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

[slytherin_jenn]

No: HPFGUIDX 177829

> 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:
Yes, there are dangerous classes but Hagrid's classes was more
dangerous than most (and we see that Care of Magical Creatures isn't
inherently dangerous by the other teacher). Even Harry admits deep
down that Hagrid sucks as a teacher - a teacher should know the
maturity of their students and whether they can handle a task. 13 year
olds aren't mature, Draco certainly wasn't - its one thing for a
woodshop teacher to guide students through a project, quite another to
give them a chainsaw on the first day, a bit of instruction and tell
them to go to work. & no, everyone didn't like the class - almost
everyone disliked the vast majority of Hagrid's classes. Yes, Draco
made his injury worse than it was, and took advantage of it - but that's more of an immature and spoiled 13 year old more than anything
else. And yes Draco liked the idea of joining Voldemort in theory, once he found out what it entailed he wanted to back out but there's no way that he could, he didn't want to murder and torture but what could he have done - said no - and died? What good would that do?

> 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:
Yes, he picks out those with talent, he gives them rewards for having
talent - there's nothing wrong with that. If you have exceptional
students in your class, for your, their and the world's interest you
want to encourage them. He never mistreats the students he doesn't
pick, he never insults them, he's a good, teacher. He's not pathetic -
he's interested in living a good, comfortable life and he's achieved
that (until Voldemort returned to human form) - what's wrong with
that? What's wrong with acting in your self-interest?

> 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:
What you see as positive light, I again see as neutral. I see very few
good/bad characters in the book.

Snape is unpleasant - not all people are pleasant, McGonagall isn't
likeable or pleasant either, nor is Mad-Eye. Fudge, if you're on his
good side, was probably a pleasant person to be around. Snape,
however, out of all the characters in the entire book voluntarily
undertakes the greatest risk. In the end, his means are justified and
redeemed. Not to mention that a lot of the constant references to
Snape being unpleasant were red herrings to make us question what side
he was serving until the end. Harry's the hero, of course he's
likeable. A lot of the people around Harry are, however, either
likeable but very flawed or unlikeable and w/o flaws or somewhere in
between.

> 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.

Celoneth:
Maybe we're just looking at different things. While you see what's
negative with Slytherin ambition - I see very clearly what's negative
with Gryffindor recklessness, and the other houses. We get plenty of
examples of the flaws of other houses. And it's only natural that
Slytherins would be attracted to the "heir of Slytherin," with the
Slytherin agenda as his number one goal. Had Dumbledore gone through
with his plans as a youth, I think he'd have a lot of Gryffindor
support for the same sort of evil acts just dressed up in different
language. Characters are capable of good, they're capable of evil we
see that with most of them - including with Slytherins - that's why
I'd characterise them as neutral. I guess this is something we'll have
to agree to disagree on because clearly I'm not going to change your
opinion, nor will you change mine.

Celoneth