I don't think Draco is a bad person :> He's just not an admirable person, and I doubt JKR will ever make him that way. Though when I first 'met' Slughorn in the 'armchair' scene I really liked him (and not in a 'wow, this is a Slytherin but I like him sort of way' and not in a 'wow, this is a jerk but I think he's interesting' sort of way), but then the ass-kissing got in the way.
...I also wish people would stop harping on about the Slytherins' fixation on 'blood purity' or how they're all so racist, etcetc, but I know it's a lost cause. I just find it so dishonest. Is that -really- why these people dislike them--?? It doesn't compute and sounds so moralistic-- do people really like or dislike characters based on moral grounds this heavily--?? Doesn't it just -scream- smokescreen, or is that just me--?? Possibly this is because I've never disliked a character on 'moral' grounds in my life, if by moral grounds you don't mean things like 'he's manipulative', which is a part of -my- personal ethics but not most other people's. Argh. Anyway, I really don't think that's the 'badness' of Slytherin in a nutshell by a longshot, to JKR anyway; I think there's lots of negative traits implied/intended by JKR at least, like being power-hungry and orthodox in general and self-centered and... um, mean.
...Somehow I still can't picture Harry himself having an army. I'll be v. surprised if that happens, but it -might- in the sense that people might -use- Harry, but Harry will never work well in groups and/or spend a lot of time being an actual leader, I suspect, 'cause the books will always revolve too heavily around him & Ron & Hermione. Notice how I can't back any of this up, but :> Anyway, just 'not supporting Voldemort and not being too racist' can't be what makes a 'good Slytherin' 'cause in that case we have Snape in some ways at least, in that I think he's a much more 'moral' character than Draco.
Er, though of course Draco has potential, making an argument for potential alone just makes me sad-- everyone has potential; I mean, I see (largely failed/wasted) potential in Tom Riddle, to some small degree. I think there are a million reasons not to make Draco slick or cool though-- he's there to be mocked, to fail and to be the shadow that outlines Harry's successes. If he was really sparkly, Harry might actually worry more, ahahaha -.-;; But if it's all about believing-and-then-not-believing, there's still Snape, right--?
It also seems like Draco's point isn't to be 'good' but rather more complex-- more pitiful, pathetic, in good and bad ways. Plucky? He seems motivated less by belief in the cause and more by personal vendetta issues, either because 'oh no, my DAD' or 'oh god, POTTER'. It never seemed like he cared about ideals or higher moral principles either way, whatever he spouted. He's just too, uh, down-to-earth. Or something.
Don't mind me, I barely thought during this whole comment-- I'm mostly rambling 'cause the whole reasoning behind people's little anti-Slyth biases annoys me. Well, I mean, not because I have a pro-Slyth bias, but maybe because I don't it annoys me more, I'm not sure o_0
no subject
...I also wish people would stop harping on about the Slytherins' fixation on 'blood purity' or how they're all so racist, etcetc, but I know it's a lost cause. I just find it so dishonest. Is that -really- why these people dislike them--?? It doesn't compute and sounds so moralistic-- do people really like or dislike characters based on moral grounds this heavily--?? Doesn't it just -scream- smokescreen, or is that just me--?? Possibly this is because I've never disliked a character on 'moral' grounds in my life, if by moral grounds you don't mean things like 'he's manipulative', which is a part of -my- personal ethics but not most other people's. Argh. Anyway, I really don't think that's the 'badness' of Slytherin in a nutshell by a longshot, to JKR anyway; I think there's lots of negative traits implied/intended by JKR at least, like being power-hungry and orthodox in general and self-centered and... um, mean.
...Somehow I still can't picture Harry himself having an army. I'll be v. surprised if that happens, but it -might- in the sense that people might -use- Harry, but Harry will never work well in groups and/or spend a lot of time being an actual leader, I suspect, 'cause the books will always revolve too heavily around him & Ron & Hermione. Notice how I can't back any of this up, but :> Anyway, just 'not supporting Voldemort and not being too racist' can't be what makes a 'good Slytherin' 'cause in that case we have Snape in some ways at least, in that I think he's a much more 'moral' character than Draco.
Er, though of course Draco has potential, making an argument for potential alone just makes me sad-- everyone has potential; I mean, I see (largely failed/wasted) potential in Tom Riddle, to some small degree. I think there are a million reasons not to make Draco slick or cool though-- he's there to be mocked, to fail and to be the shadow that outlines Harry's successes. If he was really sparkly, Harry might actually worry more, ahahaha -.-;; But if it's all about believing-and-then-not-believing, there's still Snape, right--?
It also seems like Draco's point isn't to be 'good' but rather more complex-- more pitiful, pathetic, in good and bad ways. Plucky? He seems motivated less by belief in the cause and more by personal vendetta issues, either because 'oh no, my DAD' or 'oh god, POTTER'. It never seemed like he cared about ideals or higher moral principles either way, whatever he spouted. He's just too, uh, down-to-earth. Or something.
Don't mind me, I barely thought during this whole comment-- I'm mostly rambling 'cause the whole reasoning behind people's little anti-Slyth biases annoys me. Well, I mean, not because I have a pro-Slyth bias, but maybe because I don't it annoys me more, I'm not sure o_0