Slytherins/ Dobby /Slytherins /Loyalty & Traitors /Selwyn /Prestige

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 177781

---  "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:

bboyminn:

Let me diverge for a moment, and say that I always look
forward to your posts. Even though they seem to come
late to the discussion, they are always wise and 
insightful, and rarely fail to stimulate a long and
deep discussion. Just wanted you to know that you 
were appreciated.

>
> Steve bboyminn wrote in 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/177575>:
> 
> << The Sorting Hat sees potential, and the potential 
> to be cunning and ambitious is not a negative thing. >>

> Catlady:
> 
> I don't think cunning and ambition define who is 
> Sorted into Slytherin. I know the Sorting Hat SAID 
> those are the criteria, but I don't see it. The young
> Slytherins we know best are Draco and Crabbe and 
> Goyle and Pansy. Crabbe and Goyle don't seem cunning,
> nor ambitious ...
> 

bboyminn:

First, are you implying that the Sorting Hat is lying?
I don't think so. Though I will admit we have to
be careful not to take the Sorting Hat as absolutely
literal. The Hat is making statements in the confines
of a song, and that restrict the range of dialog 
that it is capable of. 

But, it is possible to be cunning and ambitious
without being smart. Grabbe and Goyle are cunning and
ambitious within their means. I think this is true
of all the House traits. I think I can assume that
we all see Peter as a coward, yet he was sorted into
Gryffindor, House of the Brave.

I think what we are seeing in Peter is a different
type of Courage. Normally when we say 'courage' we
mean Heroic Courage. That is what Harry has, heroic
courage. But those who are true cowards are paralyzed.
They cower in fear, afraid to act. Peter however
does take action, and that takes courage. The
manifestation of his action creates what I will call
Cowardly Courage, which I acknowledge is the 
oxymoron of all oxymorons. 

Crabbe and Goyle aren't the smartest and are not
likely to make it in the world on brains and
intelligent business practices. But notice they latch
on to Draco and Draco is certainly rising to the
top of the economic scale, and Crabbe and Goyle plan,
consciously or subconsciously, to ride to the top
on his coattails.

They do have ambitious plans for themselves and are
applying those plans with all the cunning their limit
minds can manage. 

I think we see this contrast in many of the House
representatives. Luna is a Ravenclaw, but in some
sense she comes off as dull and dimwitted both in her
demeanor and in her beliefs. Yet we do see that
she has intelligence when we as readers are allowed
to see her beyond the surface. 

People keep claiming, or implying, that the Houses
are perfectly defined. That JKR portrays all 
Slytherins as evil, all Gryffindors as wise and
brave, etc.... But I think JKR sets up this counter-
trait nature in every House. We see Ravenclaws that
appear Dim. We see Hufflepuffs that appear disloyal.
We see Gryfindors that appear cowardly. That is why
I continually say that we can't judge all Slytherins
by the few bad Slytherins we are shown. 

More on that later.
   
> <<bboyminn orginally said:>>
> << Also, I simply can't believe that /most/ Slytherins
> don't go on to live perfectly normal lives. ... >>
> 
> ...
> 
> << I suspect more likely they become good businessmen
> and entrepreneurs. >> 

> Catlady:
> 
> I agree with perfectly normal lives, but not that 
> they produce that many more entrepreneurs and 
> successful businesspeople than the other Houses. 
> ...
> 

bboyminn:

Point taken, I was generalizing. I think a greater
portion of business people come out of Slytherin,
that being driven by ambition. But to be truly 
successful, you have to be able to apply all of the
various House traits. For as long as it serves them,
a Slytherin must be intelligent, hardworking, loyal, 
and courageous. For a Gryffindor to be successful, 
he must be able to apply a degree of cunning and
ambition. 

But ambition can get twisted into doom as we see with
the Gaunts. Further, I don't see Crabbe and Goyle as 
being great businessmen, but I do see them as 'doing 
as they are told' and therefore managing to run a 
successful business for Malfoy. They are his stooges, 
but I speculate that they are moderately successful 
and moderately wealthy stooges as a result. Or at least
they would be if things hadn't gone the way they did. 

> ...
> 
> << Theo Nott and Blaise Zabini, probably have "human"
> stories, too, and reasons why, unlike Draco, they 
> chose not to join the DEs >>
> 
> In Theo's case, readers could draw a connection to
> the recollection that the DE team in the Department 
> of Mysteries left his wounded father to die or be 
> captured and put in Azkaban. 
> 
> As you know, JKR stated on her website that she had 
> written and deleted a scene in which Theo and Draco 
> converse while Nott Sr is visiting Malfoy Sr. ... I 
> don't think there's anything to indicate that they 
> were debating whether the Dark Lord's return would 
> be a good thing (with Draco:Pro and Theo:Con)...
> ...
> 

bboyminn:

JKR also said that Theo was not a joiner or a follower.
That implies that he is capable of free and independent
thinking, and I have often though he was wise enough
to see the folly of Voldemort being in charge. I have
often said that what is good for business is good for
Slytherin, but more importantly, that Voldemort was
absolutely NOT good for business. 

The implications of Voldemort in charge would have
been catastrophic for England, for Britain, for Muggles,
for trade, for business, and for the world. Voldemort
was really foolish enough to think that once he outed
the wizard world, that the rest of the world would not
oppose him. Quite misguided in my opinion. Voldemort
would have set the rest of both the magical world
and the muggle world against him and with overwhelming
force. He might be able to fight and defeat the small 
wizard population of Britian, but he certainly
could not resist the force of the entire world set 
against him.

Voldemort's rule was doomed from the very beginning,
and I keep telling myself that there must of been some
wise business-minded Slytherins who saw this. 

Another odd thing is that Voldemort could have certainly
ruled the British wizard world and probably the European
wizard world, if he had chosen the path of good. He was
certainly smart enough, cunning enough, ambitions
enough, and magically powerful enough. He could have
had what he wanted if he had pursued it (minus the pure-
blood mania) by legal and ethical means. 


> Betsy Hp wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/177620>:
> 
> <<  ...I think an example of us fans deepening what was,
> in the end, a rather simple tale. JKR could have used 
> Marietta's story ... to explore family loyalty and 
> when (if ever) it should be broken and are there right
> ways or wrong ways, etc., etc. She didn't. >>
 
> Catlady:
>
> ... the books surely have given us plenty of
> opportunity to think about loyalty and betrayal. You
> may be tired of hearing me say that Pettigrew and 
> Snape did the same thing: joined one side with their
> friends, switched to the other side, spied on their 
> old side for their new side, ... One's treachery 
> makes him a hero; the other's treachery makes him a
> villain.
> ....	
> 

bboyminn:
 
Fair warning; as usual, I am off on my own tangent
here.

This brings up an old battle I have been fighting.
I agree we see that Snape and Peter, in the context 
you presented, do essentially the same thing, yet
one is perceived as good, the other is perceived 
as evil.

First, can we all actually see that? /IS/ one good and
/IS/ one evil? It seems that some are constantly taking
this morally neutral stance that saying, no we can't 
see that. Neither was more or less evil than the other. 

Using that tried, trite, and true analogy - The Nazis.
Can we see that the Nazis are and were evil? On one 
hand, the Nazis did many good things. Yet on the
other hand they committed unfathomable acts of clear
evil against helpless, innocent, and defenseless people.
On the other side of the coin, the Allies committed
a fair share of bad acts, but some account, even 
evil acts. Yet again, is it that hard to see who the
true evil is? 

The Nazis bombed London. The Allies bombed Berlin. 
Both cities nearly leveled. So, are they morally on
equal ground, or is there a clear evil? I say yes
there is a clear evil, a crystal clear evil. Even
though the Allies did terrible things, they were
responding to an unprovoked attack against the
civilized world, and against a regime that would have
spread death, tryanny, and oppression across the
world. 

Keep in mind, that while I hate Nazis, I bear no ill
will against the German people. Also, keep in mind
that I hate Death Eaters, but, as a whole, I bear no
ill will against Slytherins. I think they are
annoying gits and not the type of people I would 
generally be friends with, but I don't hate them. 

Yes, Slytherin was set up as the House from which
/bad/ would come. Just as Germany, by an assortment
of circumstances, was set up as the country from
which evil would come. But that doesn't make 
Germans or Slytherins, as a whole, evil.

So, from Slytherin come the bad guys on all levels,
and from Gryffindor come the good guys on all 
levels. Except, we do have Slytherin good guys,
and Gryffindor bad guys. Even amoung the Gryffindor
good guys, we see people who act bad. I'm thinking
of young James and Sirius here; they did bad things.
On a smaller scale, Fred and George did bad things.

But are there really people who can not see that 
these are the good guys? Are there people who are
so tied to their theme of moral neutrality, that
they can't tell good from bad, in spite of the 
fact that good is doing bad on a small scale and
bad is doing good? 

Sorry, like I said, I'm off on my own obscure tangent
here, but this really bothers me. Yes, I concede
that the good guys did bad things, but their actions
pale in comparison to the bad and potential bad things
that would have been done by the truly bad bad guys.
I can forgive Harry his lapses, just as I forgive
soldier the horrors of war they were forced into. 

Do, I think these good guys get off from their actions
scot-free; no. Do we see them taken to task for 
their bad actions; no. But that doesn't mean that
they never every suffer any consequences for their
actions? Many kids in Middle and High School do
cruel, dangerous, and illegal things, but to some
extent we forgive them for the impetuousness of
their youth. There are many actions in my youth that 
even now after many many many years still weigh
heavily on my conscience. That /weight/ and regret
do not constitute getting off scot-free.

Again, sorry, just ranting and raving off in my own
little world here.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn