[HPforGrownups] Re: Alchemy, the Epilogue and Slytherin (long)

[elfundeb]

No: HPFGUIDX 176595

I've packaged my responses to all the replies (by Jen, Magpie, Mike and
Julie) to my alchemy post here, including responses to the follow-on
Slytherin House thread.  I've dealt with the alchemy points first, then move
on to Slytherin; most of the Slytherin points have little to do with
alchemy, but I've kept them together for simplicity's sake.

Jen:
I'm
curious, do you think there's any alchemical meaning to Voldemort
talking about the cutting away of the diseased parts of the family
trees so that only 'true blood' remains? It reminds me now of the
reverse process of purification happening in certain families,
because the refusal to allow new blood into the families is why the
Gaunts ended up as they did. So he's contributing to his own demise
in a way.

Debbie:
My alchemical reading is that all of the parts are valuable and that
integration is necessary for purification.  Thus, the pureblood families are
in an alchemical sense less pure (purity here meaning value, in a
lead-into-gold sense) than families that have absorbed and integrated the
Other).  So, yes, the Gaunts debased themselves through inbreeding,
contributing to their own demise by clinging to the belief that pure blood
was the only important thing, and Voldemort advocates the same thing.

Jen: Wouldn't the addition of Harry's blood change his composition
somewhat? He's given the mother love from another union that created
a philosophical orphan. It was important to the story but perhaps
not in alchemical terms.

Debbie:
The odd thing about the blood (and about the soul bit in Harry) is that
neither seems to have had any effect whatsoever on the host's
character.  Harry's quite aware of the locket, but not the soul piece he's
always had.  And the same is true of the blood.  Perhaps the resurrection
spell, which specifically required blood of the enemy, counteracted any
beneficial effect, but this is never explained.  So, from an alchemical
perspective, the blood seems not to exist.

However, it's hard for me to see it having beneficial effect under the
principles of alchemy because the blood was forcibly taken and therefore is
not a blending of differences to create a new whole.   If it had any effect,
it should have been pain; any beneficial effect would have had to have been
preceded by remorse -- because the merger of opposites would have to be
voluntary -- and we don't see that.

Magpie wrote:

>   I am the first to admit I really don't get alchemy, but I just have
> to admit here that it seems like many explanations I read about how
> the Gryffindor/Slytherin rift is healing reminds me of Harmonian
> arguments for how Harry/Hermione is canon, because even though Harry
> is going out with Ginny, Harry and Hermione's ride on Buckbeak
> symbolically indicates that they are the real couple regardless.
>

Debbie:
I'm not a shipper and if I was it would not be H/H, but I do have sympathy
for those who read the books as foreshadowing H/H, and understand the basis
for their POV.  I think the same is true of most of the other issues we've
been discussing, including the good Gryffs vs. bad Slyths dynamic.  The
books are full of ambiguities that JKR seems not to be willing to
acknowledge, and some of her comments post-DH (which I've only read when
they're quoted here, so I only have secondhand reports) harken back to her
anti-H/H comments after HBP.

However, the essence of alchemy is to merge disparate elements to create
something new and improved.  Thus, alchemy is all about unification, and it
even uses the fire/water opposites that we know JKR has assigned to
Gryffindor and Slytherin, respectively.  So if you apply the principles of
alchemy to the books, it's hard to reach any conclusion other than eventual
unity between the two houses.  I readily agree that the message is
ridiculously obscure, if it's necessary to go study alchemy to find it.

Magpie:


>   Didn't John Granger continue to push for H/Hr and Snape as a vampire
> even after HBP based on alchemy? I seem to remember many of his
> theories not holding up at all, but maybe I'm remembering wrong.
>

Debbie:
What I've read of Granger's does not support H/H (I did see a posting to
some forum with an H/H interpretation), and I haven't seen any vampire
references at all.

Magpie:


>   We do know her [Tonks'] house from interviews. She was Hufflepuff, not
> Slytherin. So JKR does not have her symbolizing a marriage of
> Gryffindor and Slytherin. (If she was supposed to do that, shouldn't
> she just be a Slytherin?) An aside, but I don't think of them as a
> quarrelling couple as I understand the term. We don't see them
> quarrel much. Lupin is reticent and Tonks chases him. Lupin quarrels
> with Harry.
>

Debbie:
I don't read interviews, nor have I ever believed anything in an interview
to be canon, but the primary point was that Tonks and Fleur have Slytherin
connections.  Whatever her house, Tonks was a member of the Black family.  I
suppose JKR thinks Slytherin is too tainted with the cancer to use actual
Slytherins for this symbolic role.


>   Magpie:
> Honestly, I think when you get this creative, you could prove Hugo
> represents just about anything.
>

Debbie:
The vast majority of names (mine for example) have absolutely no alchemical
connections; JKR has selected names that do.  Victor Hugo clearly had an
interest in alchemy, and the Viktor Krum joke (which is the kind of joke JKR
likes to play) seals the deal for me.  JKR's names are not randomly chosen,
and I don't buy the notion that JKR picked Rose and Hugo because they're
currently popular in the UK.


Magpie:

>   Nope no comfort at all--makes me more wonder why she put the stupid
> song in there at all. The unity wasn't necessary, it didn't happen,
> and if JKR didn't write it I'm not writing it in myself (at least,
> not as an add-on to canon--I can imagine whatever I want in my head.)
>

Debbie:
I never expected to see real house unity within the pages of these books,
because I thought Voldemort had tainted Slytherin House to the point where
it couldn't happen.  I reread the OOP Sorting Hat song recently and
concluded that it can be read much more ambiguously -- like a prophecy.

I do see eventual house unity as a reasonable interpretation of the
implications of the epilogue.  No, it never happens on-page, but it would be
a very boring story.  It doesn't need to be written.  The story of
integration in my community, which defied the massive resistance policy to
integrate, was not a big story because nothing happened.  The
students enrolled, and that was the end of it.  Compare the integration of
Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas, which was a major story because there
was so much resistance from the powers in control.  Likewise, "Potter Heir
Sorted Into Slytherin" or "Gryffindors and Slytherins Field Joint Team in
Inter-School Quidditch Competition" is a non-story.  If anything, the story
is "The Boy Who Lived Names Son For Dumbledore's Murderer."

Magpie:

>   I can't imagine getting much out of any story that was based on this
> kind of symbolism if it wasn't actually played out with the
> characters. It seems to me more like the school was just purified
> enough by getting rid of Slytherin in the crunch, leaving them only
> with the Slytherins who had purified themselves in Gryffindor fire.
>

Debbie:
I'm not getting your point.  This cycle concluded with getting rid of
Voldemort.  Some Slytherins helped with this, but they did it their own way,
not by undergoing some sort of Gryffindor purification.  The school was left
with all the Slytherins, whether they had purified themselves or not.

Salazar may have poisoned Slytherin, but if the taint was irreparable they
should have gotten rid of Slytherin House.  The fact that they have not says
something.  The fact that Famous Harry Potter, with a long Gryffindor
legacy, tells his son (with an equally long Gryffindor legacy through his
Weasley side) that it's fine to be a Slytherin says something, too.
 Magpie:
So they're no longer trying to kill each other. That's the happy
ending, and that's fine. I don't think it makes Slytherin not the
worst house. Thousands of pages tell me this and there's nothing that
overhauls the house that I can see. You feel that kiilling Voldemort
will magically change the personality of Slytherin, one that was bad
beyond its Pureblood mania? I think that's just speculating what
might happen outside the book in our mind. I see nothing in the book
that sets of Voldemort as the bad element that's preying on the good
element that is Slytherin. I see Slytherins being less admirable
people at every turn, in different ways (not just as Pureblood
supremists), and with no hint of some magic spell that Voldemort cast
to make them as bad as we see. Even in your history here you seem to
be saying that it's better now because they no longer have a leader
that will bring all their bad qualities together--and that I would
say is true, but that doesn't make the Slytherins better as
individual personalities. It keeps their potential for hurting others
in check,imo.

Debbie:
I'm quite confused by this last statement.  I just don't see how the
potential for hurting others is in any way a Slytherin trait.  It was a DE
trait, and now the DEs are gone.  Gryffindors hurt people, too.

Magpie:

>
>   Yeah, and the house has been a generic bully house of people jeering
> at Harry throughout canon. That, imo, carries more weight than how
> JKR may or may not feel about ambition (though I agree she does seem
> to often show it's a bad thing). I simply don't see how the story
> really shows that *any* of the house traits dealt with the way
> Slytherin's are. It's not like people in other houses don't have
> problems, but I don't see the story as being about showing the danger
> of all the basic house qualities. Gryffindor recklessness is
> certainly shown as dangerous, but it doesn't seem bad the way
> Slytherin is.
>

Debbie:
I had to read this several times to understand your point, because in my
mind the "generic bully house" is not Slytherin.  It is Gryffindor.  There
is a targeted campaign against Harry, but I don't see any Slytherins hexing
people because they can, or picking on helpless muggles such as Dudley.
Gryffindor arrogance and recklessness produces actions that drive Slytherins
to revenge.  Perhaps this colors my reading, because I see the Gryffindors
as having blood on their hands, too (although, admittedly, I'm not sure JKR
shares my view).

Magpie:
>
>   Was Voldemort the root of the problem so his destruction will heal
> the rift? I don't feel confident to say that's true. I really don't
> see Voldemort specifically set up that way.
>

Debbie:
Do you see Voldemort set up as the logical result of the pursuit of
Slytherin traits of ambition and cunning?  I don't.  His ambition was power
over everyone and everything, including death, and he was willing to use any
means to obtain it, including shredding his own humanity.  I think
Gryffindor traits could be harnessed equally well to achieve power.   In the
end, what defeated Voldemort was love, not bravery.

Magpie: If the fanaticism is latent, it's part of Slytherin. Debbie
talked of Slytherin being "purified" by Tom Riddle's killing, but I
thought Jen's view was more in step with the story when she asked if
this wasn't a reenactment of Slytherin's leaving the school, since
now we have the Heir of Slytherin being ritualistically killed by a
Gryffindor. I don't see a "different" Slytherin throwing off their
original founder and forging a new way. In fact, far from it being
Purified by LV's death, it felt to me like DH *was* Slytherin in its
purest form. The fact that Slytherin was known for his own Pure-blood
supremist beliefs reinforces that. This was Slytherin out of control,
unchecked.

Debbie:
But I don't read pureblood supremacy as being a characteristic of Slytherin
House.  Perhaps I think of house characteristics in more Jungian terms, but
the traits of the houses are character traits,  Pureblood supremacy is an
ideology, and the traits of any house can be called upon to support an
ideology.  The Ministry of Magic is permeated by pureblood favoritism;
Arthur Weasley's views are seen as unorthodox, and possibly even
dangerous.  I don't picture the MoM as controlled by Slytherins so much as
controlled by purebloods, whose prejudice is likely more like Slughorn's
rather than Voldemort's.

Magpie:
Whether Tom Riddle believes it or not doesn't really matter--I would
say that he does believe it, yes. Almost every character in canon
who's said anything bigoted about Pure-blood supremacy has been said
to "not really believe it" underneath (it's always those other
characters who really believe this stuff). I think they do believe
themselves superior (or at least want to, if we get into the anxiety
that might be lurking in their unconscious).

Debbie:
Again, I've never seen this as a *Slytherin* viewpoint. Elsewhere, we see
pureblood attitudes such as that expressed by Ernie MacMillan in CoS.  Ernie
is presented as a generally good character, yet was quite emphatic about his
pureblood ancestry.  It is a matter of pride with him.

 Magpie:
> No, Voldemort was not "the cancer." Voldemort was the cause of the
> most recent two wars. The "cancer" of Slytherin if there is one,
> imo, at best in remission, still latent and untreated.

Debbie:
The death of Voldemort was surgery to remove a particularly ugly tumor.
Muggleborn prejudice had a very long history in the WW, and the defeat
of Voldemort clearly wouldn't be sufficient to extinguish it.  But more
treatment -- some chemo to alter WW attitudes generally, not just
Slytherin -- was necessary after that.  My reading of the epilogue is that
some of that treatment has happened.


Mike:
I presented my canon for Voldemort being the cancer. The pure-
bloodism was both the cause and the vehicle used to spread the
cancer. And I admit that it was started by Salazar way back in the
beginning. But I also read that this cancer was conflated by an
hereditary Slytherin not simply House of Slytherin members. He alone
was able to bring together the disparate groups of followers, a
grouping that fell apart in his absence. Simply put, "It's all about
stopping Voldemort, isn't it? These dreadful things that are
happening are all down to him..." (HBP p.475)

Debbie:
Since I used the word "cancer" first, perhaps it would be helpful to explain
how I perceive the "cancer."

Canon is clear that Slytherin brought the pureblood supremacy cancer to
Hogwarts with him.  This is confirmed by the OOP Sorting Hat song, as well
as the existence of the Chamber of Secrets.  However, that doesn't make it a
house characteristic.

According to Professor Binns (CoS, ch. 9), Hogwarts was founded in an era of
persecution by muggles, who feared magic.  At first, all was fine, but a
disagreement later developed over the question of muggleborns.  Salazar
Slytherin  wished to purge Hogwarts of muggleborns because he believed them
to be untrustworthy.  This passage makes it seem as though Slytherin's
suspicion of muggleborns developed, or at least came to the fore, after
Hogwarts' founding, and the Sorting Hat's song in OOP does not dispel this
notion, as it states that when the differences first came to light, each had
a house and so could take only students that fit their own criteria.  And
though the Sorting Hat in OOP states that Slytherin himself took only those
of the purest blood, we know that the Hat doesn't follow those restrictions.


Unquestionably Slytherin House's pureblood prejudices have become well
known, and the Sorting Hat itself (since it contains Slytherin's own brains)
takes heritage into account in its decisions.  However, not until OOP does
the Sorting Hat mention that in his day Salazar Slytherin took only
purebloods; in fact the narrator comments in OOP that historically the
Sorting Hat's song has simply laid out the different qualities looked for by
each house.  And those qualities are described as "cunning" (PS/SS) and
"great ambition" (GoF, though it also noted that Salazar himself was
power-hungry).

So Voldemort's defeat is necessary to cure the "cancer" of pureblood
ideology.  However, it does not magically disappear with Voldemort's
defeat.  It takes time for attitudes to change.

Magpie:
Harry's intentions were good--the book even barely blames him for
what happened to Sirius, because it was LV and Bellatrix's fault (she
dies the same way he did). (Harry himself blames Snape and then
presumably stops doing that, but without any change scene in canon.)
Sirius' running off, too, is done with the best of intentions.
Draco's joining the DEs is bad in itself. Sirius was a flwaed hero
who is rightly mourned. Crabbe got himself killed. Crabbe "deserved"
to die, Sirius was murdered. Draco brought many of his own troubles
on himself. Harry was targetted by bad guys and triumphed due to his
Gryffindor qualities. (Draco's use of Slytherinish ways of protecting
himself in the final battle earns him a punch.) Gryff recklessness
might put you in physical danger (in itself something admired in the
WW--witness the TWT), but Slytehrins put their souls in danger, which
is far worse.

Debbie:
I can't argue with this as a reasonable reading of the series, but it also
works in reverse.  I don't like Sirius and tend to think he got what he
deserved; his impetuosity and Gryffindor recklessness led to his death, and
eventually Harry comes to understand this (though he doesn't think Sirius
got what he deserved).  Dumbledore got what he deserved, too; his desire for
the ring set in motion the chain of events leading to his death.  And
Wormtail's soul was most certainly endangered.

The character who was most callously and tragically murdered, IMO, was
Snape, a Slytherin killed by a Slytherin.

Julie wrote:
It would have been more balanced if even *one* Slytherin had used his/her
traits toward something good. Snape used what is commonly considered
a Gryffindor trait, courage, to prove his (relative) goodness. (Cunning may
have come into it a bit--for instance Snape punishing the Gryffs in DH by
sending them to the Forbidden Forest--but both Dumbledore and Harry
note that Snape's *best* trait was his un-Slytherinish courage.) Regulus
also used courage, and loyalty to another--Kreacher, also not standard
Slytherin traits.

Debbie:
What Snape did was very courageous, but fooling Voldemort for all those
years required incredible cunning.  At every step, he needed to determine
how much to reveal and what to conceal; what actions he needed to take to
maintain his cover.  I thought it was a textbook example of how Slytherin
traits can be used for good.

Debbie
apologizing for the lateness of my response, but I've been out of town most
of the last week


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]