House characteristics (LONGish)

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 150699

Magpie:
<SNIP>
The word "house" in the books usually refers to the people 
> of a house more than the structure--that's why I never like the 
idea of "one 
> good Slytherin," especially when that OGS used to always be 
assumed to be 
> someone we didn't really know.  Because it's not the house the 
structure 
> that needs to be brought back, so that as long as you've got one 
kid in a 
> green tie who hates Voldemort you're okay. You have to change the 
house as 
> in the kids in it, the attitude.  And with that the attitude of 
the other 
> houses towards it.

Alla:

Well, yes, I agree that you have to change the attitudes of the kids 
in Slytherin. To me that mean that Slytherin kids have to understand 
that "pureblood" philosophy is wrong, absolutely wrong, one hundred 
percent wrong, that there is no justification for this philosophy no 
matter how many justifications they may come up with.

Then my next question to you will be as follows. Do you see that in 
book 7 all Slytherin kids or at least majority will do such drastic 
change in their world views?  Because if I understand you correctly 
you do not argue that Slytherins whom we do not meet (I call 
them "just names characters") do not subscribe to that philosophy? 
You do think that whole Slytherin house is in need of the change, 
right?

That is why I think that JKR will do "one good Slytherin", if any 
and maybe she will mean for us to see that such good Slytherin 
symbolize the beginning of the change in Slytherin. I just don't see 
whole Slytherin House standing up with Harry at the end.


Magpie: 
> I don't know how it's going to be done, but it did seem like HBP 
was laying 
> the groundwork that way.  The book just drips (literally) with 
Slytherin, 
> with Harry having to "immerse" himself in the house in a way.  
He's not 
> attacking Slytherin, he's mostly observing passively.  He doesn't 
have a 
> whole new view of the house by the end, but he's not quite where 
he was at 
> the start of the book either.  So given that beginning I don't 
think it's 
> impossible that JKR could continue a story where Harry learns to 
work with 
> Slytherin and Slytherin learns to work with the other houses, and 
also 
> learns for real this time that Voldemort's policies lead only to 
their own 
> destruction. 

Alla:

Ok, so you ARE saying that the whole Slytherin House will recognize 
that they are wrong in following Voldemort philosophy in book 7? 
Then another question is doesn't mean that they stop being 
Slytherins then and become somehow different entity, because IMO 
Slytherin without its "pureblood part" is not really Slytherin.

That is IMO another good reason why Houses will become one at the 
end if JKR go for this possibility.


Magpie:
Of course I fully admit that I would like to see this also 
> shown personally with Draco, who already has discovered being a DE 
is not 
> what he thought it would be just as Regulus did, coming to see he 
was wrong 
> to a certain extent.  I mean, that's the real battle, to have 
someone who's 
> clung to and believed this stuff let it go.

Alla:

Draco lowered his wand, that is clear to me and JKR said as much 
that he would not have killed DD, so I understand that it is 
possible that Draco will turn, but so far I don't see him 
discovering that being DE is not what he thought. He discovered that 
killing person while looking at the face of that person is much 
harder then killing with poisoned necklaces, IMO. Again IMO it 
remains to be seen what else he discovered.

Will Draco follow Regulus' path and commits the act of heroism while 
defying Voldemort? It is possible of course, but IMO he has a long 
way to go before he can be compared to Regulus' heroic deed.


Magpie:
> I could be wrong and JKR is planning to keep Slytherin just the 
way it was, 
> but that just feels so wrong to me.  It seems like exactly the way 
the book 
> started with Voldemort defeated but in a half-arsed way, just 
reprieve. 
> Like taking only half your anti-biotics.  From the first book it's 
seemed 
> like it's moving towards Slytherin as the shadow house.

Alla:

You could be right, and I can be wrong and vice versa :). I don't 
think that Slytherin House will be the same at the end of the story 
as it was in the beginning, but neither would we see many "good 
people" from that house either, IMO. Probably we will see the 
beginning of such change.

Alla:
> <snip>, but I don't think anybody would be able to convince me 
> that we saw flawed but GOOD characters in Slytherin house so far.
> I mean, among the adults we have whom.... Regulus and Slughorn? 
> I deliberately leave  out Snape of course, since to me his 
loyalties are.... 
> how we put  it  questionable?
> > 
> > But forget about adults, because IMO kids are what matters and 
among 
> > the Gryffindors we of course have Trio, Neville. Dean Thomas, 
> > Seamus, Ginny, Twins, etc.... and among Slytherins we have whom? 
> 
> Pippin:
> Why shouldn't Slughorn or Regulus be described as flawed but good?

Alla:

Sure, Regulus and Slugghorn could be described as flawed but good, 
which is IMO goes to my point. Namely there are only TWO adults from 
House Slytherin who can be unequivocally described as such ( again, 
Snape is left  out because there are people who do consider his 
loyalties to be questionable :)) and one of those two, well, RUNS 
from Voldemort instead of fighting against him. Don't get me wrong, 
I love Slughorn and do think that by running instead of joining he 
also makes a statement, but such statement IMO is a weaker one in 
comparison to statement many other Potterverse characters make.

Pippin:
> I think flawed but good is exactly the way Dumbledore would 
describe
> Draco, don't you? "Come over to the right side, Draco..." what good
> would it be to urge  Draco to choose right if he hasn't got the 
moral
> sense to know what right is?

Alla:

Have I mentioned recently that I think that Dumbledore's value 
judgments are not always correct? So, no, flawed but good is not how 
I would describe Draco, so very NOT, at least not yet. That 
description IMO needs to be earned and I do think it is  possible 
that Draco will earn it, but not yet.
So, to go back to my point, I have not seen ONE single good 
Slytherin in the books yet among the students and if you are going 
to tell me that Draco in his today state of mind ( almost murderer) 
is the best "good Slytherin" that Slytherin can produce, then I do 
feel sorry for them. 


> Alla:
> > Right, so I just think that JKR gave us more confirmation that 
at 
> > the end ( if the Houses will stand, I always said and still do 
that 
> > IMO Houses will disappear by assimilating good qualities of each 
> > other and minimizing bad ones, thus achieving real unity of 
> > Hogwarts) Slytherin house will be the house of one or two "good" 
> > students at most and by "good" I sure don't mean perfect, but 
those 
> > who will fight with Harry at the end.
> 
> Pippin:
> Now I am confused. How can, or maybe the question is, why should,
> Slytherin House be assimilated if only one or two of its students 
are
> good? On the other hand, if most of them are good, why should
> they not be allowed the freedom to find their own path?
> 
> Pippin
>

Alla:

Those are two different things, Pippin. I tried to explain above why 
we would only see one or two good Slytherin students, IMO, but 
Houses will assimilate because as we had been shown many people have 
qualities of different Houses and it is wrong to make kids from one 
house only socialize with each other, while increasing their bad 
qualities so to speak. It just seems to me that Houses are 
artificial barriers preventing Hogwarts students to get to know each 
other better. Like if you try to be friends with other Houses, it is 
hard enough. I mean, Harry sort of started to break the barriers but 
not completely IMO.

And even though I think it will happen primarily to accommodate 
Slytherin House, others will also benefit from learning more 
about "good ambition" and "courage" "intelligence", etc. Makes sense?

JMO,

Alla