Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 179904

> > Magpie:
> > Slytherins suck in many ways. They're 
> > bigoted, but they are also petty, cowardly, mean, often ugly, 
vain, 
> > cruel, and interested in dark magic (in the bad way). 
> 
> 
> a_svirn:
> I agree that bigotry is by no means the only failing of the House 
in 
> question, but I think that it is supposed to be absolutely the 
worst 
> one. You can be ambitious and be a good guy – look at Harry. You 
can 
> practice the Dark Arts and be a good guy – look at Harry. You can 
> even attempt a murder of your school-mate for no better reason, 
that 
> he is too nosy (in every sense of the word) and *still* you can be 
a 
> good guy – look at Sirius. But you can't be anti-Muggle and good. 

Magpie:
Actually, I think you can be anti-Muggle to a certain degree and be 
good--everybody in the WW is pretty anti-Muggle if by that we mean 
they think Muggles are inferior. Believing you're better than Muggles 
is totally unexceptional. What you can't do is believe in genocide, 
which ultimately not all Slytherins do either. 

The central question in Slytherin when it comes to bigotry isn't 
about Muggles, but about Muggle-borns. Those are the ones you can't 
be bigoted against and truly good. Slytherins think Muggleborns are 
Muggles, and that's bad, as opposed to Gryffindors, who think they 
are Wizards. The most important tolerance question in the series is a 
cultural one that applies oly applies to Wizards. It's not that 
everybody's equal, it's whether or not this fictional group is in the 
top group or not.

I do agree that their bigotry is supposed to be the worst of the 
Slytherins' qualities, but I also think there's a reason that comes 
across as a superficial thing for many (me included). To me it seems 
like it's the worst because in the age the books are written 
tolerance is an important value. Meanwhile in terms of the way the 
story works dramatically it's cowardice that seems more repulsive to 
the actual characters. The good guys can slip up and make an off-hand 
ignorant remark about non-Wizards but I can't remember them every 
slipping up and being cowardly. What pushes Snape, Regulus and 
Slughorn over the edge isn't their tolerance (if any or all of them 
even acheive that) but their bravery. That's what defines Gryffindor, 
and Harry's last word on the subject is about bravery, not tolerance. 

It's one thing to slap bigotry onto the characters as a signpost that 
they're really bad and to write a story that examines the badness of 
bigotry. (This series ultimately doesn't even get across to me how 
bigotry against Muggleborns worked in the minds of Slytherins.) I 
think it comes across as their worst trait because by the values of 
our world it is their worst trait. But not one that's changed for 
them any more than is their belief in being bullies.

What weakens it even more is that so much of the WW harkens back to 
a "good old days" that are intolerant by today's standards.  

 
> > Magpie:
> > Symbolically, since Slytherin House as a whole leaves before the 
> > battle. They aren't needed for the House to play its assigned 
part. 
> > They don't battle the rest of the school and get killed, nor do 
> they 
> > recognize where their own best interests lie and battle their own 
> to 
> > change what they stand for. Slytherin ends the series in exactly 
> the 
> > same position it was in when Tom Riddle got to school. They're at 
> > peace, but why would they be friends? Every reason Harry heard 
for 
> > not being friends with Slytherins was proved in the book. The 
> > originally founding story, intriguing as it is, repeats itself. 
> What 
> > does it mean that Slytherin is included as a founder of the 
school, 
> > and then symbolically walks away to achieve peace? The hat talks 
> > about being "sad" at Slytherin's leaving, but we never see any 
> > reason why we honestly should be so. Slytherin is the House 
that's 
> > not really a House. Having the absent founder is just yet another 
> > way that Slytherin is defined completely by negatives.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Yes, I agree. It drives me mad, because the situation where a 
quarter 
> of students sorted into some sort of ghetto instead of a normal 
house 
> is absolutely insupportable. Why didn't they disband the house, 
after 
> Slytherin left? The Hat has been picking students according 
> Slytherin's own guidelines, which means that it singles out bigots 
> and helps them to form an entity. Has been on and on for thousand 
> years. What for? To ensure that the history would repeat itself?

Magpie:
That's the big question, isn't it? Because what do we make of that 
founding story? Somehow Slytherin and Gryffindor were friends--Betsy 
compared that to Snape/Lily but I can also imagine a 
Dumbledore/Grindelwald affair where Gryffindor was temporarily swayed 
by intelligence or power but wised up. We're interestingly told that 
all the houses were fighting, but that Slytherin leaving left them in 
peace. And then that happens again and again. OotP completely replays 
that split with the DA bringing the other houses together while 
Slytherin stands apart or against them. When the school is attacked 
the attacker specifically identifies with Slytherin, tries to make 
that house swallow the whole school. But the kids that make up the 
house are removed from the action, not killed or changed, and then 
the house goes on just the way it always has.

Seems to me Slytherin is clearly wanted in the form that it's in. The 
author's answer to this question was just as vague on that. They keep 
them around in some vague hope of unity that doesn't seem ever likely 
to happen. And that doesn't seem like anything that's particularly 
bad. In fact the idea is sometimes dismissed as completely 
unrealistic (which I find odd). It's like the Slytherins were created 
to be this so they can't be anything else. If they stop being 
cowardly (the opposite of our brave house) or stop being bigoted 
(their worst quality even though the world is rife with strict 
hierarchies of groups) or stop being bullies (giving our heroes 
someone to fight in their protector mode) or stop loving the Dark 
Arts (which Gryffindors really hate) they'd be something other than 
Slytherins.

> >>a_svirn:
> Oh, yes, a scene or an event can "babble" from out the subconscious
> (at least, I think you meant SUBconscious, rather than
> UNconscious)...

Betsy Hp:
Yes, subconscious, sorry. <g>

Magpie:
I say unconscious. I read somewhere that's more accurate according to 
something-or-other. It means the same thing. If you're not conscious 
of something it's unconscious. 

-m