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

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 177790

zgirnius:
> > JKR: But they're not all � don't think I don't take your point, but � 
> we, the reader, and I as the writer, because I'm leading you all there �
>  you are seeing Slytherin house always from the perspective of Death 
> Eaters' children. They are a small fraction of the total Slytherin 
> population. I'm not saying all the other Slytherins are adorable, but 
> they're certainly not Draco, they're certainly not, you know, Crabbe 
> and Goyle. They're not all like that, that would be too brutal for 
> words, wouldn't it?
> 

Prep0strus:
I take your point, and hers, but then I think she failed even more at
her objective.  She can say they're not all like that, but why didn't
she show us any who weren't?  That is way more powerful to me.  First,
even here she says, 'i'm not saying all the other Slytherins are
adorable', but couldn't some of them be adorable?  I mean, there are
adorable people out there, and they should be split up amongst the
houses as well.  A lot of people put forth the argument that we
haven't seen ALL the Slytherins, and it stands to reason that some of
the others must be nice or kind or not selfish or not bigoted or
whatever.  And that's fine, but in a creative work, never to be shown
that, I don't think that it's obvious we should assume it.  I think we
all thought there was more to Slytherin, but if she never ever gives
it to us... we're assuming things about the world with no evidence. 
That's why the 'one good Slytherin' has such a powerful impact in
these discussions (and why everyone then throws forth their own 'one
good Slytherin' - I've already conceded there are Slytherins that are
'good' but none I think are nice or likable, so it doesn't work for
me), because it's in seeing those few characters that break the mold
we've been shown that allows me to imagine a world in which more
Slytherins are likable good people.  But she was never able to stretch
that mold more than allowing some of them to be 'not evil', which just
doesn't cut it for me.

> 
> zgirnius:
> The idea that Slytherin has something positive to contribute 
> is "Dumbledoresque". Whatever one may think of the character post-DH, 
> pre-DH this is the character she called an "epitome of good". So it 
> seems to me she is endorsing this position regarding the houses as 
> morally correct (if idealistic). And, returning to the books, which is 
> what interests me, this is what I see in DH. Evidence, long kept from 
> us, of the *correctness* of the view that Slytherin, too, has much we 
> can value, through showing us more about the usual Slytherin suspects 
> and revealing their strenghts along with the flaws that have been 
> showcased all along.
> 

Prep0strus:
I'm curious (and not even in a sarcastic way) of what you think
Slytherin 'strengths' are.  Because my impression that if a Slytherin
acts in a way that is good, it is because he is showing traits of
another house.  Slughorn's bravery at the end of DH.  Snape's bravery
throughout.  Draco's (and Regalus with Kreacher) loyalty to his family
could be considered a Hufflepuffian trait.  I still roll my eyes at
the idea of 'cunning' even being a trait, because it's just a word for
clever that contains a negative connotation so JKR can heap on the
nasty insinuations, and Ravenclaw is already 'clever' with 'wit', so I
don't really see what the Slytherins are getting.  And, really, I
don't see that 'cunning' in action all that much.  I guess Snape being
able to keep his secret from Voldmort must have taken some cunning. 
But really, I don't see where being pureblooded or having unchecked
ambition - the traits really associated with Slytherin - came across
as a strength anywhere in the books.

zgirnius:
> Pureblood supremacy was championed by Salazar Slytherin, and more 
> recently by Tom Riddle and his followers. It is not, however, a 
> selection criterion for Slytherin House, unless the Hat has 
> consistently forgotten to mention this fact in all its songs. 
It is 
> just an idea with some support in wizarding society broadly, which has 
> historically received more support and emphasis in that house. 

Prep0strus:
The final song contains the phrases:

Said Slytherin, "We'll teach just those
Whose ancestry is purest."

and

For instance, Slytherin
Took only pure-blood wizards
Of great cunning, just like him,

It is, in fact, THE selection criteria, as this song is the one that
most specifically talks about how selection was done, just as
Griffindor takes those with brave deeds to their name, Ravenclaw takes
those with the sharpest mind, and Hufflepuff takes the ignominious
'rest'.  It's clear the hat doesn't always precisely follow these
guidelines, having taken Snape and Riddle into Slytherin (not to
mention Peter into Griffindor), but they are clear criteria set forth
by the song.


zgirnius:
Looking 
> down on all members of the house is not the same as repudiating the 
> pureblood ideology, any more than looking down on white Southerners in 
> the US would have been a repudiation of racism after the Civil War.
>

Prep0strus:
But it's the difference between the real world and a fake world.  We
KNOW in the real world there are more shades, more layers, more
complexities - we know there are good and bad people in varying
mixtures.  I think the Harry Potter world is less easy to define as
indefinable, if that makes any sense at all.  It is possible for an
author to create a world in which a group of people truly are bad in
every single way, and though this could not happen in the real world,
in the book, it would be so.  For six books I thought the Harry Potter
world was more complex, that there was more to Slytherin and the world
as a whole.  But after DH, with all the canon in, JKR has not given
examples of good, nice, admirable Slytherins.  She has not shown a
world in which evil is balanced between people, but one in which it is
heavily tilted in one direction.  Which is why I felt she had simply
loaded onto Slytherin all the traits she finds most reprehensible.

It's harder to make that argument with the words you've quoted in
which she says there is more to them.  It baffles me, because if
that's how she felt, why didn't she write a hat song that described
traits she might actually display as positive?  Why didn't she have
characters who could be more than just 'good', but actually kind or
likable?  Slytherin still comes off as the house of prejudice, the
house with a proclivity for evil, and the house of general
unpleasantness.  And it was entirely her choice not to give us any
more than that.  I love the idea of Shacklebolt being Slytherin, or
Madame Pince.  Or all the possibilities that came with Dumbledore's
support of all houses and the hat suggesting unity.  But it wasn't shown.

It's an argument that goes in circles - we each see what we see, I
guess.  And then, we make our own judgments on it - there are people
who agree with me on what JKR put forth, and then have an entirely
different analysis and opinion on it, and then there are people who
totally don't see what I see, but somehow manage to come to more
similar conclusions to mine.

All I can say is that, for myself, she created a world in which I
thought I would be shown there was something worthwhile about
Slytherin, and then I wasn't.  And now matter how I look at the story,
I can't see anything but an unpleasant dislike when it comes to the
ideals and people of Slytherin House.  And I don't feel sorry for
Slytherins either.  But I do, a bit, for myself and other readers. 
Because I was expecting a little more.

~Adam (Prep0strus)