Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco

[juli17ptf]

No: HPFGUIDX 156206


> Alla:
> 
> Let's look at Slytherin winning the Cup for seven years example. I 
> am not sure what in the text gives Elkins the impression that 
> despite Slytherins winning the Cup for seven years in a row, they 
> are the underdogs of the series.
> 
> I know it sends no such message to me. In fact, every time I read 
> about Dumbledore **bias** against Slytherins, the only thing I need 
> to do is to remember that they indeed won the Cup for seven years 
in 
> a row and talk about **bias** makes me amused.

Julie:
It wasn't that Dumbledore awarded Gryffindor the cup, it was
the way in which he did it, at the very last minute--after the 
winner has supposedly already been decided. Let's also not
forget the strong implication that Slytherin won the cup during
those seven years because they cheated. Something Dumbledore
seems to accept as fact--and what else would you expect of 
Slytherins anyway? 

Alla:
> 
> So, I make the conclusion (which can be wrong of course) that 
Elkins 
> sees bias again Slytherins ( or maybe she does not, since she talks 
> in general), where she **wants** to see bias against Slytherins, 
> because she likes them and since it is IMO not supported by the 
> text,she brings in metathinking. I mean, don't get me wrong I love 
> metathinking arguments, but I think this one **is** more emotions 
> based than text based and she IMO acknowledges it too.
> 
> Am I making sense?

Julie:
I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree that the
bias against Slytherins *isn't* supported in the text. Note
the example above, the popular belief that they cheated to 
win all those House cups (and, yes, maybe they did). Note 
Dumbledore's deliberately humiliating method of awarding the
House cup to Gryffindor, above. Note Hagrid's assertion that
all DEs come from Slytherin (NOT true, but hardly surprising
that so many of them do, when they're told from the moment they
enter Hogwarts that that is their future). Note the clear 
impression given by the narrator and Harry that Sirius's split
with rest of his loser Slytherin family and place in Gryffindor
gives him automatic a "good" guy status. Note in the later books
how the other three houses gang up against Slytherin, booing 
the brand new 11 year olds who are sorted into Slytherin (and
letting them know right away that they are outcasts from the
rest of the school, and the only friends they will find will 
be their fellow outcasts within Slytherin house). 

I know you're saying Slytherin students brought this upon
themselves, and perhaps they did. At least the 5th, 6th, 
7th years. But the 1st years just got there and they are 
already tarred with the image of their predecessors, on a
set course straight to becoming the next "upperclassmen" who
will eventually deserve the contempt and derision of the rest
of the school heaps upon them. And this is exactly way JKR 
wants it, because that is the way she's written it. 

She is definitely painting Slytherin house as morally set apart 
from the rest of the houses, even having the Sorting Hat using 
words like "cunning" instead of something with more neutral
connotations like "shrewd," "ambitious" (which can be neutral
but when paired with the other terms used by the Sorting Hat
comes off as power/money ambition rather than proving oneself/
making the most of one's talents/making parents proud ambition), 
and "Willing to do what it takes to succeed" rather than "willing
to overcome any obstacle" or "willing to make sacrifices to 
achieve their dreams." The Sorting Hat's words don't *have* to
be taken negatively, but put together they come out that way.
And of course, Slytherins always look out for themselves first
at the expense of others. Now, don't they just have the same
potential to be decent, upstanding members of Wizard society
as those from any other house?

Not. And no Gryffindor (or Hufflepuff, or Ravenclaw) has any
doubt of the innate lack of decency and goodness of Slytherins.
Just ask them if you don't believe me ;-)

Whether JKR writes Slytherins as appearing more morally and 
ethically deficient in relation to the rest of the Hogwarts
houses because that is really how she sees them, or if she
is setting up this so easy interpretation as something to
seriously questioned in Book 7, is debatable. (I think it
is the latter.)

The other houses insist on seeing and treating Slytherins 
as cruel and evil, certain that their judgment is correct. 
What does that really accomplish, except setting them deeper
into their path, ensuring that they choose evil as it's the 
only option offered? I think that is JKR's message. You want
someone to be hateful, mean, evil? Just stick them in the
appropriate slot, making sure to force out all their possible 
potential for horrible behavior, and you will be rewarded
by those persons becoming exactly what you expect them to be!

On the other hand, befriend them, encourage them to act on
their better natures (and reward them for it), rather than
beating into their psyches over and over "You're bad, you're
bad!", and you might just see their better natures emerge!
At the very least, they certainly can't behave worse than
they already do, while you can actually behave in a manner
befitting your "good" house. 

I think I rambled a bit ;-) But I will be disappointed if
Book 7 ends and this issue of bad Slytherin/good everybody
else isn't addressed. No, not enough to throw away the 
books, but in my view this two way prejudice eating away
at Hogwarts is one of the main themes of the books. 

Julie