 |
4. Kreacher’s Birthday Letter – Attempt to Transfer the Orphans Out
|
|
|
|
Now, this letter might trip most people up. The important thing to know here is that Kreacher is pretending to cooperate with the church. This goes back to how Kreacher is a liar. You can’t take what he says up front at face value.
I’ve mentioned this before, but Kreacher knows the church is bad from his earlier deductions. He also is obviously aware that the kids are not doing well in the asylum, as he both references the incident regarding Robbie in his first line, as well as how the church is making the children insane. As a result, Kreacher wants to rescue the children and get them out of the hands of the church. That’s why he says “If you could transfer these patients at White Sand Street to my new asylum”.
This is more proof that Kreacher cares about the orphans, and not just making money. If he were only interested in profiting, he could easily (if not more easily than trying to weasel the current kids out of the church’s asylum) have found more kids off the street. But he doesn’t. He’s trying to rescue those patients. His orphans.
But the church would never just hand them over if Kreacher were honest about his intentions. So he has to lie. Pretend. That’s why he sounds so flattering of the church in his letter. He’s trying to get on their good side, to confuse them and have them lower their guard. That’s why he calls the place he’s going to run a “new asylum” (rather than just an “orphanage”). That’s just what it looks like on the surface. Again, you have to dig a bit deeper with Kreacher. His intentions are still to help the kids. He’s not going to just put them in another “asylum”. That’s also why he talks about the orphans to Father Duke in such a bad way, by describing them as little more than horrible good-for-nothings, warning Father Duke of the children’s potential “courage to defy” if given the “illusion of hope”. He’s trying to convince Father Duke by referencing the Robbie incident again and phrasing it as helping Kreacher (and transferring the kids to his place) will make Father Duke look better with the locals (whose reputation with the church is questionable now if you remember from Robbie’s last deduction and the fact they start reforming after Emily’s letter, which we actually see in the progress of happening in Kurt’s letter).
Kreacher also talks about how if the church continues with their experiments and therapy on the kids, which are turning the children into lunatics and idiots, there will be a problem, as “incompetent men can’t earn money”. This could hint to how Kreacher knows that the church is truly only doing all this for money. That’s why he says “I understand you don’t care for materialistic needs”. That’s sarcasm. Again, he’s trying to bribe Father Duke and convince him to transfer the children over to Kreacher. Kreacher is not a very important or influential person. He’s only a small, lower class thief pretending to be a philanthropist. He could never with his own authority have the kids handed over to him. That’s why he pretends to abandon the orphanage, not care about the kids, and flatter Father Duke rhetorically. Kreacher has to play dirty if he wants to win against someone bigger than him, someone with more authority and power. These are the same reasons why Kreacher is a thief. To win the game of survival with the lot in life he’s been given, he has to play dirty by stealing if he wants to survive.
|
|
|
Kreacher is a rational and realistic person. He knows how to read people and how to “fit in” with the upper class (or how to bow down to them). If he were to get emotional or lose his temper in front of them, his true character would be exposed, and he could be removed or killed as a result. The reason why calls himself a “philanthropist” rather than a “thief” is because he doesn’t want to die. He lies so he can hide who he really is and so he can move up the social ladder, allowing him to converse with people like Father Duke where in normal circumstances he wouldn’t be anywhere near capable of such a thing. That’s why he lies and fakes who he is here in the letter as well. They may now know he’s a thief, but if he were to be honest in the fact he’s still resisting them by trying to help the kids, he could be sent right back to jail or worse. And if he didn’t fake being a philanthropist, he probably wouldn’t have even had the chance to communicate with someone as high up as Father Duke.
That’s why he has to lie. He doesn’t want Father Duke or others to know the truth. Kreacher’s “Rhythmless Tune” skin implies this (especially since it mentions “god” when Father Duke is someone who works for the church).
Another skin I’d like to bring up is his “Lacquerer” skin.
The mention of “his own style” could refer to his “philanthropy” through stealing, essentially his robin hood like acts since he likely normally steals from the upper class (they’re the only ones with any money or money enough to fund him). And anyways, “robin hood” is definitely a kind of style, as it tends to refer to a heroic outlaw that steals from the rich to give to the poor. This could also be described as something “original”, since I’ve mentioned before he was the only one going out there trying to save these disabled kids and take them off the streets. This can be described as “some of his best work” since Kreacher is quite skilled at being a thief, being sneaking, lying, and acting, and due to his actions, he’s managed to help a number of kids that otherwise would’ve died on the streets. He’s also kept the orphanage running for a long time despite not having any money himself. Kreacher is likely proud of all these things, so it’s no wonder he would call these things “his best work”. To go back to the very beginning of my analysis, Kreacher didn’t want to remain as just a thief who hides in the shadows all his life. He wanted an identity. He wanted to help others. And now he has.
It could also refer to the orphanage itself, since I did mention he was aware conditions weren’t great and he never even earned enough from stealing. This was why he did small things like make a “Home Sweet Home” banner or host a dance for the kids (from the rainbow orb description, which I’ll mention later), to make the place look and feel nicer than it really was.
|
|
|
One definition of lacquer essentially means to “gloss over” (something like a defect), to cover with fluent words or cleverly worded explanations, or obscure the faults of. As well as the orphanage itself, the act of “covering with fancy words and clever explanations” is exactly what he does in the letter to Father Duke.
A similar word to lacquer is varnish, which means to make something superficially attractive or acceptable, to cover up with varnish, to give a superficial or deceptive appearance (“varnish the truth”), or it refers to a deceptively showy appearance. The mention of superficial goes back to when I discussed his “Superficial” skin (which was about his “philanthropist” act). A superficial appearance again can refer to the orphanage (which he makes look nicer than it really is or refers to how he tries to make it more comfortable than he is really capable of making it due to his lack of money. A “deceptively showy appearance” can go back to the letter. He is definitely being deceptive, and the way he talks to Duke is definitely “showy” as he is trying to strike and appear a certain way with him (aka, as if he were on Duke’s side).
Finally, the definition of “gloss over” is to treat or describe something (such as a serious problem) as if it weren’t important; to ignore problems. This could refer to the orphanage as I’ve already discussed or to the church itself. As I’ve said, he knew the church was a problem. He knew they were bad, but likely due to his desperate need from his lack of funding, he had no choice but to work with them (which goes back to my earlier theory about “cooperation”). He “ignored the problem” that was the church itself. And this came back to bite him later when they betrayed him by sending him to jail.
To return to the letter: he still cares about the orphanage children. He easily could’ve ran off with the money and not bothered to try to save the kids. But he did. He made a choice between money and the children. His decision in the end? He decided to build a new orphanage and ask for the children to be returned to him.
Based on this, I think the “Scout” skin is appropriate.
This skin in my opinion refers to not just Kreacher, but to the orphans as well.
For Kreacher, this could reference his deduction 9, where he says “I will not be caught again”. This also references Kreacher’s “cleverness”, especially regarding his skills at stealth, thieving, subtlety, lying, and so on. He’s good at “staying away from trouble”. That’s how he’s managed to avoid getting caught for so long (until his decision to run an orphanage, which gets the church’s attention because they want more guinea pigs).
But this skin can also reference Kreacher in regards to the orphans.
Scouting refers to the act of gathering information about an enemy force, so as to warn commanders of the enemy presence or inform them about the enemy’s position, strength, or movement. With this information, commanders are able to make (better) plans and strategies to counter the enemy or win a battle. It can also be used to avoid ambushes or other potential incoming dangers, and in this way protect commanders and the main force from an otherwise certain loss.
Using this information, we could imply Kreacher is trying to protect the children. He stays on the lookout for trouble, and if he spots any, he uses that intelligence to ensure the security of the orphans. At the same time, he avoids other trouble such as possibly not teaching or encouraging the kids to steal, or not trying to escape jail illegally (which would endanger the children and his ability to protect them more than it already has). It can also refer to how he acts whenever the church (or other “upper class”) are around, especially in the instance of what we see happening in the letter (he’s treading carefully, and using his cleverness to avoid doing something that would tip off Father Duke to his true intentions or possibly make it harder for him to transfer the kids out).
|
|
|
(If you’d rather look at things in a more gray than white way, Kreacher can still profit off the children while having feelings for them at the same time. And anyways, Kreacher is still gray either way because he steals, which is illegal no matter what. But he steals in the same way Robin Hood does, thus why his acts of stealing can’t be classified as totally black either. )
Back to the story, from Kreacher’s deduction, we see that he is successful, but unfortunately “The compensation was significant, but for Mr. Pierson, not enough to build a new orphanage”. This lack of sufficient funds is why Kreacher goes to the mansion.
4. 5 Speculation/Theory Zone – The “Betrayal”
(Speculation alert. The below is likely not true, as I have little if any evidence for it, so feel free to ignore it)
Back to my theorizing for a moment, Kreacher mentions a betrayal to Emma in the diaries. This, regarding the funds for a new orphanage, might possibly be what he was referring to. He had trusted the government (who possibly were the ones to help him deal with the church) to pay him enough, and that trust failed him.
But another random theory I had is based on Kreacher’s last deduction “A successful escape may be ascribed to luck, but I’m not relying on that. ” What if Kreacher doesn’t even intend to use the funds for the new orphanage he’s being given and instead intends to use it to help get the kids even further away from the church? Maybe that’s another meaning behind the title “Escape”. He does mention that he won’t rely on “luck”, so that could also refer to how he’s not willing to take a second chance with the church, and thus would rather move the children somewhere out of their reach? That could be why the government felt that the money they provided was “sufficient” for a new orphanage while Kreacher on the other hand believed what he received fell a little short of what he needed (because he’s going to use it for something other than it’s intended purpose).
To counter my own idea, it is also possible the government and/or the locals now may be keeping a better eye on the church now, and so maybe he doesn’t need to “escape” or move the orphans further away. Along with that, I honestly don’t know how possible or expensive it would be to try to take at least 12 kids who knows how far away before setting up there instead.
5. Theory: “Partner”
The other point mentioned in Kreacher’s background that he’s aiming for is a “partner”. Now, most people take this to mean lover or wife, from the way we see Kreacher go after Emma in the diary. He goes after Emma because she’s more like him. She’s not “upper class”. He can tell. Emily, on the other hand, is and he doesn’t get along well with her. That’s why it ends up being Emma who he chases. But what if that’s not exactly what’s happening? What if it’s something more to do with the orphanage and the orphans, especially with how the situation currently is at the end of his deductions (he’s trying to get the orphans out, get a new orphans, and rescue the kids from the church)?
What if he’s looking for a “mother” figure for the orphans? A “partner” for his orphanage? Someone who can help him (better) raise the orphans, so that they could live a happier life (possibly as a way to prevent a recurrence of the same thing happening twice). He was in jail, so it’s likely he had a good amount of time to think. This may have been when he got the idea for a “partner”. Another possible reason for him wanting a “partner” could be because he’s lonely and wants a companion, a family. Something he’s never had.
|
|
|
Time for a little dumb, non-important comparison.
This isn’t really significant, but if this were true, it’d be possible to compare Kreacher to Bowser from Mario. Bowser is normally seen as a villain (like Kreacher being a thief with an obsession for money), but there’s more to him (them) than that. Bowser was an orphan raised by the witch Kamek, which could probably be part of the reason Bowser turned out the way he is (aka not exactly a good person). This is just like Kreacher, an orphan that grew up in an environment where everyone spoke with their fists and he was forced to steal to survive (turning him into a questionably gray person). Bowser has a kid (Bowser Jr. ), like how Kreacher has his orphans. Bowser wants Peach so his kid can have a mom, because he doesn’t want his kid to grow up like he did and wants to give him a better life. This could be a parallel to Kreacher if he wants a “partner” (or mom) for his orphans to give them a chance at a better life than he (Kreacher) ever had.
Also, Bowser can be violent with Peach sometimes, just like Kreacher is with Emma sometimes. It’s not right, but it’s just based on the way he was raised (like how Kreacher is likely somewhat harsh with Emma because he was raised in an environment that taught him to speak with his fists, as fighting was common). But just like Bowser, both are still capable of being more than just violent brutes (they both do care for the girl they’re chasing after and there are moments when the two are nice to them). (As another comparison just for fun: Kreacher burns in a scarecrow. Bowser uses fire. Kreacher seemingly dies in a fire. So did Bowser before he became Dry Bowser. Maybe that could mean Kreacher is burned but managed to make it out and escape somehow like Bowser did).
An add on to this that is possibly somewhat related is Kreacher’s “Squire” skin and his “Broken Sword” accessory.
These relate to the Quest for the Holy Grail.
The story involves someone known as the " Fisher King" or the " Maimed King". In some versions, the Fisher King represents the Pope who at the time had been corrupted by wealth and the aristocratic lifestyle. Some of Arthur's Knights encounter him during their quest for the Holy Grail, which is kept at the Fisher King's castle. His wounds can only be healed by another after they successfully complete a task (to repair a broken sword) and/or by the knight asking a certain question (as a way to assess if they are worthy). The Broken Sword is one of the items the knights see when they arrive at the castle and witness the Grail Procession.
From the various versions, Perceval, Galahad, and Bors are the only ones to pass the test.
Gawain, another knight who takes the test, asks the right question, but fails to repair the sword (due to lacking the virtue required).
Percival, in one of the first versions, fails to ask the right question. In the following versions of the story, he does ask the right question, but still possesses some flaws which we see when he attempts to repair the sword. One has him repair the sword except for a small fracture (which represents his imperfection), though he still passes the test. Stories after this force him to go on a spiritual journey to atone for his flaws and fully repair the sword before succeeding.
Versions of the story where Lancelot is present, Galahad (son of Lancelot) replaces Perceval. The major difference being he is essentially already perfect and doesn't require redeeming before completing the test.
Either way, a " squire" is the one to present the sword in these stories. This is Kreacher.
So what does it mean?
The reference to a corrupt pope could parallel Father Duke and the church equally being only interested in wealth and their own self-interests. The test of worthiness could link to my analysis on Kreacher's " Bluebeard" skin. Kreacher is looking for someone " worthy" of being his partner (and helping him with the orphanage). Someone that won't betray him. Then there's, rather than a literal sword, what if the thing Kreacher is " protecting" are the kids? Like the broken sword, the children in his orphanage are also damaged, and Kreacher, like with the sword, sees it as his duty to protect them. The test of worthiness, to repair the sword, could refer to helping the children. Kreacher, just like test from the story, identifies " worthiness" as more than just putting the 2 halves of the sword together. He is capable of reading people, of understanding what they're really like, like how the Fisher King and the test can tell if a knight isn't virtuous enough. If Kreacher decides the person isn't worthy, if they aren't honestly good people, they fail the test.
|
|
|
To go back to the possible representation of the pope/church by the Fisher King, the S skin for this series was Wu Chang's " Divine" skin, and by i's appearance, Wu Chang is this " pope". That would mean Wu Chang in the story of this essence is the keeper of the Holy Grail. But as we know about the Black and White halves of Wu Chang, as well as from the description of " Divine" (which hints at something darker), receiving the Holy Grail isn't a good thing here. From the 2 skins of Leo (" King Arthur" and " Eternal King" ), it appears that Leo received the grail. As we know from Leo's story (who dies in the factory), the Grail in this essence's story is also tied to death. So Leo dies as King Arthur and ends up becoming the ghost " Eternal King". The others in Leo's party, Merlin (magician), the grail maiden (garden), and the squire (thief) escape this fate. Merlin likely was aware of the truth behind the grail and fled with the other two to keep from meeting the same fate.
Like in the essence story, with how Wu Chang and the Grail seemed to be holy and good but in fact only brought death, the church with Kreacher aren't as good as they appear and instead actually betray Kreacher and send him to jail. At the same time, the fact the grail maiden finds many " fakes" along the way also could go back to the church not being as good as they appear (aka, all these people with the church are " fake" ). The fact she becomes fond of one in particular could be like how the orphans get close to and don't realize (until too late) that the church people aren't as good as they appear.
|
|
|
