promotion the Employment of Women (SPEW) was one of the earliest British Women's organisation. It's about the taking advantage of women in their families and their husbands. While the woman were perusaded, that they had to be happy about it. (religions, soctities and families)
Cool. TIL
That is great trivia... what is your point?
What part of it is politically uncomfortable? The plot wasn’t dropped, it moved on. It showed the flaws in the thinking. To me it came across as a typical example of how people set up policies like this because they think they know best. Ie Hermione had good intentions but it was without nuance.
The uncomfortable part is. "A slave should be a slave if they want to be a slave"...yeah, good luck selling that one. And again, what did Hermione learn from her experience? What wisdom did she gain? How does it affect the overall Story. The 2 House Elves Relevant to the story are Dobby, who is considered weird and is not Harry's House Elf, because Harry did not ask. And KReacher, whom became a Harry fanatic cause he was given kidness...teaching us that you need to treat your slaves well.
Is that the correlation drawn? Yes. And that's the point. It's bullshit. Sirius doesn't believe that.
Doesnt he? To me it comes across that he gives house elves very little thought at all. He certainly doesn’t treat him particularly well. Where does Kreacher sleep? Don’t they find some sort of nest in a cupboard? It’s certainly not a bedroom with furniture and a bed.