Slytherin House again. Was: Re: Problem with OotP? (was: Pampering)

[ginnysthe1]

No: HPFGUIDX 119101


>  Kim chimed in:
> > I hadn't even noticed this aspect of Dumbledore's Army.  It seems 
> a 
> > shame to me too, but also not surprising that no Slytherins 
> joined.  
> > I think that JKR may want to set the Slytherins as an example of 
> > people who are *potentially* interested in benefiting the common 
> > good, but are too caught up in their own ambitions to get 
> involved.  
> > That's why they're in Slytherin in the first place, isn't it?  
But 
> I 
> > think it's necessary to show all walks of WW society, even in a 
> > school setting, as Jeanette says.  "It takes all kinds to make a 
> > world" can sometimes be a sad but true statement.   It seems to 
me 
> > too that another purpose of Slytherin House is to show the 
> remaining 
> > three houses the *wrong* way to behave, and the other three 
houses 
> > are there to show the Slytherins the *right* ways to behave, in a 
> > sense.  Although I suppose there are good things to be said for 
> > Slytherin-style ambition, it, like other double-edged character 
> > traits, is dangerous if it's not tempered by more positive 
traits. 
> > 
> > Just wondering:  Are there any non-pureblood Slytherins?  Harry 
> had 
> > his chance to be in Slytherin, and he's not a pureblood, but 
maybe 
> he 
> > had a chance only because he *was* Harry (i.e. the boy who 
> lived).  I 
> > can't think of any others (except Tom Riddle, of course).  
Anyway, 
> a 
> > non-pureblood Slytherin would be in for a pretty rough time from 
> most 
> > of his/her fellow Slytherins, so it would seem.
> 
> 
> Hannah replied: JKR has hinted (as only she can) that maybe Snape 
isn't 
> pureblood.  She says (in a webchat somewhere) that he's not a 
> muggleborn, but she deliberately doesn't say he's pureblooded.  So 
> I'm guessing he's half blood.  But other than Malfoy, we don't 
> really know much about the backgrounds of any of the other 
> Slytherins, except that a disproportionate number have DE fathers.  
> Goyle could be half troll for all we know (joking here!)
> 
> I think there must be some half blooded Slytherins, simply because 
> pure bloods are supposed to be getting rarer, and there are quite a 
> few pure bloods in other houses.  I think it's just muggle-borns 
> that really wouldn't be able to be sorted into Slytherin.  OTOH, I 
> don't see why a muggle born couldn't be sneaky, ambitious, etc.  
> Maybe if they were, they'd still be put into Slytherin.  The whole 
> allocation of houses process seems so utterly stupid to me that I'd 
> believe anything of it!
> 
> No reasoning, however logical, could persuade me that having 
> Slytherin as a way to identify potential dark wizards, or to show 
> the other nice children what nasty children are like, is anything 
> other that utterly reprehensible.  These children are 11 years old 
> when they get sorted!  The idea of damning a quarter of them at 
that 
> age to simply serve as an example to others, or to wait out the 
days 
> till they become a death eater, is horrible.  Talk about self-
> fulfulling prophecies!

Kim now:
Yes, I can see Snape being part-Muggle and maybe being ashamed of it 
for some reason, the way Tom Riddle was ashamed of his muggle 
heritage.  The great thing is that in only two more books, we shall 
see!  As sad as I'll be to see the series end, I'm anxious to know 
the answers (at least as many answers as JKR will tell us!)

Also it makes sense, your point that there statistically would have 
to be some non-purebloods in Slytherin.  Magical folk are a vanishing 
breed, as you say.  Will have to put on a different thinking cap in 
order to figure out just why that is so, outside of the obvious 
numbers of wizards and witches that were done in during the previous 
reign of Lord Voldemort...  It's definitely an odd twist of "racism" 
that it actually may cause the so-called "pure" group to go out of 
existence eventually.

As to Muggle-borns in Slytherin, why to tell the truth, I'd see 
plenty of *pure Muggles* belonging in Slytherin if the criteria were 
only that they be sneaky and ambitious!  There are far too many of 
that type out here in the real world among us Muggles (we are 
Muggles, aren't we...? ;-)

I agree that it's a rather negative way to view mere 11 year olds, 
seeing them as already so far-gone by that age that they 
automatically qualify for the worst of the 4 houses (of course 
someone is welcome to chime in as to why Slytherin may not be such a 
bad house after all...).  Unfortunately most people could probably 
come up with various memories from their own childhoods of children 
aged 11 or even younger that were already "bad seeds."  Who's to 
blame however for why they were already bad at such a young age may 
be a separate discussion.  My point on second consideration ought to 
have been that Slytherin House exists not to make its children 
*permanently* serve as an example to "good" children, but to place 
them where it seems appropriate based on who they already appear to 
be (even at age 11) and then hopefully over time, they'll broaden 
their view of the world from self-focused to something more tolerant 
and inclusive.  Maybe that's the problem with separate houses in the 
first place, that they may pigeonhole the students unfairly.  No one 
can be really sure what good or evil any of the students are capable 
of until the time comes for them to be tested.  So I repeat, We shall 
see, we shall see... ;-)

Kim