"Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay)

[susanadcunha]

No: HPFGUIDX 112194

Theotokos:
> Hermione is courageous. Courage isn't necessarily nicey-nice. To
be clever and strategic is not necessarily to be cunning.<

Potioncat:
>Does that imply that to be cunning is bad? My dictionery says
cunning: skillful in cheating or tricking. Ok, so Slytherins cheat
and Gryffindors trick?
If we agree that Hermione's treatment of Rita was justified, does
that make it any less cunning? My point in saying Hermione has
Slytherin traits is to say that Slytherin traits aren't always bad.<
------------------

I disagree that Hermione has *any* Slytherin traits:

Slytherin have a `thirst to prove themselves' and they
believe in the supremacy of pure blood. IMO, those are the two 
required characteristics. The first – ambition – doesn't
mean you're cunning (*good at* scheming). I'm sure DD is very 
good at scheming – I agree that Hermione is – but I don't
feel either has a thirst to prove him/her self (they do 
pursuit their objectives relentlessly, but that's different). 

On the other hand, are Crab and Goyle good at scheming? As Angelina 
said they don't look smart enough to find the Quiddish pitch
without post signs. Nevertheless, they are ambitious. And they are 
smart enough to hang out with someone who has the smarts to achieve 
power (who already got them on the Quiddish team?).

I do agree, though, the Slytherin traits aren't all bad. Harry is 
ambitious. So are F&G, in their way. Ambition is not a bad 
thing. `Disproportionate ambition' on the other hand can be. 

The fact that Slytherins are picked out because they praise the 
achievement of power/respectability/influence over most things 
accounts for most (not all) Slytherins being insufferable deceitful 
egocentrics. It doesn't account for all (or any) Slytherins being 
*evil*! If it did, then wizards found a way of classifying ten-years-
old as Evil! (Why not at birth and exterminate them all?)

The supremacy of pure blood is a completely different thing. People 
believe those things due to their upbringing and personal 
experience. It's like believing that homosexuals are freaks of 
nature. I know a loving mother who believes society will be 
destroyed if homosexuals are aloud to be in it and a loving father 
who believes black people are genetically prone to felony. She's
the kind that wouldn't hurt a fly (she would ask a friend to see
a doctor on finding out he/she was a homosexual, but I don't
believe she would stop speaking to him/her). He has black friends 
who he believes are the exception that confirm the rule (because 
they strived to behave as white and achieved it). 

Believing something like that doesn't make a person evil, just 
narrow-minded (ok, it's an understatement, but I didn't want
to use foul language).

So what I'm saying is that it makes no sense to assume all 
Slytherins are evil. To choose one's ambition doesn't mean
one is not brave to stand by rightness. One can desire 
power/respectability/influence and still be on the good side. In 
contrast, one can choose to be on the good side and send innocent 
people to jail without a trial (Crouch). 

With all the grey in the HP series, the idea of marking ten-years-
old for evilness doesn't appeal to me. People have all four
houses in them. The difference between good and evil is not to 
choose between them, but to *know* the difference. And if you're 
narrow-minded enough to think your upbringing and personal 
experience is enough to learn that difference, you will *do* evil 
while *believing* you are good (Umbridge, IMO). It's never too
late to open your mind and realise that you're not the one who 
draws the line; the others draw your line while you draw theirs.

I'll be disappointed if there won't be a few unexpected good 
Slytherins at the end - I'm voting for DD, though I'm sure it
will be Draco (Snape is expected, IMO).

Susana
Oh, to explain grey!