Only Children/ Likeable Slytherins?

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 37960


Jamie:
> Why do so many wizarding families seem to have only one child?  Granted, JKR
> may just not have gotten around to mentioning siblings, but it seems
> disproportionate.  We do know that there aren't very many pairs (or larger
> groupings) of siblings at Hogwarts.  It looks like James Potter and Sirius
> Black are only children, as well.  If this trend continues, the entire
> British Wizarding World will have descended from Weasleys, who as far as I
> can tell are the only family in canon to have more than two children.
> (Correct me if I'm wrong.)


This interesting point has been raised before (your last sentence made me 
smile: my dentist always refers to my four children invading his surgery as 
'the future of England')

It has been speculated that the apparent low birth rate is due to the 
uncertainty of life during Voldemort's ascendency, which of course might mean 
that there are now a lot of younger siblings who haven't yet made it to 
Hogwarts. It doesn't seem to have affected the Weasleys though, as you point 
out (another point for Arthur with Imperius, anyone? Although the Voldemort 
supporters we know of don't seem to have been procreating much either.)

Perhaps it has to do with wizard life-spans. That biological clock isn't 
ticking away so urgently and, not aging in the same way, parents have more 
energy to contemplate having children at an older age, thus spacing them out 
more.
Still doesn't explain the Weasleys. Perhaps they're just madly in love and 
not very good at remembering the er...practicalities. Accidents do happen. 
Frequently, to some folks!
......................................................

Megs brings up another interesting point:

>Ok it's not as prevalent in this thread as others, but many here
>seem to think that slytherins have always been hated, but I have never
>seen it that way. I always thought the hatred of Slytherins was fairly
>recent as a form of backlash after Voldemort. Just because a majority of
>Slytherins were the wrongdoers in the Vold War I doesn't mean others
>have gone astray in the past. Also the slytherins are portrayed even
>worse due to Harry's POV.

>So anyways to sum up, maybe the Slytherins weren't hated when the
>Marauders were in school. Maybe that is a fairly recent development.

Mm. I wonder. We are certainly given a very biased view of Slytherin, seen 
almost totally from Harry's POV. Why don't we like them? There may be some 
more objective reasons. I'll just list what I can think of, objective or not 
and in no particular order.

1. Our encounter with Draco in Madam Malkins.
2.  Hagrid, who then tells Harry that there's not a wizard gone bad who 
wasn't from                            Slytherin.
3. The snake association, snakes traditionally being identified with evil. 
(Associated with this is the very name of its founder, with its implication 
of the way a snake moves.)
4. Voldemort was a Slytherin.
5. Snape.
6. The constant animosity between Draco and his supporters and the trio.
7. The impression that we are given that Slytherin is set apart from the 
other Houses.
8. The behaviour of the Slytherin Quidditch team.
9. The Monster of Slytherin and the implication (or is it fact?) that 
Slytherin himself was prejudiced against Muggle borns.
10. The same prejudice displayed by the Malfoys
11. The Slytherins inhabit the dungeons.
12. The Bloody Baron

One or two of these features obviously predate Voldemort.

The Sorting Hat itself doesn't give much away, only telling us of their 
ambition, although the first Sorting Hat song does make the chilling 
assertion that they will use any means to achieve their ends.

Against the idea that the Slytherins have always been hated is the *popular* 
Tom Riddle being appointed Head Boy, although maybe he was an exception. If 
they weren't unpopular, it would lend credence to LOLLIPOPS and other 
variations.

Megs may be correct that the image of Slytherin has taken a downturn since 
the last war. OTOH, the fact that ambition seems to be their overriding 
characteristic (makes you feel kind of sorry for the Crabbes and Goyles, 
doesn't it?) means that they are particularly likely to fall victim to 
corruption and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find them similarly linked 
with previous episodes of unrest in the WW. The trouble is, we have virtually 
no wizard history to go by. If the Slytherins have only become unpopular 
since Voldmort, then they seem to be living up to their reputation.
It's the one dimensional DE thing, again. We have grey characters from the 
other houses, but (*pace*, Draco fans) very little to suggest anything grey 
about the Slytherins. Granted, we see the students from Hary's POV, but I 
find it difficult to see any redeeming features. This is one of the reasons 
why Snape stands out. 

The question of the Dark Arts is another issue. We have never really managed 
to define these properly. The DADA classes we hear about mostly cover defence 
against other magical beings. Yet there is a whole street (Nockturn Alley) 
which seems to be devoted to supplying the needs of practitioners (legally?) 
and we know Lucius Malfoy has his hidden supplies of illegal goods. So 
*someone* practices the Dark Arts, whatever they are. Who?  According to 
McGonagall, Dumbledore could, but wouldn't. Slytherin seems to be the only 
one of the founders, on our present, extremely thin knowledge, who would be 
likely to foster interest in the Dark Arts.

So, although there is very little to go on, I am inclined to think that 
Slytherin has always been associated with the Dark Arts and corruption. It 
doesn't follow that all Slytherins are bad *per se*, but I think it would 
lead to their being regarded with suspicion by members of the other houses.

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]