Disarming spell/ Character's choices/Buffy!

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 185570

<snip>
> Lealess:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the storytellers didn't spend a lot of
> story time on orcs or storm troopers the way JKR gave names and back
> stories and fun scenes to Slytherin students. She made the Slytherins
> compelling, perhaps inadvertently. And as others have said, JKR also
> seemed, through the Sorting Hat, to advocate the reconciliation of
> Slytherin with other houses. (I haven't read the Narnia books.)
> 
> Magpie:
> I was just referring to the idea of "Slytherin House" doing something 
> heroic and so the houses all joining again--I don't think it's 
> automatically unheard of to not have that happen. How could it be, 
> really? Since when you've got good side vs. bad side stories you 
> generally have two choices: defeat or reconciliation. Of course 
> authors have chosen each over the years.
> 
> In terms of how Slytherin House is presented absolutely, I think 
> there are many things that are unique to HP. The uneasy (imo) final 
> fates of the Slytherins we know I think definitely point to something 
> not cliche. I think Slytherins relatively inferior nature is very 
> specific to the series. There are several Slytherins who choose not 
> to take the most evil choice, usually through love of someone else. 


lizzyben:

Really I think the best analogy to the Slytherins of Harry Potter are
the vampires of Buffy. The key point about vampires is that they lack
a soul & are therefore incapable of true selfless action or altruism.
They can love & make great sacrifices for the *individual*
person/vampire they love, but they don't give two cents about humanity
as a whole, except as a resource to exploit or use. 

So Spike, for example, can be in love with Buffy (somewhat creepily) &
try to protect her & be willing to sacrifice his life for her; but
this does not make him a good guy. Because he'll do it only for the
person *he* loves; he wouldn't care about anyone else. Cause he's
still a soulless monster w/o empathy. And even that one love is shown
to be somewhat obsessive and selfish - because he lacks a soul for
real goodness or moral virtue. That's pretty similar to Snape's story
to me, at least in how Rowling intends us to view it. She says in
interviews that Snape wouldn't have cared what happened to Harry at
all if he wasn't Lily's son. In the Prince's Tale, she pounds over &
over that Snape does it for Lily, and only Lily. Narcissa does
something good for Draco, and only Draco. Because they lack a soul &
are therefore incapable of true selfishness or altruism. 

As compared to, say, Harry, who chooses to die to save all humanity,
as Jesus did. I think the comparison is stark and intentionally so. If
Harry is her emblem of pure altruism (dying for all mankind), the
Slytherins are his absolute antithesis (saving their own skins). JKR
never *wanted* to redeem the Slytherins & is probably be puzzled by
fans' desire to do so. 


lizzyben