[HPforGrownups] Re: Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back

[Irene Mikhlin]

No: HPFGUIDX 180742

> > a_svirn:
>> Slytherin is all about purebloodism and 
> > > Realpolitik, remove both and there would be nothing left.

> 
> > Irene Malkin: 

Not that I mind that terribly, but it's Mikhlin.

> > 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.

The hat sells the Slytherin House as cunning and ambitious. My argument is these two qualities do not make a person bad in and of themselves.
Your point above seems to be that without pure-blood ideology nothing is left to distinguish Slytherin from other houses? Or did I misunderstand?

 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. 

And his name is synonymous with cunning for nothing. Sure. :-)

> 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.

Well, he did. His books are the most authoritative source on history of Judea in that period.

My point is that if everyone in a certain culture is Gryffindor, this culture is not viable.

> 
> 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.

The house takes half-bloods. And the dark arts distinction does not have any canonical meaning for me after book 7. It seems to be now "Everything that Gryffindors do, is OK. Everything that's done to Gryffindors, is dark arts". A bit recursive to be a useful definition for my taste.

Again, reiterating my point - the canon seems to suggest that the defining qualities of Slytherin house (cunning and ambition and luck of a certain type of valour) will make it a hotbed for all nasty things besides pure-bloodism: from excessive BMI to receding hairlines, from sexual promiscuity to lack of quidditch success.

To use a less controvertial example (hopefully), let's have a look at C.S. Lewis heroes. Even in his world of brave and noble heroes Reepicheep is seen as an extreme case of Gryffindor type of behaviour. In that world it is accepted that you can't make a successful expedition if everyone on board is of this personality - they'd all be gloriously killed in the first port. This is what JKR's world does not get, and this is where it falls flat for me.

> 
> 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. 
> 

Well, for me book 7 is not consistent with the first 6. Am I allowed to disregard it? :-)

Irene