[HPforGrownups] Re: The Ancient and Noble House of Slytherin

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 150737

> bboyminn:
>
> My main point is shown below, and that is simply that it's not an
> all-or-nothing affair. I find this frequently when we are discussing
> various subject related to the books. For example, if Draco were to
> join the good side then he and Harry would be 'best buddies forever'.
> But, that is not necessarily true. ...Do you really deny
> that it is easier for generally good Slytherin with Draco absent?

Magpie:
Ah, I see.  Then I definitely agree--and with your next description of 
Slytherin being able to contain people with different views as well. 
Otherwise it seems like we're sort of talking about ending bigotry 
completely, which I think is unrealistic, and as you say, why expect it from 
Slytherin when not from anyone else?

To the Draco question specifically, I guess I can go either way.  When I 
think of Draco absent from Slytherin, to be honest it doesn't seem like it 
makes that much difference.  We lose one kid who's a bad influence, who 
maybe could very well be the difference between a particular kid leaning one 
way or the other.  But I don't think the problem is this one kid, and don't 
think the house influences him in the other direction because as a house 
it's already open to what he's saying. So while I do think that Draco would 
be one more thing encouraging a Slytherin to make the wrong choice, I can't 
be sure that he's the only kid encouraging other Slytherins to do that.  I'd 
be intimidated by sexy Blaise Zabini as well, for instance. And Draco's not 
even ever been in the oldest class.

But where I do agree is that yes, Draco's obviously an important student in 
his year and he's going to influence the others.  So I tend to feel that 
better than Draco just being removed is Draco inspiring students in the 
other direction-which doesn't have to mean Draco switching sides and 
becoming a charismatic leader of all the Slytherins to the side of light, of 
course.  He could die in a way that brought the lesson home.  Or change to 
become a different kind of influence.  Maybe because it seems like Draco 
himself is so obviously the product of influences. I don't say that to 
suggest he's not responsible for his own behavior, just that from what I've 
read it seems made clear that Draco isn't unique.  The hat put him Slytherin 
because he is very Slytherin, his family has a long history there, it's 
Voldemort's house, it's the house of many DEs, it was young Snape's house, 
three other boys in Draco's year have DE fathers and while Draco is the most 
visible leader they may all independently be a lot like him anyway.

Also I think maybe I just have a flag go up at the idea of Draco being 
removed so that other students have less fear of stepping forward.  JKR 
seems to consider courage the most important virtue, because without it no 
other virtue can exist.  Someone afraid to speak out against Voldemort 
because of Draco Malfoy is a perfect example. They are not virtuous not 
because Draco Malfoy keeps them from being so, but because their own lack of 
courage keeps them from being so.  There's not even any actual threat to 
them, considering this is a kid who's been walloped in public more than 
once, had his family been disgraced publically more than once. Neville 
Longbottom isn't afraid to take him on, what's holding others back?

So yes, to a certain extent I would deny that it would be easier for a Good 
Slytherin with Draco absent.  I would agree it's easier because it's easier 
for anyone without an antagonist.  But I would seriously question the use of 
the word "good."  Perhaps "neutral" would be a better term, since we're 
talking about people who maybe think bigotry is wrong, but not to the point 
of speaking up as long as there's a rich kid in your dorm who seems to favor 
it, even if he's 11 and you're 17.


> bboyminn:
>
> If I understand the first part of your statement correctly, you have a
> problem with unknown unnamed background Slytherins suddenly stepping
> forward and playing a more noticable role in the story. I can
> certainly see that, but I think we have been introduced to enough
> Slytherins by name that one or two of them could step forward as the
> leaders, and the remaining 'good' Slytherins could remain unnamed.

> True in the last (most recent) book the named Slytherins we see have
> not been too friendly toward Harry, but I have to wonder if that is
> based on typical schoolboy rivalries, or if it is a clear and solid
> reflection of blood prejudice and support for Voldemort? Personally, I
> lean toward schoolboy rivalries. In the absents of Draco, I think some
> of the schoolboy rivals will be more willing to oppose Voldemort.
> As far as the 'good Slytherin' story being no story, I can foresee an
> attack on Hogwarts.

Magpie:
I still think all of this is a completely different book than the one we're 
reading.  It's not a war novel.  The conflict with Slytherin has been laid 
out personally, not as a foreign country who would tip the balance as an 
ally.  The story goes where the conflict is, and there's no conflict between 
Harry and people he's never met.   Sydney laid this out wonderfully in her 
post about villains:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149090

In it she points out that this story has always been antagonist driven, not 
villain-driven, and that Voldemort is more accurately described as a 
Monster, an embodiment of evil who is defeated through spiritual tools in 
dream-like confrontations.  It does seem like we need Slytherin to join with 
the other houses for Voldemort to be defeated but if there is a literal army 
of students working together, it will still, imo, be secondary, a reflection 
of the true drama with the Slytherin antagonists.  They're the ones more at 
the center of the story, imo.

Steve:

> I have to believe that there are some intelligent Slytherin who see
> the utter and complete folly of supporting Voldemort.

Magpie:
Well, sure there could be.  Slughorn is one.  He gave Harry the memory about 
the Horcruxes.  Why doesn't that join the houses? Nothing's stopping other 
students from acting.  Any Slytherins who are anti-Voldemort can join in a 
fight at Hogwarts along with any Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws who choose to 
fight (Draco won't be there to be annoyed), but that doesn't resolve Harry's 
conflicts.

> bboyminn:
>
> Though I'm much overstating it, some people seem to think that if
> Draco joins the good side, he and Harry will be skipping through a
> meadow of flowers holding hands and whistling show tunes. NOT!
>
> Will Draco really join the side of good in his heart, thereby
> completely reforming his beliefs and his attitudes, or will he simply
> reject working for Voldemort as too dangerous? Rejecting Voldemort
> does not mean suddenly accepting all good, right, and moral
> principles. Draco is basically a misguided cowards; as I've said
> before, I think in his mind, Draco pictured himself standing shoulder
> to shoulder with Voldemort while adoring and/or fearful crowds bowed
> down to them. He certianly didn't picture himself killing Dumbledore.
> He certainly did picture himself compelled under thread of death doing
> things he certainly did not want to do. He certainly did no see
> himself bowing, scraping, and kissing Voldemort's hem. Draco had grand
> delusions of what it meant to be a Death Eater, and now he is finding
> that his grand delusions are really dark, terrible, degrading,
> painful, dangerous, and reprehensible things.

Magpie:
I don't find "coward" particularly enlightening about Draco but where I 
agree is that his joining the other side does not automatically lead to 
being bff with Harry or changing fundementally--and I think JKR would make 
an important distinction between those two things. Dumbledore was 
essentially offering Draco the opportunity to switch sides without 
fundamentally changing, at least in that moment.  But I think with 
Dumbledore's death JKR could be setting it up so Draco has to do one if he 
wants to do the other.  And that, to me, is compelling.  It's what I said 
about the political--I just don't think it's at the heart of the story.  A 
real understanding of what's truly wrong with Voldemort's whole mindset, 
that it leads to ruin and destroys its followers as well as the enemy, is 
dramatic.  There's nothing particularly dramatic about just a political 
maneuver, at least that's how it seems to me instinctually.  Draco even 
rejected Lucius' political advice when he continued to openly antagonize 
Harry.

Steve:
> In other words, Draco's delusions have been shattered, and now he is
> faced with a heavy dose of reality, hard cold nasty reality, and he is
> rethinking his life. Perhaps he will be able to get out, perhaps he
> won't, but I know for sure, Draco is no longer having grand romantic
> delusion about what it means to be a Death Eater.

Magpie:
I agree--and actually, here is where I may see something different in Draco 
or at least something that hasn't been discussed. It connects to why I don't 
use the word "coward" in discussing his story.  It seems like it's always 
been taken as a given in fandom that Draco doesn't want to get his hands 
dirty, that he wants the power and imagines it's cool to be a DE but can't 
face the reality.  And I agree with that on one level, but I don't think 
he's been portrayed as quite the political animal he's considered.  I'm not 
quite ready to assume that there wasn't any real desire to be a hero (a hero 
which to us is a villain, of course) here.

Imagine, for instance, Ron in Draco's position.  Arthur's been killed by 
Voldemort.  Dumbledore gives him the secret mission of killing Lucius 
Malfoy.  Ron knows it's really a suicide mission; Dumbledore is hoping Ron 
will die for some reason.  But Ron closes in on himself and vows to do it. 
He rejects Hermione's help.  He makes attempts on Lucius' life but 
ultimately can't force himself to be a killer.  Does Ron just sound like a 
coward whose empty pipe dreams of glory got replaced with reality?  He did 
get a dose of reality, but I can see his actions as a need to prove himself 
and do something for his father as well as a desire for glory.

It seems like many people completely reject that way of looking at things 
for Draco since after all, he's trying to murder a good, innocent person in 
the service of an evil man with a plan for ethnic cleansing.  But for me it 
still exists even as I acknowledge that killing Lucius Malfoy is not the 
moral equivalent of killing Albus Dumbledore.    He's a boy dtrying really 
hard to do something dangerous and scary on his own.  It may be in the 
service of something evil, but I think he is drawing on courage throughout 
the year.

So to me the events of HBP, while putting Draco further down the path to 
evil, makes him more potentially capable of seeing what's truly wrong about 
Voldemort than another Slytherin, not less.  Harry's last thoughts about him 
in the text acknowledge his fascination with the Dark Arts but also describe 
him as someone Voldemort is forcing to do things to protect his family.  It 
seems like that situation could lead not only to Draco wanting to change 
sides for practical reasons but seeing that Dumbledore was a better man than 
Voldemort. The events of HBP in a weird way seem to make Draco finally 
someone worth having on the other side to me (if he was genuinely switching 
sides) where as before it would have just been a case of neutralizing him 
and protecting him as a child.

-m