Slytherin Stereotypes WAS Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's awarding ...

[Tom Wall]

No: HPFGUIDX 57408

Tom (I) wrote earlier:
Granted, this isn't a rule, 
but it's generally how they 
behave. They're nice kids, 
but they can be just as rude 
and mean as the Slytherins 
we see in canon.

Darrin replied:
I think the Slyths outdo them. 
When has a member of the Trio 
openly called for genocide, 
for instance? Or how about 
beating up and stealing from 
a weaker kid? (Leg-Locker and 
Remembrall on Neville.) Or 
participate in a potentially 
fatal prank during a Quidditch 
match?

Tom responds:
Yeah, now we're talking! The Slytherins, I agree, *outdo* the 
Gryffindors when it comes to clever insults, pranks, and general 
antagonism. But by saying that the Slytherins outdo the Gryffindors, 
there's a tacit acceptance of the fact that the Gryffindor's aren't 
virginally white here, either. 

I don't see the trio calling for genocide, but I see Harry and Ron 
and just about everyone else complacently accept house-elf slavery.
I see Ron buy into bigotry over the giants and werewolves fairly 
easily. 

I don't see the trio bullying others, but I saw Hermione freeze up 
Neville in PS/SS when he tried to stop them from breaking *more* 
rules, and I saw Ron trash-talking Neville for absolutely no reason 
in GoF. 

As for pranks, well no dementor imitations, for sure, but I saw 
Harry toss a firecracker into a cauldron full of Swelling Solution, 
thereby splashing the entire class. I saw Harry and Ron first drug, 
and then imitate Crabbe and Goyle, and then sneak into the Slytherin 
common room, which is a major violation. Don't want to beat a dead 
horse here, but what do you think Harry would do if he found out 
that Draco had figured out how to get into Gryffindor Tower? He'd be 
*livid.* I saw Harry take full advantage of his Invisibility cloak 
while he was at illegally at Hogsmeade to sling mud at Draco 'n 
friends in front of the Shrieking Shack. 

And I understand why they did these things, too. 

But just because I know why they did these things doesn't get them 
off the hook - they still did them, and they were still wrongful 
actions. Morality is not an arbitrary, 'it works this way for you 
and this different way for me' kind-of thing, and that's how you're 
applying it to this situation. You're saying that Gryffindors do bad 
stuff, but it's okay because they have good intentions and the 
author paints them fondly. And that Slytherins do bad stuff, but 
it's not okay because they don't and the author paints them 
negatively. 

That's not how morality works. Morality is supposed to be a rigid 
system, which applies equally across the board. So, Gryffindor isn't 
perfect. I like them - they're alright kids, and darned funny. But 
they aren't beyond reproach.


Tom (I) wrote previously:
What Darrin's really asking here is, when has *Harry* seen a Slyth 
do anything decent? So, it can only be fairly asked: does that 
really count? Since Harry doesn't hang out with the Slytherins, and 
since he doesn't like them, either, we can't possibly expect him to 
be looking for or even noticing any hints of possible Slytherin 
virtue. 

Darrin replied:
I'm not going to argue the negative. If it's not in canon, it 
doesn't exist. Bottom line. All the off-screen stuff is fun to 
speculate about, but the facts remain, the Slyths, so far, are the 
villains of 
this epic.

So, the imagined scenes about Slyths helping little old witches 
across the street will just have to stay imagined.
END QUOTE.

I (Tom) add:
Whoa, buddy, sarcasm will getcha nowhere. ;-) 

I'm not arguing from the negative perspective, I'm simply pointing 
out that Harry isn't a very likely candidate to be giving the 
Slytherins any benefit of the doubt. And so, I'm explaining that 
this is why the Slytherins are painted so unsympathetically in 
canon, because this is Harry's story.

And because of that, anything that the Slytherins do that *could* be 
reasonably read as showing any modicum of virtue will predictably 
either be disregarded by the trio, or else twisted. 

So, my point is that first off, we're not likely to see anything 
really compassionate in the Slytherins' behavior. And if we do see 
anything that indicates that some compassion exists, then it's 
likely to be contorted and misconstrued by our heroes.

Furthermore, since we do not see enough of the Slytherins in canon, 
other than their antagonism with the trio, I don't think that it's a 
tenable position to take, arguing that *no* Slytherin is decent. You 
want to say something a little less extreme, like, "most of them 
appear to be pretty mean" or something, then okay. But the 
always/never/all-or-nothing arguments rarely work in the real world, 
and they won't work here in the fictional one either.

As for Slytherin compassion and decency, we have Snape. You don't 
want to count him. We have the the Slytherins standing at the 
mention of Cedric's name at the end of GoF. You don't want to count 
that. I've given you Pansy's concern for Draco, and you accepted it, 
but then said that because Draco and the others milked it for what 
it was worth, Pansy's concern didn't count anymore. I've given you 
the Slytherin group's evident concern for Draco at dinner, and you 
don't want to count that either because they were 'cooking up' their 
own version of the story.

My point on that last one was twofold: one, that there were so 
*many* Slytherins involved, which indicates that the group cares for 
Draco. It wasn't just Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy. It was a group. Two, 
that 'cooking up' a version isn't really a damnable thing to do, 
unless you want to slam-dunk the trio for their chronic lies and 
deceit as well. Which I don't, and I don't think that Slytherin 
deserves it for doing what Gryffindor does all the time.

So, I have to wonder, exactly what are you trying to prove? Are you 
trying to prove that HHR are generally great and lovable kids with 
acceptable character flaws, as you say thusly: "I perceive them as 
kids who sometimes makes mistakes, but generally want to do the 
right thing." If so, then I wholeheartedly concur, and have always 
concurred with that perspective, since that's what the books tell us 
on the surface. No analysis necessary.

Or, are you trying to argue, as you allude at the end of your post, 
that because "Good is good and bad is bad. Not everything has to be 
grey," that therefore Gryffindor is Good and Slytherin is Bad? If 
that's the case, then I can't agree, because I think that's an 
overly simplistic view of things. IMHO, this is one of those cases 
where the Slytherin students definitely fall into a grey area - 
they're not out and out evil, and they're not sweet and perfectly 
moral.

And my point is that the yes, Slytherins are not perfectly moral, 
but neither are the Gryffindors or anyone else.


Kelly added:
<snip> never forget the true villain of the epic, Lord
Voldemort.

Tom remarks:
Exactly, Kelly. Thanks for that. I personally believe that the only 
two people who can be accurately classified as completely 'good' or 
completely 'evil' are Dumbledore and Voldemort. They're the polar 
opposites.

*Everyone* else falls into a moral grey area. Everyone else 
occasionally breaks rules, or does something they later come to 
regret, or puts others in danger through foolishness or 
recklessness, or else makes a moral mistake by lying, or by being 
mean to someone, or by being stubborn and overly proud, or envious, 
or... you get the idea. 

And that's because they're human. And that's, IMO, what makes them 
great characters. 

I don't think I'd be interested at all in HP if all the good guys 
were unquestionably good, and all the bad guys were unquestionably 
bad, and there was no one in the middle. 

That, my skilled interlocutor, is the recipe for the most boring 
story ever.


Tom (I) posited previously:
What we can see from the little bit of Slytherin interaction that we 
do get, is that they're a tightly knit group, and in my judgment, 
tightly knit groups behave decently with each other most of the 
time. So, it's an inference, but I think it's a fair one.

Darrin retorted:
The SS guards were tightly knit as well. So were the bands of bounty 
hunters that chased runaway slaves. So were the Japanese guards 
marching the soldiers at Bataan. Tightly-knit does not equal good.

Tom returns:
Ahhh, but that is not what I said. I didn't say that tightly knit 
groups were good. I said that tightly knit groups, in my experience, 
are decent with *each other* most of the time. And so, the SS 
guards, and the bounty hunters, and so forth, although on-the-whole 
morally bankrupt, probably were decent with each other. 

In other words, it might be like honor amongst thieves. Maybe the 
Slytherins don't play nice with the Gryffindors. But they do seem to 
get along with themselves fairly well. I.e. we don't see any cases 
of internal Slytherin problems and arguments. This indicates that 
they're 'decent' with each other. And you asked for decency. So, 
there it is.

And that's my point. You can do evil things and still have shreds of 
morality. Or, you can do a few good things and still be a bad person 
overall. 

In other words, saying that the Japanese guards, or Slytherin House, 
are one-hundred-percent across-the-board the very personification of 
evil, I think that is going a little bit overboard.

In the words of bboy_mn, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;-)

-Tom