good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 175114

> Magpie:
<snipping> 
> Again, I am not dismissing any of the Slytherins who aren't as bad 
> as the rest. But I am sticking with what I see as who they are, and 
> certain more positive readings about how they've come together at 
> the end of the book and no longer have any stigma just seem 
> completely uncanonical to me--and not to use an interview for 
> canon, but JKR herself I thought confirmed the rather weak 
> resolution herself, I thought, when she explained that Slytherin
> had been "diluted" so that it was no longer the bastion of 
> Pureblood supremecy, but still had a reputation for dark magic, as 
> we see in the epilogue. Just as you think I'm just rejecting 
> Slytherins who are good, I think focusing on Harry's "I love you no 
> matter what House you're in" answer to his son rather than the fact 
> that it's a standard parental response to his son's unsurprising 
> fear of being in *that house* is changing what's going on.

Jen: No, I didn't say you were rejecting Slytherins who are good, I 
was countering the idea that no Slytherins *changed* over the course 
of the story.  Now I understand you're saying some Slytherins did 
change, but only in the sense they 'aren't as bad as the rest.'  Sort 
of a token effort IOW, if that's a fair statement to make?

I may be misinterpreting your position but I see shades of token 
characters in the series.  Or perhaps it's that JKR wanted 
representatives of so many different groups that at times the effort 
came across as mostly symbolic:  There's one free elf, one found-the 
cause elf, one half-giant and his recruited brother, one progressive 
centaur, one sympathetic werewolf...all go to their own groups, 
mostly behind the scenes, and work toward change so that when it's 
time to choose their loyalty, members of those groups are ready to 
come forward.  

JKR cast her net very wide in an attempt to show the breadth of unity 
developing in the WW and in doing so, she didn't develop an avenue of 
depth open to her: the unifying of the houses.  Although with the 
final installment in place, it's pretty clear the four houses uniting 
wasn't ever in the works.  I'm still trying to guess why she didn't 
choose that route.

> Magpie:
> I accept all the Slytherins who helped the cause. I also note that 
> all of them have also been associated with some degree of Pureblood 
> supremacy (unlike almost any of the people from other houses we've 
> seen) and that they don't start off as people you can assume are 
> with you. We don't have to look for Ravenclaws who did something to 
> help--their banner was hanging in the RoR. Sorry, but I can't read 
> the story any other way than the way it came across to me 
> straightforwardly the first time, that Slytherin did not fight with 
> the other houses, but that there were certain individual Slytherins 
> for reasons we are given who do not go with their house. Slytherin 
> *played* its part in the destruction of Voldemort absolutely. But I 
> really can't say that Slytherin did its part very admirably. Given 
> the way Slytherin is set up to begin with it actually does need 
> something bigger to make a change.

Jen: Because of the way JKR wrote her various beasts and beings 
aiding Harry and coming together at the end, it's difficult to think 
she would have written a Good Slytherin in a dissimilar way, as more 
than a human equivalent of an elf or centaur inciting his fellow 
Slytherins to arms. (Not saying you advocated the good-slyth 
plotline, just remarking myself).  That concept would have been 
difficult to pull off with the central characters like it worked for 
peripheral ones, who are operating mostly in the background without 
much history or explanation.  

It worked for me that individual Slytherins - who *are* different 
from members of other houses due to history, sorting criteria and 
affiliation with Voldemort - opposed on their own terms and not 
Harry's or Dumbledore's.  They were admirable by the criteria of 
Potterverse for taking action to oppose Voldemort doing so bravely.  
Whether they're admirable to a reader is very subjective of course.  

I ended up mostly on the side of admiration but maybe for a different 
reason than others: I thought Snape would be grey, not the whole of 
Potterverse!  Once Rowling knocked down her moral compass a few 
notches, the whole world became a mass of conflicting desires, 
actions and ethical decision-making to me.  This opened the door for 
interesting discoveries about what made people tick, what strengths 
elevated them and what flaws caused them to fall. 

> Magpie:
> Dumbledore has always made a distinction between what you are born 
> meaning your bloodline, and the choices who show who you really
> are.  The person you grow to be does not conflict with the way I
> see the characters working. Sirius was born into a Slytherin,
> Pureblood supremist family, but by 11 was already showing by his 
> choices he was a different person. Draco, unlike Sirius, shared his 
> family's weaknesses. Where you're born or who you're born to does 
> not decide your character, but I do think your character does. You 
> show who you are.

Jen: I don't understand how someone has a choice if his character is 
inborn as well as his blood?  It's an oxymoron to me.  I'm not 
arguing you see this operating in the story, that good characters 
stay good and bad characters stay bad or a little less bad, more 
questioning if that was the intent of the story.  I'm wondering if 
it's more in the execution, that possibly JKR ended up with some 
static characters who were meant to be changing more than it came 
across?

magpie: 
> I suspect this all may be seen as being just "choosing to have 
> negative readings," but I'm just describing what I see. 

Jen:  I'm not much for the whole negative/positive labeling thing 
going on because it's applied to posts regardless of what the post is 
trying to accomplish.  So it's not my opinion (FWIW).

Magpie:
> The more redemptive readings feel to me like more of a stretch,
> a "fixing" of canon to get in the stuff I thought should be there 
> that doesn't hold up for me. I don't think I have an overly 
> negative view of Slytherin--I've never claimed that there's an 
> intense hatred at the end of the book, or that Slytherins are all 
> evil.  To me it just seems like describing the house as I see it
> ultimately in canon: it's the problem house and the author doesn't
> seem to be doing anything to counter that idea. 

Jen:  As you said earlier, JKR saw the change in Slytherin as 
a 'dilution' rather than complete resolution, mirroring the change in 
a WW at large where elves are still enslaved and other creatures 
presumably live on the fringes (although it cheered me to hear her 
say the MOM was reformed even if that wasn't in the book).  After 
re-reading, it's clear the story I was reading and interested in 
ended after King's Cross.  The rest of the story felt like tying up 
loose ends and the epilogue was pure, sentimental JKR imo, Harry 
finally part of a real family, waving off his own son to Hogwarts...

So, er, if it's not clear where I'm going with this section, I don't 
know either!  I saw more small changes in the WW than you but not a 
complete redemption. 

Jen