Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape)

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 177528

> Prep0strus:
> I think she was, but perhaps not in the way we thought she was going
> to.  I think one big problem is that she appeared to show that there
> was a human side to Slytherin - that they're not all bad, in every
> way.  

zgirnius:
I just don't understand. Yes, she absolutely did seem to show there 
might be a human side to Slytherins! Which is why I was expecting it 
to continue in DH. And guess what? I got buried under a veritable 
avalanche of examples of the humanity of Slytherins. More, actually, 
than I had expected. Draco to continue in his wish to be free of 
Voldemort, check. Snape to be revealed in his full Lily/DDM! glory, 
check. Sluggie to be at Hogwarts, and a good guy, check. That's what 
I was expecting. 

But then I got the story of Regulus Black, too, and it, too, was all 
about a Slytherin and his humanity. I mean, he could not bear that 
his House Elf was tortured, and when he went back to retrieve the 
Horcrux with Kreacher's help, he drank the goo himself, as he was not 
going to do that to Kreacher again! He chose to die in secret, 
without letting the story out, to protect the parents he loved from 
the wrath of Voldemort. I loved it, and was totally not expecting it.

And also Narcissa, of course. Though I should have been expecting her 
again, I suppose. She already showed her humanity in "Spinner's End", 
when she disobeyed the Dark Lord's orders to  in an attempt to 
protect her son. In DH, she was no longer attempting to arrange a 
murder, she helped to keep Harry safe by lying to Voldemort that he 
was dead.

And did these people act against Slytherin traits to achieve this? 
No, I would say. Draco did nothing openly against Voldemort - that 
cunning we hear about. And a motivation for him was love of his 
pureblooded family. The same is true of Narcissa. Regulus as well, 
though I would say that a young man who decides to single-handedly 
render the Dark Lord mortal, is showing some signs of ambition as 
well.

Sluggie? I think he had decided the Death Eaters were bad for 
business long before the series started. 

And Snape, of course, successfully deceived Voldemort about his true 
loyalties for sixteen years or so, which must have required a good 
deal of cunning. 

Most of them were to varying degrees, motivated by love of various 
sorts. That is not a Slytherin trait. Nor is it a Gryffindor trait. 
It is not a House trait at all. It is a nearly universal human trait, 
the sad exceptions being  people as dreadfully damaged by life and 
unfortunate birth as Voldemort.

> Prep0strus:
And so, there were expectations that in this final book (or,
> better, before the final book even) we would see some of that.  See 
a
> sorting hat song that extolled something worthwhile about slytherin,
> saw a character that maners aged to incorporate aspects of slytherin
> without being disliked, saw the house achieve its place as a full
> equal to the other houses.  

zgirnius:
We saw a character who incorporated Slytherin traits and managed to 
be well enough liked in Horace Slughorn, back in Book 6. And if 
anything, what little we saw of him in DH is even better. Seeing 
Slytherins as human beings, and seeing the house achieve its place as 
an equal in the book, are two different things. We got the first, in 
spades. I believe the second was highly unlikely given the plot of 
DH. 

If I had any idea that the Ministry would fall and Snape, Voldemort's 
right-hand-man, would be Headmaster with 'help' from new DE teachers, 
I would never have expected it. And in my opinion, this course of 
events was plausible in light of past revelations, and a perfectlty 
legitimate artistic choice. 

> Prep0strus:
> And some people, based on the small nuggets of potential we have 
been
> given are able to see some of that.  To see Slytherins as real 
people.

zgirnius:
I can see the characters who have been *shown* to be real people that 
way, regardless of House affiliation. The five Slytherins I list 
above, and a number of characters from other Houses as well. The 
others, are just names on paper with a few descriptions tossed in, 
something I could say about students in all of the other houses as 
well, because characters like Blaise Zabini, Romilda Vane, Anthony 
Goldberg, and Hannah Abbot (to name random representatives of each 
house) are essentially extras.

> Prep0strus:
> I think, in this story, it doesn't.  I think Slytherin is not a 
house
> full of actual fully formed people and characters.  I think it is a
> representation of everything JKR thinks is bad: prejudice, bigotry,
> racism, unchecked ambition, disregard for others, base meanness....
> and when other characters look down on and spit on slytherin, that 
is
> what they are spitting on.  they are not discriminating against a
> group of people - they are discriminating against racism.  And since
> racism is wrong, that's ok.
> 
> It's not very satisfying, and very frustrating considering what 
we've
> been through with our expectations throughout the books... but it
> makes more sense to me than pitying the slytherins and condemning
> griffindors.  because the griffindors ARE right. the slytherins ARE
> wrong.  there is good and bad, and slytherins represent one of 
those.
>  jkr does make griffindors flawed - it is difficult to define them 
as
> represented as perfect beings.  but even harder to represent
> slytherins as equals who deserve equal treatment.  it might be wrong
> to treat another group of people as less than you, which is how the
> slytherins are treated.  but if slytherins simply represent cruel
> dictators and petty bigots, then it's not only ok to look down on
> them, but a good thing to look down on them - because you are 
looking
> down on evil.  i don't think slytherin is simply the racists, but
> racism itself, which is why jkr has apparently made it ok to treat
> them as less than people.
> 
> i'm kind of meandering around the point i'm trying to make. and i 
know
> it doesn't change how anyone looks at the books, because we have our
> own expectations and we put different importance of meaning on
> different parts.  but, primarily, i don't think that prejudice 
against
> slytherin is real prejudice in jkr's mind, because i think that
> slytherins are the idea of prejudidice itself.  so, yes, i think she
> was aiming for an 'anti-prejudice' message, but it just doesn't 
count
> to be prejudiced against slytherin, because that is prejudice 
against
> prejudice - and that's always a good thing, right?
> 
> ~Adam (Prep0strus)
>