Did the Slytherins come back?

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 181809

> > Betsy Hp:
> > The other thing is, IMO, the *only* place JKR tells us not all 
> > Slytherins are bad is in her interviews.  It's really hard to find 
> > places in the text that support her theory.  The Gryffindors 
> > certainly hate all Slytherins on sight, and they're never put in a 
> > position to learn anything different.  Neither is their behavior 
> > towards Slytherins ever questioned.  Whereas Slytherins behaving 
> > badly is clearly seen as such.
> 
> Pippin:
> Only if the reader is applying a ridiculous double standard, IMO. Theo
> Nott never so much as hexes someone for fun, never mind Unforgivable
> Curses, and yet he doesn't qualify as a decent person? Gimme  a break!

Montavilla47:
As far as the text is concerned, he barely qualifies as a person at all, 
decent or not.  As I recall, the only mention of him at all beyond his 
sorting is... one of the Slytherins sitting at a table.  There is mention
of a weedy-looking Slytherin who can see Thestrals, but it's only in
an interview that we learn that that person is Theodore Nott.  

There's also that deleted scene between him and Malfoy.  But that
is not only extra-textual, we don't even know what went on beyond
the dark-side discussion of Harry Potter.  

Pippin:
> We have exactly the same basis for disbelieving Voldemort's claim that
> Hagrid was raising werewolf cubs as we do for disbelieving his claim
> that the Slytherins joined him -- an interview never backed up by the
> text. And yet no one ever insisted that they were going to go on believing
> Hagrid  kept werewolves until JKR made it clear in the books that he never
> did. Why is this being treated differently?

Montavilla47:
The thing about Voldemort's claim in this case is that, even if Hagrid 
wasn't literally raising werewolf cubs under his bed, the gist of it is 
true.  We all accept that Hagrid likes dangerous (sorry, "int'restin'") 
creatures.  If it were possible to raise werewolf cubs under your bed,
Hagrid would probably have tried.  The only reason that statement
became untrue later was that JKR changed the rules about werewolves
in order to create Remus Lupin.

Which makes me think that Lupin was one of those characters, like
Luna, who just showed up on her doorstep.  If so, what a happy 
occurance!  Until HBP, Lupin was a wonderful character.

Pippin:
>  I submit that JKR is more interested in getting the reader to notice and 
> question unconscious assumptions than in "correcting" our impression of 
> Hagrid or Slytherin House. It's not as if there are real half-giants or
> Slytherins who will suffer if the readers don't catch on.
> 
> Once Harry has realized that  Slytherins who once supported Voldemort
> may no longer do so,  knowing who was in Slytherin and who wasn't can
> no longer tell him what he wants to know:  is this someone I can trust? DH
> is all about judging  the contents of people's characters by getting to know
> them. Unthinking hate will never get you close enough. The anti-hate 
> message in that is plain enough, IMO.  

Montavilla47:
So many of the things you say make such good sense, Pippin, that I truly
want to believe them.  But then when I return to the book, I just don't see
them.  I only half-see them.  I could agree that DH is about Harry learning
not to judge people based on assumptions.  Supposedly, that's the 
arc of the Dumbledore story, and that should play out with the Snape
storyline.

But, we never really see any development along that line.  There's a hint of
it in the Ministry scene, where Harry is literally walking in the shoes of a 
Death Eater (and, like Snape, trying to protect people while maintaining 
his cover).  But we don't ever get the sense that Harry processes this 
experience into more than "Ooo, that was scary.  Lucky we didn't get
caught!"

He didn't, as Snape did, have to stand by and watch someone he knew
get killed while he did nothing to stop it.

Although he was seething with rage at Snape by the end of HBP, he 
didn't give the man more than a passing thought, and didn't even have
time to question the trustworthiness of the Prince's Tale.  So, it really
couldn't have been about Harry learning to trust Snape.

Nor was it about Harry learning to judge the trustworthiness of 
the D.A.  He doesn't trust them, or McGonagall, with anything 
approaching information.  Instead, they all simply trust him--as 
everyone else in the Wizarding World has been doing without question.

If the book is about learning to trust people, then what Harry
seems to learn is that he can't trust anyone except Ron and 
Hermione.  And he can't really trust Ron, unless they have a 
steady supply of food.

Of course, Harry trusts Narcissa to lie for him--but does he 
really have a choice at that point?  It's not even that he trusts
her, it's that she asks a question and he tells her something
that is likely to make her lie... or something.  I still don't 
understand that self-centered reason for lying, since she's
as likely to get into the castle if she tells the truth.

So, what is this trust and judgment?  Is it trusting Dumbledore
despite his pique at Dumbledore not telling him that they
were once sort of neighbors?   Is it trusting Snape's memories
when he knows that they *must* be true?  It's not people
that Harry ultimately puts his trust into.  It's a piece of wood.

Pippin:
>  So why should Harry note that Slytherins came back or sat at
> the House Tables with the other students? It wouldn't matter to him.
> JKR runs into the same difficulty with her treatment of women's status:
> in a society where it's taken for granted that witches and wizards are
> equals, no one is likely to remark on the fact. 

Montavilla47:
In order to establish the equality of gender, it's not necessary to 
have someone remark on the fact (although, it would be perfectly
in character for Hermione to give us a run-down on the herstory
of witches).  It's only necessary to show the equality. 

I don't fault JKR that much for her depiction of women.  She makes
plenty of mention of witches in the workforce and positions of power.
They play on the sports teams (although, in gender-neutral world,
I don't know why there would need to be an all-female Quidditch
team).  

I wasn't around for the criticism I've heard was voiced prior to 
OotP (which supposedly answered the criticism by introducing
the powerful and just Amelia Bones and the hip Tonks).  But, one 
can't help noticing a disturbing trend in HPB, in which the 
female characters tend to fall apart if romantically thwarted, 
or that throughout the series, motherhood is shown as the 
most powerful, ideal state for a woman.  There is only one
working mother in the entire series, and it's because of her
that Marietta comes to grief.

Likewise, with the Slytherins, we don't necessarily need Harry
exclaiming, "Wow!  I guess I was wrong about the Slytherins, 
they're A-Okay!"  All we'd really need was for that extra-
textual mention of the Slytherins returning with Slughorn
to be textual.  It wouldn't be a very *strong* message about
learning to love your enemy, but it would be there.

As it is, the message is basically what JKR stated in her
Emerson/Melissa interview.  The Slytherins aren't *all*
horrible.  And even if they are, you can't just kill them. That
wouldn't be right.

Montavilla47