Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 180751

> > > Irene Malkin: 
> 
> Not that I mind that terribly, but it's Mikhlin.

a_svirn:
Oh, I am sorry!


> > 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 â€" 
something 
> > that Odysseus assuredly wasn't.

> > Irene Mikhlin:
> The hat sells the Slytherin House as cunning and ambitious. 

a_svirn:
And pure-blood supremacy. It was mentioned in the song; it's the part 
of the package. 

> > Irene:
My argument is these two qualities do not make a person bad in and of 
themselves.

a_svirn:
No, of course, not. But cunning is only one of the Slytherin 
qualities. And their ambition is qualified as power-hungriness. 
That's slightly more disturbing. And then, there is pure-bloodism. 

> Irene:
> Your point above seems to be that without pure-blood ideology 
nothing is left to distinguish Slytherin from other houses? Or did I 
misunderstand?

a_svirn:
Well, yes. Cunning isn't something the prospective Slytherins aspire 
to be. They aspire to be a select elite and they are already cunning 
enough to know that Slytherin is what helps them to realise this 
ambition.
 
> >a_svirn:
>  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 â€" 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:
> And his name is synonymous with cunning for nothing. Sure. :-)

a_svirn:
*His* name yes. But Slytherin's name is a byword for bigotry. 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Irene:
> Well, he did. His books are the most authoritative source on 
history of Judea in that period.

a_svirn:
They were not, however, a part of the Jewish culture. It was a part 
of Roman culture ant its successors. You wouldn't say that Ambroise's 
chronicle of the Third Crusade was a part of Arabian culture, would 
you? 

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

a_svirn:
Well, there are always Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw. I think any culture 
can be viable without supremacist ideology. Hopefully. 
> 
> > 
> > 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.

> Irene:
> 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.

a_svirn:
I don't like it either. But the way Rowling sets it up I can't see 
how it can possibly be otherwise. 

> Irene:
> 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.

a_svirn:
No, canon suggests that a certain type of ambition (being power-
hungry, and that's the Hat's term) combined with bigotry can only 
lead to trouble. And it is a reasonable suggestion, actually. What I 
find unreasonable is that the same Hat had been selecting cunning 
power-hungry bigots for centuries so that they could form a select 
group inside the WW. That's simply daft. 

> Irene:
> 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 understand what you are saying, and even agree with you – in 
general. Where we disagree is that IMO Slytherin isn't only about 
cunning and ambition. It is also about bigotry, supremacism and 
Realpolitik. Without them it wouldn't be the House of Slytherin. It 
would be the house of Ulysses or some such thing.  
> 
> > 
> > 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. 
> > 
> Irene: 
> Well, for me book 7 is not consistent with the first 6. Am I 
allowed to disregard it? :-)

a_svirn:
Feel free!