Alchemy, the Epilogue and Slytherin (long)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 176230

> > Magpie:
> > Yeah, and the house has been a generic bully house of people 
> > jeering at Harry throughout canon. <snip>
> 
> Mike:
> Right, JKR needed a generic 'house of bad guys' and she made 
> Slytherin fill that role. And for this story, I have no problem 
with 
> that. I'll expound below.

Magpie:
I'm not saying I have a problem with it either--I mean, I would have 
preferred something else, but I'm just taking it as a given here and 
saying that's why I don't see a lot of symbolism at the end that's 
indicating a coming together. And why I think interpretations that 
blur everything more from the beginning just don't ring true.

 
> > Magpie:
> > It's not like people in other houses don't have problems,
> > but I don't see the story as being about showing the danger 
> > of all the basic house qualities. Gryffindor recklessness is 
> > certainly shown as dangerous, but it doesn't seem bad the way 
> > Slytherin is.
> 
> Mike:
> Well of course that's not what the story was about, I don't know 
> anybody who thought it was. But in the next breath you say the 
story 
> does show a Gryffindor trait as dangerous, just not as bad as the 
> Slytherin trait of (unadulterated ambition?). So we are talking 
about 
> a matter of degrees here.

Magpie:
I was referring to the theory I thought was presented here, which 
seemed to me to be putting Slytherin problems on the same level as 
Gryffindor ones, with the book exploring each ones strengths and 
weaknesses, and I just don't think they are shown that way. This was 
all part of what read to me an interpretation that was leading 
towards a symbolic coming together in the epilogue. I have no problem 
saying that Gryffindors are shown to have problems too, I disagree 
with the idea that the story is about showing the different problems 
that come from each house. Gryffindor faults have a totally different 
weight than Slytherin faults, and do not add up to them both being 
the same, but different, imo.  

Mike:
> Let's compare which dangerous trait caused the most damage between 
> Harry and Draco. Draco's ambition to become a DE is realized and he 
> introduces other DEs into Hogwarts. It results in one dead on his 
> side, (by friendly fire) and one mauled member of the opposition 
who 
> subsequently makes a full recovery. Oh, by the way, Draco was 
> directed by his top guy towards all of his actions. But we'll say 
the 
> ultimate cause was Draco's ambition, for the sake of argument.
> 
> Harry recklessly goes charging off to the MoM on his saving people 
> bravery bent. It results in one dead on his side (by hostile fire), 
> several badly injured on his side requiring extensive 
hospitalization 
> but all making full recoveries, and one permanently baby-headed 
> member of the opposition.
> 
> So, according to canon, which houses trait was more damaging?

Magpie:
Slytherin's. 

Harry's intentions were good--the book even barely blames him for 
what happened to Sirius, because it was LV and Bellatrix's fault (she 
dies the same way he did). (Harry himself blames Snape and then 
presumably stops doing that, but without any change scene in canon.) 
Sirius' running off, too, is done with the best of intentions. 
Draco's joining the DEs is bad in itself. Sirius was a flwaed hero 
who is rightly mourned. Crabbe got himself killed. Crabbe "deserved" 
to die, Sirius was murdered. Draco brought many of his own troubles 
on himself. Harry was targetted by bad guys and triumphed due to his 
Gryffindor qualities. (Draco's use of Slytherinish ways of protecting 
himself in the final battle earns him a punch.) Gryff recklessness 
might put you in physical danger (in itself something admired in the 
WW--witness the TWT), but Slytehrins put their souls in danger, which 
is far worse.

 
> > Magpie:
> > We know that Harry's job wasn't to unite the houses. The idea 
that 
> > it was his job to purge a cancer that prevented Slytherin from 
> > acheiving unity is a theory that seems entirely based on symbolism
> <snip>
> 
> Mike:
> Yes, I believe that was the basis for Debbie's post. She was using 
> the Alchemical symbolism.

Magpie:
I know, but my point is that symbolism is only resonant, imo, when 
it's reflected in the story.

> > Magpie:
> > (cont) --for it to be literal I think we'd need to see actual 
> > Slytherins changing their minds about blood prejudice that 
> > they had before (<snip>).
> 
> Mike:
> I don't see why. We're talking about purging the cancer that was 
Tom 
> Riddle, at least that's the way I read what Debbie was saying. It 
was 
> Tom Riddle that continued "Salazar Slytherin's noble work" of 
purging 
> the school of Mudbloods. It was Tom Riddle that fomented all the 
> latent pure-blood fanaticism. 

Magpie:
Because, as I said, it needs to be somehow established in the story, 
imo. If the fanaticism is latent, it's part of Slytherin. Debbie 
talked of Slytherin being "purified" by Tom Riddle's killing, but I 
thought Jen's view was more in step with the story when she asked if 
this wasn't a reenactment of Slytherin's leaving the school, since 
now we have the Heir of Slytherin being ritualistically killed by a 
Gryffindor. I don't see a "different" Slytherin throwing off their 
original founder and forging a new way. In fact, far from it being 
Purified by LV's death, it felt to me like DH *was* Slytherin in its 
purest form. The fact that Slytherin was known for his own Pure-blood 
supremist beliefs reinforces that. This was Slytherin out of control, 
unchecked.

Mike: 
> 
> As Steve has pointed out in numerous posts, pride in pure-bloodism 
> doesn't have to be vindictive. It is possible to be wary of 
> Muggleborns and to be concerned for too much change without wanting 
> to see all the Mudbloods put to death. But Tom Riddle's brand of 
pure-
> blood mania was a cancer. Not to mention highly hypocritical since 
he 
> was a half-blood himself. Doesn't that just scream mania for the 
sake 
> of directing mayhem, without Riddle believing a word of it himself?

Magpie:
Steve's view is never presented in canon, though, that I can see. 
Quite the opposite. The Weasleys *don't* have Pure-blood pride. At 
all. I can't think of a single place it's shown as being just a 
healthy thing. This slightly different view of Steve's is perfectly 
reasonable (and put forth in fanfic often), I just don't see it being 
put forth in canon. I don't think canon shows us a distinction 
between the good Pure-blood pride and Tom Riddle's mania. Sometimes 
the pride might be less threatening, but not good that I can 
remember. 

Whether Tom Riddle believes it or not doesn't really matter--I would 
say that he does believe it, yes. Almost every character in canon 
who's said anything bigoted about Pure-blood supremacy has been said 
to "not really believe it" underneath (it's always those other 
characters who really believe this stuff). I think they do believe 
themselves superior (or at least want to, if we get into the anxiety 
that might be lurking in their unconscious). 

 
> > Magpie:
> > <snip>
> > 
> > Was Voldemort the root of the problem so his destruction will 
heal 
> > the rift? I don't feel confident to say that's true. I really 
don't 
> > see Voldemort specifically set up that way.
> 
> Mike:
> This is where I disagree with the way you have read the Slytherin 
> problem. Because I see Voldemort as the entire reason why Slytherin 
> is treated the way it is throughout the whole series.

<snipping Voldemort's history>

But Tom Riddle is the *heir* of Slytherin, who wanted to purge the 
school of Mudbloods. That's why there's a snake *waiting* for him 
when he gets to school. We have no better Slytherin presented to us 
that's just been perverted--that's an ending many of us expected to 
get, so that we could see the "real" Slytherin. It didn't happen. 
Everything we hear about Slytherin sounds Voldemort-friendly. Sure 
Voldemort is the reason tensions are as high as they are during 
canon, but he just seems to add violence and extremism to stuff 
that's there. The founding story is that there was dischord, and then 
when Slytherin left the other three could live in peace. Slytherin 
has been set apart since then, not since Tom Riddle arrived. Harry's 
never surprised to discover signs of a very different Slytherin in 
the past. Slytherin was the bad guy from the beginning. If they were 
going to create a new Slytherin they'd have to do it themselves from 
scratch, which is not in the story. 


>> > Magpie:
> > So Harry might say Snape was brave, but we should fill in 
ourselves 
> > that he's saying he's great because he was also other things 
> > Slytherin even though he doesn't say it. <snip>
> 
> "Do not think I underestimate the constant danger in which you 
place 
> yourself, Severus. To give Voldemort what appears to be valuable 
> information while withholding the essentials is a job I would 
entrust 
> to nobody but you." (DH p.684, pensieve memory)
> 
> Does this not speak of Snape's cunning, his ability to fool 
> Voldemort? Are you so sure this message was lost on Harry? 

Magpie;
We were talking about a line in the epilogue. Harry tells AS a guy he 
knew who was one of the bravest he ever met was in Slytherin. 
 
> 
> > Magpie:
> > But regardless, yes, I see that Harry has dealt with Snape. I'm 
> > still not seeing any big meaning for Slytherin/Gryffindor healing 
> > here.
> 
> Mike:
> We aren't suppose to be seeing Gryffindor/Slytherin healing here. 
We 
> are suppose to see healing between a Gryffindor and a Slytherin. 
And 
> we are suppose to see that as a start. At least that's the way I 
see 
> it.

Magpie:
I see Harry's own personal issues resolved. 
> 
> 
> > Magpie:
> > Slytherin is not a threat with Voldemort dead. I imagine 
> > they've gone through plenty of calm periods throughout history.
> 
> Mike:
> So Voldemort was the cancer? Conversely, couldn't I also say that 
> without Voldemort, Slytherin is no longer the *bad guy house*?

Magpie:
No, Voldemort was not "the cancer." Voldemort was the cause of the 
most recent two wars. The "cancer" of Slytherin if there is one, imo, 
at best in remission, still latent and untreated.

Mike: 
> I agree, I imagine that there were periods of turmoil and calm 
since 
> the time of Hogwarts founding. Salazar Slytherin started out as 
> friends with Godric Gryffindor. Canon doesn't really explain what 
> caused the rift and eventual departure of Slytherin. 

Magpie:
No, but it tells us Slytherin was a Pure-blood fanatic like Riddle--I 
can't remember if it's actually in canon that Godric was a champion 
of Muggle-born rights but we know he was. (I find the bigger mystery 
to be why they were friends at all--I wonder if Godric had his own 
summer o'evil like Dumbledore and just took longer to wake up.) We 
know the fighting was stopped when Slytherin left, and ever since 
then the school has not been whole. Seems a lot like what happened 
here--Slytherin was ritualistically cast out again. This reads to me 
as a victory for our heroes, but not an overturning of the original 
situation. Not that interviews are canon, but I find the author's 
words about Slytherin in the future go along with my impressions too. 
Slytherin has happily been "diluted." (A particularly interesting 
word to use given their problems.)

-m