[HPforGrownups] Harry's detention in HBP /Slytherins LONG READ AT YOUR OWN RISK

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 168311

Alla:

Oh, maybe that would work for me as well - somebody briefly
mentioning that pureblood from Slytherin dates Muggleborn, **any**
muggleborn, lol, which has nothing to do with Harry. Would this deed
be cool by Harry and his side? I guess so, but this is also I
believe an objective showing, etc. And no, I do not mean Draco and
Hermione, LOL.

Oh maybe that is too clich . Maybe even to show that say Seamus has
friend in Slytherin. Something, anything to show that not everybody
shares that philosophy.

Magpie:
I agree that would work--but I think JKR has chosen against it. She *has*, 
imo, made Slytherin the house that represents certain bad ideals--which is 
why I think I agree with your saying that you don't mind making certain 
generalizations about them. Fanfic authors often have Slytherin be just 
another house that's more integrated and often has cool students that become 
friends with the Trio (or are just cool on their own), but JKR has 
introduced a lot of Slytherins, even if a lot of them are just names, and 
they are usually reflect some of the bad things Harry associates with them, 
even if they're not all aggressively bad. I think Slytherin definitely could 
be the kind of house we sometimes see in those kinds of stories, but it's 
not easy. And it's the challenge of the books. Slytherin *isn't* just a 
normal house where Harry's happened to have met people he doesn't like. 
Slytherin is there to reflect a lot of things that have to be dealt with.


> Magpie:
> I'm talking about these very DE kids. My point is that you are
> defining "good" as a kid that you put into the good rather than
the
> bad category.

 I am saying that the kids you consider to be bad--
> Draco, Crabbe, Goyle, Montague, Pansy, Blaise, Theo and any other
> faceless kids we have seen, are not simply "bad." That the house
is
> defined by these kids we see in it, and that they must be brought
> back into the fold and the school made whole. It's the potential
> good in them that matters to me, not potential other students in
> their house, something I think is backed up by JKR not creating
ones
> that break the stereotype much.


Alla:

Ah. Got it now. So you are basically saying that there is good in
those kids, we just do not see it. Okay, I was just honestly trying
to make sure that I am not missing anything from canon and not
missing any kid I forgot about doing something spectacular. You are
basically talking about those kids doing good things and reader
seeing it.

Okay, that may well be. Are you talking about rehabilitating them,
since you said about potential good or you think they are good as it
is now?I am just trying to find out how is this potential good you see in
them can come through in one book?

Magpie:
I guess what I'm saying is that I think Slytherin is like the Shadow house. 
If Hogwarts represents the world, Slytherin is the side of it that's acting 
as the Shadow, just as Harry gets Shadowed by a lot of the specific 
Slytherin antagonists. So that side has to be integrated back into the 
whole. That would both mean other houses taking a different view of 
Slytherin and Slytherin changing. Everyone has some responsibility for 
everyone else. That sort of thing.

Of course this doesn't just mean Slytherin was misunderstood. They have to 
change for their own good as well as the school's. I remember reading HBP it 
just struck me as important that JKR had Draco say Mudblood and Dumbledore 
said not to use that word because even if he was (allegedly) going to be 
killed, it still mattered.

Alla:
Maybe it is time to agree to disagree, because if those are good
kids, then Slytherin house sounds to me like rather sorry bunch of
losers.

Magpie:
I'm rejecting the whole idea that we should be looking for which ones are 
the "good kids." I think the problems with Slytherin have been going on for 
a long time and reflect a lot of stuff going on in this society. I think 
they all probably will reject Voldemort because they'll be nothing left of 
him. But I don't think JKR has to have Slytherins completely change. She 
just has to show us that things can change and will be different.

That's why, imo, it's good to be focusing on the kids that are the worst of 
them. I don't think Draco was a loser in HBP. He was the kid he was with the 
wrong-headed beliefs he had and did his best and didn't completely fail and 
even started to get a clue about a lot of things he was wrong about. I 
happily entered into the storyline where Draco was the protagonist and 
thought he was worth something--just as I think Snape is worth something.

They're not attractive, but that, imo, again is what makes them Shadows. 
They're representing all the stuff that's repulsive and repressed and 
denied, and they're ugly and grotesque and underdeveloped and keep shoving 
themselves in everybody's face. Anything the heroes have issues with and 
reject is what they represent (even when it might seem contradictory).

Alla:

Didn't Pansy called Ginny Muddblood in HBP or was it Blayse?

Magpie:
Blaise called her a Blood-traitor (Mudbloods are Muggleborns...err, if 
you're a Pureblood supremist, that is).

-m