Yup, I think a lot of common positions you see in fandom are heavily influenced by the opposition, as it were. It's not uncommon to find out only later in the conversation that you really agree with someone more than you thought because you're used to people arguing from extremes. Draco's a great example--I've often been driven crazy by a sort of false character called "canon Draco" that people talk about. The point of him is basically that he's not the fluffy bunny of fanon Draco, but he's not canon Draco either, because canon Draco has never been all about the evil. It's annoying when people act like a more nuanced understanding of the character means you must be confusing him with the leather pants version, especially when you're the one with the canon backup. Just because it's bad doesn't mean it's right!

You can have one but not the other, and I think that that's true in Draco's case at least (he's always had the heart, just not the right intentions). Regulus strikes me the same way. I think that Snape's heart and intentions may not always have been good but that that doesn't necessarily mean they were bad just self-serving, which means they could be good if their being so helped him. And so, I think what's hard to bring across is the idea that the characters don't so much need a change of heart as a change of motive and intention, just because they actually have had the heart all along. Problem with most Slytherins, actually. ^^

I love this! And agree with Slink's addition below too. It's funny that Harry's big power is supposed to be love when there's never any doubt that Slytherin is the house of emotion.