Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow

[sigurd at eclipse.net]

No: HPFGUIDX 191480

Dear Geoff

I rather see some of your quotes supporting my position or do I read you wrong?

It was obvious that there was about to be a civil war in Hogwarts at the instant of battle. Clearly from the description of Rowling herself, specifically.

 "Before Harry could speak, there was a massive movement.  The Gryffindors in front of him had risen and stood facing,
not Harry, but the Slytherins. Then the Hufflepuffs stood and,
almost at the same moment, the Ravenclaws, all of them with
their backs to Harry, all of them looking towards Pansy instead
and Harry, awestruck and overwhelmed, saw wands emerging
everywhere, pulled from beneath cloaks and from under sleeves.

Clearly by Rollins own words, the Slytherins were judged INSTANTANEOUSLY by the other three houses, who living with them cheek by jowl, day by day, I submit, KNEW where their (Slytherin) hearts lay. They were clearly seen to be as much an enemy as the people outside the walls. McGonagall and Dumbledore's words I interpret being merely an expedient to avoid a massacre inside the walls when all persons were needed and while the extermination of an internal enemy might be a good thing, the losses to the other three houses would weaken the numbers of the remaining houses.

I think that the Slytherins simply went back to their common room and sat it out-- under guard.

Second, we must remember in all of this that we are NOT talking about a real event, a real historical movement. It is a novel and Rowling, as the author can move around her characters and have them do exactly what she wants.  They are her puppets and it is she who animates their words and deeds, motives and morals. It is therefore entirely HER fault if no Slytherins were given the opportunity to do something dramatic like taking tearing off their robes at this moment, or even if the Slytherins were marched off to incarceration and declare that they were going to stand with the school rather than the  house, and say something truly heroic like "Better to face the enemy naked than under a false house!"

But Rowling does not do that and therefore I think that she herself has given us, admittedly in not so many words, that 100% of the Slytherins were with the other side. Second I fully admit I might be wrong, but I do not remember one instance where Rowling mentioned deeds of Slytherins "in the battle line" or working with the other houses.

In that "march out" after McGonagall's speech, there would have been plenty of time for those who had "screwed their courage to the sticking point" to break line and join the other houses. Further- is it not interesting that Slughorn did not say anything? Why did he, who was the titular head of Slytherin not provide leadership, (I believe Snape is dead by that time) or was he already a "collaborateur."

As to the point of the moral choice between loyalty to family or to friends or other transcendent entities I have already replied.

Otto