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

[slytherin_jenn]

No: HPFGUIDX 177813

> Prep0strus:
> But unchecked is the kind of ambition Slytherins have ...
> 
> '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: 
We see unchecked bravery (i.e.) recklessness as well), but for the
most part we see all the house traits in moderation in actual
characters. All the characters that are featured all have traits from
other houses (otherwise they'd be two-dimensional cartoon characters).
I doubt that the vast majority of Slytherins would use "any means,"
just like most Gryffindors are as brave and chivalrous as the sorting
hat describes (take Seamus and Lavander Brown). Maybe to you ambition
and cunning denotes something bad. Deception isn't always bad. In
strategy, deception can mean the difference between victory and
disaster. Bravery, without cunning and ambition often leads to loss
because no matter how brave you are, if your opponent can outwit you,
you'll probably lose. Bravery and hard work are celebrated in
literature(hence they are celebrated), but in real life they would be
worthless without cunning and ambition. Like I posted earlier, there
are downsides to every house if someone takes the traits of their
house to the extreme - and we see examples of these in the books
(often regardless of what house the character is). 

Chivalry does not = goodness. Chivalrous people can act to pursue what
they think is good, regardless of whether it is of actual benefit to
society. Also chivalry has for centuries been justification for sexism
and oppression.

> 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:
We don't know the good things done by Slytherins or Gryffindors or
Hufflepuffs or Ravenclaws for the most part. That's because in the
adult WW - house affiliation seems to not matter much (apart from
parents rooting for the kids to be in their house - not very different
as parents rooting for their kids to attend the same college they
attended in real life). We see many times in the books that Harry's
pov is flawed, why can't it continue to be flawed at the end of the
series - if he's imperfect at 11 or 17, why does he have to be perfect
at 38? 

> 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.

Celoneth: 
But you're missing my point - we don't know what house affiliation
most adults are in the WW - if it mattered so much then you'd think
that house affiliation would be something widely announced or hidden
depending on the house. If Slytherin = evil then why don't we see
hiring depending on house. Why don't we see adults refer to what house
other adults are in. We don't see the house affiliations because they
don't matter much, nor do they translate into the kind of adults the
kids become. I'm not going to assume what house any adults are in
unless its stated in canon - because it really would be random. I
could put Kingsley in any house, including Slytherin (you have to be
cunning to be a good of an auror as he is). Umbridge has a lot of
Slytherin traits but it doesn't put her in Slytherin automatically -
Molly & Arthur have very few Gryffindor traits but they're still
Gryffindor graduates. Percy also would make for a perfect Slytherin,
ambitious to the point of harming his family, but yet he's a
Gryffindor. Crouch Sr. who was as evil as most DEs would probably fit
well into Slytherin - but that is not ever raised as an issue. 

If house differences translate so purely and mean so much then the
characters behaviour should reflect it. For the most part we don't see
that. Most characters display a mix of house qualities, since most
people have a mix of house qualities. Apart from the trio, most
Gryffindors aren't very brave either. The house traits may be more
prevalent in the people in those houses, but it doesn't really show in
most characters - they're a mix of values and traits and ambitions as
are people in real life - to do otherwise would be to make some very
boring and stereotypical characters. Which is why I can't buy that JKR
created Slytherin to represent all which is bad in society. We see bad
and good behaviour from all sides, and realistically we see a lot of
morally neutral behaviour most of the time. The vast majority of
people are both bad and good but mostly neutral - I think the books
reflect that.
Celoneth