Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 180738

> > a_svirn:
> > But if they realise all that, why on earth would they even want 
to be 
> > in Slytherin? Or, for that matter, why the WW would want to put 
up 
> > with Slytherin House? Slytherin is all about purebloodism and 
> > Realpolitik, remove both and there would be nothing left.  It is 
one 
> > thing to forgive or redeem, or whatever the members of, say, SS 
who 
> > saw errors of their ways at last, but no one in their right mind 
> > would want to *reform* SS. So I'd say that Rowling set up a 
problem 
> > that has no resolution. You can't change the Nazi ideology into 
> > something acceptable. You can only renounce it, but in doing so 
you'd 
> > have to renounce the Nazi institutions as well. Whereas Rowling 
> > supposedly expects from Slytherins to change while still 
remaining 
> > Slytherins. That can't possibly work. 


> Irene Malkin: 
> I disagree here. Just because Rowling does not understand the point 
of 
> Slytherin house minus pure-bloodism, does not mean there is not one.
> 
> Troy would not have fallen with the Gryffindor antics of Achilles 
alone. 
> They needed Odysseus as well. And surely he was the father of all 
> Slytherins?

a_svirn:
No. Slytherin was the father of all Slytherins. Rowling's world is 
somewhat different from that of Homer. And in her world Salazar 
Slytherin was a wily power-hungry pure-blood supremacist – something 
that Odysseus assuredly wasn't. Heck, the guy didn't even want to 
conquer Troy! He'd been stalling for as long as he could and came up 
with the horse stunt so that he could come back to his wife and son. 
I'd say he was more like Ignotus Perevell – liked his peace and quiet 
and privacy and was ready to employ his wits to defend all of the 
above. There is nothing particularly Slytherin about it. 

> Irene Malkin:  
> A famous event in Jewish history, the Metsada siege, ended with the 
> defenders committing mass suicide rather than surrender. Except for 
one 
> guy, Josephus Flavius, who later became a model roman citizen and 
famous 
> writer. So the saying goes something like that: "If all the Jews 
were 
> like Metsada defenders, there would be no Jews. If all the Jews 
were 
> like Josephus Flavius, there would be no Jews."

a_svirn:
I can't say that I see your point. Josephus Flavius was a man after 
Slytherin's heart? Perhaps he was. Though I'd say that it is only 
contributes to the idea that Slytherins are somewhat less than 
principled. And besides, as you yourself point out it's not like 
Josephus Flavius contributed anything valuable to ensuring the 
survival of the Jewish culture. The Jews could and did survive 
without him; the only survival he ensured with his shrewd cunning was 
his own. 

> Irene Malkin: 
> It's always the balance of different personalities that makes 
things 
> viable. Rowling wants her elephant to stand on one leg and us to 
believe 
> that it's the only honourable position for the poor beast? Fine, 
but we 
> don't have to accept that as a fact of life.

a_svirn:
I, for one, only discuss facts of canon. And in canon Slytherin house 
is a hotbed for all the nasty things: from the dark arts to pure-
bloodism. Because that's how old Salazar liked it. That's why all 
those fist-years aspire to be Slytherins. Because they share 
Salazar's values and ideology. 

> Irene Malkin:  
> In one of her recent interviews she said that in the battle of 
Hogwarts 
> Slytherins left to get reinforcements, and she says it in a 
derogatory 
> manner. 

a_svirn:
I think the less is said of that interview the better. It is not 
consistent with the book itself, and only serves to confuse things. 

a_svirn