Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin Ho

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 177766


> 
> Random832:
> And _calling slytherin the house of evil and cruelty_ is bigoted when 
> it. It is inexcusable to claim that "ambition and cunning = evil and 
> cruelty" -- that is, that simply having certain personality traits,
ones 
> that many people in the real world have, makes you irredeemably evil.
> 
> --Random83
>

Prep0strus:
But there's more to it than that.  Cunning alone has negative
connotations (especially when compared to other possible words -
clever, ingenious, creative, quick-witted, street smart, etc.), which
was a deliberate choice.  And the hat doesn't just say ambitious - it
says 'will use any means', which is a much more dangerous and
frightening description.  And my analysis of the house is not based
solely on the hat's descriptions, either.  It is based on everything
else the author has given me, much of which I've already posted a
couple times along this thread - that every Slytherin character shown
is evil and/or unpleasant.  That every evil deed is performed by a
Slytherin (excepting Peter - i forget to except him, because I already
did, and i guess i should include Marietta like someone said, but i
would NOT include Umbridge - she is unclassified, and in my mind,
likely Slytherin).  That bigotry and racism are something built into
the house.

There is more to the house than 'ambition and cunning', and even if
that were all there was... there's still a paucity of admirable
traits.  JKR goes out of her way to show the kind of ambition and kind
of cunning she means when she talks about Slytherin.  We see those
types of qualities used appropriately in other characters.  In
Slytherin they are twisted and wrong.

It's fine, I guess, for you to lump characters, readers, and the
author all together as if they all have the same moral grounding.  And
once JKR has put these books out into the world, people can read them
however they want (and we certainly do). But I think it's a little
silly to simply dismiss what she meant or was trying to do.  My
original point, many days and posts ago, was that I felt JKR was using
Slytherin to represent what she thought was wrong in the world.  And
that while some characters in Slytherin have depth and have incurred
sympathy, I don't think it rose to the level where we were supposed to
think Slytherin was actually equal or good.  Therefore, it is not
bigoted to look down on Slytherin, because you are only looking down
on these wrong ideas.  Has she done this very well? I think not. I
think there are many flaws.

But while I understand people are frustrated with the world she
presented, where it appears ok to look down on Slytherins, I think it
is wrong to think badly of people who DO look down on Slytherins.  I
really think that they represent the worst of human nature (especially
through JKR's eyes - others might choose different traits as the
worst) - racism, bigotry, cruelty, selfishness, arrogance,
superiority, moral bankruptcy.  To do anything to further themselves,
no matter who else it hurts, along with an inbred sense of entitlement
and disregard for others.

In the end, for me and many others, JKR did not present a world in
which Slytherin, as a group, could represent more than those base
ideals.  And so, yes, I believe they are less, they are lower, they
are worse.  And I do not feel like a bigot for doing so, because I
don't believe the ww is the rw.  I believe JKR gave me a world in
which a group of people really are bad and wrong and unlikable.  I'm
not even making a judgment on whether I like that decision or that
world.  But that is the world I feel was presented to me, and that's
where my analysis comes from.

Siriusly Snapey Susan:
Carol has talked about Harry's quest for the truth in terms of his
also being a Seeker. I admit that, although I am one who can see
Harry rather as Everyman on his Christian Journey (and, thus, *that*
kind of a Seeker), I haven't seen this particular final-book
searching & grasping for the truth in a Christian sense. I do like
the parallel to his being a Quidditch Seeker, though.
Siriusly Snapey Susan, hoping for some insights from you all!


Prep0strus:

Well, I know I don't have all the insights you want.  That was a long
post, which presents a lot to think about.  So this is just the
tangent your post put my mind on.  A bunch of it was about Dumbledore,
and then your mention of Christianity made me think of how some have
suggested in the past that Dumbledore represents God.  

I feel like fewer people think that now, a lot because of all the
flaws seen in Dumbledore.  Now, the opinion I'm going to present goes
against my earlier points regarding Slytherin, in which I took my
perception of the author's intent into consideration.

Here, I just wonder on my own if Dumbledore could still represent God
in some ways.  And it can be looked at in a positive or a negative
light - some things people wonder about God could also be wondered
about Dumbledore, and vice versa.  And I hope to say this in such a
way that the argument makes sense whether or not you believe in God,
or whether or not you think God is good - and the same for Dumbledore.

Is not God secretive, manipulative... and yet also loving and good? 
God does or allows many terrible things to happen, but people accept
them on faith that there is something that they don't understand, or
is beyond their understanding, but makes sense.  But God can demand
much of people - sometimes too much.  He expects us to do things
without our full understanding and arranges things according to his
plan, not a consensus plan and not what we think might make us most
happy. He does things that can seem horrible, or wrong, but again,
we're supposed to accept them on faith.  We're supposed to accept that
there are things we don't get to learn and yet do our best anyway.

Now, I'm not saying Dumbledore is perfect, but misunderstood.  But he
is a character in a story, and a character in a story can represent
something without being that thing in all of its aspects.  Is it such
a stretch for Dumbledore to represent a demanding, secretive God who
still loves us and tries to guide us along our way?  Is it so hard to
see the negatives qualities present in Dumbledore as also present in
God were we to take away our supposed knowledge of his infallibility
and perfection?

There is bitterness towards Dumbledore in his treatment of Snape, but
the stories of Job and Abraham aren't all puppies and cotton candy. 
And the Christian parallels get pretty heavy (and annoying) if you
really delve into them or try to apply them, but say Dumbledore was
willing to sacrifice Harry to achieve his goal... this can't be taken
as a parallel for God sacrificing his son?

Again, it's a story - it's easy to argue how what Harry is doing is
nowhere close to what Jesus was doing.  But I think as a
representation, it's possible.  And in that light, perhaps Dumbledore
can represent some of the mystery we see in God.  Or perhaps it only
illuminates the wretched condition of humanity under the thumb of a
powerful and manipulative God.

Just some thoughts bouncing around my head.
~Adam (Prep0strus)