Identifying with Slytherins was Re: Dark Magic

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 176629

zgirnius:
Even a clock that is broken shows the right time twice a day. I do
not believe I am supposed to believe that young Severus the eleven-
year-old on the train, was already irrevocably committed to a career
of terror and evil as a Death Eater. Sirius Black indicates he formed
this opinion when Sev was 11. I don't believe him, and even if I did,
he would have been wrong from what he knew.

Prep0strus:
Ok, this is all obviously going to be what I decided to read into it,
and so just opinion and conjecture, but I think what we see in the
pensieve is a snippet, not the whole story.  I don't believe Sirius
made up his mind as an 11 year old on the train, but I don't believe
what happened on the train was all that bad – a poster made a point a
while back that it was different students expressing opinions on the
houses, and based on this they all disliked each other – never
commenting on clothes or physical appearance.  And I've said many
times I believe they knew what was going on in the world.  And in the
next weeks, months, years, there was more to their relationship and
the actions of the students than what we saw.  Maybe we didn't see
their everyday life – but we saw what it was like in Harry's time.  We
saw Draco's bravado about Slytherin, and the Dark Lord, and pureblood
supremacy.  We saw that these kids had some idea of what these houses
meant, the political issues floating around, and an idea of their
allegiances.  I think it would have been as clear, if not clearer, in
the time of Snape and the Marauders.  Lily could predict they were
planning on joining up with him.  It was known that Riddle was out
there, that there were these views on muggleborns and also that there
was a stigma or badge of honor (depending on where you sat) based on
your interest in `the dark arts', whatever they are.  You can dismiss
Sirius as a broken clock, but I don't see the point.  I think he, as
well as the comments we see from Lily, Lupin, even Snape were JKR's
way of showing us what we needed to be shown - that those Young Death
Eaters were bad apples.

zgirnius:
What is your objection to:
"Or perhaps in Slytherin
You'll make your real friends,
Those cunning folks use any means
To achieve their ends."

The original song that introduced people to the House?

Were I a young and naive Muggleborn of eleven years, I would be
pleased enough to be Sorted into this House, based on that
description. I do pride myself on the possession of a set of brains
that can come up with unexpected solutions to problems and outwit my
opponents in sneaky ways at times. (Though the Hat would take no time
at all to send me into Ravenclaw, my obvious home).

Prep0strus:
Seriously?  I worry this discussion can't really go much further,
simply because we are truly on such different wavelengths here. (I had
a multihour debate with my best friend recently that ended in bemused
bafflement and agreement to disagree because we simply could not get
any closer to comprehending the other person's position.  Never
happened quite that extremely before.)

Cunning: skill employed in a shrewd or sly manner, as in deceiving;
craftiness; guile.

This already has a negative connotation.  Considering we already have
a house of intelligence (showing what you really identify with, as you
believe that is where you would be sorted), she copies a trait that
already exists, and gives it a negative spin.  Deception and the rest
are not always negative – but more often portrayed that way than
positively.  Consider the more positive connotations associated with
the words forthright, upfront, etc.  But more
 consider the phrase

`use any means to achieve their ends'.  Could there be a more loaded
way of saying what JKR is saying?  Ok, there could.  Like, `would
throw someone under a bus if it meant they could earn a galleon'.  But
I'm pretty sure that's the idea she's getting across here.

I still say there are other qualities out there that could be present
in a house.  We have mental strength, why not physical strength?  What
about artisans?   We have no house for craftstmen or muscians, writers
or artists.  Shoot, in the world we have the Weird Sisters, but I
can't recall any novels.  There could be negotiators
 ok, getting off
track.  My point is, that there are other qualities that could have
been given to the houses, even in addition to what we were shown.  But
for Slytherin, we were shown cunning, pure of blood (often false, but
a stated house purpose), and unchecked ambition.  And there are ways
she could have said even these less negatively.

Couldn't Slytherins have had `street-smarts' or be `clever' or
`practical'?  Couldn't they `strive to be the best' or `try their
hardest' or even `long for greatness'?  
No, they'll `use any means'.  Never is there even an implication that
they might use any means to achieve ends that could be altruistic – it
is `their ends', with an implied selfishness, as we know from
`power-hungry Slytherin'.  Compare this to other houses – Griffindors,
with their `chivalry' and `brave deeds' (brave not solely a positive
thing, but connotationally so) , Hufflepuffs are `just and loyal' and
`true'.   Ravenclaw appears to have no positive or negative qualities
associated with it – intelligence cutting either way.  If only all the
houses were designed with such ambiguous opportunity. 

But Slytherin? Bad.  If I had been sorted there, I would have been
horrified.  I'd be clamoring, `Use any means?! I would not!'  And I'd
probably be arguing also for a better word for cunning.  And this is
before we see the terrible things that Slytherins actually do.

Of course, I'd probably be going to school in Salem somewhere, so
perhaps I should find out how the houses work there.



Julie:
My guess is that people who "identify" with Slytherin House are
identifying
with certain qualities bestowed upon Slytherins by the time Harry comes to
Hogwarts (even if these qualities were "earned" by the House's
predecessors).

Prep0strus:
What qualities are these?  From what we see in the songs, there is
blood purity, cunning, and unrestrained personal ambition.  From what
we see in the books there is
 selfishness, meanness,
intelligence(sometimes), and prejudice.  I'm wondering what other
qualities were bestowed that you think one might want to identify with.

Julie:
More specifically that Slytherins are rejected by the other Houses and are
the
outsiders of the school. Many people who have felt the sting of rejection,
and
who have been on the outside looking in, especially when they were in
school
(at an age where rejection and labels like "loser" or "outsider" sting
deeply)
still have that rejection seared on their souls, and can't help but
sympathize
with the Slytherins. *Within the Hogwarts school* Slytherins ARE the
underdogs,
the rejects, the losers who can only hang with each other.
and eventually their own actions as they are integrated as eleven-year-old
inductees into the Slytherin culture and mindset.


Prep0strus:
I'm not sure this is the case.  Look to GoF, when Slytherins rally
together with the rest of the school against Harry.  More often than
not, Harry (when he's not the wonderous hero – those students sure are
fickle) is the outcast.  Slytherin has won the Quidditch cup for years
before Harry shows up.  Draco is rich and powerful, and does not
appear to be anyone's reject.  He definitely WANTS Slytherin house, is
powerful within it, and does not appear to be bullied or suffer
outside of of it either.  I don't see him being called loser or
outsider.  Certainly not more than Harry and his friends often are. 
Hermione, the class nerd was more of one in the beginning, Harry is a
bit of a freak, Neville is something of a loser, and Luna in the class
below is a real wacko.  You don't see scenes of Griffindors,
Ravenclaws, and Hufflepuffs sitting around mocking Slytherins – maybe,
by book 5, when those 3 houses start to come together in the DA to
fight evil
 but also, in that book, it is Slytherins who take to the
new, offensive school order and rule the school – they are not
oppressed within it.  And it is also the time that Draco and his
friends begin to turn towards the adult death eaters.  Before that
point, Slytherins were maybe not as evil, but also not outcasts.  They
are only opposing the rest of the school when they choose to join with
first Umbridge, then Voldemorte.


Again this status may be deserved based on the actions of their
predecessors,

Julie:
I personally don't identify with Slytherin so much as I deeply sympathize
with
Slytherins. Mostly because I'll never accept it as in any manner
reflective
of
a decent society to dump eleven year old children into this House
steeped in
the prejudices of its predecessors, this House that shouldn't even exist,
and
abandon them with not a single effort by any adult to offer them other
options
or to convince them that there is a better mindset, with either words *or*
with
actions.

Prep0strus:
The reason I can't sympathize with them is because it IS their
actions.  Now, no doubt, they are raised this way, but I think the
fault lies more with their parents than with the House that places
them together.  Also, it depends on the world.  I also think the house
should simply not exist – it contains nothing worth emulating or being
a part of.  However, these students and parents WANT it to exist,
because they are proud to have these despicable traits.  It depends on
how you see the world JKR has created.  Throughout 6 books, I thought
that there was a reason for Slytherin house, that it had good
qualities not shown to us that would be revealed, that the people in
it were also equal, if twisted.  However, after the 7th, and JKR not
showing us these worthwhile qualities, or worthwhile people, I am
inclined to agree with the Calvinist people who believes that they
simply are no good, from the beginning, and are sorted together with
other bad people.  I don't like that, at all, but I don't think she
gave me enough to think otherwise.

Julie:
But the ones we have been discussing *at Hogwarts* are CHILDREN.
Yes they have racist attitudes, but no they do NOT kill and terrorize the
WW. At least NOT YET. This concept of eleven year old children who are
already so morally bankrupt they have "almost no hope for salvation" is
absolutely horrifying to me. And in your example of not giving a Nazi a
chance, this really translates to condemning the children of Nazis, who
were after all indoctrinated at home to share their parents' views. I
don't
recall this happening, as I believe they were given the encouragement to
adopt new and more enlightened views, and presumably most of them did
so and became productive members of society. And there is the difference.
JKR's message seems to be that Slytherin children are beyond this type of
assistance, as no one puts in even the smallest effort into turning
them away
from their destructive path. I must say this is a message I absolutely
detest,
even if it references a fictional world.

Julie, who places plenty of blame on the adult teachers and the headmaster
of Hogwarts for the condition and mindset of Slytherin House, because they
*are* the adults and they allow the situation persist. They are the
"good men
who do nothing."

Prep0strus:
You are right, truly, when it comes to the real world.  I'm not sure
the analogy fits as well within the wizarding world.  First, Harry's
impressions of Slytherins are also very much impacted by the way he
was treated by Draco and other Slytherins – their unsportsmanlike
behavior in Quidditch matches, their bullying, their praise of the
people responsible for slaughtering the parents of other students.  By
the fifth and sixth year, they also are on their way to terrorizing
the ww.  It's not even that I say completely `don't give nazi's a
chance', it's just that I'm not going to hold Harry responsible for
it.  I think Slytherins are responsible for their actions, and
Griffindors are not responsible for recognizing that Slytherins have
been created incorrigible by some outside force and pitying them for
it.  I don't see Slytherins, in the book, as put upon, as oppressed
freaks.  I see them as mean and horrible.

As for what you say about what JKR did
 I believe that as well. I
think it is horrible.  I hate that she did this.  I hate that there is
no equality in the houses.  I detest it at as well.  I don't go as far
in blaming the teachers and the headmaster because, well
 it seems too
late.  Besides that the parents would start an uproar. Maybe they need
to start going to school before 11.  Maybe the entire world needs to
change its attitudes so that Slytherin views in the real world are so
looked down upon so that they are not so bold in saying what they say.
 Abolishing the Slytheirn house couldn't hurt.  But my point is more
that JKR didn't show us that any of this would be worthwhile – she
seems to have simply shown us that some people are not very good. 
And, even as I agree with you about the horrible message she's
sending, I still wonder
 so, why identify with that?  Slytherins may
be HER outsiders – but she didn't create a weak, miserable, pathetic
group for the other groups to spit on, demean, and feel better than
(ok, maybe she did, but those people are called `house elves').  She
created, a strong, powerful, horribly nasty, selfish, prejudiced
group, that WE the reader can feel better than – and that the other
characters in the book ARE better than.  Why identify with the rich
nasty pureblood supremacists who cheat at sports and do anything to
get what they want?

To some small extent, I get why people identify with Sev over the
Marauders – he was poor and they were rich.  James was an athlete, and
it is described that they might be more popular (though it's hard to
say what popularity means when Sev has his own Young Death Eater
group).  But Slytherins as a whole, especially what we've seen in
Harry's time, don't reflect this.


Adam (Prep0strus), who feels that he maybe should have made two posts
out of this one