Alchemy, the Epilogue and Slytherin (long)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 176633

I honestly don't mean to be difficult here...

> 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:
Neither Tonks nor Fleur are Slytherins. Tonks is the daughter of a 
Black who is barely in the book, and she herself is *not* associated 
with Slytherin ever, any more than Sirius Black is. Fleur doesn't 
even have that--where is she associated with Slytherin? I think the 
fact that we have to reach for non-Slytherins to be good Slytherins 
undercuts the idea that Slytherin is being shown in a good light here.

> >   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:
Okay, they're associated with alchemy. But I still don't see anything 
in the story that indicates a coming together of Slytherin and 
Gryffindor due to the name. Couldn't they just be names that are 
associated with alchemy without it meaning that? Maybe they're just 
pure.

> 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.  

Magpie:
Why would it have to be a boring story? I don't see any reason that 
JKR couldn't have written a good story with that theme if that was 
the theme that interested her. It's not less inherently interesting 
than the Elder Wand and Deathly Hallows stuff. Obviously if that had 
been the story she wanted to write she would have written it in an 
interesting way, and not as Gryffindor and Slytherin forming joint 
Quidditch teams. That it's not there to me means she didn't want to 
write it, not that she couldn't come up with a good way to write it. 
 
> 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:
My point was that symbolism is just intellectual play if it's not 
reflected in the story, so just saying in the epilogue that there are 
symbols that indicate that after the story is over such and such will 
happen says nothing to me if I can't tie it to the actual story. For 
the symbols to mean something they'd be shown meaning that--just as 
many symbols are in the story. Yet to me it seems like the epilogue 
just confirms Slytherin's place as the odd house out years after the 
fact. That's what I meant about the Harmonian interpretation vs., 
say, R/Hr--in the end Ron and Hermione kissing and being jealous of 
each other and getting married carries far more weight as canon for 
the two of them being a couple than alchemical symbolism for H/Hr.

Canon, imo, says flat-out that Salazar created Slytherin in his image 
and nothing about his tainting. (And it's bad in more ways than just 
the Pureblood ideology.) They do not get rid of Slytherin house, 
according to the author, because you have to accept the less noble 
qualities of the school/people around too. I don't take that as canon 
because it's in an interview, but because that's the idea I see 
reflected in the books. Harry's line to AS to me says that he loves 
his son no matter what house he's in. He says nothing particularly 
positive about Slytherin the house--nor can he, because the story 
didn't give him anything positive to say. The most he can say is that 
there have historically been some Slytherins who are impressive, one 
of whom Harry has named his child after for some reason. 

But for me, if you have a huge division throughout a book with the 
Slytherins obviously being the bad guys, I need that to be actually 
addressed in the books and fixed for it to be fixed. Having Harry say 
in a scene from 19 years later, in response to his children telling 
us that Slytherin is *still the bad house in their generation* that 
his son shouldn't worry about being a Slytherin because his parents 
love him no matter what, and that he is named after a Slytherin who 
was brave (the quality of Gryffindor), but if he's really worried he 
can just tell the hat he doesn't want Slytherin just as Harry himself 
has been praised for doing throughout the story says *something* to 
me, it just doesn't say Slytherin and Gryffindor are on their way to 
uniting. I still so no reason on earth any good person in this 
universe would *want* to be in Slytherin.

Within the last book Slytherin honestly became more like background 
word-building to me. The real story was about Harry. Slytherin didn't 
matter. If Voldemort had been the problem, I think Slytherin 
absolutely *should* be united with the school by now. This is a 
school, after all. Trends happen fast. Nineteen years of okay 
Slytherins is plenty of time to get rid of a bad rep.


>  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:
But Slytherin is the house of bad guys who bully the protagonists. 
The ones who made up most of the DE ranks. Instances of Gryffindors 
hurting people were pretty much all okay iirc--they're just having 
fun, being young, making honest mistakes, punishing the guilty, 
defending themselves and fighting for the victory of good over evil. 
The books *did not* go the way of showing that all the houses have 
the same potential for evil that I can see. They seemed to take a 
very different view towards Gryffindors hurting people than 
Slytherins doing the same.  

 
 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:
I think the Gryffindors can be jerks too, but I would still have to 
ignore *a lot* in canon to convince myself they're supposed to be the 
generic bully house instead of Slytherin. By the rules of their own 
universe, which is what I'm talking about here, they imo are not. 
They don't drive Slytherins to revenge, they foil their evil plans--
the Slytherins then show themselves worse by not accepting it and 
coming back for more. (Believe me, I was expecting that sort of 
lesson about the Prank, but the last book seemed to tell me that no, 
I was totally wrong about that.) If JKR doesn't share your view as 
much as I do, how can this be the basis for what she's saying happens 
at the end of canon? 

 
> 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:
The Slytherin traits of ambition and cunning are a different thing 
for me than Slytherins. This is why I (and perhaps others who see 
Slytherin as the shadow house) think the shadow reading is so 
obvious. Cunning and ambition are both mostly shown in more positive 
lights when they appear in other people.

Take Ambition, which is particularly interesting to me. The four most 
ambitious characters in canon are all basically good guys: Hermione 
is very ambitions, the twins even more so, and so is Percy, who 
eventually is good and is a Gryffindor. All of those characters 
display ambition by being naturally talented and working hard. 
Slytherin, imo, displays what seem to be considered more negative 
versions of ambition in this universe: they're associated with 
cheating, bribery, bullying and networking to get ahead. To me it 
seems like ambition is simply split--it's said to be a trait of 
Slytherin, but they get the shadow qualities while Gryffindors get 
the better parts. 

> 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.  

Magpie:
However, Pureblood supremacy *is* a characteristic of Slytherin 
house. It's one of the founding principles as told to us by the 
Sorting Hat. That belief exists outside of Slytherin, but we are told 
it's officially linked to Slytherin. I read the house in more Jungian 
terms as well, but that reading led to the opposite conclusion than 
what I got, as I said above. If I was really supposed to be reading 
Slytherin house as the Jungian shadow, then the story seems like one 
of ultimate failure to me.

> 
> 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:
Yes, I agree. We do see it other places besides Slytherin. But saying 
it's not a Slytherin viewpoint seems to require ignoring a lot of 
stuff said flat-out in canon. This is another place where the books 
surprise me by *not* linking certain attitudes on the good side to 
attitudes on the bad side to the extent I expected. Ernie Macmillan 
is pompous and brags about being Pure-blood, but he also seems to be 
bff with a Muggle-born, totally pro-Potter and anti-Voldemort.

 
>  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.

Magpie:
Where in canon are we explitly shown that Voldemort being "cut out" 
of Slytherin is the first step in treatment? Or anything about chemo 
happening after the story is over? As much as this idea makes perfect 
sense to me, I just don't see any evidence for it in canon. Other 
ideas are stated freely, and this idea is not among them. In places 
where it could be said it seems like the author goes out of her way 
to not say it and grabs any opportunity she can to suggest otherwise. 
Then she has nothing where the actual house of Slytherin decides to 
throw off these ideals for something else. 

Like I said, it's not that I don't see the logic of this idea, and it 
would work fine for the story--I just don't see it *in* the story. It 
seems more like taking elements of the story and putting them 
together in a different way. Which is why so much of explaining why 
it's not a house characteristic relies on rejecting stuff in canon 
rather than just providing an alternative Slytherin that ever existed 
within canon. We're stuck arguing away consistent connections between 
Slytherin and Pure-blood supremacy and other bad qualities because 
the book forgot to do it for us.

Could the Sorting Hat's late mention of the Pureblood stuff be a sign 
that it wasn't really part of the original idea? Could be. But since 
the story doesn't make that an issue it ultimately doesn't seem like 
I can use it as a guiding principle for what's going on. (And 
Slytherin also seems to still have more problems besides the 
Pureblood supremacy with the vague "Dark Magic" associations and the 
general unpleasantness.) As the books go on it seems more associated 
with bad things both in the past and in the future.

Again, it's not that I don't see any appeal in this idea. I think 
it's pretty good--but that's why I think it would be there in the 
book if it were canon. I just don't think it is. It just seems like 
it requires one to demand an incredibly high level of canonical proof 
for stuff that doesn't fit the theory while accepting far less for 
stuff that does. Ultimately the Gryffindor/Slytherin superiority idea 
*wasn't* overturned that I saw, nor was there any real coming 
together of the two houses, in the story or the epilogue. The heroes 
could be heroes without it.

-m