Well, really I didn't want to get into it because it was a throw-away reference to things that are more related to the percentage of Purebloods (and therefore Death Eaters) in Slytherin rather than their inherent Slytherin-ness. However, the Sorting Hat also said Slytherin is FOR Purebloods, so, there's some flavor of safety in groups or whatever in the sense that Gryffindor has some flavor of individualism. Heh. :>
Anyway, I agree that the Slytherins relate to their personal codes/morals differently than Gryffindors-- I was actually just saying that about Draco in HBP to Amalin, defending him and everything. ;P I was saying that Harry's is more verbalized/conscious and Draco's is more instinctive and personal/'selfish', 'out for me and those that matter', etc. I don't think that this outlook is necessarily 'bad' in the sense of it being necessarily cut-throat and dog-eat-dog, just as I don't think Harry's overly self-justified 'concern' for others is necessarily 'patronizing' ;) They're just pursuing different values, and I totally agree that they're not inherently moral or amoral, right or wrong. Which is why I would argue with a characterization of Harry as 'patronizing' in regards to his friends, or with a characterization of Draco as spineless or immoral/cowardly even on the Tower. They're kind of similar types of judgments, going from the opposite type of moral system to evaluate the other; this isn't in response to you, really, though, so. :>
I simply said "a certain quality" because you didn't seem to like simply calling it passion or obsession and leave it at that.
The problem I had wasn't with calling 'it' passion/obsession but rather with tying it instrinsically only or most directly with Slytherin. I think fire is as much 'passion' as water, in other words, they just express it differently-- the quality isn't that different in itself, actually. I wouldn't say that the Gryffindors' passion is less selfish or that they're going 'more Slytherin' (or that Harry was going 'more Slytherin' in HBP with pursuing Ginny, especially! not necessarily). The difference is more in the motivations/responses to the emotion, not the emotion itself. Which is why I said maybe the Slytherins (or at least the Blacks) have a history of buckling or surrendering their will more than Gryffindors in terms of their response to that overwhelming emotion; I don't think Gryffindors have had to deal with less intense emotions, in other words. But I'm not saying all Slytherins are therefore 'weak' or that all Gryffindors are 'strong', of course.
Perhaps I'd agree that Slytherin passion is generally more selfish, yes, just because everything about Slytherin-ness is centered around that 'out for me & my goals/beloveds/compatriots' thing. But Harry being selfish, or Tonks being selfish doesn't automatically make them more Slytherin, is the thing. I think.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-03 12:22 am (UTC)Anyway, I agree that the Slytherins relate to their personal codes/morals differently than Gryffindors-- I was actually just saying that about Draco in HBP to Amalin, defending him and everything. ;P I was saying that Harry's is more verbalized/conscious and Draco's is more instinctive and personal/'selfish', 'out for me and those that matter', etc. I don't think that this outlook is necessarily 'bad' in the sense of it being necessarily cut-throat and dog-eat-dog, just as I don't think Harry's overly self-justified 'concern' for others is necessarily 'patronizing' ;) They're just pursuing different values, and I totally agree that they're not inherently moral or amoral, right or wrong. Which is why I would argue with a characterization of Harry as 'patronizing' in regards to his friends, or with a characterization of Draco as spineless or immoral/cowardly even on the Tower. They're kind of similar types of judgments, going from the opposite type of moral system to evaluate the other; this isn't in response to you, really, though, so. :>
I simply said "a certain quality" because you didn't seem to like simply calling it passion or obsession and leave it at that.
The problem I had wasn't with calling 'it' passion/obsession but rather with tying it instrinsically only or most directly with Slytherin. I think fire is as much 'passion' as water, in other words, they just express it differently-- the quality isn't that different in itself, actually. I wouldn't say that the Gryffindors' passion is less selfish or that they're going 'more Slytherin' (or that Harry was going 'more Slytherin' in HBP with pursuing Ginny, especially! not necessarily). The difference is more in the motivations/responses to the emotion, not the emotion itself. Which is why I said maybe the Slytherins (or at least the Blacks) have a history of buckling or surrendering their will more than Gryffindors in terms of their response to that overwhelming emotion; I don't think Gryffindors have had to deal with less intense emotions, in other words. But I'm not saying all Slytherins are therefore 'weak' or that all Gryffindors are 'strong', of course.
Perhaps I'd agree that Slytherin passion is generally more selfish, yes, just because everything about Slytherin-ness is centered around that 'out for me & my goals/beloveds/compatriots' thing. But Harry being selfish, or Tonks being selfish doesn't automatically make them more Slytherin, is the thing. I think.