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

[Susana da Cunha]

No: HPFGUIDX 112294

Susana wrote:
>>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.<<

HunterGreen wrote:
"You might be missing a few things there. From what we've been told
about Slytherins, they are ambitious, use any means to achieve their
ends, given the choice will always save their own neck and come from
a 'pure ancestory' (I take that to mean pureblood, or half-blood at
the least). Slytherin does not *require* believing in pureblood
supremacy, its just that many of the students in that house happen
to."

-------------



Well, there's where we disagree. I don't think Slytherin requires 'pure
ancestry' - half-blood is hardly considered 'pure ancestry'. Tom Riddle was
half blooded but he believed in the supremacy of pure blood. I always
assumed the requirement was that believe and not the pure blood ancestry
(though I agree that a muggleborn wouldn't be sorted in to Slytherin - it
would be strange if he/she *believed*).





-------------

HunterGreen wrote:
"Of those requirements, I think Hermione fits two of them (she is
ambitious and she uses any means to achieve her ends). Actually, I
think Hermione fits in Slytherin almost as well as she does in
Gryffindor...however she would never be placed there as she is a
muggleborn.

Speaking of using 'any means' to acheive her ends, am I the only one
who's getting a little frightened of Hermione? Back when I was first
reading the books she was my favorite character, but around the time
she kidnapped Rita Skeeter in GoF she's worried me a little bit.
Hermione is ruthless, strong-willed, and often dangerous."

-------------



I can see I'm alone on this. There's a difference between pursuing ones
objective and doing it at all costs. I don't think Hermione would use *all*
means to achieve her ends - only those she thinks are justifiable. One may
argue that her means are *not* justifiable, but I'm arguing that *she*
believes they are. You seem to be implying that she draws no line; I'm
saying she draws a line that some people consider excessive.

Personally I think it's a very courageous line because she's aware of how
close to 'wrong' she is and how easily she can cross it by mistake. When
telling Harry and Ron about Rita in GoF, she shows signs of being nervous
(guilt?) to find out her friends reaction to what she's done. My
interpretation was that she's not sure if she crossed the limit.
Is she dangerous? Oh, yes. Along with DD she's one of the most dangerous
characters in Potterverse. People who fight for a cause that transcend their
own welfare (house elves rights/muggle rights/etc.) are often a lot more
dangerous than people who 'just' seek power - who are 'just' ambitious.
Ambitious people tend to draw a completely different line that has nothing
to do with 'justifiable': How much will they sacrifice *their* present
welfare for their goals. That line usually makes them predictable and even
controllable. But the right/wrong line is completely unpredictable. So
unpredictable that people have suggested in another tread that DD knew
Sirius was innocent and let him rot in Azkaban so Harry could be miserable
with the Dursleys - all in the name of a good cause.

Back to Hermione, I rather not use the word 'ambitious' because it's too
flexible. I said she doesn't have a 'thirst to prove herself' - 'thirst'
being the key word here. While Percy clearly wants to be an important
person; Hermione wants to "do something worth while" (OotP). And I never met
someone who says that and is after recognition. People who use that
expression regarding their aim in life usually spent their lives fighting
for a nearly lost cause. You can say that's 'ambitious' but that is the
reason I didn't use that word - it's not a thirst for recognition.





----------------
HunterGreen wrote:
"There's one other thing that we've been told about Slytherins, that
being that they have a disregard for the rules, and on the surface
that wouldn't fit Hermione at all. On the surface that is. Hermione
obeys the rules when they work for her."

-------------------



Ok, I overlooked that as a Slytherin trait. You are right, of course. A
certain disregard for the rules is definitely Slytherin, and Hermione has
it. But then again, she's a teenager. Even Percy could be found with a girl
in an empty classroom late at night. Braking rules is part of growing up.





---------------------
HunterGreen wrote:
"Personally I think Hermione might have fit in Slytherin if she
weren't a muggleborn (as would Percy if he didn't come from a "muggle-
loving" family). But it was definitely for the best that she didn't
end up there."
---------------------

I shall quote DD in CoS:

"It's our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our
abilities."

Are you implying (again) that the sorting is based on ones family? - Even if
you mean that it's so only for the Slytherin House, do you mean Percy chose
his ambition over the rest but Salazar-Slytherin-in-the-hat refused him
because *his family* loves muggles?

This is the same discussion as above: is it *pure blood* or *belief in pure
blood supremacy*? I chose the later because our believes are our choice; our
ancestry is not. Hermione and Percy are in Gryfindor because they *chose*
to; Not because they were rejected by the other houses!

At the risk of repeating myself I clarify what I meant: we all have a bit of
the four houses in us. Our choices sow how we weight different values.



Susana



PS - Why do you say Draco is not a good seeker? Harry is better than Draco
because he's *very* good but the Slytherin always seem to be a strong
candidate to the Quidditch cup. And I recall that Draco knew how to fly
before entering Hogwarts. I know he bought his place on the team, but that
doesn't mean his lousy.