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

[slytherin_jenn]

No: HPFGUIDX 177824


> 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:
Why is Draco willing to sacrifice Buckbeak an example of extreme
ambition? or Draco willing to kill? With Buckbeak, certainly Hagrid
was at fault more than Draco by bringing a dangerous creature to
immature 13 year old. As for trying to get the hippogriff killed, it
was something that most of the school probably favoured or didn't care
about. Hagrid was a horrible teacher, something even Harry admits -
having him sacked as a teacher and returned to caretaker would have
benefitted the school imo. As for Draco willing to kill - he was
acting under duress - if he didn't comply he and possibly his entire
family would have died - had this been real life and he succeeded, he
would have been found not culpable under the law. Slughorn has a
talent for picking out able students - how is this bad? He doesn't
refuse to teach  all the other students, he doesn't mistreat them -
but he gives extra attention to those who have the potential to
succeed. The fact that he can pick out those that are talented is good
strategy and benefits them as much as himself. Most people act in
their own interest, I don't consider it a moral fault, its human and
its smart. And how is Percy's ambition any worse? He rejects his
family, would be willing to see them go to Azkaban, willing to see his
friends and siblings expelled - all for what? Being Fudge's lapdog?
Intelligence? I've already given an example with Xenophilius Lovegood
of how someone who takes the pursuit of knowledge to a negative
extreme. Loyalty? What about James Potter - who, having the knowledge
that one of the Marauders was the traitor was willing to make one of
them the secret keeper. Loyalty without reason is as bad as
recklessness. Hard work is morally neutral - a person can work hard
for good things, neutral things or bad things. Similarly a person can
have great ambition to take over the world or to save the world, but
most ambition is somewhere in between.


> 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.

Obviously this is something that I can't convince you on. Words do
have connotations but they are often ambigious or neutral. Cunning can
be good or can be bad - a thief can be cunning, as can the policeman
that catches the thief. A quality that is different from wit or
knowledge - someone can be smart and devoted to studying but not know
how to apply it, a cunning person does and does it at least cost. And
like I said before, chivalry was justification for sexism and
oppression in many places, it has a historical connotation that those
with privilege have used to subdue those without  (i.e. we're so nice
and generous and courteous to you that you don't need the right to
property or voting etc.). I don't see why you so readily dismiss the
positive connotations of "cunning" and so blindly accept chivalry as
unbridled good. The HP equivalent that comes to my mind is young
Dumbledore - wanting to conquer the non-wizarding world for the
greater good - thinking the muggles should be thankful to him since
he's so much better than they are.

> 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

Celoneth: 
The characters are not one trait to the exclusion of all else. Harry
is brave, but he's also hardworking, he's cunning and ambitious at
times, occassionally clever. Hermione certainly values knowledge. The
fact that the characters are not just one thing is what makes them
interesting and not two-dimensional. What you see as positive or
negative characterisations, I often see as neutral or mixed, for example:
Snape - does some bad things, is mean, but also works for the majority
of his life for the pursuit of good, risks his life more than any
other member of the Order voluntarily. Like real people, he's neither
good or bad.
Harry - does mostly good things, except when he gets angry or reckless
in which case he often does bad things or makes stupid choices that
sometimes lead to disaster. 
Dumbledore - always purports to the "greater good," which in his early
years potentially could have led to mass genocide/war/etc. (in which
case I wonder if he wouldn't have had a lot of Gryffindor support).
Scheming, manipulative, ambitious (although he's smart enough to keep
this in check in his later years). And he's a brilliant strategist,
w/o whom Voldemort might have won. Its not his chivalry or his bravery
that leads to Voldemort's downfall, its his cunning and wisdom. In
fact looking at older Dumbledore - one could say he was sorted too soon.

There are plenty of examples of the other houses being described
negatively. Gryffindor has Seamus, the girl who tried slipping love
potion to Harry - nearly getting Ron killed, Sirius, James, Peter,
Lavander + Pavrati - not brave, mostly ditzy, Ron, Hermione, Harry all
not portrait positively in instances. Ravenclaw has Marietta,
Xenophilius, Cho. Hufflepuff is mostly ignored in the books, one of
the books says they have very few accomplishments - not a positive
thing. I don't think most of them are good or bad - I see them as
neutral characters that do good/bad/neutral things depending on the
situation. Same w/ Slytherins - Slughorn is neutral as far as I'm
concerned. Snape certainly has a lot of good associated with him.
Draco, at the end, is neither bad nor good, as are his parents. Most
of the others you list are Death Eaters, and the quidditch team. Some
sports teams have a reputation for aggressiveness, some don't. Death
Eaters pursue bad things, but we don't know all the DEs, there's
certainly nothing in canon to say that all DEs are Slytherins. 

I'm not looking for the good Slytherin, I don't need to be shown one
to conclude that Slytherin isn't a dumping ground for all that's bad.
In the books, there's some good, some bad, a lot of neutral. Most
Slytherins are neutral as are the other houses. Snape doesn't need to
be pleasant - in fact if he was, he'd probably be killed quickly or
lose his status as spy. & then we have the adults, who are ambigious.
If JKR hadn't said Tonks was in Hufflepuff - I doubt you'd put her
there. The characters are complex, the plot is complex, its too
simplistic to just write off Slytherin as bad, all the other houses as
good because we see the characters grow up - as much as they might
have bought into their house affiliation early on, we see them act
differently. 
I think JKR tried to present a neutral world, where characters do good
or bad things. Some to an extreme but most in the middle or a mix of
both. I don't think she was completely successful, but I don't see a
black/white, good/evil world in the HPverse.
Celoneth