"Slytherin" Hermione

Wed Sep 8 22:17:55 UTC 2004

No: HPFGUIDX 112409

I'm replying to several posts in this tread and I sniped a lot or 
this would be tremendously long. I just wish I had more time to 
write. 

In post #112347
Potioncat:
>What is wrong with wanting to prove yourself? <
--------------

Nothing. I just don't think that's what drives Hermione.

-----------
Potioncat:
>She may be proving herself to herself. (to the displeasure of her 
classmates.)<
-----------

In a way, I agree. But I wouldn't consider that it a Slythering 
trait.

----------

In post #112351
Potioncat:
>I'll bet Lucius feels his actions are justifiable too. 
I snipped a lot of a very good discussion to get to this point. I
think I got what I expected out of this thread, but I'd like to
confirm it in the friendliest manner. I'd like to hear from both
sides. It seems to me that in the post above, and in others, the
argument is that Hermione doesn't have Slytherin traits because
Hermione is a good person. And that where a Gryffindor has a trait
that belongs to Slytherin, the trait is re-named. I happen to think
that Slytherins and Gryffindors are very similar! <
--------------

Yes, they are similar to me too. Yes, I'm sure Lucius feels his 
actions are justifiable. But no, it's not because Hermione is a
good person that I think she has no Slytherin traits. As I said 
before, I think we all have the four houses in us and I don't 
believe the amount/extent of traits is the main factor in the 
sorting (though it's one of them). I believe it's the way we 
use our abilities that counts.

In post #112194 I actually tried to defend that Slytherin v. 
Gryffindor was *NOT* a good v. evil thing. People are very complex 
and it's a conjugation of values and abilities that command ones 
actions. Good and evil are evaluated in the actions and not in the 
abilities. Values, on the other hand, can be classified as good or 
evil, but I have also argued that we should let others classify our 
values as we classify theirs and realise that that classification 
will never be unanimous. That's why I have so much trouble
believing the Hat can tell who's bad and who's good.

As for Hermione, I say she has no Slytherin traits because the 
complex thing she is *doesn't strike me* as the complex thing 
Salazar would want. We have tried in this thread to discuss a few 
important aspects of that complex thing and though there were good 
arguments on both sides I'm still convince she has nothing of 
Slytherin – not because she's a good person; not because
Slytherin are evil; not because I rename Slytherin trait when a 
Gryffindor has it.

(Oh, I'd write ten more pages on renaming traits! But it's late.)

Answering Potioncat questions: 
Do you think it is bad to have Slytherin traits? No.
Or do you think it is only bad to have them in the degree Slytherins 
do? I don't think Slytherins are bad. (Period!)

------------------
Potioncat:
>But so far, she's shown us some good people performing some very
questionable actions. And she's shown us some bad people doing some
good things. And sometimes knowing the motivation changes how we see
those actions.<
-------------------

I have nothing to add to that, but that's such a good remark I 
didn't feel like sniping it.

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

In post #112355
HunterGreen:
>I think Slytherins too often get seen as the "evil house" (although 
I don't think that Susana necessarily sees it that way).<
-------------------

Oh, thank you, thank you, HunterGreen. I was afraid my English was 
so bad I couldn't make myself explicit. I agree with all you
wrote on this post and I'm hopping (there will be tears here if
I'm
wrong) that JKR said she was worried to see fansite moderators who 
put themselves in the Slytherin house *because* she has only shown 
bad Slytherins and she hasn't sown us the dangerous of labelling
someone on a group – we *should* think Slytherins are bad! (The 
sorting hat would have a hard time with me – the only house I
would rule out is Hufflepuff, but I would place most of my 
friends in it – definitely the "best" house!)

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

In post #112352
HunterGreen:
>An exact quote from the sorting hat's song in OotP:
' Said Slytherin, "We'll teach just those
whose ancestry is purest." '<
-------------------

It's canon, but it's also a song – not an historical fact.

-------------------
HunterGreen:
> I don't think that it would sort someone based on
their *belief*, because how many 11-year-olds believe that strongly
in the purity of blood? <
-------------------

And if you have a thirst to prove yourself at the age of eleven it 
sticks with you the rest of your life? At the age of eleven you 
have `inherit' most of your beliefs and some of your
abilities. You may turn out to be a completely different person at 
17 and even more different at 30. I don't see that as an argument.

-------------------
HunterGreen:
>as YB pointed out, how could Tom Riddle
believe in blood purity when he *started* Hogwarts and presumably
knew nothing about it?<
--------------------

This deserves an illustrative example. The fallowing is not canon, 
just a hypothesis.

Tom Riddle spent 10/11 years in an orphanage with the sole knowledge 
that his father had left him and his mother had died giving birth to 
him. He was mistreated, excluded and psychologically abused, just a 
little more than Harry. In those circumstances, he does a little 
more hysterical magic than Harry did, which only make things worse. 

The other kids treat him like a freak show: they throw rocks at him 
because this one time the rock bounced back and they want to see it 
happen again. The adults look at him as if he has the plague and 
tell him he should act grateful towards the people who take care of 
him. He doesn't understand what he's doing wrong, but he is
sure it's his fault (as his father leaving and his mother dying). 

One day, a MoM official comes and explains things. He's a wizard
and so was his mother (he could have found out before but in my 
example that's when he finds out). There is a whole community of 
wizards but they live in secrecy not to upset the poor thick 
muggles. The wizards let him suffer in ignorance for 10 years 
even knowing his mother was a witch and he was probably a wizard. 

Because the child's muggle guardian and the child it self are 
usually curious about Hogwarts, the MoM official offers a copy 
of "Hogwarts: A History" (didn't Hermione say she has
hers at home in CS?). Tom learns about the houses and 
Salazar's ideals and instead of thinking "Oh, poor muggles. 
They didn't know better than to treat me the way they did." 
he thinks "So, I had to suffer all I did because muggles
can't 
take it that I have something they don't? Why should *we* hide?
We're better than them!"

Then he investigates her mother (now that he knows where to 
look for information) and finds out she's Salazar's heir (I 
don't believe he looked through 1000 years of records – it
had to be a family secret). And he thinks "Salazar was right, 
of course. We're better than them and we shouldn't let those 
stupid muggles among us. They are a menace."

Need I go further? 

---------------------
HunterGreen:
>And using any means she sees justifiable is not *any* means? 
What she considers justifiable is a rather large amount of things 
(things that I doubt Ron or Harry would be comfortable with).
<snip>
I wouldn't say that she draws no line, but then again I have yet 
to see her draw one.<
--------------------

"You can't hurt a baby!"? 
It's a joke. You have a fair point, of course.

--------------------
Susana:
>> Back to Hermione, I rather not use the word 'ambitious' because 
it's too flexible.<<

HunterGreen:
>Do you think that ambition only covers ambition for power or 
monetary sucess? I would say that Hermione is extremely ambitious 
when it comes to things like house-elf rights and when it came 
to "getting" Rita Skeeter.<
--------------------

That's what I meant with `ambitious' being too flexible.
It *can* cover the pursuit of Hermione's goals. But some 
people associate `ambitious' with wanting recognition at some 
level (thirst to prove one self). And that's not Hermione, IMO. 

--------------------
HunterGreen:
>But disregarding them [rules]? Hermione is interesting because she 
seems determined to follow the rules to the letter unless they get 
in her way. Its not breaking rules for the sake of breaking them 
(which is essentially what teenagers do, brain chemistry at that age 
makes you want to do anything you are told not to do, just because 
you are told not to do it). <
-------------------

I never broke rules for the sake of breaking them as a teenager. I 
disregarded them quite often, though. Whenever I thought they 
wore `stupid' (they got in my way, therefore they were
stupid).

-------------------
HunterGreen:
>I don't see how beliefs has anything to do with the houses, I 
thought
it was based on values and personality traits. To make it simple,
Slytherins value ambition/success, Gryffindors value courage,
Hufflepuffs fair play and hard work, and Ravenclaw's cleverness.
Being evil or prejudiced is not a requirement for being a Slytherin
at all.<
-------------------

It may be my English here. Beliefs and values mean very similar 
things to me. That's actually why I'd choose beliefs over
ancestry.

Your simplification above is correct, IMO, but Salazar put in an 
extra factor that diverges from the basic: pure blood 
ancestry/belief. You think it's ancestry (based on canon); I
think is belief (based on my personal sense). 

Oh, well. It would be very dull if we all agreed.

Final note on Seeker!Draco: I agree he's on the team because he 
likes to show off but he can only show off if he's good. Just a 
thought.

Susana