Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 177675


> Pippin:
> If I understand correctly, that wouldn't be a problem with Christian
> concepts of the afterlife  in which there is no marriage or giving in
> marriage.   We are free to  imagine that death frees  Snape 
> from his tortured longing for Lily, James from his jealousy of Snape, 
> and all three of them from carnal love, as in many Christian
> texts.

Prep0strus:
Depends on your idea of 'heaven', I suppose.  I'm not so sure I want
to be freed of carnal love! (Of course, it may not be my choice.)  But
Snape as 'part of the game' in the afterlife? I dunno. I'm not even
sure why I find the idea so distasteful... maybe it's that it
diminishes the relationships in life that can continue on in the
afterlife if someone without relationships is suddenly a part of them.
 Or maybe I simply expect to see some change in life in order to
expect change in the afterlife.  And I don't see much change in Snape.
 I am not convinced by what we saw of his life and death that he is
open to the kind of change you propose.  From what I've seen of Snape,
I don't know if being happy would make him happy.  And it's that
reading of him that makes him a character devoid of hope for me.  I
think it's very clear that he doesn't read that way to some, if not
most, others, but for me, that's how it comes across.

> 
> Pippin:
> The House Elf liberation subplot and the Dobby subplot  each have  a 
> beginning, a middle and an end. That the endings aren't as hopeful 
> as you expected is not the same as leaving  them unfinished. 
>

Prep0strus:
I only partially agree. I think the Dobby subplot did have a
beginning, a middle, and an end.  Dobby had a beautiful, tragic story,
in which, he as an individual, as a character, has a full and complete
arc.  But I think that Dobby and the house elf storyline are tied
together.  I don't think the elf story can be separated.  Now, I don't
know how I feel about the elf story itself.  I mean, she spent a ton
of time on it, kind of made it seem, between Hermione who is usually a
good moral center and 'outsider looking in' to the ww and Dobby, a
good creature who wants freedom, that house elf freedom would be a
good thing to work towards.  Of course, then we learn that's not
really what elves want, but I still had to wonder - then why waste
that much time on it?  These books are long, and tons of things we'd
love to see are left out, so why?   My expectation was that because
somehow it would represent the wizarding relationship with other
species as well.  I realize that not all of JKR's subplots are going
to come to complete fruition, but, at the end, I just don't understand
why she wasted so much time on it.  Dobby getting his freedom would
have been enough for the story of Dobby - all the time spent talking
about it to lead to nowhere is strange to me.  And while it's nice to
see a change in heart of wizards (though I agree that Ron's change is
not as significant as you suggest), I think that Dobby DOES represent
something.  Because his death, with no change in the world, simply
means he was an anomaly, a freak the humans might admire but the elves
just as soon forget.  Alive, happy & free, he could have been a
representative of a new idea, of a possibility for a different kind of
happiness.  And that's not where JKR was going, I guess.  But I really
don't know where she was going.  And Dobby was THE house elf.  The elf
that started it all for the Trio, the one who wanted freedom, the one
who inspired Hermione.  His death has meaning when it comes to that
storyline and how we view elves at large.  I enjoyed Dobby's
storyline.  But the house elves storyline I don't understand, do not
think it came to any kind of conclusion, and am confused as to why it
was included at all.


> Pippin:
> If  we had learned nothing about the Marauders after age seventeen,
> they wouldn't seem very likeable or helpful either. IMO, JKR first
> leads Harry to  associate Slytherin House with everything hateful about 
> human nature, and then allows him to learn that this was uncalled
> for. She doesn't show us Slytherins as saints or heroes, but she
> does show that neither Draco nor Snape is the embodiment of evil.
> That's Voldemort's job.
<SNIP>
> The Draco of the epilogue is not someone we have to like.
> Judging by his son's name, he's still a proponent of winning through 
> intimidation. He's made a pureblood marriage, so he probably  still 
> thinks purebloods are more respectable than other wizards. 
> That would make him a jerk. But that's not the same as being evil. 
> 

Prep0strus
But my point is that the Marauders aren't the only Griffindors we met.
 We met lots of people, of all ages, and are able to see that most
people are, for the most part, good, and even likable.  Unless they're
Slytherin. In which case, they are, for the most part, evil, or, 'jerks'.

You point out that Draco may be a jerk, not evil.  That's fine -
except ALL the Slytherins are jerks, even if they aren't evil.  If JKR
wanted to show us in the beginning a one sided view of Slytherin, but
then expand it later, that's fine.  But it seems you're saying that
she showed us - 'Hey, not all Slytherins are evil, you know!  Some of
them are only big jerks!'  That's a lesson, I guess.  Don't judge by
appearances - sometimes, a big jerk is just a jerk, and not evil
incarnate.  But, in the end, all Slytherins are evil or big jerks.  I
don't think this shows her willingness to give them any true equality.
 As characters some may rise above evil, but their flaws still
outbalance their positive traits.

Amy:
I guess this is why I couldn't see why admirable/likable was being
linked to who JKR meant us to see as Good. 
<SNIP>
Yeah, I think JKR condemns certain Slytherin personality traits,
which is probably why the House members are all so unlikeable. I
really don't think she condemns Slytherin House in itself, though, so
in the larger picture, I can't see why it matters that they ARE
unlikeable, given how subjective "likability" really is. Slughorn,
for example, is probably the only Slytherin who was meant to be
likeable (if not admirable -- I think it was Snape, who was meant to
be admirable -- Harry at least admires him at the end of the series);
most of fandom hates him, and why is this? His networking tendencies?
(Networking, which is actually something Hermione apparently excels
at, considering how she started the DA.)

I can't argue that Slytherin aren't on a more unequal level than the
other three Houses, but neither can I believe that this unequalness
is as damning to all other future members of Slytherin House as
others seem to think it is.

Prep0strus:
The reason being admirable/liking the characters is connected to their
being damned... I'm not sure how to answer that.  I know I feel that
they are, but it's hard to explain why... maybe it's because I don't
consider 'damned' the right word, or at least he way I feel.  I think
that by showing an entire group as unlikable, withing meaningful
exception, JKR is trying to say something.  They are unequal, as you
said, but what it means to theoretical future members of the house
isn't something I can predict.  All I can say is in the story we see,
she had an opportunity to make them equal, and did not.  I think the
house represents racism, cruelty, prejudice, arrogance, ruthlessness -
terrible traits we are meant to find distasteful.  And we are meant to
find the members of that house distasteful.  I know that if they
aren't 'evil', they aren't 'damned', but in a literary or metaphorical
sense, I don't think they can be remotely considered 'good' or 'equal'
either.

As for Slughorn, I think we find him unlikable because JKR wants us to
- I think to her, his primary characteristic is his cowardice, which
we know to be something she despises.  But, for me, it's the way he
treated the kids.  He is not 'networker'.  He uses those kids, and
sucks up to those that he thinks he can get something from.  It is all
about HIM, about how he feels about himself.  He is completely
self-involved.  He is exclusionary, and will deliberately make a young
child feel unwelcome if he thinks the kid won't be able to get him
anything.  He may not be evil, and he may not even be a nasty person.
 But I find him loathsome, and extraordinary unlikable.  

Carol responds:
You may disagree, but I think it's significant that
out of a House of some seventy students for that House (using the 280
students calculable from the forty students per year implied in SS/PS
and CoS, which would mean ten per class per year), only three in
Harry's generation (Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle) became affiliated with
the DEs (despite at least one other student, Theo Nott, having a DE
father), and of those three, one (Draco) became thoroughly disillusioned.

Despite the implied association of Slytherin House with Dark magic, we
don't see any Slytherin other than these three casting an
Unforgiveable Curse (actually, we only hear of Goyle Crucioing
students in detention; in the RoR, he just stands there pointing his
wand). We have a total of one Slytherin in Harry's generation, who
actually becomes evil.
<snip>

In short, blood prejudice does not in itself make a person a Death
Eater. The elder Blacks were sympathizers but didn't join up. Phineas
Nigellus (admittedly only a portrait) and Horace Slughorn ended up on
the other side. Blaise Zabini, a typical Slytherin in terms of
attitude, rejected the DEs. Andromeda Black, probably a Slytherin
given the remarks by Sirius and Slughorn, became a "blood traitor" and
actively aligned herself with the other side. Most Slytherin students
sat out the battle. Conclusion: DE and Slytherin are not synonymous,
nor are Slytherin and evil, as Harry learns near the end of DH. Until
that point, we have seen from his perspective, so, of course, it
*seems* as if Slytherin is synonymous with evil.
<snip>
Maybe not. Maybe she wants the reader to see what Harry sees, that
it's *not* okay to lump a whole House together and regard them as
evil, Dark Arts-practicing bigots. Maybe, by presenting a Slytherin or
Slytherin supporter (Kreacher) as human (or humanlike, in the case of
Kreacher), as sympathetic and flawed, capable of both error and
redemption, maybe she's showing that Harry and his friends have been
*wrong* in their judgment of Slytherin, as wrong as the Slytherins
themselves in their advocacy of blood supremacy.
<snip>

Prep0strus:
I tried to judiciously snip from your post, but as always, I've
probably left too much or taken away too much.  But the basic point
(and I realize, I'm getting REALLY basic here) is... 'they're not that
bad. or, at least, not as bad as we once thought they were.'

I mean, you're right.  She could have shown many more evil young
Slytherins.  But for me, it's strange to assume that everyone we
haven't seen is good, or nice, when everyone we HAVE been shown isn't.
   I guess it really is all how you look at it, but, in the second
part of your posting you seem to be showing how being prejudiced
against muggleborns doesn't make you evil.  That though many
Slytherins are unpleasant, that doesn't make them EVIL.  And I agree
with you.  But every Slytherin we're shown IS unpleasant.  The one who
winds up the most sympathetic and least unpleasant a personality of
your examples is Kreacher - not even an actual Slytherin.  You don't
want us to lump them together as evil, Dark-Arts practicing bigots. 
How about just bigots?

It's like what I was saying earlier - not being evil doesn't make them
not jerks.  And they all are jerks.  There is no equality among houses
because JKR does not give us examples of people that can be taken as
equals.

There are many Griffindors, Ravenclaws, and Hufflepuffs that we
haven't seen, but I don't think most people assume that they are
Voldemort supporters.  Your post seems to assume that other people are
assuming that many of the Slytherins we haven't seen ARE Voldemort
supporters, and you're saying that may not be so, as JKR only showed
us three in the younger generation who are.

But I think it's obvious that we have these assumptions because it is
how JKR showed the world to be.  And not just in the first few books.
 Even by the end, she does not give us likable Slytherins who are true
equals in humanity.  And every time she shows us something wrong with
the world, it is Slytherins who do it.  Other than Peter, who is the
friend that betrays them, we just don't see the same potential in all
houses.  If we were really supposed to see the world open up in our
eyes, through Harry, we would have seen through his eyes how Yaxley
was a Ravenclaw and Avery was a Hufflepuff.  We would have seen that
Madam Pince was a Slytherin and so was Shackelbolt. We would have seen
actual equality.

Since JKR made a point of showing every Slytherin to be of an
unpleasant personality, and every evil deed to be performed by a
Slytherin, I have to think she was saying something.  I do not see
nearly enough evidence to think that JKR views Slytherin as anything
but a representative for things that are wrong with humanity, and the
characters who are not 'evil' simply manage to have enough
non-Slytherin characteristics (and enough import to the story) that
they can escape complete one dimensional evil.

I never thought Snape would turn out evil, and he turned out to still
be nasty, so my view of Snape didn't change much from the first books
on.  And neither did my view of Slytherin.  I just don't see where
anything new was added to show us that it is anything more than the
house of everything JKR hates.

~Adam (Prep0strus)