[HPforGrownups] Re: House characteristics (LONGish)/Snape's worst memory

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 150707

> 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.

Magpie:
Yes, me too.  Or at least, it becomes like any other house on this matter. 
It's possible for someone to have Pureblood prejudice and be in Hufflepuff, 
for instance, but Hufflepuff isn't like Slytherin.  It's important for 
Pureblood superiority to be separated from the definition of Slytherin in 
the minds of everyone, most of all the kids in Slytherin.

Alla:>
> 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?

Magpie:
I do think that the whole house is in need of a change.  It's funny, because 
people often say that we just don't see most of Slytherin so we can't judge 
them, but we actually probably see more of Slytherin than we do of most 
other houses, and from what I've seen all the students show signs of 
being...Slytherins.  They often act en masse.  So yeah, I feel pretty 
confident saying that this is a Slytherin problem even if not all the kids 
are Draco Malfoy.  He is the face of the house in the books and I don't 
think he's hiding lots of great heroic people we just don't see.

Now, as to whether all the kids in Slytherin will change...that sounds like 
a tall order.  We don't know most of these kids (they're just names 
characters at best, as you said) and who wants to spend the last book with 
all new people?  So what I imagine (and could be completely wrong about, of 
course!) is more what you say here:

Alla:
> 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:
That's more what I see: the beginning of a change, presumably connected to 
Slytherins Harry knows.  I don't feel like I can say at all how it would go, 
but I feel like a major shakeup in the house as we know it could believably 
be assumed to start a change.  That's why I like the personal story--if one 
kid starts to change his mind and can admit he was wrong, that's the first 
step to other kids being able to do it.  Just something so that Slytherin as 
a house isn't completely shut out of the victory against Voldemort and we're 
maybe back where we started.  If Slytherin plays a part in it that would be 
a step towards Slytherin having to do something to actively reject Pureblood 
superiority--that doesn't have to require all the kids in the house changing 
sides and joining with Harry. In the last generation it seems we may have 
had Regulus' solitary act of defiance and Snape's change of sides, but 
neither was enough to make a real change.  Perhaps this generation will do 
things differently.

> 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.

Magpie:
I don't think all the Slytherins will have a change of heart in Book 
VII--that seems far fetched.  But I feel like Slytherin without the 
Pureblood part is the challenge.  I mean, why should Slytherin just be about 
being a Pureblood when that can be made into such an empty value anyway? 
It's just who your parents are, not anything about yourself.  (Something I 
think JKR demonstrates with Lucius and Draco in CoS.  His Pureblood pride 
isn't really helpful to his son at all, it just means anything he does right 
is only due to his blood and anything he does wrong is him failing his 
lineage.  The first time I ever had a spark of hope for Draco was when Harry 
said he'd have to make do on his talent sixth year.)  Slytherin could 
redefine itself--or, as others have suggested, perhaps the message has been 
muddled anyway.  It seems like it could be significant that Slytherin is the 
founder that left the school.  Perhaps his not being there to interpret his 
own words opened the path for danger, for instance.

> 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.

Magpie:
Well, I disagree that it was just a case of killing face to face being hard 
vs. killing from a distance being easy.  As I've said in other threads I 
thought the point hammered home in the story was that killing was hard, 
period, and I think that's what Dumbledore is spelling out in his last 
scene.  Being a DE is killing, imo.  But I completely agree that it remains 
to be seen what else he has discovered and I don't consider him to have 
turned at the end of the book.  I meant perhaps that was a story JKR might 
do in the seventh book, not that it was one she did in this book.

What Dumbledore was offering Draco was protection, but with his death the 
stakes may have been raised so that it would take more from Draco to "come 
over to our side."  He'd be dealing with Harry instead.  Would he be brave 
enough to do it?  Not sure.  We can't credit him for it unless he does it. 
Lowering his wand was stopping from taking the next step down one path, but 
we did not see him take a step down a different path.

Alla:>
> 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:
Well, yeah.  Regulus has his own story and Draco's whole story hasn't even 
been written yet.  For all we know we'll hear he was AK'd a week after the 
end of HBP.  I would only compare him to Regulus in the same way his author 
did, which is to say he bought the party line, joined up and got in over his 
head or whatever she said.  But I'd suspect that if we were reading MWPP era 
and knew Regulus pre-revelation we might not have believed it of him either. 
I mean, isn't it ironic that the first we hear about Regulus is Sirius 
describing him as an unimportant idiot who got killed as a nobody?


> 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.

Magpie:
Then we actually do agree because that sounds like very much what I vaguely 
imagine.  Not everyone in the house changing because that just seems odd to 
me, like hiring a bunch of extras to show up and cheer or something.  But 
the beginning of a change, which is the most important thing.  That's 
everything.  LOL--suddenly I'm picturing Draco at the well like Helen Keller 
figuring out that all this Pureblood stuff is crap.  Only I'm not sure 
whether to cast Dumbledore or Snape as Annie Sullivan.;-)

-m