[HPforGrownups] Dissin' the Gryffs - Slytherin and the Reader

[Eileen]

No: HPFGUIDX 51445

Melpomene wrote:
>Wile E Coyote strikes me as more JKR's idea of a
>Slytherin. Albus Dumbledore's as well.

"Allow me to introduce msyelf. I am Lord Voldemort,
Evil Genius." That ACME Priori Incantatem effect was
particularily fun. 

Alla wrote:
>I respect your view on Slytherins, I really do, but 
>if JKR wanted us to think that Gryffindors were an
>underdogs, she convinced me. How did she achive it 
>with me? I guess by showing Snape's unfairness to
>Gryffindors during the whole PS/SS and  by showing 
>McGonagall  doing something completely opposite 
>(except getting Harry the broom, of course)

I suppose it's a matter of perception since I never
saw McGonagall as strict or fair, no matter what Harry
says. From buying Harry the broomstick and letting him
off the hook for flying, to convincing the Ministry to
give Hermione a time-turner, to only intervening on
Harry's behalf in CoS once Snape suggests he be taken
off the Gryffindor team, to the number of points she
is always handing out, to the fact that she ups the
numbers of points she'll take from them when they
enrage her. I don't really see anything very wrong
with McGonagall's actions, but I've always thought
that Harry is seeing things from the perspective of a
kid who equates a stern manner with fairness and
strictness. 

However, the fact stands that while Gryffindor may be
an underdog in the Potions classroom, they are not
shown to be the underdogs on the Quidditch field, or
in the social realm of Hogwarts. The Slytherins are. 

>I like being manipulated by the author (most of the
>time, anyway) and if she wants me to feel that Draco 
>is a bad guy, I am happy to oblige.

I never like being manipulated by the author if I can
feel the author doing it while reading. There's
nothing worse than an unsuccessful manipulation. Now,
I have no doubt Draco is the bad guy. He's shown
himself to be a horrid little brat. But I do feel that
JKR is manipulating and simplifying the plot by making
it too easy for Harry to triumph over him. It's like
being talked down to, that's what it is. It's like
"The Wonderboy of the American Revolution."

I am a Canadian. As a Canadian, I was naturally
brought up to engage in a good deal of U.S. bashing.
(We're not as polite as we pretend.) But good-humoured
humourous U.S. bashing, on my part, because I'm also a
great fan of the United States of America. I support
the American Revolution and the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution and all
wholeheartedly. 

But I never could stand the Wonderboy of the American
Revolution. He trod on all my sensibilities. 

The Wonderboy could be found in hundreds upon hundreds
of American historical books written for children. The
authors were all aspiring to write the next Johnny
Tremaine (sp?) with limited success. The plot went
like this. 

Wonderboy lives in Boston. Meets British soldiers
beating up old lady. Throws stone at British soldiers.
They chase him. He escapes. Wanders down to harbour.
Stumbles on Boston Tea Party. Assists. Meets Paul
Revere. British soliders do something else atrocious.
Someone gives Wonderboy a message to deliver to
Washington. Meets British soldiers along way, but
British soliders are too stupid to search him, and
after insulting him for being a kid, send him on his
way. Personally thanked by Washington while proud
brother/father/uncle stands by. Proceeds to glorious
career, winning the day at Saratoga. 

It was as if they were written from a template. Now, I
cheer the Americans on in that war when I'm reading a
history book, but my Canadian background made me react
violently to these stories. It made me sit down and
write my own American Revolution story, in which the
kids help the British.

That's how I feel about the Slytherins in canon.
Something in my background makes them not entirely
unsympathetic and they aren't being given a fair
chance, just like the British in those Revolutionary
War stories. And I'm not surprised that people turn to
subversive fanfic to re-right the balance. 

Dicentra wrote:
>Cheating or not, the dualism represented by Slyths 
>vs. Gryffs isn't as simple as "Harry the Gryff is 
>the hero, therefore Gryffs are good, and Draco the
>Slyth picks on him, therefore Slyths are bad."  

Oh no, I never thought it was. If it was, I don't
really it'd bother me that much. It's the fact that
JKR sometimes seems to be making Slytherin the House
of evil, real flat out evil, that bothers me.

>JKR is most definitely biased against House 
>Slytherin, but it's because Salazar Slytherin hates
>"Mudbloods" and wanted to impose that value system 
>on Hogwarts admissions policy.  

But given that JKR wrote the book in the first
place... 

>JKR hasn't marked the Slyths as bad just to prop up 
>a shallow dualism--she's setting up the central
>conflict of the series: Muggle-lovers vs.
>Muggle-haters.  Inclusion vs. Elitism.  Acceptance
>vs. Genocide.  Love vs. Bigotry.

Well, yes. She seems to have set up her central
conflict in terms of a shallow dualism. Gryffindor =
Good. Slytherin = Evil. 

Oh, I hope not. PoA and GoF make me hope that this is
not what she has in mind. 

>I've since seen why people dig the Slyths, but I'm 
>also noticed that the Slyth fans rather conveniently
>forget what Salazar Slytherin was all about in the
>first place.

I don't know if they forget, as more they object to
JKR's implications. There's a difference between not
understanding the text, and understanding it so well
that one rebels. The forcefulness of people's
pro-Slytherin arguments/rants would suggest to me that
we're dealing here with deliberate rebellion. 

As I said, "Bad Move, JKR!"

Because making 1/4 of the student body evil because
they were sorted into a House at the age of 11 isn't
fair. 

Neither is damning the ambitious and cunning. 

Dicentra wrote:
>The *first* definition in Merriam-Webster's
Dictionary: >"an ardent desire for rank, fame, or
power." The 
>more general definition, "desire to achieve a
>particular end," is second.
> 
>We Americans tend to use "ambition" in the second
>sense, but I believe that Salazar Slytherin 
>preferred the first.

I think that is indeed clear.  

But I'm not so sure ambition is a bad thing. When it
comes to fame, we have a cultural history of
encouraging it. For that history, just crack open any
poetry anthology. From Horace's "I have erected a
monument more lasting than bronze" to Housman's "To an
Athlete Dying Young." 

As for power. 

"Powers tends to corrupt, but absolute power corrupts
absolutely." - Lord Acton

But we still want it, don't we?

I confess. I am power-hungry. I like being in charge,
and not having to worry about what other people want. 

Is that a bad thing? Well, I can see how it easily
could be. But "power" means the power to do things. On
the surface of things, to dispose other people as one
wills. One can easily end up as Crouch Sr., unable to
recognize the essential autonomy of others. But oh to
have a free hand sometimes! 

So while I see ambition as easily corrupted, I don't
think it's an intrinsically bad human desire. 

Eileen

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca