View original postI'm a little surprised to find myself disagreeing with most of your points here.
Nonsense. My points are eminently brilliant and well justified.
View original postFirst off, it is not really fair to just lay out the negative aspects of all the Slytherins like that, especially when ALL of her characters had rather ignoble and selfish traits. Let's consider some notable Gryffindors: Ron was shallow and downright peevish at times, Harry had cruel moments, and I have to agree with The Shrike about Percy, who was possibly the least sympathetic character in the books.
Of course. There are people who do bad things everywhere. Rowling did a great job of fully realizing her characters. But Harry (whiny) and Ron (deeply insecure) and Hermione (actually probably the least flawed person in the series) are people who, for the most part, think of others before themselves--whether that's running after Voldemort in Philocerer's Stone or setting up Dumbledore's Army. Draco's "redemption" and Snape's bravery are fueled by their love for a limited, specific set of people.
View original postThen we have Dumbledore, who was sorted into Gryffindor yet exemplified so many Slytherin traits. He was extraordinarily manipulative, believed the ends justified the means, and seemed far more interested in secret power/control than in the trappings of Gryffindor glory.
He was willing to sacrifice Harry in order to achieve what he considered to be the victory condition. Yes, everything worked out and Harry did survive in the end, but there were countless moments when that was not guaranteed, not to mention the layers of trauma.
Dumbledore is a pretty awful person in many ways, and if most of Gryffindor were like him I'd be willing to agree with you.
View original postSnape? Was not willing to sacrifice Harry; did not even want to let Dumbledore (an adult, an elderly soldier) die; yet sacrificed
himself without a complaint. Seems pretty damn Gryffindor-y.
I'm admittedly selling Snape short here, but there are
plenty of people as brave as Snape in other houses. Snape is remarkable precisely because he's apparently the only Slytherin willing to sacrifice himself. Ron sacrificed himself in the first book in the chess game, and he was what, ten? Eleven? I don't remember when kids get their owl letters.
View original postIt's possible I'm giving Rowling too much credit here, but I always felt like the main point she was trying to make with the Hat was that we all have some of each House within us. Not all in equal quantity, but still present. And the House you are placed in perhaps has more to do with the way you try to represent yourself than it does the innermost contents of your heart. The two do not always match, especially when we're young. Still, the label you choose goes on to shape your experiences and reputation.
I agree with this.
View original postI think the popularity of Slytherin may have something to do with this idea and the fact that we all have at least some Ambition/Cunning/Selfishness, but Slytherins are the ones who deceive themselves about it the least. And this appreciation for authenticity (even when it's ugly and dark) seems to be gaining wider cultural traction. Maybe we believe that acknowledging our flawed humanness could actually be helpful to society? The alternative, where everyone tries to live up to an impossible ideal, does often result in closeted horrors.
I agree with this, too, but I don't
like it. We should recognize our flaws, but we shouldn't
revel in them.
View original postI also think that Rowling did not so much fall victim to an overly simplistic Slytherin=EVEEL trope (except for what Paul said about The Battle of Hogwarts; that part definitely was oversimplified and frankly cheap). I actually think it may be that she felt a bit too compelled by her own darlings, namely Snape and Draco. Her disposition towards the Snape character arc puts her very much with the Snape fangirls, and I suspect she had a lot of sympathy for Draco as well. Whether her vision translated perfectly, whether you agree with the balance of virtue vs. sin - that's a different question. But I don't think she hated Slytherin at all; I think she probably loved both Draco and Snape enough to think they filled the need for complex Slytherins and even went a long way towards redeeming the worthless Salazar (and Voldemort, naturally).
Oh, there's no doubt in my mind that I come down much more harshly on Snape and Malfoy than most, including Rowling. I think part of it is having gone to school for a period of time with incredibly rich children--I don't have a ton of sympathy for them, especially given that some were delightful, kind, and empathetic. Admittedly, I found them to be in the minority.
View original postFor full disclosure, I am a proud Ravenpuff. I know I have Slytherin traits within me, but I don't tend to think they're a huge part of my overall makeup, nor do I really feel any pull to identify with them more (of course it's also possible I'm lying to myself and/or am a self-righteous fool
). However, I agree with Paul about needing proud Slytherin-types in society. Just, you know, maybe not quite so many need to be lawyers.
I like to think I'd end up in Gryffindor, but I don't know if I'm courageous enough. Probably would end up in Ravenclaw.
"We feel safe when we read what we recognise, what does not challenge our way of thinking.... a steady acceptance of pre-arranged patterns leads to the inability to question what we are told."
~Camilla
Ghavrel is Ghavrel is Ghavrel
*MySmiley*