House characteristics (LONGish)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 150758

> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Pippin, I said DRACO has to earn being called "GOOD", not Slytherins
> and I absolutely stand by it. I think Slytherins have to reject
> their "pureblood superiority" philosophy and I also stand by it.

Pippin:
Are you saying that nobody who believes in pureblood superiority
can be called good? I thought we agreed that Regulus and Slughorn
were flawed but good. Anyway I am not clear on how the Marauders
can be flawed but good when they were endangering people with
a werewolf and laughing about it, but Draco doesn't qualify.

 The Hat never says Slytherin is the house for those who think purebloods
are superior. It sounds as if this philosophy became associated
with the House during the "divided/sought to rule" era. I
think all the Houses have to reject it, and they also have to 
reject feeling superior because they're not Slytherin.

Alla:
 And as I said many many times in the past, of course I would have
> huge problems with eleven year olds being  called  evil by 
> association in RL.
> In fiction - not so much, especially since we agree that JKR does
> not go there, but I do think she is portraying this philosophy as
> the one to needs to be abolished, so I agree with Lupinlore(I think)
> initial point that JKR needed villains in the story and that is why
> she gave such philosophy to Slytherin House, etc. 

Pippin:
If we say that *Harry* needed villains, then I agree. He needed to
see Slytherin House as bad so he could see the Gryffindors as 
good, even when they weren't speaking to him, or were being
bossy, or were leading a monster through a village. His own
ideas of good and evil were still forming, and he needed 
groups as models. 

 But now that he has a clearer picture in his own mind of who he 
is and who he wants to be, he can see himself as an individual and 
can judge others as individuals too instead of as part of a group.
He might even be able to see that a Slytherin who lacks compassion
but has courage could be superior in virtue to a compassionate
Gryffindor who lacks it. I would expect JKR to do something like
that if she really believes that courage is the ultimate virtue.

 I disagree that she is portraying the majority of Slytherins as
pureblood fanatics who are falling prey to Voldemort. If she
wanted to write that most of the Slytherins remained seated
when Harry was toasted she could have. Instead we only see
that many of them did. Harry hasn't paid any attention to those
other Slytherins, the ones who honored him,  which probably 
means they're important. Otherwise why would they be there at all?

I don't think any new characters are going to emerge from that
mass, but I think they will support whatever needs to be done
on their part to unify the Houses.

Pippin