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

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 177797


> zgirnius:
> Purebloodedness is not a strength. Though arguably the family 
> loyalty  some pureblood Slytherins exhibit to their pure families is 
> distinct from Hufflepuff loyalty. Ambition I agree is not shown in a 
> positive light in the series, at least not in any of the Slytherin 
> characters. I think some of the Gryffs may have it and direct it 
> positively, though. (Hermione, SPEW, and her career in Magical Law, 
> for example).
> 
>  

Prep0strus:
But this was my question.  You said DH revealed Slytherin strengths.
And if pureblooded isn't a strength, and if ambition wasn't shown as a
strength, that leaves only cunning.  And the only Slytherin character
to have potentially shown cunning (which, I still believe carries a
negative connotation along with its strict dictionary denotation,
especially as several of the dictionary definitions I perused
associated it with 'deceipt') is Snape.  And Snape, as praised by
Dumbledore (and through him, possibly JKR), is suggested to that
perhaps he was sorted too soon.  That his good qualities made him a
candidate for a better house than Slytherin, which in turn implies
again that his strengths are not 'Slytherin strengths'.

Random832
The statements many of us have latched onto - which, i can't find right
now - are those of her being "shocked" that people in RL identify with
Slytherin as the house they would be in / want to be in.
--

Prep0strus:
And I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, however the true quote
comes out.  Weeks ago I posted all the relevant quotes from Sorting
Hat songs that affected me.  There's many many fluctuating posts on
Slytherin, Slytyherin characters, Slytherin ideals.  I can't imagine
wanting to identify with the house because while the hat describes the
other houses in a positive or neutral manner, Slytherin is described
negatively.  When other houses have a preponderance of good, likable
characters, Slytherin has an overwhelming majority of evil, nasty
characters.  And even the characters shown best are not shown
positively.  Snape, while brave and good, is also mean, bitter, petty,
cruel, and emotionally stunted.  Slughorn while never having become
evil, is cowardly, sycophantic, gluttonous, and discriminatory. Etc. 
It is the house where bigotry and hate seem most ingrained and
accepted.  When every character she shows is shown in a negative
light, I don't know why anyone would want to associate themselves with
that house.  I have a difficult time identifying myself with any of
the houses, but so negative are the associations with Slytherin, I
know it's not that.

Pippin:
Perhaps she wants to show us that when you're getting your
information through distorted media, being a liberal
requires as much faith as any religion that asks you to believe
in the invisible. When the reporter is biased, the media will
reflect that. If you only knew about black people from the
newspapers I read in my youth, you would think they only
existed to cause trouble -- which is much the impression
Harry and the narrator give you of Slytherin House.


Harry doesn't *notice* the Slytherins when they're being good,
and it suits JKR's purpose not to contradict that impression
except in subtle ways, like having some Slytherins stand to
honor Harry, or coo over the baby unicorns. Theodore Nott
never does anything obnoxious, and so from Harry's pov
he barely exists.

Prep0strus:
That's an interesting theory.  I, for one, do not believe the books
are that deep.  If that were the case, I would think that by the end
of the series Harry's pov would have adjusted enough for us to see
past his filter and understand the truth of the world.  For her not to
do that makes this an attempt at a much more cryptic piece of
literature, and I just don't believe it's there.  By the same token,
it's why I disagree with those that feel what she has created is a
terrible world in which Slytherins are biased against and Griffindors
are terrible and all that, because I still don't think the books are
that deep.  I think, in the end, the books are much more on a level
for children than I had expected early on.  I think it is good vs.
bad.  I think the way so much is 'unfair' for Harry is a very
childlike conceit, but true for the book.  I think what we see is what
we get, and having to invent things we haven't seen, and pretend they
must be something else just isn't warranted.  I have to go by what I
was presented.  If there was more, it should have been presented in
some form.

Besides, it's not all from Harry. The hat songs are verbatim, and I
think it's very clear in the songs that one house is associated with
negativity while the others aren't.  And we're not missing any of it,
like we could, theoretically have simply 'missed hearing about' all
the non-Slytherin DEs and Slytherin Order members, and really sweet
nice people from Slytherin.

Celoneth:
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. 

Prep0strus:
But unchecked is the kind of ambition Slytherins have - 

Or perhaps in Slytherin
You'll make your real friends,
Those cunning folk use any means
To achieve their ends.

'Use any means.'  It's not, 'try their best' or 'work the hardest'
That phrase has stuck with me.  Especially when it's exactly what we
see of Slytherins.  Cheat, steal, kill - a Slytherin will do what he
has to do to get what he wants.

But the other traits are no more helpful in making the house equal. 
Cunning does not have to be bad, but it is associated with deceit, and
 I believe it has a negative connotation.  Compared to Ravenclaw -
wit, learning, cleverest, intelligence is surest...  Slytherin always
only gets 'cunning'. People have come up with some great synonyms for
cunning and say, look, Slytherins could be this, too!  But JKR never
chose another word, even though Ravenclaws get the full spectrum of
intelligence in their songs.  So Slytherins get cunning, ambition
associated with 'power-hungry Slytherin', and finally purebloodedness,
which is not only not a strength, but is associated with the bigotry
and hate described through all seven books.

I don't think those compare to the list of adjectives Ravenclaw has -
which could certainly be used for good or evil, but are generally
positive traits to hold.  Or to Hufflepuff, which, while being 'the
rest' isn't so great, I would say 'hard working', 'just', and 'loyal'
are all quite positive traits.  Finally, Griffindors has the
'bravest', 'boldest', ones with 'brave deeds to their name', as well
as 'daring', 'nerve', and 'chivalry'. And while bravery does not
always have to be positive, I believe it, as opposed to cunning,
carries a positive connotation.  And chivalry surely also connotes
goodness. 

Celoneth:
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:
It is confusing how Riddle and Snape got into the house, but the hat
continues to sing about it in the song, and the members of the house
continue to consider purity of blood a positive thing and mixed blood
a negative thing.  It's still a part of Slytherin identity, despite
their failure to live up to their own standard.  Besides, some must
slip into every house - I see no courage in Peter.  It doesn't change
what the house represents.

Celoneth: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.

Prep0strus:
The problem is, we don't see many good things done by Slytherins. 
And, even when we do, those Slytherins are not likable people.  Yes,
it is through Harry's perspective, as many have said, but I believe
that argument becomes weaker when the series has completed.  If the
point was that Harry's pov is flawed, shouldn't we, or he, learn that
at some point, and with more than just realizing Snape is good? 'Cause
I thought he was good anyway, but he still wasn't nice or kind or
likable.  It's not a lack of a good Slytherin that's Harry's age -
it's a lack of a not-unpleasant Slytherin of ANY age that's the problem.

Celoneth:
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.

Prep0strus:
Again, I guess I just disagree.  The adult Slytherins we see are just
as unpleasant as any kid Slytherins.  If JKR wanted us to see that the
differences don't matter as adults, then we would have heard the
previous house affiliations of the people you mentioned, and others. 
Fudge could have been a not-brave Griffindor, Umbridge a not-just
Hufflepuff, Kingsley, a noble Slytherin.  But we didn't get those, and
based on what we were shown, I have to assume Umbridge is Slytherin,
Kingsley is Griffindor, and Fudge is... well, Fudge is pathetic.  I
have no idea what Fudge is.  I'd never use those examples in an
argument, because we don't know, of course, but I think if we DID
know, the world would be clearer.

I don't think we can assume that many unnamed Slytherins out there are
great people, when we were never shown one who is.  That's the leap I
refuse to make.  It's a work of fiction.  The world is how it is
presented, and in order to make that kind of assumption, I want to be
shown in some fashion that it is likely.  She had every opportunity to
 show Slytherins as more than simply selfish and unpleasant, and she
took every opportunity to show, that no, they are all pretty much
unlikable.  They may not all be evil, but they're all still shown
negatively.  And that has way more effect on me than the idea that,
yeah, well, probably there are some nice ones out there.  Which is why
I feel the real world is different from this created world.

~Adam (Prep0strus)