More Slytherin Obsession

[sistermagpie]

I had dinner with my brother last night and he summed up Bed and Breakfasts perfectly. He said, "They tell you it's cozy. Really it's really more like staying with a great aunt you don't really know."

And that's why I like hotels.

Yes, I'm still obsessed with Slytherins--at least in this lj. I do manage to have conversations about other things in real life. epicyclical and wayfairer were having a conversation about how their symbolism is inconsistent and I have to agree. Specifically I've been realizing that part of what disturbs me so much is the way it seems like JKR not only has her "good" characters hate them but also, as an author, makes them earn that hatred at every turn. In some ways--and this isn't a direct parallel but it was helpful to me in understanding how I felt--it's like she portrays them a lot like anti-Semitic Jewish stereotypes but then hangs a swastika over them so we can convince ourselves we're right to despise them.



There's a lot of ways to look at the Slytherins at once. This is just one of them. It's not a total parallel or an allegory, but I have always felt like understanding the politics of this world depends a lot on making connections to our own world. I.e., if a group calls themselves "The Inquisitor Squad" they should be associated with the Inquisition. The Slytherins often seem like an amalgam of various bad guys throughout history, like all bad guys are the same. They really don't have a consistent identity that can be understood, it's just like whatever the current politically correct atttitude is they have the opposite. When Sirius tells Harry the world isn't just divided into good guys and DEs he seems to be warning him that there are more bad guys to look out for, not hinting at the humanity present in the bad guys.

Now, I'm keeping in mind that these books are written in a very limited pov, Harry's. But we've yet to see the slightest contradiction to Harry's pov on this issue and more importantly Harry's pov appears to be echoed not only by the narrative voice (and the author in interviews) but by the most reliable characters, Dumbledore and Hermione. Yes, those characters seem the most fair to Slytherins but I feel like their attitude is more about showing their good character than anything positive about the Slytherins.

Anyway, here are some of the things that make me think they work as both the victimizers and victims of WW2, so it's just not enough to just say they're like Nazis and so should be hated. I'm just throwing things out as I think of them. I don't think there's a set answer to what they are.

Theory one: Slytherins are Nazis

* Voldemort wishes to institute a program of "racial purity" and get rid of Mudbloods.

* Lucius and Draco are pale and blonde. As Jason Isaacs says, blonde people talking about purity...we know where this is going. Blonde=Aryan, period.

* They're evil: They want power, they act together.

* They judge people based on bloodlines and consider themselves special based on their "race."

* Many appear to be stupid thugs.

* Slytherins hate Muggleborns and Voldemort wants to persecute and kill them, thus Muggleborns are like Jews in WW2.

* Voldemort appears to lie to the DEs about being a halfblood, though it's unclear if some of them know the truth. Seems like Lucius wouldn't care.

* They join the Inquisitor Squad. It's a group of bad kids with a sort of uniform and that's clearly like the Hitler Youth. Also their parents are Nazis so again, Hitler Youth alert.

So I read this stuff and I feel like I'm just supposed to despise them because racism is bad and Nazis are bad and they must be destroyed. (I won't even get into the fact that I think Nazis are just people too--we shouldn't be so quick to think we're incredibly superior.) But the weird thing is they also neatly fit a lot of Jewish stereotypes. Remember that for years Jews were considered to be evil and it was not only acceptable but righteous to hate them (let's pretend there aren't many many people today who still feel that way). My point isn't that the Slytherins really are Jewish or anything, just that one could just as easily spin them into that role as the role of Nazis. More easily, in fact:

Theory two: Slytherins are Jews

Obviously the parallels I'm making here are to anti-Semitic stereotypes and not real Jewish people. This is how Jews are described by anti-Semites, not the way they really are.

* They are rich, having probably gotten their money through nefarious means (unlike the upstanding Weasleys). They use this money to gain unholy influence in government.

* They are physically repulsive, possessing traits that hint at their unsavory character (as opposed to Hermione's more loveable buck-teeth and bushy hair that don't prevent her from being pretty at the Yule ball). Pansy is hard-faced and pug-nosed. Crabbe and Goyle are ape-like. Theodore Nott is weedy. Millicent Bulstrode is Amazonian. Even Draco, I assume, is not supposed to be attractive: he is pale, pointy-chinned, ferret-like, with slick blonde hair. Then there's Snape with his sallow skin, long nose and greasy hair, all classic anti-Semitic stereotypes.

* They are cunning, incapable of honest dealings. Note the inconsistancies here: Slyths are both superior and inferior to the non-Slytherins. They have cunning, a talent for viciousness and a possibly a knack for making money (the "rich kid" is one), but somehow lack any semblance of honest, healthy intelligence.

* They "stick together" and show favor to others in their group. Yes, all the houses show house loyalty but Slytherin is more isolated than any other house, loyal to Slytherin first and Hogwarts second, if they are loyal to Hogwarts at all.

* They really are related by blood. This puts rather a different spin on the pureblood issue, which has always been confusing anyway. Harry could have been in Slytherin, and his mother was Muggleborn. Tom Riddle was the heir of Slytherin, but his father was a Muggle. Many believe Millicent is a halfblood based on a shot of JKR's notes. So how can this be the Pureblood house? Well, it makes a bit more sense if rather than thinking Pureblood means having no muggle blood whatsoever you think of it in terms of being related to this one Pureblood family. It's a slightly different thing. Thus Tom is a Pureblood because his mother is part of the family, even if her husband wasn't. Sirius' family is adamant that they not marry any non-purebloods, but then so might a Jewish parent want her child to marry a Jewish girl for non-evil reasons. (Tonks and Sirius, by contrast, want to get rid of everything that ties them to this family including family portraits and, in Tonks' case, a "stupid" name.)

* They are secretly allied to the enemy and part of a vast conspiracy. Even when working with Umbridge, the Slytherin's agenda is clearly their own. Their real thoughts on her are completely hidden from us, but we know they don't really respect her. They are taking advantage of the chaos, not waging open war.

* They consider themselves special because of their race. Pretty common accusation from anti-Semites--Chosen People etc.

* They are the minority. The Slytherins get hexed six ways from Sunday throughout the book and allegedly deserve it. Not usually because anybody's acting in self-defense, but because they are foiling the Slytherins' evil plans. Pansy even gets put into the infirmary with antlers. I'm sure the parallels to myths that Jews have horns is completely unintentional there, but still: ouch.

* They are connected to Dark Magic. Ah, the ever-elusive dark magic. What is it exactly? Is it different from other magic, or just magic used for dark means? Because the Gryffindors appear to be the most well-versed in hexes at this school. They practice them, use them frequently, and this is all considered a good thing, an outgrowth of their bravery and desire to fight evil, especially when it's used against Slytherins. It's good magic no matter what--according to Bellatrix righteous anger is insufficient for casting a Crucio and that's what Harry's got. (This is absurd, of course. Righteous anger is a great source of sadism. To pretend it will protect a person from cruelty makes it even more dangerous than it already is.) Sometimes it seems more like all the magic that comes from Slytherins is dark, somehow. I half expect to hear stories of them sacrificing non-Slytherin babies in rituals, another accusation levelled against Jews.

* Dumbledore's Army is, in fact, just as close or closer to the Hitler Youth as the Inquisitor Squad is-at least it struck me as more like it. It's an army.

* I just can't resist this one...the Slytherins are the students who reject Christ!Harry as their savior. Talk about your "Mal Foi" (bad faith).

So how would Muggleborns fit in if the Slytherins are taking this role? Well, Christianity was originally a Jewish sect, but it then looked for converts outside that faith. The attitude of most wizards towards Muggleborns appears to see them as perfectly acceptable as long as they're wizards. Christianity certainly works that way--if doesn't matter what you converted from; as long as you're Christian you're one of them. You're not born a Christian you just have to accept Christ. Judaism, by contrast, is more exclusive. Archie Bunker, famous bigot, once said, "The best thing about the Jews is they don't want ya."

Okay, so I'm obviously not trying to say here that JKR is a really an anti-Semite who is spreading hate against Jews through the Slytherins. She'd probably be pretty horrified at the idea. But still, I do feel, and have always gotten that kind of vibe against Slytherins, like I'm being encouraged to hate this group of people to the point of blaming all the evil in the world on them and also being given handy rationalizations about it so I can consider myself a compassionate person while doing so. The more hopeless they seem to be, the most likely I am to feel like I'm being lied to. Nazis are currently a very acceptable villain, completely politically correct. But if you're giving me characters who are children throughout five books I'm afraid I need a little more than just signals that tell me they're associated with Nazis and so can be picked off at will.

I can deal with them being nasty kids. But I went to school with snobby, mean kids and they are actually not this heinous. JKR has said that she's known people like Draco and Pansy and that they don't go away as you get older and I find myself wondering where she's meeting them. People, even racist people, are really just people. I can feel sympathy for them while still disapproving of their actions or beliefs. I felt sympathy for Snape before seeing him picked on--and I don't need to think of him as having no friends to continue to feel sorry for him. So I find myself wondering if the author's view of the world isn't quite as different from Harry's as I'd like to hope. That doesn't bode well for the rest of the series.

Comments

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Oh. This is very interesting.

And yeah, I've been wondering about JKR, too. Because... I was miserable in high school. But that doesn't mean that the people who made me miserable were two-dimensional cut-outs. They were people. We're all just people.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there's something kind of creepy about how I feel like she thinks we all know the kinds of people she's talking about and feel the same way when meanwhile I'm thinking who are these people because I've never met them??

[moonlitpages.livejournal.com]

Oh, wow. Bravo. I love your opinions on these things, because they never fail to make me think like mad. I've had inklings of the very same sentiments, but I've never been able to organize them nearly so well as you have. The Anti-Semitic parallels are very interesting, and a point of view that hadn't even occured to me before now. I had noticed the discrepancy between what JKR seems to be shouting at us, that these kids are mini-Hitlers in the making, and the reality that while nasty, these kids are more the hated minority than any other group I've seen in the books. No, they're not victims. But they aren't evil, either. And I am appalled at the way these 'villians' are portrayed- as nasty little throwaways with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I am hoping upon hoping that this is merely because we are reading from Harry's point of view, and Harry hasn't gotten to know any of these children well enough to see a redeeming quality. But to hear Rowling talk in interviews, it does seem like this is nearly her point of view as well. I was appalled to see that she seemed horrified that people have taken a liking to Draco and the Slytherins. I don't know where she has met people like this either, but I for one, have never met a person without a single redeeming quality whatsoever. Even the most appalling people I have met, have at least had some positive trait, no matter how small and insignificant, whereas these Slytherins don't seem to have any at all. By all accounts, they're ugly, hateful, sadistic, brainless little beasts.

Living where I do, I know a great deal of appallingly racist people, who cause me to want to throttle them on a daily basis as soon as they open their foul mouths. But they are just people. People who have both beautiful and ugly sides to their personalities. Rowling seems to be pushing the idea that these Slytherin children have only ugly sides- just one dimensional static...things, and that just... I know she's said time and again that she's not writing these books to send any sort of message, but I can't help but think that the message this is sending, is just horrifying to me. I was bullied plenty as a child, by snotty rich little private school brats. And you know what? I befriended nearly half of them by the end of high school and beyond. People change. And if by the end of book seven, the only people that are allowed to be 'idiots' as teenagers are Gryffindors, with the all Slytherins as little Anti-Christs in the making who are all thrown in Azkaban, then I'll just...brain myself with the book. *laughs*

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

But to hear Rowling talk in interviews, it does seem like this is nearly her point of view as well. I was appalled to see that she seemed horrified that people have taken a liking to Draco and the Slytherins.

Exactly--that just floors me. Not only does it surprise me that any author would be horrified at people liking any of her characters, but that she doesn't seem to get--or want to get--why people do. Though it does make me a little happy that obviously they are becoming popular enough that she's noticed it. Obviously I'm not alone here!

I was bullied plenty as a child, by snotty rich little private school brats. And you know what? I befriended nearly half of them by the end of high school and beyond...

Exactly. In order to keep this up she's had to make the school quite unrealistic. How could Harry still see these kids as so foreign after 5 years of school? Really Harry and Draco would almost certainly eventually be some sort of friends because they are the leaders of their respective rival houses. I used to work on the Wishbone book series and in one of the last books I worked on there was a scene I loved where Joe, the all-American hero, had this little moment with his bad-boy rival, Damont. Damont was a lot like Draco and here they were going into 9th or 10th grade and they just had a sort of moment of understanding that was so appropriate I loved it.

Another thing that's odd is that we hear that Gryffindors can be idiots at 15 yet in many ways...how have they changed? Snape still doesn't seem to have been fully accepted into the Order (which is presumably mostly Gryffindor). Dumbledore vouches for him (for unknown reasons) but everyone else seems to see him as a necessary evil. Despite being one of the most effective people in the books--acting as a spy, tricking Umbridge with the Veritaseum, creating Lupin's Wolfsband Potion--he's still mostly despised. Granted Snape keeps up the old animosity on his side as well, but still it feels like he hates the Gryffindors while they more look down on him. The only people who seem to admire him for the good qualities he does possess are the Slytherins. Even Lucius appears to still hold him in high regard despite surely knowing he's with Dumbledore. I can understand why he still considers them his "true friends." I have always gotten the feeling that everyone feels like they area really lowering themselves to have to work with Snape and he knows it. It's like when Harry said, "Why do you call him the Dark Lord? I thought only his followers called him that?" it's so telling. Snape is still one of "them" and always will be, because he can never be anything but a true Slytherin.

Maybe part of it is that Snape himself doesn't seem all that guilty about his past but I've always rather liked that about him, that he doesn't get melodramatic and self-flagellating about his mistakes. Perhaps if he did the Marauders would like him better, though. One big blindspot all the Gryffindors seem to have is an inability to accept any other pov as true or valid other than their own. Even Dumbledore sometimes doesn't seem to get this, in fact.

In the same interviews where JKR says she's disturbed at anyone liking the Slyths and Draco she seems to hint that nobody should really respect Snape either. (Didn't she say something like, "Don't be too sure about Snape, he's still got some tricks up his sleeve..." or something like that?)

[ginzai.livejournal.com]

Exactly--that just floors me. Not only does it surprise me that any author would be horrified at people liking any of her characters, but that she doesn't seem to get--or want to get--why people do. Though it does make me a little happy that obviously they are becoming popular enough that she's noticed it. Obviously I'm not alone here!

Out of curiosity, do you know where this interview is located? I've read some of them, and JKR's dislike of all things Slytherin seemed to be a more between-the-lines affair. When asked if she liked bravery over cunning, loyalty, and intelligence, she said that she values the later two, but holds bravery to be the highest - and completely ignores the reference to Slytherin cunning. She states that people like Snape must be 'dealt with' over time and implies that she dislikes him. She certainly has never given any indication that her values differ then those of the general Gryffindors; she loves bravery, thinks that Hagrid is a wonder, values honesty and integrity over all else. It seems that she likes very simplistic characters, or would like to believe that she does.

I adore your statements on Snape. He truly is on the outside, and it does not bode well for his future. Harry has transfered his hatred to the man, and given his already precarious position, this is a dangerous place to be. The relationship between Lucius and Severus is an interesting one, isn't it?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Here are the Slytherin snips from Slytherincess' lj. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/slytherincess/61147.html#cutid1) But you're right, it's totally more between-the-lines stuff and not an out-and-out statement that she dislikes them. Even her comments on being disturbed by people dressing up as Draco etc. could be a joke...but without any positive things ever said about them it seems serious. Or maybe like the Slytherins aren't even worth being horrified about because they're just petty evils.

she loves bravery, thinks that Hagrid is a wonder, values honesty and integrity over all else.

And this always makes it so hard for me to identify with the characters! I mean, I value honesty and integrity in my own way, but I think it's often silly the way the Gryffindors do it. For instance, I think spies, like Snape, are incredibly valuable. I love the way he handles Umbridge. But because he's not fighting her exactly the way James or Harry would, by coming out and provoking a direct confrontation, he's not as trustworthy to a lot of the good guys.

This kind of thing makes me nervous because the characters end up condemning behavior and then feeling totally justified using it themselves. Over time it really adds up, like in this book where Hermione worries about Malfoy abusing his power as a prefect and everyone worries when he becomes part of Umbridge's group. But then the only bad things he does is to be "beastly" to a first year (how beastly we don't know...perhaps he called them midgets like Ron?) and take some housepoints. It's the Gryffindors who start putting people in the infirmary.

You gotta love Snape.:-) It's like there's nothing he can ever really do at this point to be an insider, even though he seems pretty indispensible to me. I think that's why probably my favorite moment in OotP is just that brief moment when Draco comes into his office. I feel like it's the one time we sort of "see" the two of them objectively. Draco's seems like a rather likeable, capable student prefect. Snape seems like his trusted teacher. I've no doubt that Snape is snarky and sarcastic with the Slytherins too--you can't imagine him suddenly turning sweet and nice with them--but I'll bet they understand his manner and like him for more than just the way he picks on the Gryffindors. I couldn't help but notice how naturally Draco could carry off the respect he shows to Snape in that scene. I can't imagine any of the Gryffs carrying it off quite that way.

I'm dying to know more about Snape and Lucius now. Sirius calls Snape Lucius' lapdog but Draco doesn't seem aware that they have a personal relationship to me.

[ginzai.livejournal.com]

And this always makes it so hard for me to identify with the characters!

Indeed. My favorite characters have never been the brash ones who run in without thinking; in real life, such people would be killed. Their method, while quite heroic, is extremely unrealistic. The end of Order strikes me as hollow because of that. As for Snape's position at the end of Order, it is made more frustrating as he is the only one who actually made a difference. In that case, it was Slytherin sublity that would have saved the day, whereas Gryffindor confrontation caused a needless death. It's another of those half-hints that there is something more to Slytherin House than just what Harry cares to admit, but unfortunately, like so many of those hints, you have to put it sideways and squint at it to get the message.

Thanks for the link to the interview, btw. I've not listened to it yet, but the quotes are enough to cause thought. Not the kindest of remarks about the wee ickle Slytherins, are they? Hm.. She mentions that everyone has to deal with Dracos and Pansies in their lives at one point or another, but I thought Harry already had.

Harry has already confronted and defeated his childhood tormentor and we see that with his actions towards Dudley in the beginning of the book. To me, Dudley is far more a bully than Draco. We don't see Draco using his 'court' to beat up first years, just as we don't see them calling him encoraging nicknames. The relationship between Dudley and Draco is called out again in Order (both have specific mention made of being the ringleader of their circle of friends, though 'court' does sound much better than 'gang', ne?) and yet the differences catch my attention more. It's an interesting thought.

And yes, the 'righteous anger' of the Gryffindors worries me. Puritians suffered from 'righteous anger' just before pressing the condemned or hanging them. A body does not think clearly in anger, whether it is righteous or not. It merely allows a comfort to the angered, as they feel that they are justified and correct even when their actions become worse than those of the condemned. You've got another excellent point in that it is the Gryffindors who start the infirmary runs, and quite early in the year, as I recall. I don't have my book with me, but I believe that the Warrington (it was Warrington, wasn't it?) was the first to be put in, and he had to stay for some time.

I do love Snape. Draco remains my favorite character, but Snape slid into the second favorite character slot quite easily as I read Order. I adore him. And yes, the scene between the two confirms so many of my thoughts on their relationship that I was overjoyed when I first read it. If you compare Draco's attitude towards Umbridge with the way he treats Snape, it is obvious who has his respect. Snape and Lucius seem to be the only characters who actually have Draco's open respect; it will be interesting how the relationship between the two men plays out, and how Draco falls in the middle.

I tend to see Severus as being just as intolerant of fools in his own House than outside of it, if not more so. I think that he counters it with honest concern about their welfare, if delievered in a prickly way. The Slytherins would pick up on that, and it is hard not to like someone who appears to be on your side of the fence when it seems to be you against the world.

part I

[latxcvi.livejournal.com]

Excuse me for jumping in, but I just started dipping my toes into the waters of Potterverse fandom, and thus, have been reading through a lot of old meta the past few days, which is what accounts for the, like, nearly two year lag between this comment and my reply to it. I hope you don't mind:

But you're right, it's totally more between-the-lines stuff and not an out-and-out statement that she dislikes them. Even her comments on being disturbed by people dressing up as Draco etc. could be a joke...but without any positive things ever said about them it seems serious. Or maybe like the Slytherins aren't even worth being horrified about because they're just petty evils.

I've read a couple of interviews with Rowling now, and ... I'm going to try to unpack some of her seemingly anti--Slytherin/anti-Draco comments.

I don't think Rowling is taken aback by Draco's popularity and surprised that people like him because she herself dislikes him (or the Slytherins). I think it's more that ... she knows how she's portrayed them up through OotP, and she knows that their behavior is largely been negative. So I can see where she'd been concerned that people - at least *kids*, anyway - not think the way Draco and/or the Slytherins act is Cool. 'Cause, you know, it's not cool to be a bully, or to treat other people badly. And I think maybe Rowling is a little uncomfortable with the idea of kids thinking that other kids who behave badly are Cool because their house has an interesting name and a interesting symbol, etc.

With Draco, specifically, it seemed to me that Rowling was expressing a kind of ... fond exasperation for the way young women are invariably drawn to the Bad Boys (her exact quote was along the lines of "Girls! Stop going for the bad boy!"). Which, you know, for a woman who probably had her own experiences of being drawn into the Bad Boy Allure and getting bitten in the ass because of it, and probably has more than a few girlfriends who have similar stories, it's not *unreasonable* to be all "Can't you just ... like the good boy for once?" (Putting aside, of course, that Harry's got a lot of flaws of his own, some of which are arguably every bit as bad as Draco's, Harry is still the hero of the tale).

part II

[latxcvi.livejournal.com]

My hope is that since it's clear the stakes have been raised all around for everyone as of the end of OotP *and* that the whole idea of bringing Slytherin into the fold does seem significant to the ability of Hogwarts, as an insititution, to survive the war, Harry & Co. will come the realization that they've got to start seeing the Slytherin, including Draco, as potential allies. And to see them as potential allies, they have to see them as people first.

Sometimes, I think it's really easy to forget that all of the truly active players in the Potter books are *still kids*. In HBP, Harry, Draco and the rest all are only going to be to *16*. At 16, a lot of people are still in that mindset where if someone insults you and or your friends, then all of that person's friends and colleagues are also your enemy, regardless of whether they've ever spoken one word to you or not. It's an incredibly immature and childish view of things, yes, but at 16? You're still really ... immature and childish. While it's true that Harry's seen a lot since becoming aware of his wizard status, and he had a lot of growing up to do in both GoF and OotP, he's still not done growing up; he's still not done being a teenaged boy. So he's still going to be all "Eww, Slytherin cooties" because he and Draco don't like each other, and, well, the rest of Slytherin House seems to get along with Draco just fine, nevermind that the BWL doesn't like him.

I think you make a really good point about how hypocritical Harry & Co. can be - worrying about Draco abusing his privileges as a prefect while meanwhile forming something called *Dumbledore's Army* is more than a little, um, blinkered. But being able to recognize the unpleasant nature of other people's shortcomings in yourself is something a lot of *adults* struggle with; it hardly surprises me a bunch of kids regularly get it wrong. However. Harry and the kids at Hogarts - all of them, from all the houses - are undergoing their coming of age poised on the brink of war. That kind of thing forces people to grow and change, to put aside petty differences and blind prejudices, and my fervent hope is that as things get darker and bleaker, which I think they necessarily must in HBP, Harry and his friends/supporters will see that they need the stop viewing the Slytherins as this monolithic Them to be viewed with contempt.

I'm also hopeful that Lucius' imprisonment wreaks change in Draco, too, so that he, too, is forced to grow up even if it's much faster than it *should* be. Because again, 16 year old boy; I'm Okay with him being immature and petty and bratty at *16*. But having one of your parents *sent to prison* at 16 is gonna shake a person up, and for good or ill, will kick maturation into a higher gear. In fact, there's a part of me that suspects the "Draco's Detour" chapter will be the vehicle whereby Rowling shows both Harry and readers how the aftermath of Lucius' imprisonment affected/changed Draco. Regardless of whether the detour is literal or figurative, it seems to me that it still has to be something *Harry* is either directly involved in or is able to observe. Rowling's tight focus on his POV in all but the opening chapter of GoF is unlikely to be abandoned (particularly in favor of Draco), so I think Harry bears witness to *whatever* Draco's "detour" is and in doing so, will see how Draco's changed/grown over the summer.

And if Draco's growth has been for the *worst*, i.e., the loss of Lucius to Azkaban has made him harder and colder while also making him more *serious* - like, he doesn't have time for taunting Harry any more because everything's moved beyond mere schoolyard rivalry at this point - to the point where Harry actually starts taking him seriously as a potential threat, well ... Harry may realize that he's either got to reach some kind of detente with Draco in order to get Slytherin House on board with Hogwarts' unification OR, alternatively, he's got to start actually paying attention to the other members of Slytherin as *people* if he has any hope of coverting them to his cause.

Re: part II

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Ah, you just wrote down all my fondest wishes for future development! And I agree the groundwork is definitely there. I don't see many of Draco's scenes as half as flat as some other people see them. People often tend to think if you see "more" it means you see the opposite (like he's not really a bully in that scene, he's really being nice! or something like that), but I just feel like there's a lot in his scenes that gets glossed over. There is a real kid there who's human and has stuff going on and isn't even always 100% negative. When I was reading the books myself I thought right, Harry is going to learn some things about this kid that make him think. (Also ITA with you that Snape, too, has been fairly two-dimensionally--people tend to assume he's more developed than he really is.)

The main thing that keeps from saying this is what is going happen is just fandom.:-) Really, I've just been told too many times with too much confidence that no, I'm wrong, there is nothing to Draco, he must only continue on into a two-dimensional end. So I've gotten to where I always start with the position of assuming I'm wrong and all these things are accidents, even though to me he seems obviously set up as being significant in some way. I hope we're right!:-)

Re: part II

[latxcvi.livejournal.com]

The main thing that keeps from saying this is what is going happen is just fandom.:-) Really, I've just been told too many times with too much confidence that no, I'm wrong, there is nothing to Draco, he must only continue on into a two-dimensional end.

*waves hands* I find this to be a very specious argument, frankly, particularly when one considers that other characters who've become fan favorites, like Neville and Luna, either (a) didn't get any significant character development until the fifth book, or (b) weren't even introduced until Book 5. So I'm not sure why people automatically assume that because someone like Draco hasn't yet been focused on such that Harry can see that maybe there's more to him than a mouthy, bratty, obnoxious prat means he'll never been illuminated as having more to him than that.

I mean, look at Percy Weasley; he's been around since PS, but it wasn't until OotP that had of us had any inkling that he had it in him to betray his own family. Lord knows Neville was little more than comic relief in books 1-4; it wasn't until Harry realized he needed to start marshaling his classmates around him for the coming fight with Voldemort that he had any idea there was more to Neville than the bumbling, forgetful boy who's good at Herbology and scared of Snape. Neville didn't come out of his shell until OotP because the way Rowling has structured her story didn't allow for him to do so; it wasn't Neville's time to shine, prior to OotP, as more than bumbling comic relief.

The other thing it seems to me that people do is conflate the idea of character growth with the notion of said growth only being positive. In other words, a character can't mature and change unless he/she is maturing/changing "for the best," which is why I think people might be resistant to this idea that Draco could, in fact, grow up as much as a 17-year-old can grow up by the end of the series. To me, Draco growing and/or changing isn't somehow synonymous with Draco "seeing the light" and becoming a better person. It seems to me that Rowling could have Draco become more focused, become more steely in personality due to his father's imprisonment and the fall-out from that, she could have his antagonism of Harry become genuinely menacing and something Harry needs to take seriously, without making him Little Mr. Hugs and Puppies. Growth and Change are not synonymous with Becoming a Better Person; people can still be lousy human beings but be *mature* with it, I mean, look at Lucius, you know?

Would it be interesting and utterly unexpected by large swaths of the HP readership if Rowling worked a transformation of Draco into a Decent-Enough-to-Be-on-Harry's-Side-in-the-War sort of person in the next two books? Of course it would. But even if Draco remains one of the Bad Guys to the bitter end, it doesn't somehow mean he can't grow up within that context; people need to stop assuming that it does.

Slytherins

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Well, we got at least one Slytherin character aside from Snape, who, in canon not fanon, is presented not as evil: Phineas Nigellus. He's snarky but actually helpful, and actually right in most of what he says.

Snape himself is THE shades of grey character from Philospher's Stone onwards, long before the Pensieve flashback in OotP. Speaking of shades of grey, a good deal of OotP was devoted to showing us these in the Gryffindor characters.

The Sorting Hat's song is a big hint that there will be Slytherin/Gryffindor reconciliaton. Now I grant you, the younger Slytherins have been presented as an uniformely unpleasant bunch of bullies. And I don't think we'll see Fanon!Draco turning up in canon any time soon. (Not because Rowlings thinks of him as unredeemably evil but because Draco is actually quite dull as a character; I don't think she's much interested in him. Whereas she is clearly interested in Snape.) But we will proably see more of Snape, and perhaps some new characters a la Luna.

Nazi parallels as intended by the author: well obviously. But then again, WW II didn't end with the entire German population dead, did it? We might be in for the hour zero and the Marshall plan for Slytherins.

Re: Slytherins

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I should really mention Phineas more, you're right. He was one of my favorite things about the book.

The thing for me is that while I love Snape as a character and think his story is really interesting and important, I don't think Slytherin House can really be redeemed through him, nor any new characters that become important in books 6 and 7. Slytherin House is made up of the kids sorted into it and for 5 books that has meant Draco and Pansy. I agree that JKR doesn't seem that interested in Draco or his situation but so far she has always used him as Slytherin's face. He says his family have always been sorted into that house, he seems to be Snape's favorite student. I just don't see how you could redeem the house without him. It would be like...Draco having Gryffindor redeemed for him by a Peter Pettigrew. Snape's got no need for redemption after all-he's already shown himself to be capable of being there when Harry needs him, plus he's part of the previous generation. (Surely saving the students in his own house from Voldemort's clutches should be his priority?)

Re: Slytherins

[latxcvi.livejournal.com]

And I don't think we'll see Fanon!Draco turning up in canon any time soon. (Not because Rowlings thinks of him as unredeemably evil but because Draco is actually quite dull as a character; I don't think she's much interested in him.

I'm new to the Potterverse fandom (not the books, mind you, just the fandom). And I'm really confused by this fandom idea that Rowling dislikes Draco outright or isn't interested in him. Just based on what I've read in interviews with her, it does sound like she has a plan for him. I was struck by her on-site discussion of how she's now twice tried to put the Draco-Theodore Nott conversation into the books but couldn't figure out a way to work it in. She specially identifies three things that she liked about the scene: (1) That we see the Malfoys in their natural habitat; (2) the contrast between their home and the situation at #4 Privet Drive; and, (3) how interesting it was to watch Draco interact with someone he had to view as an equal, because it wasn't really something we'd seen with him in the books up to that point.

The entire scene centered around Draco; it took place in his home and it sounds like it was written specifically to give us some insight into his life away from school and how he might deal with someone he didn't look down on in some way. That doesn't sound to me like a scene written by an author who doesn't like/isn't interested in the character. And it's clear, to me at least, that the reason the scene didn't make it into the books is most likely because Rowling couldn't figure out a way to fit it in without breaking from her tight, 3rd-person limited (on Harry) POV.

It's true that Draco hasn't changed a lot between PS (SS) and OotP, but I think a couple of things arguably account for this that have nothing to do with Rowling disliking/being disinterested in him: First and foremost, it's Harry's story she's telling. The development of any of the other characters necessarily happens within the context of its impact *on Harry*. We didn't get all this interesting backstory on Snape until starting with PoA. During the first two novels, he was arguably fairly static (in fact, I'd argue that Snape himself is still static as a character; what's changed is what Harry - and thus we, the audience - have learned about him since PoA). We didn't learn what we learned for reasons having to do with Snape qua Snape so much as because it's information *Harry* needs in order to assist in his evaluation of the various players/pieces in the grand, deadly chess game he finds himself the center of.

Second, these characters are still all, at bottom, kids. There can be a world of difference betweeen 13 and 16. Even Harry, who's grown and changed a lot in GoF and OotP, still spent much of OotP acting exactly like what he is - a 15-year-old boy, complete with the entailing insufferability. By the end of OotP, when he fully understands that a *war* is coming, yeah, he's got a lot more on his mind than the taunts of his schoolyard rival. But he's also had these big, life-changing events Draco hasn't had yet that account for the acceleration of his growth.

But at the end of OotP, Draco finally has what should be, if Rowling is even half the writer I believe her to be, a significantly impactful life experience. It's no small shakes to have a parent sent to prison at any age, but especially not when you're only 15. I don't think that's some trifle; Rowling's done it deliberately. Lucius Malfoy going to prison isn't going to have the impact on Harry that it would on his own son, so Lucius getting sent to prison is, IMO, Rowling's way of moving Draco forward as a character, because how Draco turns out will, ultimately, play some role in the larger story for Harry.

Now, it's certainly possible that Rowling's plan is for Draco's growth/change to be negative, i.e., he gets harder, colder, more malicious but also more serious with it. But I do think her intention *is* for him to grow. I just think she wasn't ready to bring the impetus for his growth/change into the story until the point at which she introduced it.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_rp_zeal_/]

Interesting analogy as always. Can't agree more with how the Slytherins are like Nazi youths on the surface and the Jews in the core. My biggest concern though, is whether JKR herself reads them so herself-- if Draco and co. are nothing but targets for her to vent her childhood anger, then...
Of course, there are enough signs in OOTP for us to be reasonably optimistic. Phineas (who's my fav character), sorting hat song and Hermione's musing aside, I actually think Percy, Fudge, Neville were encouraging examples too. Because, for them there were all these "little signs" in book 1-4 that they'd turn the way they did in OOTP, just like those 'ambiguous' Draco moments that redemption!Draco believers draw on. You know how non-believers have always dissed those moments as 'too vague to be meaningful evidences'. Well, same could be said about those signs foreshadowing turning-against family!Percy, head-in-the-dune!Fudge, and fighter!Neville right =P?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, you're so right! In a way it almost makes it more painful because throughout OotP I could see lots of signs that this was building towards and emotionally satisfying truth...but then there are these niggling doubts about it. Just the ones you mentioned: that these characters have been created to vent anger on, that I am seeing their human counterparts when I should be seeing cardboard cutouts.

I mean, think about Merchant of Venice. Shylock is easily the best character in it and the signs nowadays all seem to point to him getting some kind of respect, but the play was written with the understanding that being a Jew was like being Nazi today so despite the "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech etc. Shylock ends up humiliated and loses everything he has...and it's supposed to be a comedy.

[verstehen.livejournal.com]

Just a couple of things I wanted to point out:

1. Slytherin is not a pureblood house, regardless of the Sorting Hat's song. It might have been pureblood when Slytherin himself was alive, but it's statistically impossible for the entire house to be pureblood. Especially when JKR gives a canon example of someone not a pureblood: Tom Riddle. (Which given that he uses his Muggle father's bones in a ritual and then calls all his Death Eaters to him still at the graveyard talking about said bones, I'd say they know his heritage.)

2. Pointing out the Aryan stereotype is a false assumption. You see, Voldemort and the Death Eaters are terrorists and extremists, but the mainstream is still prejudiced. Look at the treatment of non-humans (an entire race is enslaved). Even the Weasleys talk about Muggles as if they were pets. So it's nothing unusual in the wizarding world. Maybe the extremity is, but the attitude certainly isn't.

3. The one person who is even halfway "good" in the entirety of the series is Hermione. They're all petty, or cruel, or "evil" to some degree. And Hermione herself can get fairly petty and cruel in pursuit of what she (and by extension Harry) think is right.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Slytherin is not a pureblood house, regardless of the Sorting Hat's song.

Although this, for me, gets into the whole question of what a pureblood is exactly. Because you're right that obviously one can have muggle blood and not only be placed in Slytherin but be the heir of Slytherin. That, to me, makes it seem like while blood is important to the house perhaps it's not important in the way we first thought--meaning that it's not a case of having only wizards anywhere on one's family tree.

Pointing out the Aryan stereotype is a false assumption.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I agree that the WW is prejudiced all over and that the good guys have consistently been shown to have plenty of flaws of their own. I guess I just thought it was sort of a given in 2003 that if you had a tow-headed child spouting things about racial purity one is naturally going to make the Aryan association. But you're right it's not a direct parallel.

[vesania-aeterno.livejournal.com]

I guess I just thought it was sort of a given in 2003 that if you had a tow-headed child spouting things about racial purity one is naturally going to make the Aryan association. But you're right it's not a direct parallel.

It's not a logical parallel for many, many reasons, actually.

First, the Malfoys happen to be blond. Tom Riddle, Severus Snape, Bellatrix Lestrange, and Igor Karkakoff are not. Most of the Black family, from what we see, are not. It's a family trait, not a tendency.

Second, you can't prove it's a general Death Eater goal to destroy Muggles and Muggleborns. Yes, the Death Eaters killed Muggles. They also killed witches and wizards. Yes, *16* year old Tom Riddle set a basilisk on Hogwarts. Yet no Muggleborns actually died (Myrtle was at the wrong place at the wrong time quite literally, there's no proof she was muggleborn, and there is proof Tom didn't intend to kill anyone).

Third, you could call them *racist* as they're all white, if they were against people of (any) colour (aside from white). Well, that's assuming you could prove they're against people of colour. As it is you can't even call them racist because they aren't against a race. They're against a species. Muggles are effectively, by all wizard classifications that we see, a different species, like werewolves or veelas or giants.

That, to me, makes it seem like while blood is important to the house perhaps it's not important in the way we first thought--meaning that it's not a case of having only wizards anywhere on one's family tree.

What's your definition of pureblood then? Because the definition we're given (by Draco, Ernie, and Ron) is someone who hasn't breed with Muggles.

- Andrea.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It's a family trait, not a tendency.

Yes, definitely.

Second, you can't prove it's a general Death Eater goal to destroy Muggles and Muggleborns.

I'd always thought that was supposed to be their stated goal, or one of them. They do think Purebloods should be running everything based on their heritage, at least, don't they?

They're against a species. Muggles are effectively, by all wizard classifications that we see, a different species, like werewolves or veelas or giants.

Although what would Muggle-borns be then? In general, though, I agree that they are a different species and that's why I've never seen a true parallel to racism in the whole Muggleborn-issue. Wizards and Muggleborns (as well as werewolves and veelas etc.) are different in ways that human races clearly aren't.

What's your definition of pureblood then? Because the definition we're given (by Draco, Ernie, and Ron) is someone who hasn't breed with Muggles.

That's the way I'd always defined it in the past, although it was always unclear whether this meant one couldn't have any muggle relatives or whether one had to just be the product of a wizard and a witch. Iow, exactly how pure does one have to be to be considered a pureblood, exactly? Draco, for instance, calls Harry a Mugglelover but not a halfblood.

I am wondering if this definition of pureblood is correct after OotP, though, since the hat now seems to be saying that Slytherin is a pureblood house, yet Tom Riddle proves non-purebloods can get into it as well. Tom's got a muggle father but he still seems to boast an impressive lineage wizard-wise because he's the heir of Slytherin.

But just to be clear I absolutely agree that the DEs are not natural parallels to Nazis for all these reasons, however many people do make that connection and I think that's part of the author's intention. That's part of my point with this post. Most often I've heard the Nazi/DE connection referred to as if it were a given, but I see a lot of problems with it myself.

[bronzedragon.livejournal.com]

However sad I am to write this, you are completely right...
It really doesn't bode well for the next two books, if she has the EXACT same view on the Slytherins, as Harry's portrayed as having.
If she intend to write them the same way as always, in the new books, I really don't like them that much anymore.
Well, I love the books, but I am really annoyed, with the portraying of the Slytherins, as being a big bunch of DE's in training... 'Cause there can't be a whole HOUSE full of those! Honestly, we've got a school, with about 280 students. 70 of them is evil, and all 70 is in Slytherin. Logical, isn't it? No, it isn't, and that's bloody annoying...
Well, there's not really anything we can do about it, huh? Well, except changing Hogwarts to a more realistic place, in fanon... Too bad it's probably not going to happen in canon, though... :/

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I know.:-(

I guess that's why I have to remind myself how lucky we are that there are so many truly good writers in HP fanfic!

[(Anonymous)]

I'm gonna try to make this quick. I'm a supporter of all houses (though I've been "placed" in Gryffindor), and it feels a little weird to be on a Slytherin debate.

I think it's more like you said, they're an amalgam of historical villians. The Inquisitorial Squad is, obviously, more of a parallel with the Spanish Inquisition because of the fact that Umbridge attempted to force anyone who didn't comply with her version of the truth to agree with her, even going so far as to threaten interrogation under torture via the Cruciatus Curse, and hiring a squad of people to capture those who didn't agree with her. There are, of course, a lot of Nazi parallels, but I think if JKR is intending this, and you never know with her, she's really jumping around from villian to villian, not just sticking with Nazis or religious psychos...

But, also, there's this fact: Rowling seems to completely disregard the fact that most Slytherins are raised to be against Muggle-borns. That, I believe, is a bit of a parallel to these people in the South, particularly around where I live, hating black or hispanic people, not for any particular reason, but because they were raised to. The Slytherins, especially Draco, seem to have grown up being repetatively told all this about the glory of Purebloods, blah blah blah, and when you hear something enough, especially without knowledge of the fact that they are being brainwashed, they begin to believe it. Draco, especially, shows a particular attachment to his father, and no doubt, Lucius has probably raised him to be Mr. Junior Death Eater of the year.

Also, there's the fact that not all Death Eaters are Slytherin. Look at Peter. Are we to believe the idea that he's the only person from any other house that has ever followed Voldemort? I somehow doubt it. That, and Slytherins aren't the only unpleasant lot in Hogwarts. I think Parvati Patil and Lavendar Brown are particularly annoying, not to mention Zacharias Smith. But somehow, they are people, and Slytherins aren't. Then there's the fact that anyone, no matter what house, that says a wrong word to Harry, or dares not believe what new prophecy he has (and let's be realistic, though they did come true, you can't expect everyone to believe everything you dream, especially if it happens every other day), is officially labelled with the big red rubber stamp that says "Bad Person." Seamus Finnegan is cut out of the whole book just because he doesn't believe Harry at first. They hate Zacharias because he's a little skeptical. Bleh. I'm gonna stop there, it's becoming incoherent. Good essay-thing.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Thanks! And that's a really good point, especially about the Slyths being raised to believe what they do. It's especially ironic when you consider that Harry himself, as you pointed out, is so strict about what beliefs he can accept. Nobody gets into his good graces without completely supporting his own pov, so you can imagine what it's like growing up with a DE father. A kid would probably learn quickly enough to see the world this way themselves or else be completely shunned. Plus it's not like they probably get exposed to any other points of view. Once they get to Hogwarts they're attacked for their beliefs which isn't going to make them all that open to being friends with the people who are attacking them, is my guess!

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, this is the same person as above. Just wanted to leave my email address cause I'm not on LJ:

My name is Ferris Blue, email aoi_ferisu@yahoo.com.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, you are now. Love the response, btw. :)

[tiferet]

please fix the html in this post?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Ack! Can't believe I didn't fix it before! I think it's done now.

[jacksmadeline.livejournal.com]

Wow, excellent debate. I really have nothing new to contribute, but it's been very enlightening reading everyone's arguments.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Glad you're enjoying it!

[(Anonymous)]

I suggest growing up and real some real literature. I had to read the first few books out loud to my kids and it was the worst suffering of my life. Those books suck. There's nothing interesting or worthwhile in them (well, I can only speak for the first three.)

The characters are wooden. Stuff just seems to be getting made up as it moves along. It's beneath you all.

Go out and find something good to actually read.