Slughorn, slytherins etc.
Mike
mcrudele78 at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 9 02:29:06 UTC 2007
No: HPFGUIDX 177847
> Irene:
> >
> > It's not that I love him that much, it's just seems to me that he
> > is as good as Slytherins can get, and if the author positions
> > even him as a bad character, then what hope for the rest of them?
Mike:
I don't really "love" Sluggy either. I like him as a character, in
the way Katie said she liked him, I suppose. He is cartoonish right
up until those final scenes in both HBP and DH. I have no doubt I
would find him annoying in real life, so I guess it's a good thing
I'm not a wizard having to spend time in his company. Then again, I
think I'd find Harry annoying in real life too. But I care about
Harry as a character and like Slughorn as a character. Snape... not
so much, though I did find him an interesting character.
> Prep0strus:
>
> What I dislike about him is not his lack of Gryffindor qualities,
> but the presence of Slytherin qualities. His selfishness, his
> greed. His self image is what matters to him. His club is a way
> for him to take anyone who he thinks can do anything for him and
> suck up to them.
Mike:
Because the Flitwick Flyers, the Sprout Farmers, and Minerva's
Minnions were so much better clubs to be in. Oh wait, those other
HoH's don't have clubs. So Slughorn spends personal time trying to
help the advancement of a select few students.
And Sluggy's club is a two-way street, because he does bring his
present club members to the attention of his former members, or puts
in a good word to the right ear. But that's bad because he doesn't
include every student?!
As Irene asked, what's wrong with that? What's wrong with kick
starting the career of a perceived high flyer? Because he didn't
think much of Arthur Weasley? It seems Molly didn't think much of
Arthur for much of the series!
> Prep0strus:
> It's about what they, or people they know, can do for Slughorn.
> <snip>
> It's his own little universe, and if you don't fit in, you're out.
Mike:
So we should condemn Slughorn for giving a select few *extra*
attention because he wants to? Not everybody can change the course of
the entire WW by force of their actions, like Harry. The vast
majority exist in their own little universe. And Sluggy has as much
right as any of them to have an extra-curricular group of people that
he wishes to help and in turn be helped by.
The *only* person I'm aware of that McGonnagall took an interest in,
re career advancement, was Harry and his quest for Aurorship. What
did she do for him? What did she do for Ron? Neville? Seamus, Dean,
Parvati, etc.? So why should I look down on Slughorn for helping a
select few because he expects to receive something in return,
sometimes nothing more than self-satisfaction? It seems to be a
helluva lot more than the other teachers care to do.
BTW, with regards to Slughorn's teaching style; we haven't been shown
*any* other teacher style. They all seem to do the same thing. At
least Sluggy had something a little different for his first class.
Where were the other teachers' innovative styles? (Except for
Firenze. Firenze's classes are just cool) ;)
> Prep0strus:
> Social cliques are hard enough when they are orchestrated by the
> kids themselves - a professor should not be encouraging that,
> especially not for his own benefit.
Mike:
The social cliques in this school seem to be based almost entirely
upon House affiliation. The Slug Club seems to cut across those
boundaries. And I think it's for mutual benefit.
> Prep0strus:
> Who wants to be the kid that isn't passed the candy?
> Who isn't given the invitation? Who is obviously not
> deemed worthy of the cool kids club?
Mike:
Get rid of Quidditch then, not everyone gets to participate. In fact,
get rid of the House system, not everyone gets to be in Gryffindor.
Hell, get rid of Hogwarts, we can't have a school for a select few
kids in the British Isles just because they have a talent that kids
like Petunia don't.
I don't believe in universal access to private, social groups.
Especially when that social group is not based on anything bigoted.
And I don't see Slughorn picking his club members for bigoted reasons.
> Prep0strus:
> It is Slytherin, without the evil - no murder, no genocide.
> Just soft bigotry, exclusion, and slimy back-door ambition.
> Slughorn is kind of a delicious character, but if he's as good
> as Slytherin can get, then Slytherin is certainly the gutter.
Mike:
And this is the big disagreement. Because, as stated above, Slughorn
includes all Houses, Muggleborns and pure-bloods, boys and girls.
Which group is he excluding? Where is the bigotry?
I don't have to want to spend personal time with a character to like
that character. I like Hermione, but I would no doubt find her as
annoying as Ron found her in PS/SS. More so in the later books,
unlike Ron. ;) Slughorn may have his prejudices, but it seems we can
find prejudices or soft bigotry at a minimum in almost every
character in the Potterverse. So Slughorn doesn't stand out on that
account.
I think Slughorn is that "good Slytherin", not that I care whether
there is a "good Slytherin" or not. It doesn't change my perception
of Slytherin House. OTOH, I also believe that with the last of the
Slytherin heirs cashed out, the House has the chance to move up in
the world. But you and Magpie are right, it didn't happen in this
series.
Mike
More information about the HPforGrownups
archive