Hog’s Head PubCast #25: House-Elves

Eroej, I’m not entirely sure where you’re going with this.

While there may have been some historical reason for their enslavement, why are they still enslaved?

I have a hard time believing JKR is writing a story about enslavement wherein the slaveholders are really good-natured about the whole thing after all. Rowling has said flat out that the house-elf subplot is about slavery – she said: “The house elves is really for slavery, isn’t it, the house elves are slaves, so that is an issue that I think we probably all feel strongly about enough in this room already.”

I highly doubt that the lesson she wants us all to learn is that it was a good thing for them to have been enslaved.

On top of that, I’m definitely against the “mischievous nature” argument. In the first place, a mischievous nature is not such a big deal when compared to the downright evil nature of some wizards. But beyond that, we should remember Dumbledore’s commentary on the matter: “Kreacher is what he has been made by wizards.” That goes entirely contrary to your last paragraph, I think.

Perhaps I’m misreading you. Could you elaborate some more?

Travis,

Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I don’t think it is good to enslave the elves. My point, really is that the elves may not be happy, even though they put on a “happy” face.

Your question is a good one. Why are they enslaved at this point?

DD could easily release the Howarts elves from their imperatives, with no change in their living arrangements and no change in their duties, no paying, etc. No change in anything substantial at all. He could even sign a contract “binding” them to Hogwarts voluntarily if that made them feel secure. Just with the removal of the magical imperatives. No more slavery! Perhaps Hermione should be addressing herself to the slave owners who have the power to act instead of the enslaved who are relatively powerless (although Dobby demonstrated quite some power against Lucious Malfoy after he was freed).

The Red Hen essay is excellent and gives some needed, I feel, background on the enigma of the house elves.

The bulk of my first comment was to try and establish a reason for the enslavement. It does not seem financial (no evidence of buying and selling the elves) and they would, supposedly, do the work without the enslavement. So again, Travis, your question is to this point – Why are they enslaved at this point? How can the issue of their enslavement be addressed if the underlying causes are not understood.

The house elves appear happy. Things are not, of course, always what they appear to be in the WW.

Does anyone believe that the house elves will be emanicipated in DH?

To me, it seems such a huge wrong that it should be linked to other things that are wrong. And I also don’t see that there is going to be enough time in DH to explain the history of that wrong, let alone right it.

I think the house elves are part of JKR’s genius in creating such a richly detailed world. I don’t know if she knew this is how they would be from the start, but she must have seen it early enough. Perhaps she’s never had enough room in any of her books to explain. I personally don’t think there will be enough time in DH to right this wrong. However, the appendix she promised which will tell what will happen to the characters may well explain that Hermione Granger – who married Draco Malfoy after mourning the death of her first love, Ron Weasley, who was killed in the Second War against the protege of Grunewald (sp?), Voldemort – as I was saying, Hermione Granger led the movement to emancipate the elves and was eventually successful, and Dobby (sp?, who was active in the struggle, became the first elf to sit in the wizards council.

Thanks for that Mia. I’m still to listen to the Pubcast. I’ll try and do it later today. I can’t wait.

And I think Olivander will play a very big role in book seven. Espeically if, and I do think, that one of the horcruxes is Ravenclaw’s wand.

Travis,

I thought I understood DD’s position on house elves but your good points on this have made me rethink this issue. Look at what Harry has learned from DD concerning house elves. He was told about the fountain being a lie and how wizards ill treated their fellows. He was told that Kreacher is the way he is because he has been made that way by wizards, and that that is true for other magical creatures as well. Good points, well made. Help me understand the scene where Harry gets Kreacher in HBP. When Harry is presented with his possible ownership of Kreacher, Harry rejects the idea. “I don’t want him”, Harry says. DD’s immediate reaction is to tell Harry about the downside to the OoP if Harry doesn’t take ownership of him (a good and valid point). But he doesn’t say anything about any psychological harm to Kreacher if Harry were to free him (which maybe on the tip of Harry’s tongue. I could almost see him looking for a sock. He did it for Dobby with excellent results). As a matter of fact, DD doesn’t raise any concerns at all for Kreacher’s feelings at this point (an overwhelmingly critical point for Kreacher – the direction of his life is being determined – determined for him by Wizards – I don’t think this is right but no hint of objection from DD). But DD does suggest he be sent to the kitchens of Hogwarts (which is one of the best places in the WW for house elves). What reason does DD give for suggesting this? Because it is best for Kreacher? Because DD is working toward the House Elve’s eventual freedom at Hogwarts? He doesn’t mention these things. He says that it is so “the other house elves could keep on eye on him”. Perhaps he knows he is working behind the scenes toward the elves freedom, but this is not mentioned to Harry, at this critical juncture. Harry, who didn’t want to be a slave owner and whose only deterministic action taken regarding house elves, to that point, was to free one, has been taught what here? Don’t worry it’s ok to keep other magical creatures enslaved if the alternative is a difficult one? Harry easily succumbs to his mentor and becomes a knowing slave master. Does this not taint Harry’s soul. The reader is lead down the path that this is to be dismissed as just the continued enslavement of just another house elf. Are we to think, they like being slaves anyway? Is JKR playing on our own prejudices to misdirect us and keep us off stride as the climax of DH approaches? Harry frees Dobby in SS without any discussion of the issue with DD concerning the plight of house elves. Harry takes action because he recognized what is right, with no prodding from DD. But at a critical point in the life of Kreacher, DD is strangely silent concerning respect for other magical fellows. At the end of GoF, DD speaks to all the Hogwarts students of a time when there will need to be a choice between what is right and what is easy. This seems like such a time. Even though the consequences may not have been easy to deal with, should not Kreacher have been shown the respect to choose his own future?

And a fantastic Pubcast Travis. Have you discussed your Olivander theory before? If not, i’d love to hear you discuss it on an up and coming episode.

Korg,

What did Red Hen write to get people so upset here? I would like to know.

Anyway, based upon info from Katherine M. Briggs folklore reference book, “An Encyclopedia of Fairies” c. 1976, house elves seem quite like brownies, especial those from England called Hobs. They were small domestic spirits who worked for folks and lived in human’s houses and were rarely seen. One type of brownie once rumored to live in Yorkshire and Lancashire was even known as the “Dobby”. Historically in lore they were given clothes as a gift when their mischief got to the point that the human wanted to get rid of them.

Nice catch,

Joe B

I believe Kreacher could do immense damage to the Order, and it wouldn’t help the other Elves if Voldemort would win. All hope of emancipation and improvement of their living conditions would have gone.

I always suspected that Ollivander might be on Voldemort’s side, but like the idea that he’d produced wands for the House Elves. Dumbledore would certainly have tried to win him over, before Voldemort did. And the Elves do seem to have a lot of magical power, even without using wands, so they might play an important role in defeating Voldemort. That would strengthen their self-confidence and the Wizards would have to reconsider their status.

Eroej Kab, see #21. I didn’t cruelly dismiss Kreacher and his predicament. But if you read studies on tortured or enslaved people, you will find that those kept in those conditions the longest, are the least interested in or perhaps knowledgeable about freedom, and what it entails. It’s easier to live what you know. A life of repression can destroy the desire for freedom. Kreacher may be at a point where freedom is beyond his comprehension. He couldn’t deal with it if it were thrust upon him. And if he went to Bellatrix, she certainly wouldn’t free him. DD is reasonable enough to know what Kreacher is at this point. There are those who put themselves beyond redemption, and Kreacher could be just that.

Ereoj, I understand what you’re saying. I’m just not convinced that Dumbledore didn’t offer Kreacher an opportunity for freedom. Rowling can’t tell every single detail; the books are long as it is! What I’m saying is that, either way, I believe Kreacher would have chosen to stay. His loyalty is to the Blacks and that house. Kreacher was not leaving that house no matter what.

I don’t think any of this makes DD’s choice to use 12 Grimmauld an affront to Kreacher’s self-determination. The house rightfully belonged to Sirius, and it makes the most sense to have HQ be in such a secure location. Kreacher is enslaved to Sirius whether Sirius is living there or not.

Eroej, I’m not exactly sure how Dumbledore could have bound Kreacher to secrecy. Memory modification, perhaps?

Maybe we’re dealing with a plothole.

When Dumbledore accepts a house-elf at Hogwarts, it is a responsible step towards freedom for that elf, in my opinion. But you’re right inasmuch as Kreacher would not have wanted to go to Hogwarts in the first place, in which case DD is allowing Harry to force him to go somewhere against his will.

At the same time, at that point in the story, there had to be consequences for Kreacher’s actions, which resulted in Sirius’ death and were a detrminent to the Order. Kreacher did the wrong thing, and hence, he was dangerous. You can’t just betray Order members over to the Dark Side and get away with it, no matter how “free” you might want to be.

Travis,

I do so agree with you. We must all be held responsible for the actions we take. And Kreacher did lie about Sirius’s whereabouts. But it seems incongruous for a lie about where someone is to be punished by a lifetime of unhappy enslavement, unless enslavement is generally acceptable anyway. What of DD’s accountability for creating a situation where the Order’s HQ is setup with a well known anti-sympathizer in there midst? Should he be subject to enslavement for risking so many lifes? Oh yeah, he’s a wizard (one of the priviledged) not a house elf.

I’m sure the greatest wizard of his age could construct a magical contract (like in GoF) in which a binding to secrecy could be the punishment for the lie and for which Kreacher receives his right to self determination. Real action to show real respect to House Elves in a real tough situation. But DD took the easy route. Keep him enslaved and teach Harry that it’s ok to be a slave holder if it serves our (the priviledged) purposes.

Travis, I’d love to see you comment more on the Harry-as-Unifier idea. It may be discussed ad nauseum somewhere else, but as I was re-reading #5 and 6 recently, I was much struck by the Sorting Hat’s fixation with the need for the 4 houses of Hogwarts to come together and work in unity again. That’s been simmering in my head, and I really think that that is going to have to come into play in a HUGE way in #7 and the ultimate defeat of LV. Perhaps Harry will not only unite wizards with other magical folk, but will also bring the 4 houses back into the same camp.

On the interesting point of psychological slavery; Psychological conditioning can not be passed on genetically. It must be taught. That means each generation is a new chance for change. I don’t know the reproductive cycles for house elves but the ~140 years of DD’s adult life must be several cycles and thus several opportunities to change things, with no real progress. But why would there be any when the only real action, that we have been made aware of, was an over-zealous, insensitive blitz by one well meaning under-aged witch (without proper tutelage and perhaps lacking the basic understanding of the underlying causation – as are we all). But ~140 years of compassionate action (for example DD could have Prof. Binns create a History of House Elves curriculum and require his slaves attend such a class. It would focus on the great and noble achievements of Elves and polish up the image of freed Elves subtly [academia has never used their position to advance a political agenda before, has it?]. It would help re-establish and rebuild their self images) by one of the leading wizards of his age, might have had some substantial effect.

Travis,

Concerning your comment # 36 response;

Kreacher has already been in the enemy’s camp and they were not able get his secrets (if LV thought they were worth getting, and it was possible to obtain them, he would have done so then). Hopefully, the greatest wizard of his age could come up with even greater protection of the secrets than standard elf imperatives and even those standard imperatives were not breached.

Relative to DD’s tactical decision to choose 12 Grimauld Pl as HQ, this decision lead directly to Sirius death and risked Harry’s life and others. Any one with a relative serving in Iraq would probably think that the commander that chose a headquarters in which an acknowledged al-Qaeda sympathizer resided would be held accountable if that decision lead to their brother or sister’s death. It wouldn’t fly too far if, in the commander’s court martial, his defense was “I though if we treated the al-Qaeda sympathizer well he won’t give up our secrets.”

Of course DD is one of the privileged. He is a wizard. He is Head of the Wizengamount (a top guy in the establishment), etc. He presumes to take control over the path of Kreacher’s future. On what authority does he act as the arbiter of a fellow creature’s future? The only authority he has, in this case, is the authority he has by way of his power and privilege. What message does JKR send here?

Travis

Concerning your comment # 41 response;

….So it’s not fair to say that each generation gets taught anew what it means to be a happy slave.

Is there some canon evidence that elves (or any creature for that matter) are born with some intrinsic knowledge magically inserted into their brains? Why would it be unfair to say that each new generation is taught the ways of world in which we live? DD (or anyone interested in reversing the enslavement of others) does in fact have the opportunity to fill some portion, no matter how small, of the new generation’s mind with some thoughts at least leading to the ideal of self determination. Following the reasoning in this section of comment 41 there is no chance ever to turn things around regard to their enslavement.

When did DD become aware of house-elf injustice? He may have accepted it like others for a very long time.

Hermione recognized the vast wrong of it at 14 (SPEW). Harry recognized it at 12 (freeing Dobby). Both with no coaxing from DD. What is the reason it should have taken longer for a person as brilliant as DD? Maybe only the Muggle raised can recognize this injustice? Is there any canon evidence that DD ever initiated affirmative action or spoke out specifically on the injustice of House Elf enslavement? He seems to accept the situations as presented to him. He hired Dobby based upon Dobby’s (and indirectly Harry’s) initiative. If an elf wants paying, OK. If they prefer enslavement, OK. Many slave holders profess that everyone, including their slaves, should be well treated. But they are slave holders so you don’t hear them speaking out specifically against slavery. DD is a slave holder who also talks about treating others well but says nothing specifically about slavery. It is very hard to believe that if DD had even been just giving speeches (no real affirmative actions) against HE enslavement for the last 100 years (ok, it took him 57 years to see the injustice) that it would have had no effect. He has followers that risk their lives on his say so. Would 100 years of hearing such speech’s from their Head master and the Head of the Wizengamount had no effect on Arthur and Molly Weasley? There is canon evidence that Molly unabashedly would like to own a house elf. Are we to think that if DD had made a position against the injustice of slavery clearly and well reasoned to Molly, she would not have come over to DD’s side on this one? She might have given different lessons to her many children – and the ball would have started rolling (several generations of Weasley’s might be able to cover the world). But of course that is a tough lesson to sell when you are a slave holder (as now is Harry based on DD inputs).

I don’t think the efforts of one man is going to change the whole WW

All accomplishments have to, by nature, start with one man. Some one must have the fortitude to be the initiator. It is quite pessimistic to think that the efforts of any one man are not significant (much less the efforts of the greatest wizard of his age). That is the basis of our democratic way of life.

Perhaps DD recognizes that Kreacher is just plain evil and it has nothing to do with his being enslaved. He’s spent years in the company of venom-spitting purebloods and has become one of them. The important issue is that he cannot be trusted, not whether he deserves to be freed. Look what happened when Harry spared Peter Pettigrew.

Eroej Kab,
You make some good points. What is the conclusion to your argument? Are you trying to say that Dumbledore is deliberately duplicitous or hypocritical in his action and therefore not one of the goodies?

I think Dumbledore is looking forward to the day when Voldemort and the Death Eaters are defeated and when Kreacher can be released without damage to the order. Kreacher knows stuff about the order that will lead to the arrest and imprisonment of it’s members. If, as Dobby says, the house elves had it worse under Voldmorts domination, Dumbledore is doing the right thing in keeping the main enemies of Voldemort out of prison and fighting the main issue facing the wizarding world. Dumbledore would be stupid in fighting for elf rights if the whole wizarding world comes under slavery.

Matthew

Well, put, Travis.

If you use the Civil War as an example, Lincoln (reluctantly, at first) and others called for the freedom of slaves. The Civil War had to play out before this could be done. Had the outcome been different, freeing the slaves beforehand would have been meaningless. When the state of the union is threatened, even important issues take a backseat. That still doesn’t invalidate the importance of the slavery issue, just postpones it.

Pip and Korg,

You bring up an excellent example to illustrate the point;

The secession of the southern states was threatened if Lincoln was to be elected president because of his stance on slavery. When elected, Lincoln backed off his righteous stance in preference to an attempt to save the union. He was attempting to deal with the conflicting priorities by giving a backseat to his righteous principles. It didn’t work. The south seceded anyway and the war broke out. Lincoln stuck with his compromise hoping to mollify the south’s resolve with force and the carrot that, if things were settled in a way that preserved the union, they might be able to continue to hold slaves (the fuel for their labor intensive economic life). It didn’t work. The war was going badly for the Union. Lincoln finally realized that it wasn’t worth it to compromise his principles. He declared The Emancipation Proclamation and retook the moral high ground. Now based upon a solid moral footing, that all could recognize, in their heart of hearts, was right and just, things turned around. The Union won the war and the slaves were freed. Lincoln learned that it was not good, or effective, to compromise what is right (ending slavery) for what is easy (compromising your principles in hopes of mollifying the slave holders and preserving the union). We should choose what is right over what is easy. It is an excellent point espoused by DD.

Where is DD’s Emancipation Proclamation?

Travis,

I am confused (again). Are you saying that this powerful story of doing what’s right over what’s easy doesn’t transfer? In the WW they should take the easy route? I’m sure you don’t mean that!

I agree with your excellent point that Harry will be critical in helping the house elves (as I mentioned in comment to pubcast 19). He took the initiative to start freeing them at age 12. Despite DD’s encouraging him to be/continue as a slave holder, he will right this wrong.

Eroej Kab,
I think you’re being far too literal in the application of the issue here. Dumbledore is NOT Lincoln and the House elf situation is NOT slavery in the US. Dumbledore didn’t encourage Harry to remain a slaveholder. He encouraged Harry to make a considered and difficult decision. Making sure he understood the situation before he made a choice. I believe that Kreacher’s freedom has been delayed or postponed, not ignored or denied.

You also seemed to disregard the point about the main issue facing the wizarding world. It would be remiss of Dumbledore to take his attention off his fight against Voldemort to fight for elf rights. Like I wrote earlier, elves would have it much worse if Voldemort came back to power unopposed. Should Dumbledore have done this?

Dumbledore may believe that freedom from slavery is something that the elves themselves need to fight for rather than just having their masters give them clothes. Freedom would be far more precious to the elves if it was something that was struggled for. This fits in nicely if Dumbledore has been arming them with wands.

Matthew

Dumbledore often talks about being respectful to other magical creatures. These are good points, well made by a very good and generally very caring man. But what about the ultimate disrespect (below murder) – Slavery? What, exactly, does Dumbledore say concerning slavery? In a critical discussion with Harry concerning Kreacher and Sirius at the end of OoP, we hear;

“And,” whispered Harry, his hands curled in cold fists on his knees, “and Hermione kept telling us to be nice to him —”
“She was quite right, Harry,” said Dumbledore. “I warned Sirius when we adopted twelve Grimmauld Place as our headquarters that Kreacher must be treated with kindness and respect. I also told him that Kreacher could be dangerous to us. I do not think that Sirius took me very seriously, or that he ever saw Kreacher as a being with feelings as acute as a human’s —”

DD “warns” Sirius. Is he warning him about the negative consequences to Kreacher? Is the warning about the negative consequences of slavery to those enslaved? Unfortunately, no. He is warning him about the negative consequences to the OoP if an unhappy captive is kept in their midst. But he goes on to mention “Kreacher as a being with feeling as acute as a human’s…”. Again this altruistic acknowledgement is made to support the warning (hurt his acute feelings and he will make us pay), not in support of a point made to demonstrate why slavery is wrong. DD does not tell us about any statements he made to Sirius in defense of Kreacher’s rights or his best interests relative to his enslavement. He doesn’t tell Sirius to free him. This would protect the Order, and give Kreacher the right to decide is own future. The Malfoys may need a replacement for Dobby and he might like it there, or he might just like freedom. He does not even suggest sending him to Hogwarts, where he would be well treated until freedom for the elves can be worked out.

Later, in that same exchange;

“Kreacher is what he has been made by wizards, Harry,” said Dumbledore. “Yes, he is to be pitied. His existence has been as miserable as your friend Dobby’s. He was forced to do Sirius’s bidding, because Sirius was the last of the family to which he was enslaved, but he felt no true loyalty to him. And whatever Kreacher’s faults, it must be admitted that Sirius did nothing to make Kreacher’s lot easier —-”

Kreacher is not a pleasant fellow at this point. He has not been treated well. Kreacher has been made to feel his basic sense of good feeling comes from being a good slave (to the traditional Black family). He has been made to like slavery. Kreacher is to be pitied. This is about as close as DD gets to speaking out directly against slavery. But he says nothing as direct as “slavery is wrong” and nothing about what should be done to correct it (as Hermione might). He goes on to mention Kreacher “felt no true loyalty” to Sirius. Does he expect slaves to owe some loyalty to their masters? Are they to be well treated to build a “true loyalty” so that the masters will be better served and safer from retaliation, as he discusses above? And DD mentions Kreacher’s “lot”. His fate? His destiny? Sirius is his master and has the power to change Kreacher’s circumstances at any moment. DD makes no mention of a change to Kreacher’s status as a slave, just making his life as a slave easier (a la the slaves of Hogwarts). DD’s tacit acceptance of his position as a slave is evident. It’s ok to have slaves if you treat them well. It’s their lot in life.

Again, later;

“Sirius did not hate Kreacher,” said Dumbledore. “He regarded him as a servant unworthy of much interest or notice. Indifference and neglect often do much more damage than outright dislike…. The fountain we destroyed tonight told a lie. We wizards have mistreated and abused our fellows for too long, and we are now reaping our reward.”

Here DD projects Sirius regarded Kreacher as a servant. Sirius knew well that Kreacher was enslaved with all the enchanted imperatives that come with it. DD’s statement mitigates the impact of the difference between servitude and enslavement. A huge difference exists between the two conditions. Servants are employed. They choose their employers and have many rights. Slaves have no choices. The are forced to do what they do. They have no rights. They are not treated as being unto themselves but as property to be owned and disposed of as the master sees fit. Why does DD choose to project Sirius’s view of his relationship with Kreacher as one of an employer and a servant? It only serves to misrepresent the true relationship here. Does he see a servant and a slave as close to the same (as was stated in pubcast 19 and comments)? Does he not see the enormous difference and the absolute injustice of slavery? DD goes on to discuss the poor treatment Kreacher received from Sirius. “Indifference and neglect” are mentioned. What about enslavement and how this is an evil, and the ultimate in mistreatment? It is not mentioned at all. Does DD not see the humungous issue here? As asked many times previously – Is there any canon evidence that DD ever initiated affirmative action or spoke out specifically on the injustice of House Elf enslavement? Any where? EVER?

And finally, the fountain told a lie. Again, an excellent point, made to teach an important lesson. We should treat others with the respect. Why? Because it is right and just? Because lack of respect is detrimental to those disrespected? Because of the consequences to those mistreated? These things are, of course, implied. But what is explicitly stated is that there are consequences to be suffered by the privileged who demonstrate the lack of respect to others and build up their ire.

Eroej Kab,
I don’t know enough about US history to debate on that front.

Dumbeldore did not see fit to tell Harry what to do with Kreacher but gave him instruction about Kreacher being the way he was becasue of wizard mistreatment and then made Harry aware of the consequences if he release Kreacher to go to Bellatrix. There was no way Dumbledore was allowing Kreacher to go his own way. The damage he could do to innocent people and the boon he’d be to the Death Eaters (not to mention having a lot of the responsibility for Sirius’ death) make him a creature that must be controlled. I’m not saying Dumbledore wanted to keep him in slavery as punishment but as a means of keeping him from going to Bellatrix.

I don’t think it’s right to take an odd exception to indicate a general hipocracy in Dumbledore’s character.

Matthew

No other structure would have provided as many excellent story hooks.

Matthew

Going back to the start of this particular thread, I’m still wondering about the answer to EK’s question: why were the elves enslaved in the first place?

My preferred answer would be that JKR liked the idea of the Brownies (helpful fairies) as another layer to the wizarding world, and wrote them in, ragged clothes, idiosyncratic grammer and all – scary, that, their tendency to speak of themselves in the third person – for extra colour and texture. But having created them, realized the many questions their existence raised, and started playing with some of those questions. I think she created Kreacher for plot reasons, and also because Dobby had been “domesticated” by OotP and was thus could no longer offer much menace or mystery.

However, if that answer is too obvious, I could offer an alternative to EK’s theory that they are ensalved for their own protection. They were enslaved for the protection of the wizarding world. How about this: a long time ago they were a threat against the wizarding community’ after a deadly struggle, they were defeated. The ones who would accept subjugation had some of thier powers taken away – thy were hobbled, as it were – and placed in lives of servitude. The ones who would not accept these terms were dealt with otherwise.

This explanation is consistent with how slaves are usually created: two cultures or nations clash; of the losing side, those who are strong enough to work, are put to work.

As for the house-elves, I’m going to take a slightly different angle on them. I think what’s wonderful about Dobby is that even after he has his freedom, he chooses to work. He genuinely seems to enjoy it. And that joy in service is a rather admirable quality.

Wow, very interesting thread here. Also the debate was quite well joined. You don’t see that enough in HP fandom.

There is one point that seems quite amiss here –

Mr. Prinzi,

It seems that you have missed quite a large point here. In fantasy literature, that which has not been published in the books or on author websites or by statement of the author, etc. does not “exist”. Mr. Kab does not “assume” nothing happened outside of canon. Things outside of canon do not “exist”, yet. In fantasy literature nothing has happened until the author makes us aware of it. It is the author’s world and it does not “exist” except in the vapors of her mind until she brings it into the sun shine by publishing or “releasing it”. Until the moment of “release” it can change at her will, like the swirling of a turbulent sea. Mr. Kap takes what “exists” and examines it, incorrectly in my opinion, but none the less, his points are based on what “exists”. The counter points, which I feel are much more correct in general, are based upon assumptions of what might be in the author’s mind. These points are hypothesized. Mr. Kap’s points use, as a basis, what “exists” in a literary sense. I more agree with the hypothesized counter arguments in general. But it is best to realize the difference between hypothesizing what might occur, or what might have occurred, as compared with examining what actually “exists” in the story. Mr. Kap is only making a factual point when he says that one side of the debate is using assumptions and he is not, and that his analysis is being incorrectly cast into the area of hypothesis, as argued in counter point. It is clearly analysis of what “exists” while the counter arguments are conjecture, in general. You do not assume “nothing happened” in an area that does not “exist”. It actually didn’t happen until the author says it did, or sound logic can be used to deduce it from what has been published, and then you are always on shaky ground because a good author can always find a logical way to move the target. It is also hard to support your very good points when they “assume character consistency” when the point at issue is the question of the character’s consistency. When you assume you are correct, it is usually easy to prove your point.

Mr. Kab

I must tell you that you come on a little strong. You make good points about canon but might want to try harder to see the value of hypothesis in discussing what might be happening behind the scenes. Some of our best thoughts and insights come from conjecture. And it is quite enjoyable to try and guess back story and where the tale may be going in the next volume. It may even prove to be more correct as well, in the long term.

I really enjoy the sight and the PubCasts. Thanks for taking the time to do all this!!