Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) LONGish

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 144012

Jen: 
> I hope the blood superiority idea is gone, gone, gone in the
> end. If, a big if, Slytherin's initial ideas were formulated at a
> time when there were few protections for magical people and the
> race truly was in danger of dying out, that certainly is no longer
> the case.

> Alla:
> YES, thank you again, but that is why I am having a hard time to
> see four houses existing at the end of the books. I mean, the
> unity would be probably achieved, but it is quite clear to me that 
> Slytherin must reject this part of their philosophy. Would 
> Slytherin still be Slytherin without it or entirely different
> entity?


Jen: Actually, now that I look back on my response I was a tad bit 
optimistic. So far the human race has been unable to eradicate 
discrimination and prejudice, so it's unlikely JKR is gunning for 
utopia in her books <g>. Her view, I think, is more along the lines 
of Dumbledore's "it will merely take someone else who is prepared to 
fight what seems a losing battle...(PS,chap 17)

Abolishing the house system might be a first step in fighting the 
good fight, though. The rest wouldn't happen right away. Entrenched 
beliefs don't just go away overnight, like you said. 

> Alla:
> I am not sure I know your position on Slughorn, actually, Jen, so
> I don't know if we agree or disagree on him :-)

Jen: Oops! I was thinking of the last chapter discussion and some of 
our comments on that thread. Basically I took a more favorable view 
of his actions. More below.

Alla:
> He is a great character and if he is an example of good Slytherin, 
> great. But again, isn't it funny that the most that good Slytherin 
> can do is RUN from DE not fight them?

Jen: Here's where I felt like we had a different take. For Harry, 
who acts so courageously and selflessly, Slughorn running from the 
DE's and giving up the memory aren't much in the fight against 
Voldemort and Evil. Similarly, Draco spilling his fears to 
Dumbledore on the tower and dropping his wand hand a fraction were 
small potatoes compared to all the bravey and honorable deeds of 
Harry and his protectors.

But looking at those deeds in the context of each person's life and 
not from Harry's POV, those actions were very difficult to take for 
those particular people. Slughorn did make a choice to give up his 
comforts and run from the DE's rather than being used by them for 
evil purposes. He did act bravely by giving the memory when to do so 
could bring him great harm should Voldemort ever discover his 
treachery. Draco also acted in a way he hasn't been 'programmed' to 
act his entire life. He was groomed to follow his father, to not 
flinch at the idea of torturing or killing someone should he be 
called upon to do so (and given Lucius, probably to even find 
pleasure in such activities). Crying in the bathroom, worrying about 
his mom, not being able to kill Dumbledore--no, those are not on par 
with the deeds Harry is capable of. But they are so much more than 
Harry (and I) expected of Draco.

Sorry to go over worn out examples, but I do think JKR is saying 
small movement in the right direction is a Big Deal. Moments when 
selfish people act unselfishly, when cowards act courageously, when 
biggots act humanely....it's a crack where change can grow if a 
person chooses to do so. I would not even be surprised if some form 
of humanity brings Voldemort down in the end. Not redemption, no, 
that's impossible. But some crack in his carefully constructed 
facade which defeats him from the inside. He is, as Ceridwen noted 
in another thread, the ultimate example of what happens to a person 
who splits himself off from human feelings, compassion, love, etc. 

I just don't read essentialism in the series, or want to see an 'eye 
for an eye' justice in the end, no matter how bravely and 
intelligently you, Nora, Lupinlore, and others have given a voice to 
these views. I DO appreciate hearing your views though, because it 
helps me see the story from every angle, consider every possibilty 
and separate out what I *think* I'm reading in text from personal 
desire. 

Alla: 
> I really hope we hear more about Regulus, personally. Maybe he
> would be a good Slytherin who fought bravely. I think he is a good 
> candidate for "fake death" or something like that, because the
> only reference JKR made to his death as far as I remember is that
> he is "dead these days, so he is quiet" ( paraphrase). I remember
> being quite suspicious after reading this quote, because being
> dead these days could easily mean IMO that he can be alive
> tomorrow.

Jen: HAHAHA--ain't that the truth? I hope we hear about Regulus too, 
because I think he might prove to be a match with Sirius, one of 
the 'set' of Black brothers who acted courageously.

Alla:
> Hee, as to ambition playing part in Dumbledore's plans? I am not 
> sure. I can just easily interpret Dumbledore fight against
> Voldemort  to make sure that "pureblood supremacy" will not win.
> Is it ambitious? I suppose, but it is a good ambition.

Jen: Yes. It's not the characteristics so much as what each person 
uses them for. That's all I was trying to get at. And as Betsy and I 
think, Pippin, pointed out, the Hufflepuff egalitarinsim can be a 
form of elitism just as surely as blood, intelligence and courage, 
if used in the wrong way. 

Jen, showing her bias as a Hufflepuff to the end, although very 
admiring (and occasionally envious of) bravery, intelligence and 
ambition ;).