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

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 177816


> 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). 
> 

Prep0strus:
Except it's what is actually stated by the hat - 'will use any means'.
 The hat doesn't say, 'dangerously reckless'.  There's the difference.
 And the Slytherin ambition we see is Riddle - leading to genocide. 
It is Draco, willing to try to kill to get in good with Voldemort,
willing to sacrifice the life of Buckbeak for special treatment.  It
is Slughorn sucking up to some kids while dismissing and alienating
others who can't do anything from him.  It is not the ambition of the
twins or even Percy.  It is a different animal altogether.  And not
all the traits are bad taken to their extreme - intelligence isn't,
nor hard work, or loyalty.  These things can be used for things that
are wrong, but are not in themselves negative, even at their extremes.

Celoneth:
> 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:
People like definitions, so, chivalry: 1. the sum of the ideal
qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and
dexterity in arms.

You're right, anything can be negative.  But in writing the songs, JKR
used words that don't just have straight definitions, but also
connotations.  The implied meaning of words often has as much impact
as its dictionary definition.  Chivalry, especially in a fantasy
setting, surely has a good connotation.  Cunning is a word more often
associated with villains and tricksters.  It is not that it cannot be
used otherwise, but there are normal associations with the word.


> 
> 
> 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:
Because it's literature.  Because it's fiction, and was created by
someone.  Assuming his point of view is flawed for the entire series,
and we are never shown the truth implies a much deeper work than I
believe we have in front of us.  I don't think this is 'Cather in the
Rye', where everything has that filter.  Besides, not everything even
has a Harry filter.  There are scenes that do not have Harry, and
there are some undeniable facts, whether Harry sees them or not.  And
the author makes a choice of what to show us.  If she never shows us
certain things, I'm not going to assume that they're there, but there
are all these extra layers in the writing blocking me from the truth.
 It would not have been a difficult thing for her to show us some of
that world, even through the Harry filter, or around it.  She did not,
and so I do not believe that interpretation.


> 
> 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. <snip>
 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.


Prep0strus:
I don't think there is a mix of values and traits as in real life.  If
that were the case, we would have seen a Slytherin who was not
completely unpleasant.  They are not neutral either.  They are
directly associated with a negative form of ambition, as shown in the
song, and in the characterization.  They are directly associated with
a bigoted blood prejudice, as shown in the song, the characterization,
and really the entire plotline.  And she gives no traits to Slytherin
that are shown as positive. (Regardless of whether an argument can be
made that they COULD be positive.)

Looking at characters, we have Hufflepuff:

Positive characterizations:
Prof. Sprout, Tonks(found this on a HP website - is this verified?),
Cedric Diggory, assorted other members of the DA, Helga Hufflepuff,
(Fat Friar? unknown, I guess, but he always seemed positive to me)

Negative characterizations:
Zacharias Smith

Ravenclaw
Positive characterizations:
Prof. Flitwick, Cho & other members of the DA, Rowena Ravenclaw (I
think the grey lady winds up being characterized a little more neutral
to me)

Negative characterizations:
Marietta. Maybe Myrtle.

Griffindor:
Positive characterizations:
Harry, his parents, All Weaseleys (excepting perhaps Percy), Hermione,
Lee Jordan, other members of the DA, Griffindor Quidditch team,
Dumbledore, Hagrid, Sirius, Lupin, Godric Griffindor, Nearly-Headless Nick

Negative characterizations:
Peter, McLaggen

Slytherin:
Positive characterizations:
*cricket*    *cricket*

Negative characterizations:
All Blacks other than Sirius, Slughorn, The Bloody Baron, Salazar
Slytherin, Avery, 2 Lestranges, Rosier, all Malfoys, Crabbes, and
Goyles, Avery, Mulciber, Marcus Flint and the Slytherin Quidditch
team, other Slytherins at Hogwarts, especially in Harry's year, Tom
Riddle, Severus Snape


Look, I'm sure people can disagree on certain specifics.  No matter
how bitter, caustic, nasty, and unpleasant, there are those who think
that Snape was characterized positively.  And after DH, I think there
are people who can't believe I didn't characterize Dumbledore
negatively.  And the good characters certainly have flaws and are a
mixture of traits.

But overall, I think this is how she wanted us to see these
characters, the ones I could think of or find (and I'm sure I'm
missing some because I don't think the place I was looking was totally
updated with DH) that were put in a house for us.  And by negative or
positive, I don't mean good or evil.  It's clear not everyone I said
was negatively characterized was 'evil'.  But they're still unpleasant
and I believe meant to be viewed mostly negatively, especially on a
personal level.

And the fact that we do know all those Death Eaters to be Slytherin
means something, as does the fact that there isn't a positively
characterized Slytherin to be found anywhere.

In the real world, I would accept that there is more than what I have
seen.  In a work of fiction, I have to process everything I have been
shown and make a judgment based on that.  Here, it seems we have a
deliberate attempt by an author to not present any character
associated with a particular house in a positive light.  In addition,
she shows almost every single act of evil to be performed by a stated
member of that house.  (Peter's betrayal being the only truly notable
exception.  Marietta's action probably not rising to 'evil'.)

It seems that there is a general belief that just because we weren't
shown something, doesn't mean it isn't there.  Since it's fiction, I
believe that yes, because we weren't shown it, it isn't there.

~Adam (Prep0strus)