The good Slytherin (mild TBAY)

nkafkafi nkafkafi at yahoo.com
Sun Jun 26 23:13:44 UTC 2005


No: HPFGUIDX 131475

> Betsy Hp:
> Ummm, well... yes.  There's not really much to say about that.  Tom 
> has really not done his house proud in the "seriously-not-evil" 
> clubs.  Perhaps they should have engaged him in more group hugs?  Or 
> included him in some of their evening sing alongs?
> 

Neri:
It looks like head boy Tom was a lead singer in the evening sing
alongs, and the words probably went along the lines of  "we cunning
folks use any mean to achieve our ends" and "those whose ancestry is
purest". Or at least, these are the official words that the Sorting
Hat used, but within the warm and cozy safety of the Slytherin commons
it probably went more along the lines of "so I bet it's a matter of
time before a mudblood is killed this time
 I hope it's Granger". I
imagine Tom felt very much at home. 
 
 
> Betsy Hp:
> *Inventor* of pureblood mania?!?  Honestly, where's the canon proof 
> of that?  I mean, yes, Salazar apparently had some trust issues when 
> it came to those attached to the muggle world (probably had something 
> to do with the witches and wizards being persecuted by muggles at the 
> time) but I'm quite sure he wasn't the first wizard to *ever* 
> distrust outsiders.
>
> As to the basilisk, no one really knows *why* Salazar left the 
> basilisk behind.  Oh sure, *Tom* had his theories, but are we really 
> expected to trust the word of a murderer?
>

Neri:
Umm, I guess you have a perfectly reasonable and innocent reason why
old Sally sneaked a XXXXX classified monster into a school? 

And the only people in history I know who depicted themselves in
monumental statues and the like were tyrants, usually of the worst
kind. The basilisk coming right out of the mouth doesn't help much in
alleviating this impression.

If old Salazar didn't *invent* the pureblood mania, then he is the one
who made it ingrained into Hogwarts. And the whole mistrust argument
doesn't really hold water, IMO. Wouldn't it be the Muggle-born wizards
who were the most vulnerable to muggle persecution, not having magical
teaching in how to control their magic and how to hide or protect
themselves? Salazar was apparently ready to let them burn because they
weren't pure enough.
  
> Betsy Hp:

> I don't deny that Riddle has cast a long shadow over Slytherin, and 
> unfortunately many feel he's reshaped the house into his own image.  
> However, there have been glimmers that his shadow is not as over-
> reaching as the Gryffindor propaganda has suggested.
>

Neri:
Are Draco's own words above Gryffindor propaganda? Well, I guess they
are if you count JKR as a Gryffindor (which of course she is, which
means the whole HP saga is Gryffindor propaganda). We have a pretty
good canon picture of house Slytherin in the "Riddle's shadow" era,
and we have a pretty good picture of the house founder. Now, if
*between* Salazar and Tom the house was actually quite nice, well, I
suspect you might have a problem finding canon for that, but if you do
then I'll just have to modify my claim to the slightly less catchy
"the house of Slytherin *in the period of Voldemort* is Evil, Evil,
Evil".     

> Betsy Hp:
> I'm not really sure why sucking up to the powers that be gets defined 
> as evil.  

Neri:
It doesn't. That's why those who merely sucked up only get a P  <g>.
But as the house statistics show, they are a minority. And
unfortunately they're also a minority that enthusiastically takes
orders from those who do worse than just suck up to power.

> Betsy Hp:
> Now you're just grasping at straws.  A P for being the son of a DE? 
> (Talk about blood prejudice.)

Neri:
In the HP saga, if you're half giant or a werewolf or the son of Dark
wizards or whatever, you are supposed to show in some way that you
aren't bound by your unfortunate ancestry. If Theo had done the
smallest thing to indicate that he doesn't like his ancestry, I would
have gladly given him a T. Until now he hadn't, so I gave him a P. If
you insist on a T it would still hardly change the picture of the
whole house.   

> Betsy Hp:
I am glad you saw fit to only give 
> Marcus a D.  He's not the greatest guy in the world, but as of yet, I 
> wouldn't classify him as evil.
>

Neri:
Again, Flint's slight offenses should be viewed in the context of his
house norm. The guy enthusiastically took part in this "any mean to
achieve our ends" consensus. He's just the material to become a nice
little Voldemort's supporter outside Hogwarts, if not a DE. In fact,
Voldy seems to be in great need of new recruits, and given JKR's
tendency for constructive recycling I won't be surprised if Marcus
Flint will surface in the next books as a minor Voldemort's servant. 
 
> Betsy Hp:
> <snip>  
> Since I classify Snape and Nigellus as "good Slytherins" in their own 
> right, I'm not sure why they're even included on this list.  They 
> offer proof that Slytherin is *not* evil.

Neri:
As you've probably realized by now, they were included so I won't be
accused of skewing the statistics by taking the good Slytherins out of
it. Since they're so few, they don't really prove that Slytherin house
is not evil. They only prove that some good people may be found even
in an evil establishment. 

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I question your statistics.  You're basing the outlook of an entire 
> house with a history that goes back hundreds of years on a mere 
> handful of alumni.  

Neri:
We haven't been given any data regarding all these hundreds of years.
So let's limit the discussion to present day (and the last 30 years)
Slytherin House. 

> Betsy Hp:
> I would also argue that the powers that be (aka 
> JKR), fond as she is of red herrings and big-bangs, has done her best 
> to skew the image of Slytherin.  Judgement should wait, in my 
> opinion, until *all* evidence is in.
> 

Neri:
Contrary to some opinions, JKR is *not* all-powerful. She can't
completely overturn a wide and detailed picture she's been painting
for five books, or she'll lose her credibility as an author. She *can*
reveal that a single bad person is actually good, or that a single
good person is actually evil. She *can* introduce additional "good
Slytherins" just to make a point about prejudice or school unity or
second chances. But changing the whole role that Slytherin house, with
its dogma and values, has been playing in the series would be lousy
writing.

But perhaps the worst news for the House-Slytherin-Isn't-Evil fans are
that JKR (like Voldemort) is now in dire need of evil recruits. She's
writing a series about a war, and this war is now starting to really
gather momentum. The good guys must have somebody to fight. JKR
requires enemies, and they have to be numerous and convincing and
Evil, and to have a proper background in the previous books. Hordes of
dementors and Giants can help, but they won't be enough. JKR has been
showing us that the roots of evil start at home and at school, and
that evil is created by people and their values, not by demons and
monsters. Surely this is what Slytherin house was invented for? So we
can have a pureblood mania and school rivalry and evil enemies and a
convincing war. And if that doesn't seem fair, well that's fiction.
Invented characters don't get human rights.       

Neri







More information about the HPforGrownups archive