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

[demetra1225]

No: HPFGUIDX 119149


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginnysthe1" <ginnysthe1 at y...> 
wrote:
Kim now:
[snip of Sevvie discussion]
Also it makes sense, your point that there statistically would have
to be some non-purebloods in Slytherin. 

Demetra:
Somewhere, I have seen a picture of JKR holding up a page from her 
notes where she lists the students with a symbol next to the 
student's name that indicates pure-blood, half-blood or Muggle-born.  
I am sure that there was a current Slytherin student (Millicent 
Bulstrode?) who is listed as a half-blood.  I think there are some 
half-bloods in Slytherin, but probably no Muggle-borns.  There may 
also be some part humans.  A Slytherin girl (Millicent again?) is 
described as looking like a part-hag .  I think Harry once describes 
Marcus Flint as looking like he had troll blood.  
 
Kim again:
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...). [snip]

Demetra:
It seems that Slytherin traits are often construed as being "bad". 
I think that the Slytherin traits of ambition and/or cunning are not 
bad in and of themselves.  I could argue that the traits of all of 
the houses are neither good nor bad, it all depends on the moral core 
of each person and how they choose to use the traits.  Hufflepuffs 
are loyal, which I personally think is a wonderful trait.  Except 
Bellatrix is described as LV's loyal and devoted servant. Loyalty to 
a maniacal murderer is not exactly a trait to be admired.  Gryffindor 
courage and bravery are also positive traits.  But again, I have 
heard people describe suicide bombers as being brave and courageous.  
I suppose it does take a bit of courage to die for your cause, but if 
your cause is evil than how can I admire your courage?  As far as 
Slytherin traits – ask any Mom who has ever had to get her sick and 
feverish toddler to actually swallow their medicine if it is a good 
thing to be a bit cunning.


Kim again:
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... ;-)


Demetra:
I agree with your last two sentences.  
I think that if Slytherin house is the "worst" of all the houses, it 
is the fault of the system of taking all of these children who have 
been reared on this pure-blood elitist philosophy and placing them 
only with other similarly raised children.   I do not believe that 
any ideology or belief system that has been ingrained in an 11 year 
old by their parents is fixed in stone.  But to change a point of 
view, you must be exposed to other ways of thinking.  I don't see 
this happening with the Slytherins (again, unless it is being done 
behind the scenes).  What we do see is that these children are 
isolated with other like-thinking children.  Then they are placed in 
direct competition with other kids/houses for the House Cup.  The 
kids who aren't pure-blood elitists dislike and don't hang around 
with the Slytherins.  So, how would one ever expect, under these 
circumstances, that the Slytherin kids would broaden their horizons 
and see that there are other, perhaps better, belief systems?  

Demetra