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

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 177826

> 
> 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. 

Prep0strus:
The Buckbeak issue was discussed quit a bit a few weeks ago, so I
shouldn't get into it all again, but in real life there are dangerous
classes - woodshop, to name just one.  And the wizarding world is
notoriously more dangerous.  If Draco could a)listen to instructions
and b)not act like a jerk to every living creature, he would have been
fine. Everyone else liked the class, and the hippogriffs.  Draco FAKED
being still hurt to get others to do work for him, as well as
pretending the hippogriff attack was unwarranted, while we know that
based on the magical rules that apply, he caused it himself.  And he
was willing to let an innocent animal die for that.  That is ambition.
 I think Alla addressed your next point more than well enough - Draco
was enthused to join up with Voldemort.  Turns out he didn't have the
stomach for it, but he certainly made a good go at it.

Celoneth:
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. 

Prep0strus:
I find Slughorn so gross. Maybe it's because I was expecting him to be
a likable Slytherin.  He picks out not just those who are talent, but
have contacts.  And he gives them special treatment, and they get to
go to special parties and have special food and kids who don't make
the grade are very pointedly rejected.  This is how he treats
children.  He's a selfish, pathetic, gross figure, and I think the
story treats him with disdain.


> 
> Celoneth: 
> The characters are not one trait to the exclusion of all else. 

Prep0strus:

Of course not.  I readily admitted the good guys have faults and the
bad guys have good traits.  But, viewing the characters broadly, we
can see the ones that are portrayed in a positive light, though they
have negative traits, and the ones portrayed in a negative light,
though they may have positive traits.

Snape, while fighting for good, is exceedingly unpleasant.  He's
bitter and lonely and treats children terribly.  JKR even manages to
make his physical appearance unpleasant.  He is without question one
of the 'good' guys. But he is not likable or pleasant in any way. 
Whereas Harry, while flawed in many, many ways, is still (to most of
us) a likable, good person, who appears to try to be nice and kind. 
And, even if some DON'T like Harry, I think it's obvious we are
supposed to like Harry.



Celoneth:

> 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.

Prep0strus:
I do.  I feel that between the hat and the characters, that Slytherin
has been a dumping ground for all that's bad.  As much as there are
flaws in the good characters, all the real evil that is done is done
by Slytherins, aside from Peter's betrayal (which really seems like
weakness akin to Draco, so if one were to defend Draco, I think Peter
would be equally defensible).  Why couldn't a Death Eater have been
noted as anything other than Slytherin?  We obviously disagree on the
hat attributes, but it seems fairly obvious what JKR thinks of the
Slytherin brand of ambition to me.  And repeatedly noting their
pureblood agenda isn't exactly a way to make them sympathetic.  The
other houses have a mixture of good and bad, ultimately resulting in
mostly good, with a cast of good, flawed characters.  Slytherin's
primary ideals are to look out for number 1 and that purebloods are
superior to others.  They're associated with 'dark' magic and
antisocial personalities.  There is really no evidence presented that
moves me in such a way to feel that the world is remotely neutral.  In
a fictional universe, without an example of something, I don't know
why I should assume one exists.  JKR took every opportunity she could
to show Slytheirn in a bad light - we even got some historical
nastiness in DH with the Baron killing the Grey Lady.  Endless
examples of Slytherin cruelty exist, and so, yes, I need an actual
textual presence for me to think that the house is actually neutral,
that the world is actually neutral.  Simply because the real world is
does not mean that the books are.  Because that example does NOT
exist. It's a created world - if it's not there, it's not there.  I
don't know that the world is black and white... but it's certainly
very dark grey and slightly-offwhite.  Let's call it charcoal and
eggshell.

~Adam (Prep0strus)