Salazar & Slytherine(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality)

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 121431


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

<massive snippage>

> Betsy:
> And then along comes Crazy Tom and his power hungry ways, and he 
> twists poor Bad Billy into a weapon used against the very school 
> Salazar was trying to protect.  Or, um... something like that.  
> Seriously though, I've come to believe that Voldemort's pureblood 
> schtick is just that, schtick.  He hates and despises Muggles, so 
> those wizards big on Muggle-baiting would have attracted him. 

I don't buy that, for various and sundry reasons.  Unfortunately, my 
connection is slow and Yahoo!Mort is rude, so I don't have post 
numbers for you (but I've written a lot about this).  Dumbledore, at 
least, thinks that part of the reason he attacked Harry instead of 
Neville was the perception that Harry was 'like' him--similarly 
tainted.  This speaks to Voldemort believing in the ontological 
reality of the distinction.  (Oh, if I could find the "Why Voldemort 
is a fascist" post, there's more in that...).  It's partly power, 
but I also think signs and the virulence of his opinion point to him 
actually believing that half-bloods are tainted and inferior.  To 
invoke interview (hehehe), that *is* how the DEs think, in 
essentialist terms--I would not be so quick to discount Voldemort as 
a solid believer in his own ideology.  Up to a point.

<snip>

> Betsy:
> And here I will prove my hypocrisy by going to the interviews 
> <eg>: I believe there is a sheet of paper done up by JKR with 
> Hogwart students listed with their blood status.  And I believe 
> that paper shows that Millicent Bulstrode (Slytherin) has one 
> Muggle parent.

I know what you speak of, but that ain't even good interview canon--
it's not written out, but an interpretation of a blurry snapshot of 
what very well could be a preliminary chart.  We know she changed 
things, so that is unclear enough (no corroboration) that I don't 
want to pin anything on it.

> Betsy:
> Of course, the IS was being perfectly Slytherin.  I think they 
> would have seen the gems in the hourglass as their due for 
> handling things the right way.  To channel my inner Slytherin I 
> think they would say, "Listen, you all (Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and 
> Hufflepuff) were foolish enough to challenge the powers that be in 
> a head to head fight you couldn't win.  You mess with the bull, 
> you get the horns.  However, if any of you had thought to include 
> a Slytherin in the DA, none of you would have been caught.  So who 
> is owed an apology again?"  (Only, you know, more British like. 
> <g>)  I can't see Slytherin House actually liking Umbridge after 
> she cuts down their head in his own classroom.  They'll suck up to 
> her to get what they want, but I don't think she had their loyalty.

Really?  I can see them liking her just fine, as much as they like 
anyone--she's their route to power.  That subplot, IMO, really 
torpedoed the idea (prevalent in fanfic and other outre realms) that 
the Slytherins were oh-so-deeply loyal to Snape.  Nope, little 
opportunists they are, and have you noticed how the opportunistic 
and self-interested seem to be at the very, very bottom of the moral 
slagheap in JKR's world? :)  

They may well have thought it their right.  In doing it, they sold 
out the rest of the school to a malevolent power, the incarnation of 
the banality of evil.  I humbly suggest that from an internal 
perspective of the moral rules of the Potterverse, that is Not A 
Good Thing.  From my perspective, it is also deeply crappy.  If the 
other three houses didn't care for them before (and it's carefully 
but often noted that the Slytherins do not play nice--the Quidditch 
team is brutal, and they're the sort to smirk and gloat over their 
benefit at the misfortunes of others, instead of playing fair), 
what's going to happen now?  Without some sort of mea culpa, the 
other Houses have absolutely no reason to like, let alone trust, the 
Slytherins.

> Betsy:
> It does follow that Tom Riddle would do his recruiting in his 
> house.  And who knows how many folks Lucius Malfoy brought with 
> him.  Maybe you could say that Voldemort is all that's twisted and 
> wrong about Slytherin and there needs to be someone to stand up 
> and be the correct Slytherin. Draco?  Please?

I think we do need Slytherins to stand up.  I bet you money it won't 
be Draco.  Now, if I could find the fascism post, I will raise you 
an argument that Voldemort is half Kantian radical evil/Nietzschean 
will to power, and half generated by the societal support encoded in 
the pureblood ethos.  JKR has told us (per interview, natch) that 
the DEs go back aways, as the "Knights of Walpurgis" (which I once 
hilariously saw someone try to translate as 'Walpurgisknechts', 
which not only gets the plural wrong, it means 'menial servants').  
There is a lot of evidence that the nasty essentialism of Lucius 
Malfoy and ilk has been a strong feature in society for some time--
note the habits of the Black family, would-be Muggle hunters.

Voldemort is in part a lot of things that are twisted in wizarding 
society (the general way that they view other creatures, the ethic 
of force).  The Dark Arts are connected to this idea of natural 
superiority, as they are fundamentally the arts of taking what you 
want regardless of consent, depriving another person of their 
subjectivity.  And Slytherin House is the ideological locus of this 
behavior, although it's not the only place we find it.

> Betsy:
> I go back to the more positive traits Dumbledore brought up to 
> Harry  back in CoS.  It wasn't just blood, and I really think for 
> Salazar it was more a worry about outsiders.  If it was just 
> blood, why was the Hat so keen on Harry being in Slytherin?  Harry 
> is not pure.  And as you pointed out, neither was Tom, and 
> according to JKR, neither is Bulstrode.

Harry is not pure by a different standard than Tom.  JKR tells us 
that the standards are created by those for whom those things 
matter, but there is an objective difference (although no 
ontological difference...you know what I mean) between the child of 
two wizards, one of whom is Muggleborn, and the child of a wizard 
and a Muggle.  One of these would trigger security concerns, one 
probably would not.  But Tom is also potentially the exception, as 
mentioned above--this needs to be asked of her.  Lexicon Steve?  
Please? :)

The positive traits do not ameliorate the sine qua non.  That's why, 
on this very list, so many people felt gobsmacked by the SH song in 
OotP--they'd focused so strongly on the characteristics as defining 
Slytherin House and the search for a positive image thereof, and 
then find out that "no, it's blood, it is".

-Nora ponders going to look for "Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame", a 
classic work of analysis, but more for where she misplaced her own 
(*&*%$%$* post