Villain!Dumbledore - Nature of People

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 177718

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:

> > Montavilla47:
> > Yes, I'm forced to admit that JKR did intend Slytherin
> > to represent all that is warped and evil in the world.
> > That the best they can hope for is to be diluted enough
> > in their evil to remain part of the school.  But I 
> > don't have to like it, or accept it.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > But, yes, in JKR's story, you do have a choice.  You
> > can choose not to be evil. Just make that choice 
> > before you're twelve.  Otherwise, you're pretty much
> > stuck.
> 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> The thing is, you are assigning these traits to
> Slytherin as a unique group, but the traits found in
> Slytherin are found to some degree in all of us, as
> are the traits of Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, and Gryffindor.

Montavilla47:

Pardon me, but I don't think I was the one assigning
traits to Slytherin.  At most, I'm repeating the 
assignments made by the Hat and agreeing that,
in Potterverse, these traits appear to be negative,
unpleasant, and halfway to "evil."


> bboyminn:

> There are some Slytherin-ish people who live for the
> Deal. That is what makes life worth living; working
> the deal and making the money. The world is filled
> with people like this, and overall they add greatly
> to society. However, when the 'deal' turn to the
> 'con', things get dicey. Even the best businessman
> occasionally skirts the boundaries of ethical
> behavior, and if they think they can get away with
> it and if it enhances the Deal, then they may be 
> willing to step across the line. But on a whole, this
> type of person does benefit society even if society
> looks down on them for it.

Montavilla47:

You don't have to convince me that ambition can
be a virtue.  I agree with you that ambitious 
people make things happen, and that often benefits 
everyone.  
 
> bboyminn:

> Slytherins are not universally evil; they still have
> a choice, and that choice is not made for them when
> they are sorted into Slytherin. Once again, I remind
> people that we have only see SOME Slytherins; those
> that were important to /this/ story. Snape made one 
> choice when he was younger, but made another choice
> when he was older and wiser; one for evil and one
> for good. In the long run, he is defined by his choices,
> not by his House. And, I think that is part of the
> message JKR wanted to send; we are who we are, but our
> choices define what 'who we are' means. 

Montavilla47:
But we can't extrapolate any message from these phantom
Slytherins.  Like the Crumpled-Horn Snorkack, the Good 
Slytherin turned out to be a myth.

> bboyminn:
---
> I think Slytherin is merely part of the whole, and
> represents what can happen when ambition overrides
> the other House traits. Ambitious men chasing the
> deal are all going to be greatly tempted to skirt
> or even break the rules. Some will cross over and
> some won't. Those who don't are more likely to be
> people who are not ruled by their Slytherin character,
> but let the other House characteristics shine through
> when they can best serve a person.
> 
> Further, I think any of the House traits has 
> potential for evil. Reckless courage, blind loyalty,
> unthinking intellect, and unrestrained ambition all
> have equal potential for evil. And, I think the 
> books try to illustrate this. 
> 
> The Slytherins we see represent the darkest part of
> our selves, and what we should get from the books is
> the inward search for the answer to this question;
> do we rule our Slytherin traits or do they rule us?
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn
>

Montavilla47:

If this were the case, then I think we'd see something
similar in all the Houses.  That is, an excess of 
Gryffindor courage--which I think comes through
in the bullying behavior of James and Sirius--would
be acknowledged as just as dangerous as unchecked
ambition.  

I really can't tell if we are or we aren't.  I can draw the
line between James and Sirius's arrogance and their
betrayal by Peter, and Snape's alignment with the 
Death Eaters.

But if I try to do that out loud, I get vehement protests
about how I'm blaming the victims.

If JKR did all this as a trick to make us all argue and 
think about prejudice long after we finish the books, 
then it's working brilliantly.

I honestly can't figure out if she did that or not.  But
if I go by the way the story plays out, (and her interviews)
then I'm stuck concluding, reluctantly, grudgingly, that 
the Slytherins are meant to be seen as morally 
inferior to everyone else at Hogwarts.  And the "good"
Slytherins are those who are good despite their
House affiliation and never because of it.

Montavilla47