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

[slytherin_jenn]

No: HPFGUIDX 177793

> 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.

Celoneth:
I don't get why cunning and ambition are bad traits. I've certainly
never seen them as such. In other great works of literature, the
cunning and ambitious characters are the ones that in the end
accomplish the most good and are the most interesting. Great
strategists have to be cunning and ambitious and through those traits
they are able to accomplish things effectively. Cleverness is not a
good form of cunning, someone may be clever but useless or use their
cleverness for bad things. I think the Lovegoods are a perfect
example, they are clever, they take time to learn all they can and
pursue their lifelong dreams of discovering something that no one
believes in - not a bad thing, but doesn't really help anyone that
much. I don't see loyalty as a Hufflepuff trait - Slytherins seem to
be just as loyal as all the others (except for Ravenclaws who don't
seem very loyal at all). Slughorn's decision, imo, to stay at the end
I don't really see as bravery but choosing the path that will lead to
most benefit, as was Snape's decision - he chose to risk his life day
after day, because to him avenging Lily, redeeming himself and getting
revenge on Voldemort was a something worth pursuing. I see it as a
sort of reasoned bravery/reasoned loyalty, in comparision to the
reckless bravery/unquestioning loyalty of Gryffindors which, as we see
with the Marauders, leads to disaster. 

Unchecked ambition doesn't lead to anything good, neither does
unchecked bravery. I think too much of any trait is potentially bad
and we see that in the books. But ambition is not a bad thing - one
can have ambition to do good as well as bad. I agree that there aren't
as many examples of cunning behaviour as I'd have liked - apart from
Snape and Dumbledore, but the book is written from a Gryffindor
perspective (Harry and Dumbledore's mostly) and because of this we see
an emphasis on bravery where other traits would apply just as well.
The pureblood thing I think has become historically inapplicable as we
see half-bloods in Slytherin house. I see Slytherin as a very paranoid
man - with a lot of mistrust of muggles that I think might have been
historically appropriate(although he did go way overboard) with the
strength of the medieval theocracy and with it a labeling of magic as
evil and the active persecution of anything resembling magic - of
course this over time evolves into a bigoted view of muggleborns but
not confined to Slytherin house alone.
 
> 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.  

I think much JRK's appeal is that she creates a real world in the HP
universe. All the characters are flawed - no one (barring
Voldemort/Bellatrix/Dobbt) is completely good or bad. We see plenty of
bad thing done all around - not confined to Slytherin house, we see
plenty of nasty things done by Gryffindors/Slytherins/Hufflepuffs. The
Ministry does as much evil as the Death Eaters. The lack of a good
Slytherin that's Harry's age is regrettable, but again I believe that
the book is written from a Gryffindor perspective, that has a
historical rivalry with Slytherin. And its not like we see many
Ravenclaws/Hufflepuffs/Gryffindors outside of Harry's perspective. 

I think its interesting also that the emphasis on house division seems
to disappear once characters become adults. We see very few adult
characters that reference their house apart from Harry's family, heads
of houses and Voldemort who is obsessed with being Slytherin's heir.
We don't know what houses Kingsley or Umbridge or Fudge or most other
adult characters were in - nor can we figure it out by their
behaviour. We don't even know what house most DEs were in apart from
those that went to school with Snape. Adult characters don't put much
emphasis on their house divisions either, some have their preferences
but it seems to be just wanting their kid to be in their alma mater.
So as divisive as Hogwarts is, I think it goes away as kids become
adults and realise that there's more to life than what house you're
sorted in.
Celoneth