The Slytherin Question: an Essay

[sigune]

Before I took my little hop over the ocean, some of you asked me to post my essay on Slytherin House, so this is me keeping my promise. Although I have worked on it pretty long and treated the subject with great seriousness (that's me!), I still feel that this essay is a WIP, and not just because its questions won't be answered until Book 7 has been well and truly published and devoured. I just have this annoying thirst for thoroughness and getting everything right, but in this case I'm not sure I can manage on my own. I would therefore love to hear any theories, reactions or reflections you might have, so that one day I will be able to adapt this piece and make it something with which I can be really happy.

One thing: I did my best not to judge the wizarding world by Muggle standards, and I tried to stray as little as possible from the information we have been given in books and interviews; I order myself to keep a strict divide between meta and fanfic.

Here goes, then.

---

The Slytherin Question

Slytherin House, many readers of the Harry Potter books agree, is a stain on the blazon of Hogwarts. Recruiting and sequestering the cunning, the ambitious, and those of purest blood, it has a singular propensity for producing villains. Nearly all of Harry’s antagonists are Slytherins: Draco and Lucius Malfoy, Severus Snape, and Lord Voldemort himself are the most notable. ‘And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee…’ says the gospel of Saint Mark; and in the now infamous Mugglenet/Leaky Cauldron interview, Emerson Spartz and Melissa Anelli quite understandably ask why Slytherin House is not simply abolished and its residents dispersed over the other three houses, none of which have a bad reputation at all (Part Three). Rowling replies that Slytherin must stay, that it represents the human flaws, and that ‘if only’ they could be embraced, the result would be ‘an unstoppable force’ (ibid.). It is the same message given by the Sorting Hat in Order of the Phoenix (186-7): strength is born of unity. Besides, Rowling says in the same interview, the Slytherins are not all bad.

It seems, however, that the text does not bear out her words. More often than not, Slytherins are described as unattractive or downright ugly; they are also mean, unengaging, and morally suspect on account of their association with Dark Arts and an ideology that discriminates on the basis of blood purity. Though the other Hogwarts houses contain their share of irritating or unpleasant people – Hufflepuff House can boast Zacharias Smith, Ravenclaw has the sneak Marietta Edgecombe, and Cormac McLaggen is a Gryffindor – Slytherin House does not have a single student with whom Harry or his friends are on speaking terms. Then again, there seem to be no depths to which Slytherins will not sink; they even populate the Inquisitorial Squad for the utterly awful Dolores Umbridge. Outside of the books, too, J. K. Rowling uses Slytherin students as denominators for everything young men and women should not be – recently in a rant on her website she dubbed ‘empty-headed, self-obsessed girls’ who care too much about appearances ‘Pansy Parkinsons’ – Pansy being cast as the anti-Hermione (“For Girls Only, Probably”).

With only one more book to go, it is time to wonder whether the reader is to expect anything good from Slytherin after all, or whether we are dealing with another Crookshanks – Hermione’s cat, whose extraordinary intelligence has only ever been explained outside of the novels (World Book Day Chat).

Fandom is divided on the issue. On the one hand, there are those who trust Harry’s judgment and agree with him that the Slytherins are simply ‘an unpleasant lot’ (PS 89). Half-Blood Prince has considerably strengthened their case: Draco Malfoy has apparently joined the Death Eaters; of the Slytherins who do not belong to his gang, Theo Nott has not shown his face, and Blaise Zabini treats Harry with cold contempt; Horace Slughorn is a greedy, hypocritical opportunist; and after five books in which he was accused and acquitted again, Severus Snape, hitherto the poster boy for Death Eater reform, has killed Albus Dumbledore. On the other hand, there are those who scour the text for clues in defence of Slytherin, arguing that, even though the Potter series is marketed primarily for children, Rowling is not opting for black and white. They point out that she took care to bruise the saintly image of James Potter by showing the scene of Snape’s worst memory, imbued Harry’s beloved godfather Sirius with considerable flaws, and gave us a Gryffindor traitor in the shape of Peter Pettigrew. To realise that Slytherin is not a solid block of wickedness is, they say, one of the most important lessons Harry has to learn.

At this point in the narrative, though, it is far from obvious that embracing the Slytherins is at all desirable. Harry, at any rate, defines himself in opposition to Slytherin House and all it stands for. Salazar Slytherin, who takes his first name from a Portuguese dictator and is described by the Sorting Hat as ‘shrewd’ and ‘power-hungry’ (GoF 157), is the dark presence at the heart of the Potter books, and the origin of their basic conflicts. It was he who, very early in Hogwarts’ history, insisted on making a distinction between magical children based on their ancestry: he proposed to teach only those of pure wizarding blood, thus causing the permanent split between the founders. Although he is long dead by the time Harry arrives at Hogwarts, the wizarding world still labours under his ideological – and physical – inheritance. Slytherin’s true heir and last remaining descendant is, after all, none other that Tom Marvolo Riddle, also known as the Dark Lord Voldemort, Harry’s nemesis. Voldemort emphatically invokes his kinship with Slytherin, a source of great pride to him, and styles himself as the one who will continue his famous ancestor’s ‘noble work’ (CoS 230-1). As a teenager, he sets the Basilisk free, killing the Muggle-born Myrtle; and as an adult, he unites under his banner all those who bear a grudge against wizards and witches whose blood is not pure. Slytherin’s legacy to his students, then, is a vicious prejudice and a murderous heir.

In Chamber of Secrets, Harry struggles with his own resemblance to Tom Riddle, and with one fact in particular: on his arrival at Hogwarts, the Sorting Hat seemed much inclined to sort him into Slytherin House. Harry, however, implored the Hat not to do so, and finally got sent to Gryffindor. When Professor Dumbledore asks him whether he thinks he is anything like Riddle, Harry replies, ‘I don’t think I’m like him! I mean, I’m – I’m in Gryffindor […]’ (CoS 244, original emphasis), thus positing Gryffindor’s qualities as the perfect antithesis to Voldemort’s.* Harry’s refusal to be sorted into Slytherin has been seen as his first feat of arms against the forces of evil. ‘It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities,’ Dumbledore says (CoS 245), formulating what has since been identified as the series’ leitmotiv. On more superficial levels Harry makes mistakes, but when it comes to fundamental matters such as the choice between good and evil, or between what is right and what is easy, his heart guides him to do the right thing. These choices are what define him as ‘good’.

One of the main arguments invoked by the Slytherins’ apologists is that of the influence of nurture on matters of behaviour and choice (underlucius, sullensphinx, randomjitter). They will point out that Draco has been brought up to believe himself superior to everybody else on account of his family’s pure blood, money and status, and that if he is a bigot and a snob, his parents are largely to blame. They will say that nobody seems to have stood up for young Snape, bullied ‘just because he exists’ and traumatised by the experience, and that after this, Snape was surely unlikely to join James Potter and crew in fighting anything whatsoever. They will add that Dumbledore’s reaction to little Tom Riddle’s abuse of his magic was to frighten him by setting a wardrobe on fire. Some call it a miracle that after the abuse to which he was exposed, with Dumbledore’s knowledge, Harry is mentally quite intact.

Indeed, a striking aspect of the wizarding world, to us in our Western society full of counsellors, therapists and other special educators, is its strange policy of non-interference. In a community where young people wield powers that can easily cause serious accidents, or even worse, used consciously to harm fellow witches and wizards (not to mention Muggles), society takes matters rather lightly; the dangers are accepted as a fact of magical life, even at school. In Half-Blood Prince, Hagrid comments, ‘I mean, it’s always bin a bit of a risk sendin’ a kid ter Hogwarts, hasn’ it? Yer expect accidents, don’ yeh, with hundreds of under-age wizards all locked up tergether,’ adding, ‘but attempted murder, tha’s diff’rent’ (HBP 379). The wizarding educators draw the line at murderous intentions and Unforgivable Curses, but are fairly tolerant towards anything lesser. Dumbledore and his staff exemplify this attitude: although they know of Draco Malfoy’s fanaticism, they undertake no direct effort to correct him; there are no serious actions towards playground bullies, and no real attempts to encourage house unity. This non-interference allows Malfoy to think himself right and all-mighty, young Snape to cast himself as a victim, and Riddle to assemble his gang of proto-Death Eaters with whom he causes ‘nasty incidents’ (HBP 339).

Absent or ineffectual adults are among the typical features of literature for children and young adults; in books like Roald Dahl’s and Anthony Horowitz’s, with which Rowling’s work shares several characteristics, children are left to educate themselves and sometimes save the world on their own. For Rowling, however, reluctance on the adult characters’ part to meddle with the youngsters’ decisions and actions appears to be more than a convention. Interviews suggest that she personally favours a hands-off approach towards education and dealing with problems:

‘My sister said to me in a moment of frustration, it was when Hagrid was shut up in his house after Rita Skeeter had published that he was a half-breed, and my sister said to me, “Why didn't Dumbledore go down earlier […]?” I said he really had to let Hagrid stew for a while and see if he was going to come out of this on his own because if he had come out on his own he really would have been better. “Well he's too detached, he's too cold, it's like you,” she said! [Laughter] By which she meant that where she would immediately rush in and [sic] I would maybe stand back a little bit and say, “Let's wait and see if he can work this out.”’ (Leaky Cauldron/Mugglenet, Part One)

Rowling points out that her hero Harry is ‘someone who is forced, for such a young person, to make his own choices. He has very limited access to truly caring adults – and he is guided by his conscience’ (Connection, part 18). Characters like Draco Malfoy, Severus Snape and Tom Riddle could have chosen similarly, but did not. Rowling takes care to elucidate this point by providing each of these prominent Slytherins with an equally prominent Gryffindor parallel, suggesting that fandom’s cherished theories about nurture do not really provide an excuse. If Draco Malfoy has been shaped by his family and acts under pressure from them, Sirius Black, who issues from a similar Dark, Slytherin background, has forcefully rejected his family’s ideology. If Severus Snape was an unpopular boy and bullied by his peers, Neville Longbottom, everybody’s favourite target for pranks, displays none of Snape’s selfish bitterness or spite. Tom Riddle’s opposite is, of course, Harry himself.

One central issue dividing Slytherins and Gryffindors is their take on life, death and self-sacrifice. ‘I deeply admire bravery in all its forms,’ Rowling says (Connection); and the house she clearly favours above all others is Gryffindor, whose members seem, more than anybody else, ready to risk their own lives in order to try and save their loved ones. It is better to die than to betray your friends, Rowling posits (Mugglenet/Leaky Cauldron, Part Three). What to think, then, of the Slytherins who, selected on cunning and ambition, use ‘any means to achieve their end’ (PS 7) and will, in the words of Phineas Nigellus, ‘always choose to save [their] own necks’ (OotP 437)? When in similar circumstances, Gryffindors and Slytherins will adopt an opposite course of action, the former motivated by courage, the latter by calculation. Neither Malfoy, Snape, nor Riddle seem to possess the moral courage Rowling so admires, and the existence of their Gryffindor counterparts suggests that the lack of it is implied in, and symbolised by, their membership of Slytherin House. Harry refused to be sorted there; Malfoy, Snape and Riddle did not. Or did they?

The idea of choice, the pro-Slytherin party will argue, is complicated by the fact that Hogwarts house allegiance is predominantly passed on in the family. All the Weasleys, no matter how different their characters, are in Gryffindor. All the Malfoys are in Slytherin. Tom Riddle is sorted into the house founded by his ancestor. And, Rowling says in the Leaky Cauldron/Mugglenet interview, the Sorting Hat is never wrong (Part Two). That does put Harry’s sorting into perspective: if he had really belonged in Slytherin, the Hat would have placed him there no matter what, and instead it sent him to Gryffindor. It cannot be a coincidence that both Harry’s parents were Gryffindors as well – Slughorn says as much (HBP 71), and we are told countless times how much Harry resembles James and Lily in looks as well as character, without even having been brought up by them.

‘I don't believe that anybody was born evil,’ Rowling says in the 2004 World Book Day Chat, referring the reader to Book Six for more about Voldemort’s history. Four years previously, she had told an interviewer,

‘I wanted to create a villain, where you could understand the workings of that person’s mind. And Harry, as you know, from book four, is starting to come to terms with what makes a person turn that way. Because they took wrong choices, and Voldemort took wrong choices from a very early age - he decided young what he wanted to be’ (cBBC Newsround).


Interestingly, Rowling’s answer to her own question of what makes a person evil is, as we can read in Half-Blood Prince, strangely deterministic. The book presents us with a picture of Tom Riddle’s mother, uncle and grandfather as physically and mentally degenerated, sociopathic, violent and unstable – all, it is suggested, a result of inbreeding. The genes they have passed on to Tom Riddle make him into a psychopath who from an early age enjoys treating other children cruelly and gathers trophies of his misdeeds. He is a man who is pathologically incapable of empathy – someone whose brain is on account of hereditary defects wired in such a way that the majority of people still find it quite impossible to understand his actions or motivations. Riddle’s whole set-up makes the denomination of ‘Slytherin’s true heir’ sound rather ironic, as well as making you wonder as to how responsible he is for what he has become, even if he has made himself into a monster.

Harry’s spontaneous antipathy towards Slytherin comes from the fact that he explicitly identifies the house with Voldemort (PS 61-2, 80). But to what extent does Voldemort represent his ancestor’s principles? If Professor Binns’s information is correct – and he appears to be rather strong on facts – Slytherin ‘disliked taking students of Muggle parentage, believing them to be untrustworthy’ (CoS 114) – a prejudice, certainly, but not quite the same as saying that they are in any way inferior or should be destroyed. Moreover, whether or not Slytherin’s bias ever did make sense in an age before the Statute of Secrecy, it has long since been overtaken by time, not least because the pure-bloods die out. The Sorting Hat, for one, has all but let go of the criterion; two of the most prominent Slytherins to which we have been introduced have Muggle fathers: Snape, and ironically, Voldemort himself. Even if Tom Riddle is the exponent – and the victim – of a particularly un-cunning interpretation of his ancestor’s doctrine, there is no justification for saying that he embodies Slytherin House. Maybe, to know what the house is capable of, we should look to that other half-blood Slytherin, Snape.

‘It is the tradition to have four houses, but in this case, I wanted them to correspond roughly to the four elements. So Gryffindor is fire, Ravenclaw is air, Hufflepuff is earth, and Slytherin is water, hence the fact that their common room is under the lake’, Rowling says (Mugglenet/Leaky Cauldron, Part Three). Rowling’s idea of identifying the four houses with the four elements invokes that age-old symbol of magic, the pentangle. Four points of the pentangle stand for earth, fire, water and air, and the fifth point brings them all together: it represents the spirit and the divine. Magic starts where the elements are united. When Voldemort is taken out of the equation, Slytherin and Gryffindor, as water and fire, are still each other’s opposite. But that does not have to mean they cannot function together: cunning and ambition are not inherently negative, and before the blood matter came up, Salazar Slytherin and Godric Gryffindor were great friends (OotP 184-6). It is arguably the case that some resourcefulness and calculation would be highly useful to balance out Harry’s great, but often reckless and foolish courage.

Before he allows Harry to accompany him on the Horcrux hunt, Dumbledore wants to know of Harry, ‘If I tell you to hide, will you do so? […] If I tell you to flee, will you obey? […] If I tell you to leave me, and save yourself, you will do as I tell you?’ (HBP 514). These requests go against Harry’s every instinct, but he has to learn and accept that, as Dumbledore points out, in the war against Voldemort, Harry’s blood – his life – is more valuable than anyone else’s (HBP 522). So he is put through the terrible ordeal of having to force-feed his mentor a poison that causes unbearable anguish, and of having to watch, immobilised, how Dumbledore is trapped and killed. There is nothing noble about war, and at times Gryffindor bravery, chivalry and self-sacrifice must make way for cold Slytherin strategy and self-preservation.

On the Astronomy Tower, if he had not been restrained, Harry would have put his life before Dumbledore’s, even though the headmaster was dying. It would have been a useless sacrifice. Severus Snape, bound by an Unbreakable Vow, followed Slytherin logic and chose his own life over Dumbledore’s. Maybe that does not make him Voldemort’s man, but instead the Order of the Phoenix’s best strategist. A wartime cost-benefit analysis shows that by killing a dying man, he saved a sixteen-year-old from damaging his soul, the Chosen One from being killed, and Dumbledore’s most carefully placed and protected pawn – himself – from being destroyed. Horrible? Yes, but ultimately, Rowling reminds us, she is writing about evil (Mugglenet/Leaky Cauldron, Part Three).

I contend that what Harry witnessed on the Astronomy Tower was not foul murder, but the way in which Slytherin qualities will be instrumental in winning the fight against Voldemort. Half-Blood Prince has finally provided the set-up for a change in the perception of Slytherin House and its emancipation from Voldemort.**


* Note that all the members of the Order of the Phoenix whose house allegiance we have been told are Gryffindors, with the singular exception of Snape.
** I should add that the existence of the (perhaps no longer very) mysterious R. A. B., the appearance of Draco Malfoy’s doubts, and the sheer fact that Blaise Zabini has been given a face and a history are also pretty indicative of a change to come, but I haven’t yet integrated those things into the body of the essay, sorry! ;)



Bibliography

Anelli, Melissa and Emerson Spartz. "The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part One", The Leaky Cauldron, 16 July 2005.
--- “Part Two”.
--- “Part Three”.

The Connection (WBUR Radio), J.K. Rowling interview transcript, 12 October, 1999
(30/05/2006)

JK Rowling's World Book Day Chat, March 4, 2004
(30/05/2006)

Mzimba, Lizo. “JK Rowling Talks About Book Four”, cBBC Newsround, Fall 2000
(30/05/2006)

randomjitter. “Tom Riddle – 11yr old dark wizard?”, Harry Potter Theories, 12 April 2006.

Rowling, J. K. “For Girls Only, Probably…”, J. K. Rowling Official Site. (30/05/2006)
--- Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (London: Bloomsbury 1998).
--- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (London: Bloomsbury 2005).
--- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (London: Bloomsbury 2003).
--- Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (London: Bloomsbury 1997).

sullensphinx. “Draco Malfoy: Sides of an Antagonist”, Harry Potter Essays, 11 April 2006.

underlucius. “Nature and Nurture”, 3 April 2006.

Comments

[sscrewdriver.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting this, Sigune. I've been waiting a long time, haven't I?

First impressions: Yes, she contradicts herself all the time. So the Sorting Hat is never wrong, but the wearer can request which house to be put in? That makes no sense. And no-one is born evil, yet generations of children blithely follow their parents into the same school houses. Where is the free will and determination of one's own personality shown there?

As you ask, if Harry's rejection of Slytherin shows that he is 'good', how can we not conclude that Slytherin is not 'evil'? She's dug herself into a bit of a hole there.

You're right, of course, in that children's literature is full of the hands off style of upbringing that provides lots of dangerous and exciting adventures for the readers. But you're also right in that it feels like more than that - JKR seems to be advocating a curiously dispassionate and callous method of raising children. Compare her writing to that of Terry Pratchett (because I know you're a big fan), which brims over with humanity even in the middle of a huge and bloody battle.

BTW I hadn't heard the houses described as a pentangle before with magic as the fifth point. A nice image.

Are you going to crosspost lots?

[sigune.livejournal.com]

I was intending to post at FA Inkpot and hp_essays, but I would prefer to have the essay corrected and completed before I do so. I still feel that there are things missing and points to be added :/.

The contradictions made writing the essay much more difficult than I had anticipated. JKR seems big on free will, but free will seems rather curbed when you begin to take a closer look at things like the Sorting Hat and the prophecy. As for Slytherin, I think Harry is wrong to identify the house with Voldemort and even Draco; and it is obvious that he was heavily biased rather than well-informed when he rejected the house. On the one hand, all JKR's duplicities in the text make for interesting reading, but on the other it's difficult to draw lines and formulate theories about them :D.

I do agree that JKR is a lot harsher than Terry Pratchett. Just think about characters like Umbridge, Lucius Malfoy, Voldemort, Bellatrix Lestrange and even Snape: there are no such people in Pratchett's world. Also, whenever Pratchett seems cruel, as he often is in the description of his characters, he subverts this cruelty by making them loveable and turning their great flaws into unexpected strengths. I think - and she hints at it herself - that JKR is a withdrawn and rather detached person, and her world is very much stamped by her own personality. The approach towards education that she seems to propose can be very effective, but it doesn't work for every child.

In any case, writing this essay was a pain XD. Next time I really must choose an easier subject ;)...

[redvelvetcanopy.livejournal.com]

‘if only’ they could be embraced, the result would be ‘an unstoppable force’

To realise that Slytherin is not a solid block of wickedness is, they say, one of the most important lessons Harry has to learn.

In so many ways, the story is an extended coming-of-age tale. One of the things that we realize is that our foes and adversaries are far more complex than we might imagine. I agree, wholeheartedly, with you, that Harry will eventually come to realize this and form some sort of alliance with someone from Slytherin. I suspect that will be Draco. I also firmly believe that Snape's role in the whole thing is far more complex than those last few scenes from HBP would have us believe. He'll be the one to help Harry succeed in the end.

There is nothing noble about war, and at times Gryffindor bravery, chivalry and self-sacrifice must make way for cold Slytherin strategy and self-preservation. This is a brilliant statement, sigune! I think that Dumbledore understood this, though he didn't preserve himself, he knew enough to understand that his sacrifice was necessary to preserve Harry's fate. I think that Snape, too, understands and lives this, as you've said.

What a great essay! I wish I could have been there to hear you present this, but I do so appreciate your posting this!

[novin-ha.livejournal.com]

This was a fascinating read. Thank you!

[sigune.livejournal.com]

You're welcome :).

[darth-kittius.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting this... I've printed it out to read on my trip this weekend... it was one of the presentations I wanted to attend, but couldn't.

[sigune.livejournal.com]

Please do let me know any kind of criticism you may have! I know the thing is very flawed, but I have difficulty mending it :/. The version I posted here is better than the one on the CD; I added a few bits to the ending that bring it a little more full circle.

Oh, all those parallel sessions! It was horrible having to make all those choices about which papers to attend X). Will you be posting yours too?

[riibu.livejournal.com]

A thought-provoking essay. The Slytherin House is definitely the most interesting of the Hogwarts Houses, and I'm not always sure that JKR treats them well. But perhaps a change will come, like you predict in the last paragraph...

[sigune.livejournal.com]

I'm definitely hoping so... But then again, I am one of those who had been predicting the arrival of a Good Slytherin for Book Six, and we only got glimpses for the trusting so far :D.

I'm not sure how fair I am being here, but for me, the ultimate characterisation of Snape and the Slytherins will be the test of JKR's writing. She says Slytherin is the house of the subtle; if she doesn't live up to that subtlety, I'll be very disappointed and see at once why the books are sold as children's literature.

[dolabellae.livejournal.com]

Ah, Slytherin-theorifying, my favourite! First thoughts are that you deal very interestingly with perceptions of Slytherin and the question of choice, but that the end feels a bit rushed (only in comparison with the fullness of the rest, I hasten to add) and I'd be really keen to hear more about how you think Slytherin tactics might be put to use in book 7 (though I know these stabs in the dark into the future are alarming...)

I read an essay somewhere analysing how HBP was 'the Slytherin book' - it did a lot of work with the elements idea, and with CoS parallels, and I think it might have been by sistermagpie, have you seen it? Since you bring in the elements, perhaps you could make something of the importance of Slytherin themes and symbols throughout HBP (if you agree that they're there, of course) as preparation of the ground for a new view of the House?

Only suggestions, of course - really enjoyed reading. I loved your Crookshanks comparison!

[sigune.livejournal.com]

You are very right, the end does seem a bit rushed; the thing is that I had only 25 minutes but a lot of explaining and highlighting to do. I always time my papers very precisely because I hate listening to presenters who suddenly start to read very fast or skip bits (I tune out when they do), and I will always opt for cutting things rather than squeezing facts in at the end. This is the text as I presented it, so it's shorter than it would have been if it had been intended as a written text in the first place. But it's the 'rushed' bit that I would like to remedy before I post elsewhere :D. So by all means criticise!

I'm very interested in the essay you mention; any chance you could find me a link or something? Is it in sistermagpie's own journal or in one of the comms?
I'm not sure I have seen many Slytherin themes and symbols in HBP, but I didn't focus on that book alone, plus I'm me and I never pick up JKR's famous hints (except those about H/G and Hr/R and - I'm very proud of this one - Horcruxes :D). The only things I can see is that the introduction of Blaise would be completely superfluous if he weren't meant to play a role of significance as a non-Draco-crony; that Regulus Black was a Slytherin who managed to 1) be a good son, 2) realise that he had been wrong and 3) effectively counteract Voldemort; and that Draco seems finally to have looked through the lies of his father's ideology and thus effectively outgrown Lucius.

More suggestions are very, very welcome! :)

[dolabellae.livejournal.com]

Oh, I could completely see that you wanted to say more at the end

I went looking for that sistermagpie essay, and though I found something resembling it, it wasn't anywhere near as full as I'd imagined it to be. I think I might have formed some sort of synthesis in my head of several pieces of her Slytherin pondering, of which there is plenty. The '4 houses' essay I found is here, but perhaps you could also search her LJ using her 'meta' tag to get to the other theorising. Sorry for my memory playing tricks!

I think the CoS parallels in HBP are all-pervasive, and an awful lot of them relate to Draco/Slytherin House in general (Draco and Harry duel again, only it's four years on and four years nastier, and Rictusempra becomes Sectusempra; Goyle & Crabbe use Polyjuice themselves instead of being impersonated with it...) and since JKR herself has talked about the association of Slytherin and water I was quite ready to buy the idea that the pipes and the bathrooms and the potions and the watery cave in those 2 books all have some connection to the nature of the House - but hey, I haven't the faintest clue what to do with the idea!

Agree with your identifications of new Slytherin developments; perhaps you could also include Slughorn, another type of Slytherin who makes a concerted effort to 'acquire' Harry....?

[dolabellae.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I meant to say I hope Nelson is feeling better!

[sigune.livejournal.com]

Thanks very much! You give me plenty of material to work with in order to touch up the essay. Now I only have to find the time to do it :/. It may take a while, but I'll certainly return to it.

I hadn't really noticed the CoS/HBP parallels, but when you start naming them, I don't understand how I could have missed them all XD. Maybe I was too busy thinking about the effect Crabbe and Goyle's Polyjuice adventures might have in fanfic - but then again, similar things probably existed in fandom before HBP *g*.

[veradee.livejournal.com]

That's an intriguing essay, and you mention a lot of interesting points. I've never really analysed the books, but there are certainly moments when one can't help feeling that JKR contradicts herself. At times I also wonder what message the books are supposed to have - assuming there is a message. In contrast to her, I'm not sure whether bravery always is such a good thing.

Rowling replies that Slytherin must stay, that it represents the human flaws, and that ‘if only’ they could be embraced, the result would be ‘an unstoppable force’ (ibid.). It is the same message given by the Sorting Hat in Order of the Phoenix (186-7): strength is born of unity.

I'm quite convinced that this is true, but I think that the four House characteristics must be embraced within one person. I'm tempted to compare the four House characteristics with the four humours the Elizabethans believed in (melancholy, phlegm, choler and sanguis). Ideally the humours are balanced in a human being.

I find it a bit troublesome that JKR stated that Slytherin represents the 'human flaws' because it seems to be an absolute statement. How are other wizards supposed to counteract the 'flaws'? How do you balance out a psychopath like Voldemort? Do three 'nice' people counteract one murderer?

When Professor Dumbledore asks him whether he thinks he is anything like Riddle, Harry replies, ‘I don’t think I’m like him! I mean, I’m – I’m in Gryffindor […]’ (CoS 244, original emphasis), thus positing Gryffindor’s qualities as the perfect antithesis to Voldemort’s.* Harry’s refusal to be sorted into Slytherin has been seen as his first feat of arms against the forces of evil. ‘It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities,’ Dumbledore says (CoS 245), formulating what has since been identified as the series’ leitmotiv.

I find it questionable how a Sorting Hat can see what will become of an 11-year-old one day in the future. That's a rather scary thought because to me it seems to imply that people can't really change. To a certainy extent your future already seems to be a fact when you are still a child.

I agree with what Dumbledore says, but here I think the problem is that Harry was only 11 when he pleaded to be a Gryffindor. So far he had only met Draco Malfoy who was sorted in Slytherin right before him, and I think he had heard that Slytherins were nasty. Therefore, Harry's pleading wasn't because he had a detailed knowledge about the Houses and truly abhorred everything Slytherin stands for, but because of some gut feeling. It would be a bit misleading to see him as morally superior because he chose the 'noble' Gryffindors.

(part 1)

[sigune.livejournal.com]

Thanks very much for these thoughtful comments!

It is a difficult matter... I agree with you about the humours, and I do think that to some extent your approach is suggested in the text as well. Most children aren't that clear-cut for one specific house anyway: Hermione is an excellent example of a student who unites Gryffindor courage, Ravenclaw bookishness, Hufflepuff work ethic and Slytherin cunning within herself. But on the whole, the system seems to encourage opposition rather than anything else. Also, it's always Slytherin versus Gryffindor qualities in the books; hard work or studiousness never seem to be accorded any value whatsoever. I understand that the number of houses in the public schools on which Hogwarts is based is always four, so that is why Hogwarts has four as well; in practice, JKR only needed two and the two others seem to be dead weight more than anything else.

Maybe - well, the main characters are students who are placed in a position of competition with other houses; I'm not sure to what extent adult witches and wizards still feel allegiance to their old house. What I mean is that going beyond one single house is one of the elements of growing up, which we haven't been shown because the heroes are still at school...

I share your unease about Slytherin equalling the human flaws. That still makes them negative. I'm hoping here that, because it was a live interview, she was perhaps not expressing herself very well. Gryffindor must be as undesirable to Slytherin as it is the other way around (and, in view of Harry and Ron's diligence and thirst for knowledge, it's hard to envision them embracing Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff either, LOL), so for each, the other house represents something unpleasant with which you have to come to terms in order to be a whole person.

I think that someone like Voldemort isn't acceptable no matter how you put it; he can't be balanced out. He's irredeemable. But then I don't think he's representative of Slytherin, really; and I think Slytherin's only hope is to cast him out entirely.

Re: (part 1)

[veradee.livejournal.com]

Most children aren't that clear-cut for one specific house anyway: Hermione is an excellent example of a student who unites Gryffindor courage, Ravenclaw bookishness, Hufflepuff work ethic and Slytherin cunning within herself. But on the whole, the system seems to encourage opposition rather than anything else.

Yes, I later realised that I should have added some more explanation. I agree that most children aren't 100 per cent Gryffindor or Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw. It's a mixture and one House trait dominates. But with the Slytherins I always get the impression that they are only ambitious and nasty. Apart from the fact that I don't think that ambitiousness always is something negative, have we ever seen a nice Slytherin? Some are more intelligent than others so that perhaps Ravenclaw might have been an option for one or two as well, but in general they seem to be rather one-dimensional.

While you are right in saying below that Hagrid was wrong when he said that every bad wizard was Slytherin, I think it's quite correct to say that all Slytherins are 'bad' - if different shades of 'bad'.

Maybe - well, the main characters are students who are placed in a position of competition with other houses; I'm not sure to what extent adult witches and wizards still feel allegiance to their old house. What I mean is that going beyond one single house is one of the elements of growing up, which we haven't been shown because the heroes are still at school...

Yes, but by now Harry is almost 17. He's no longer a child. He has learnt that not everyone is absolutely good or bad - he just has to look at his own father. He also has realised that Dumbledore has flaws. But despite this, he is totally unwilling to even assume for one minute that a Slytherin could be good.

Re: (part 1)

[sigune.livejournal.com]

While you are right in saying below that Hagrid was wrong when he said that every bad wizard was Slytherin, I think it's quite correct to say that all Slytherins are 'bad' - if different shades of 'bad'.

I'm not so sure I agree with that... Take Slughorn. I don't like him; I think he is weak and tries to escape his responsibilities, but I don't think he is a bad person. He's not evil. Also, though I am well aware we haven't been introduced to any truly likeable Slytherins so far (alas!), I think we don't know enough about them to say they are all bad. Admittedly what little we do know doesn't say a lot in their favour :D...

[...] Harry is almost 17. He's no longer a child. He has learnt that not everyone is absolutely good or bad [...]. He also has realised that Dumbledore has flaws. But despite this, he is totally unwilling to even assume for one minute that a Slytherin could be good.

That worries me. As a reader I had been expecting Harry to gain some tolerance towards Slytherin in the sixth book, but that hasn't come to pass at all. Unless you count his inkling of pity for Draco as a hopeful sign, it seems he will have to make a hell of a mental development in the very last book, and that will take JKR some effort if it isn't to seem contrived or sudden.

Re: (part 1)

[veradee.livejournal.com]

I think Harry still has to learn an awful lot. So far I can't imagine how he's supposed to defeat Voldemort. The fact that he's a powerful wizard isn't enough in my opinion. It's a matter of knowing how to use the power. He would need to reflect on what he's doing, and so far thinking hasn't been one of his fortes.

Re: (part 1)

[sigune.livejournal.com]

I know, he hasn't inspired me with a lot of confidence either so far :/. Snape simply toyed with him at the end of HBP; Voldemort is supposed to be a lot more powerful than Snape.

Book 7 will have to be twice the size of OotP if Harry is to get ready, I think ;).

Re: (part 1)

[veradee.livejournal.com]

Well, at least we have many pages to look forward to then. ;)

(part 2)

[sigune.livejournal.com]

I find it questionable how a Sorting Hat can see what will become of an 11-year-old one day in the future. That's a rather scary thought because to me it seems to imply that people can't really change. To a certainy extent your future already seems to be a fact when you are still a child.

I agree, and she does something of the kind with Riddle as well, by making him a psychopath and explaining it by inbreeding. That is scary too - the genetic aspect she brings in. I'm rather sensitive to this because the degeneration idea was one of the things used to condemn people like Wilde - and the Jews under fascism. It seems a very old-fashioned, and a very creepy, concept to me :/. Harry, on the other hand, seems saved by the genes James and Lily passed on to him - and the Hat places him in Gryffindor where they have been. There are several very deterministic elements in the Potterverse.

I think Harry was wrong in thinking that if he had been sorted into Slytherin, he would have aligned himself with evil. If he had been a Slytherin, he would still have disliked Draco Malfoy, and their rivalry would simply have been an in-house thing rather than a quarrel between two houses. He would still have been brave; he would still have been the same person, perhaps even with the same friends. But it is Harry himself who from the first identifies Slytherin with everything he hates - on account of his instant dislike of Draco Malfoy, as you say; on account of his knowledge that the killer of his parents was in that house; and because Hagrid tells him every wizard or witch who went bad was a Slytherin (we now know very well that's false information, but Harry does not, at that point).

I think you are very right in saying that Harry's moral superiority is not directly, or at the least not solely, related to his being a Gryffindor. The narrator, and JKR in her encomia on bravery, place great stress on their synonymity, but close readings of the text show that this idea can be undermined. Dumbledore never says that Slytherin is evil, or that Gryffindor can lay claim to moral superiority. He is just happy and proud to have Harry in his old house; the moral superiority he attributes to Harry as a person capable of love. So, well, I'd plead vociferously for that point to come across in Book Seven - embrace the Slytherins! ;)

Re: (part 2)

[veradee.livejournal.com]

I agree, and she does something of the kind with Riddle as well, by making him a psychopath and explaining it by inbreeding. That is scary too - the genetic aspect she brings in. I'm rather sensitive to this because the degeneration idea was one of the things used to condemn people like Wilde - and the Jews under fascism. It seems a very old-fashioned, and a very creepy, concept to me :/. Harry, on the other hand, seems saved by the genes James and Lily passed on to him - and the Hat places him in Gryffindor where they have been. There are several very deterministic elements in the Potterverse.

Nature and nurture, eh? Have sociologists ever come to a conclusion on that? Personally, I think that nurture is more influential in most cases.

While we know that James was Gryffindor, I think we don't know whether the Sorting Hat might not almost have placed him in Slytherin like Harry instead. When we see how both Snape and James behaved when they were teens, I don't really see a difference. To me it seems that James could have been a Slytherin as well.

And Snape, assuming he is or was a double-agent for a long time, isn't exactly someone who lacks courage either. He's also rather intelligent. Perhaps Snape is the one Slytherin who does have qualities of the other Houses after all.

Re: (part 2)

[sigune.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think that nurture is more influential in most cases.

I think so too, but Rowling seems pretty much to suggest otherwise - though, well, not all the time XD. I feel ambiguous about, say, Draco and Sirius. Draco adores his parents and is on the same wavelength with them; he follows the ideology with which he has been brought up. Frankly I can't blame him for being the way he is. I would blame him, though, if he hadn't gone through that "aha-erlebnis" on the Astronomy Tower - if he had never reached insight and learned to make up his own mind. Sirius - well, he seems to have had the right idea about the whole pure-blood stuff and found the courage to emancipate himself, but he did it in a very radical way of which I find it difficult to approve. I don't know enough about dear Mrs and Mr Black to assess what kind of parents they were, but they, and any genuine affection they may have felt for their son, were rejected together with their political ideas. I don't know; it's just a little unsettling to me how much Sirius hates his own parents, shaking off the nurture stuff, and it is suggested that it's so much better than Draco venerating his.

Re: (part 2)

[veradee.livejournal.com]

Aha-Erlebnis? Is that word used in English? I've never come across it before.

Interesting thoughts on Draco and Sirius, which hadn't occurred to me yet. As I said before, I don't really analyse the books. Only posts on my f-list make me think about certain things. ;)

Re: (part 2)

[sigune.livejournal.com]

Aha-Erlebnis? Is that word used in English?

My dear, what do I know? I'm a poor foreigner :D. - We use it in Dutch, at any rate, and I'm not sure about any English-speakers, but I knew to you at least the meaning wouldn't be a mystery *g*.

Re: (part 2)

[veradee.livejournal.com]

LOL... Yes, I certainly know what it means. I didn't know that you use it in Dutch. Nice to know, though. ;)

The English language has picked up a few German words, some of which puzzle me every time I come across them. For example, the use of 'angst' in English still escapes me most of the time.

[tawabids.livejournal.com]

Great read!

I agree that the whole wizarding world seems to take an anarchic view towards the raising of children which is quite interesting (and, IMO, idiotic): I think JKR has captured the results of that attiude well. The trouble is that she doesn't seem to realise how unstable and destructive it must be for wizarding society. One begins to wonder if the only reason it hasn't demolished itself from the inside out long before now is the large numbers of muggle-raised children constantly pumped into the population, acting as a kind of buffer against the civil war that would otherwise have (and finally has) divided the groups of wizards who have never grown past their childhood predjudices.

I cling to Slughorn as a "good Slytherin" and a "true Slytherin", but I really want more than that from the 7th book. I love the idea you talk about, that there is a need for unity to resolve the war - if the trio were to represent the other three houses, a fourth person of Slytherin values (your description of what Snape actually did on the Astronomy tower made me sigh with pleasure) could be the missing key. There's a satisfying symmetry there which I've come to expect JKR to provide. And plus I'm pig-headedly against the idea of Good&Evil as a rule, so anything that smashes that stereotype seems enough.

[sigune.livejournal.com]

I agree that the whole wizarding world seems to take an anarchic view towards the raising of children which is quite interesting (and, IMO, idiotic): I think JKR has captured the results of that attiude well. The trouble is that she doesn't seem to realise how unstable and destructive it must be for wizarding society.

Well, the thing is that in the books this weird system seems to work pretty well; that is why I avoided making it measure up to ours. It's a fictional world and its logic is not our logic; I think it is profitless to speculate about the Potterverse on the basis of real life. These are people who can transform into animals or build undetectable castles in which rooms change places, but haven't yet discovered a comfortable means of travelling :D.

I cling to Slughorn as a "good Slytherin" and a "true Slytherin", but I really want more than that from the 7th book.

Well, me too. Slughorn is certainly a true Slytherin, but that doesn't make him a likeable one :/. He's not bad, but I'm not sure how good he is either; he seems a big coward to me and probably wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone whatsoever. I had been (and still am) hoping for a Slytherin whom Harry can treat as a friend. That's obviously never going to work for Snape, and I have to admit I was disappointed that it wasn't Zabini - but I have hopes that he at least is going to show a new side of himself in 7.

I'm pig-headedly against the idea of Good&Evil as a rule, so anything that smashes that stereotype seems enough.

Yea to that :).

[tawabids.livejournal.com]

It's a fictional world and its logic is not our logic

Haha, I have a great respect for JKR that she doesn't always use any sort of logic I'm familiar with, but she still keeps to her own brand of logic. It's a difficult thing to do and she gets big points for it in my eyes.

That being said, I'm not comparing the WW with our world when I say I think their whole society is a ticking time bomb. They're extremely corrupt - look at Malfoy, able to remove the Headmaster from his position through threats and bribery (CoS) and the illegality of Minister's and Umbridges actions in OotP (trying Harry by the full court, setting Dementors on children!). They're selfish and unfeeling for human life - look at the way they treat their criminals: a fate worse than death (and a lifetime in Azkaban is both a death sentence and psychological rape) even for those who were never given a trial (Sirius and Hagrid and Stan Shunpike, and that's just the ones we know of). They can't keep their own rules straight - Barty's use of the "Unforgivables", it seems, was forgiven (and I agree with your arguments that the Unforgiveables are better than Azkaban - but when a government breaks its own laws without reprimand, things are going very wrong). The way the Ministry seems to work is no different from the way the undisciplined students at Hogwarts operate, through manipulation, flexing of power and treachery. Hogwarts actually seems a lot better (to be fair, it has McGonagall :D). I really want JKR to address that in book 7 (in some way that doesn't involve making Arthur Weasley minister), but I'm frightened she doesn't see how terrible her wizarding society has become.

I was disappointed that it wasn't Zabini - but I have hopes that he at least is going to show a new side of himself in 7.

Oh, me too! And his "famously beautiful" mother!

Snape and the Gryffindor virtues-

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Another fascinating essay, and I agree I wish you'd had a little more time for the ending. You see, I think Severus Snape actually IS the person who unites the virtues of the four houses - June Diamanti, before she turned against him as a result of HBP, said as much in her essay, "Suppose the sorting hat had wanted to put Snape in Gryffindor?" She points out there that Snape is smart, studious, hardworking, loyal, and extremely courageous - but that, of all these virtues, courage is the one that most seems to define him.

The funny thing is that, although I'd begun to like Severus Snape before this (certainly in OOTP, and possibly as far back as POA), it was really HBP that convinced me the man is a hero, in spite of his flaws. It WOULD be wonderful if Harry could have a friend from Slytherin (I was holding out hope for Theo Nott, rather than Blaise Zabini), but I would be happy enough if Snape and he would reconcile. That's what I'm waiting to see.

And I don't see Neville as being the person set up as the contrast to Severus Snape (no, the Gryffindor parallel to Severus is very clearly Harry) - nor do I see that Snape defines himself as a victim. I was bullied at school and I don't define myself as a victim - I *was* a victim , as was my sister, and as were, and are, many other kids. But I'm not a victim now. We are meant to believe that Snape is still resentful and angry at James and taking out his wrath on Harry, but I'm not sure that is true. I think Snape has other reasons to dislike Harry, and I am hoping these, too, will become clear in the final book - to Harry, as well as to us.

I agree strongly that Rowling seems to be worryingly deterministic in these books. I don't quite know what she means by it, and hope she doesn't simply stamp Slytherin as the "evil house". Here is something I said on John Granger's board - Slytherin represents water, and water stands for Baptism, birth, renewal, and The Holy Spirit. Fire is also a sign of renewal and the Holy Spirit, and this shows us Gryffindor and Slytherin are in a false opposition which is harming both the houses.

BTW, Professor Granger himself said that the original division was caused by Godric Gryffindor, who drove his former friend from the school. Therefore, it must be the case that part of Harry's job will be to welcome Slytherin back on some level.

Did I tell you I think Snape is the heir of Gryffindor?

Oh - I know exactly what "aha Erlebnis" means, but that's because I speak German. The phrase is not used in English - at least, not in American English. I think I have heard, "Aha moment, or Aha experience."

Re: Snape and the Gryffindor virtues-

[sigune.livejournal.com]

Thank you for taking the time to comment so elaborately! I really appreciate it, even if I find that I differ of opinion with you on more than one point :).

[June Diamanti] points out there that Snape is smart, studious, hardworking, loyal, and extremely courageous - but that, of all these virtues, courage is the one that most seems to define him.
I venerate June, but I disagree. Yes, Snape is all these things, but what defines him for me is his survival instinct and his cunning. It seems to me that all his other capacities are dominated by his Slytherin element. If he is studious, he seems very much interested in putting his knowledge to practical, advantageous use. He is hard-working, but with the clear aim of furthering himself and those he favours. He is loyal, but there is always something in it for himself as well. Snape is the quintessential Slytherin for me.

I may be totally wrong in my assessment; and I think you can see at once why I will be extremely galled if JKR makes the poor bloke sacrifice himself for Harry. She will have a hard time pulling that off as being IC for me.

We are meant to believe that Snape is still resentful and angry at James and taking out his wrath on Harry, but I'm not sure that is true.
I am quite convinced that it is true myself. Snape is a very petty man; he bullies schoolchildren just because he can, abuses his power as a teacher, and enjoys it. He likes hitting below the belt, as with Sirius at Grimmauld Place. He nurses childhood grudges all his adult life. Look at the Hospital Wing scene in PoA: he was so not faking it. I don't think his hatred of Harry is based on his hatred of James alone, mind you: I also see genuine envy of a boy who is famous by virtue of existing, a boy Dumbledore favours over Snape himself.

And I don't see Neville as being the person set up as the contrast to Severus Snape (no, the Gryffindor parallel to Severus is very clearly Harry) - nor do I see that Snape defines himself as a victim.
LOL - the key word in Snape vs Neville is contrast. I shouldn't have used parallel. I know there are plenty of parallels between Snape and Harry (which Harry refuses to acknowledge); but for my purpose the bullying was essential, and Harry is never subjected to that in the same way as Snape or Neville, who were/are both seen as oddballs in ways Harry isn't.
Trust me, I know very well what being bullied at school is like *g*. Maybe I didn't express myself very well; I wasn't saying that Snape still sees himself as a victim. I think he does, however, see himself as a former and potentially a future victim. The first I glean from the fact that he keeps reminding Harry and Dumbledore of what the Marauders did to him, and never admits to having given them cause in any way or to giving as good as he got. I call that 'casting himself as a victim' because I can't find a better way of phrasing it :/. In any case he still hasn't come to terms with the past, and many of his actions in the present are motivated by things that happened in his past. As for Snape seeing himself as a potential victim, I get that impression from my perception of him as insecure. He is always on the defensive, ready to attack, and cultivates a fearsome image as if he needs to convince himself as well as others of his own strength. His classroom manner and his sarcasm seem like a kind of 'attacking is the best defense' thing. That's what I see; I have no doubt that other readers will take a different view.

Professor Granger himself said that the original division was caused by Godric Gryffindor, who drove his former friend from the school.
Does Professor Granger base this on any textual evidence? It seems to me that this is a highly subjective view that is based simply on whose side you take in the Founders' conflict. Slytherin proposed to teach pure-bloods only, nobody agreed, they fought, and Slytherin he left. That's all Binns and the Sorting Hat tell us. True, Gryffindor was his best friend and opposed him; but Helga Hufflepuff and Rowena Ravenclaw apparently didn't stand up for poor Sally either. That said, I still think Harry will have to learn to embrace the Slytherins, but then that was the gist of my essay :).

Re: Snape and the Gryffindor virtues-

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your response! Just a brief (i hope!)) clarification:

You say,
"Yes, Snape is all these things, but what defines him for me is his survival instinct and his cunning." And, "I think you can see at once why I will be extremely galled if JKR makes the poor bloke sacrifice himself for Harry. She will have a hard time pulling that off as being IC for me."

I actually agree with you here, although I don't think (as you do) that it's because Snape is always thinking, "what's in it for me?" No - I think Snape is a pragmatist, and, if he is, more power to him! There *has* to be a pragmatist in this story among all those hotheaded, idealistic Gryffindors - someone who is asking, not so much "what's in it for me" as "will this actually do any good? Will it *work*?" I don't think Snape would *ever* sacrifice himself unless he knew for sure it would bring total victory, and he's not going to know that for sure, is he? So I, too, can't see him sacrificing himself to save Harry. No, I think it's much more likely to be the other way around - at least, that's how I wrote the ending. )

Another minor disagreement: You say about Snape as victim that "he keeps reminding Harry and Dumbledore of what the Marauders did to him, and never admits to having given them cause in any way or to giving as good as he got." But there is *absolutely no evidence* in the text that young Severus ever gave them cause, or even gave them as good as he got. He comes across as such an unpleasant person that readers naturally tend to see him as the aggressor, and it takes some thinking to realize we have never seen him physically attack anybody in all six books. (Possible exceptions: Lockhart, but that was in a duel, and I don't think I've yet come across a reader who minded! Harry in the pensieve, but he was very severely provoked.) He has never done anything but defend. Even in the scene with Sirius which you cite, Sirius was insulting him first. I know - we are supposed to read about hexes like "Levicorpus" and "Sectumsempra" and think, "what a nasty kid! Doing stuff like that to his schoolmates!" But what if Severus invented those curses for a completely different reason? What if, as Swythyv says, it was *never* about the schoolyard? In any case, I cannot imagine what kind of provocation would justify the werewolf caper.

Finally - sorry for the length! - i really don't kow what Professor Granger is citing. I will try to ask him, and/or reread his comment to see if I can make sense of it. I'm inclined to agree with you here; I think the original division was 50/50, at any rate. Slytherin was certainly not the innocent, wounded party.

Re: Snape and the Gryffindor virtues-

[sigune.livejournal.com]

Hee hee - okay, we don't seem to disagree that much after all :D. Yes, Snape is a pragmatist - thank goodness; but I see that as a logical extension of his Slytherin characteristics, and his looking out for his own interests is part of his pragmatic approach to the whole Voldemort thing. (My thoughts are getting muddled; it's very late *g*.) Like: it's in his own interest as well that he finds effective ways of acting against Voldemort/carrying out DD's orders/keeping Harry safe/etc.

But there is *absolutely no evidence* in the text that young Severus ever gave them cause, or even gave them as good as he got.
I just knew I was going to get called to order on that one :D. I should have added my reasoning immediately, but I wanted to post the comment in one bit and it was getting very long already. I know that the Marauders (like other bullies everywhere) wouldn't have needed more reason than simply Snape's existence in order to taunt and attack him; that no provocation justifies the werewolf trap; and I do not wish to propose that simply because he invented a spell like Sectumsempra Snape was already plotting to use it on the playground (though his own note "for enemies" does seem to indicate that he saw further than just academic possibilities, doesn't it?). BUT I think we see him use a badly-aimed Sectumsempra against James in the "Worst Memory", so the least you can say is that Snape did use it at school when he thought it appropriate; and I also think it is safe to say that Snape in canon doesn't come across as a man (or, for that matter, boy) who takes an insult or attack lying down. I think it extremely likely that Snape did give as good as he got - and goodness knows I wouldn't blame him if he did, quite the contrary.

Re: Snape and the Gryffindor virtues-

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the response - i'd say I agree with most of it at this point. Snape *does* try to get back at people, certainly, and the spell he used on James did look like "sectumsempra" - though I'm not sure it was poorly aimed at all. I think he did what he intended to do, unlike Harry, who simply slashed wildly.

And it's definitely good for the war effort that Snape is both a fighter and a pragmatist.

But what i really want to know is: how is Nelson? I suppose he must be better, or you wouldn't be posting again?

[sigune.livejournal.com]

Truth to tell, I don't really know how Nelson is. He seems to be doing okay right now - as far as I can make out, his fever is gone, he walks around a bit and he eats from time to time; but I'm not sure he's actually improving :(. It seems as if he merely stays the same, which is not good (enough). Also, he doesn't seem to be going to his box, and his belly is very swollen. The vet says that as he has only just started eating again, we need to give his digestive system some time, so we'll see how things are in a few days.

[sophierom.livejournal.com]

I'm behind in my reading, as usual. So, I'm very happy that I finally read this essay! The only thing that could have made it better ... if I could have heard you present it at Lumos! ;-D

You write very well. This shouldn't surprise me, considering how well you write fiction. Yet, I've known brilliant storytellers who were weak essayists. What I particularly like about your nonfiction prose is how you organize your ideas. The essay is logical and yet organic (perhaps that's not the best word). I suppose what I want to say is that you have a talent for organizing your thoughts without making it apparent that you're organized! Too many essayists - myself included - rely on heavy-handed transitions to signal movement. I'm impressed with your ability to shift ideas so seamlessly.

As for the content of the essay, you provided some very insightful points. As a Snape fan, I'm particularly receptive to the idea that Snape's AK may actually represent the best piece of strategy the OotP has ever seen. I was much less comfortable with the charge that Rowling is deterministic, but I can think of no way to argue you on this point. I think you're correct; I just don't want you to be! I'd like to think she's simply trying to be realistic. For example, she mentioned at the NYC reading a few days ago that she wants to believe that each person can redeem himself but that she knows not everyone does. In the same vein, perhaps she does believe in the power of choice, but she sees that most people follow their families. You made a good point about Harry's placement in Gryffindor, but considering his childhood with the Durleys and the remnants of Voldemort's magic in the scar, Harry's sorting into Gryffindor appears, to me, a result of choices he made (most notably, his choice to reject Draco's snobbery) and not the result of his parentage. Still, I can certainly see your point about the deterministic nature of many characterizations.

(Can you see how unorganized my own thoughts are? Is there any wonder I'm in awe of your ability to craft an argument? ;-D)

Wonderful essay! Thanks so much for posting this!

[sigune.livejournal.com]

I'm behind in my replies - I'm so sorry about that! I'm so incredibly happy with what you say about the 'technical' side of my essay. I mean, I write in a style that may look a bit casual or not-very-academic (it's the same with my dissertation), and I'm always afraid that it will look as if I wrote it casually as well, which isn't true at all. I labour on a text to try and hide the fact that I laboured on it (if that makes any sense), but I'm in seventh heaven when somebody notices just how difficult that is. If my thoughts look organised, it's because I hammered them into shape with much effort :/. I write really, really slowly.

(I think I'm whining and justifying myself right now. It's because I'm way behind schedule with my PhD due to the present chapter just not working in terms of ... yes, organising the thoughts X(... If something doesn't flow the way I want it to, I just can't move on! It's very frustrating. But praise like you gave me does motivate me, yay!)

Back to the Slytherin Question:
Rowling's determinism... When I started writing this essay, I was feeling rather pessimistic about Rowling's take on choices. My original proposal was about showing how the wizarding world makes its own Voldemorts, and I did feel that the Potterverse was very deterministic. As I went on, though, I stumbled upon several elements that contradicted that determinism, but it was never entirely ruled out. There are just plenty of contradictions, and instead of formulating a unified theory positing either determinism or its opposite, I found I had to do a kind of balancing act - and forfeit the chance of having a nice, simple conclusion :).

I agree with you: Rowling is probably aiming for realism. She doesn't want to choose between nature and nurture because in real life the two can't be neatly separated either. (This is what I see at Harry's sorting too. Genetically he belongs in Gryffindor, but he also chooses to go there.) So far I have found that whenever Rowling seems to be sending an exceedingly simple and straightforward message (or characterisation), she complicates it at some later stage. I was thrown off by the fact that HBP ends on one of her trademark "exceedingly simple and straightforward" notes, and I had to remind myself that the complication is yet to follow.

Oogh, I really don't like working with an unfinished text! I just can't conclude my essay properly without the evidence from Book 7. Without that, I can only point at elements and (make people) think about them. Glad you liked my attempt! :)

[hope-24.livejournal.com]

Hi. I know I'm chipping in very late but I thought this was a really interesting essay and wanted to comment :)

Firstly, on your point regarding Rowling's representation of Slytherins:

"It seems, however, that the text does not bear out her words. More often than not, Slytherins are described as unattractive or downright ugly; they are also mean, unengaging, and morally suspect on account of their association with Dark Arts and an ideology that discriminates on the basis of blood purity. ....... Outside of the books, too, J. K. Rowling uses Slytherin students as denominators for everything young men and women should not be – recently in a rant on her website she dubbed ‘empty-headed, self-obsessed girls’ who care too much about appearances ‘Pansy Parkinsons’ – Pansy being cast as the anti-Hermione (“For Girls Only, Probably”)."

I actually find Rowling's representation of Slytherin 'villains' kind of worrying, especially given the fact that the books have a large audience of children. For example:

Crabbe, fat with a bad haircut; Goyle, similarly bulky with a low hairline; Pansy, hard faced with a pug nose; Flint, bad teeth; Millicent, fat and apparently a 'hag'. Malfoy is described less harshly, with cold eyes and pointed features - but then, maybe Rowling thinks he's redeemable. Let's not forget Snape, Head of Slytherin - with yellow teeth, sallow skin, greasy hair and a big nose.

Isn't this type of characterisation a bit worrying? It certainly seems hypocritical; given her website diatribe against those who cared too much about appearances, why then characterise so many of the 'bad' characters as unattractive? (even Vernon and Dudley are obese) But then, I think Rowling is frequently self-contradictory.

Conversely, most of the other houses seem to have more presentable students. She even has Hermione conform to the tired cliche of the librarian type who scrubs up ever so pretty if she only takes a bit of time on herself.

There are exceptions to the rule, but all in all, not only are Slytherins portrayed as rotten apples - they're unattractive to boot. I'm not entirely sure that I like the message this sends to younger readers.

"When Voldemort is taken out of the equation, Slytherin and Gryffindor, as water and fire, are still each other’s opposite. But that does not have to mean they cannot function together: cunning and ambition are not inherently negative,"

I completely agree. The individual virtues of each house are in fact inherently neutral. Loyalty, cunning, bravery and intellect are not good or bad in and of themselves, it depends on the ends to which they are put.

I wonder whether the reader is supposd to look to the adult characters in order to form their opinions regarding whether a House is good or bad? (or as I think, neutral) Peter Pettigrew betrayed his friends, which isn't exactly a very chivalric Gryffindor-ish action. Lupin seems to have disliked Sirius' bullying of Snape - but didn't have the courage to say anything about it. Snape, the head of Slytherin has a very hot temper (not very cool and calculating) and rushes off to the Shrieking Shack (positively reckless). So much for the Sorting Hat.

Crucially, the heaviest house animosity held is probably personified in Harry's hatred of Slytherin and Snape's hatred of Gryffindor. If, as it maybe looks to be shaping up, there's going to be some sort of showdown between these two characters, it'll be interesting to see whether Rowling goes for a good vs evil confrontation or some sort of reconciliation (esp. since the Sorting Hat seems to have been making calls for unity)