![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
We often complain that Slytherin gets the short end of the stick. What are the positive characteristics of Slytherin house? Are there examples? (Of course one must wade through the anti-Slytherin bias to find them.) You may keep the discussion general or make it more Snape specific if you wish.
Snapedom
Torino's Tuesday Question
The World of Severus Snape
********************
Anonymous users, remember that you must sign all your comments with your name or nick! Comments left unsigned may be screened without notice.
********************
Welcome to Snapedom!
If you want to see snapedom entries on your LJ flist, add snapedom_syn feed. But please remember to come here to the post to comment.
This community is mostly unmoderated. Read the rules and more in "About Snapedom."
No fanfic or art posts, but you can promote your fanfic and fanart, or post recommendations, every Friday.
Links
- ...
- General
- ...
- Writers' Resources
- ...
- Parties
- ...
- Special Discussions
Powered by InsaneJournal
- Oryx
http://asylums.insanejournal.com/snaped
One can be ambitious for beneficial reasons--for example, someone who wants to become Minister of Magic to change the laws that discriminate against non-humans. One can even be ambitious for relatively selfish reasons, and still not be evil, such as the desire to become a world-class Quidditch player or a famous musician. I wonder if any of the Weird Sisters were Slytherins? ;-)
Cunning, another Slytherin quality mentioned in the Sorting Hat's song, has a negative connotation, as it seems to imply sneakiness and deception, but I think it can be a good quality as well. After all, Snape needs a great deal of cunning to pull off his role as a double agent. The Gryffindors, by contrast, tend to be brash and wear their hearts on their sleeves. Even shy Neville openly defies the Carrows in DH, rather than quietly organizing his resistance in secret--which would have been safer, and perhaps more effective. I doubt that James or Harry could have convinced Voldemort that they were loyal Death Eaters, but Snape did, and his role was vital in helping to protect Harry and win the war.
I also think, as others have mentioned, that a sense of self-preservation is a Slytherin quality--one generally has to be alive to achieve one's ambitions, after all! Even JKR admitted that this was a good thing during her PotterCast interview, when in a bit of canon revisionism, she claimed that the Slytherins returned to fight at Hogwarts with Slughorn, after going to get reinforcements first. Never mind that the scene is not actually in the books. *rolls eyes* At least she admitted that the Slytherins weren't evil.
(I discussed the interview in this esssay: http://community.livejournal.com/snaped
I do think that under certain circumstances, the Slytherins would be willing to risk their lives, but most of them would require more personal reasons than just "saving the world," particularly for the younger ones--the lives of their family and friends being threatened, for example. As Bohemian Spirit mentions above, this is probably related to the self-preservation instinct. For most people, that sense of "self" expands to include their loved ones, and with maturity, it might continue to expand to the point where it does indeed expand to include humanity in general. Snape betrays Voldemort solely for Lily's sake, and then protected Harry for her sake. But at some point, he must have agreed with Dumbledore that defeating Voldemort was more important than protecting a single life, or he never would have let Harry sacrifice himself. He could, after all, have attempted to Obliviate Harry and send him off to another country where he might be safe, as Hermione did with her parents. Instead, he passed on his memories and Dumbledore's instructions to Harry, even though--unlike Dumbledore--he didn't seem to have any hope that Harry might survive his sacrifice.
So do I; also slyness, even sneakiness. I've been known to use the latter word as a compliment when someone has put one over on me, albeit without malicious intent. "Oooh, that was sneaky!" can be praise.
Isn't "cunning" related (linguistically) to "kenning", that is, knowledge and understanding?
I do think that under certain circumstances, the Slytherins would be willing to risk their lives
Well, we know Severus is, if the reason is sufficient. He doesn't have a problem doing this if he feels it has a chance to achieve something. He's just not grand-gesture-ly suicidal.
The virtue of self-preservation
At its worst, of course, the instinct for self-preservation becomes Winston Smith's (1984) cry of, "Do it to Julia! Not to me! To Julia!" It preserves self at the expense of others, and will sacrifice anyone if so doing will preserve the self.
At its best, the trait of self-preservation is not only personally pragmatic but ethically virtuous: A mature sense of self-preservation extends beyond the self to include other "selves," i.e., to see oneself and others as ends in themselves, not merely as means to ends. It rejects the ideology of sacrifice altogether, casts aside lifeboat ethics and the notion of life as a zero-sum game in which someone has to sacrifice in order for another to gain, and strives to save EVERYONE, to the greatest extent possible.
The idealization of sacrifice, on the other hand, can be seen as unethical in the way that it sees the sacrifice of self and/or others as "justified" because it serves a desired end. Even if that end is (purportedly) The Greater Good, should individual human worth really be reduced to what "use" someone's life or death may be to acheiving an end?
Considering that the Slytherins are billed by the (Gryffindorian) Hat as "using any means to achieve their ends," it really makes me wonder how much of the Gryffindorian perspective through which we view the series can be taken at face value. As we have seen with Severus Snape, the "self-preserving" instinct can (and, certainly in his case, does) lead to the valuation of the intrinsic worth of human life at large. It is Dumbledore who takes the view of shuffling people about as means to an end--and, as Severus bitterly points out, views Harry as a "pig for the slaughter" because that slaughter will serve a Greater End.
Other Slytherin traits can likewise be seen as virtues or vices: ambition, cleverness, cunning, and so on. It's all in the spin, and in the application.
Re: The virtue of self-preservation
So while unhealthy Slytherins (like Voldemort), immature Slytherins (perhaps like many of those who joined the DEs immediately out of school), or less intelligent Slytherins will tend to look more for short term gains, I'd think mature, intelligent, healthy Slytherins will end up thinking more of meaningful long term goals and will likely end up as at least decent human beings, and the wiser among themare likely to end up as commonly acknowledged highly virtuous people.
- Oryx
Just my two cents.
Slytherin seems to be the house of artistry and creativity. Kind of odd, then you consider the association of fire with creativity, although water associates with emotion and empathy--which is part of the artistic sensibility.
Snape creates spells and experiments with potions. Draco is the only person in the series who is known to write songs.
And do you think logic and forethought are inimical to the creative process? Because I don't. I'd certainly accept that Slytherin is the creative house, based on what we see in canon, but I do think we also see rather more logic and forethought from them than from, for example, the Gryffindors, and a lot more practicality than from the Ravenclaws.
The Gryffindor bravery, to me, is exemplified by Minerva McGonagall's rush to intervene when Hagrid is about to be arrested by Umbridge & the aurors. It's noble, & brave - her utter outrage & disregard for the consequences, make me adore her - but because she hasn't paused to assess the situation, it achieves little.
Slytherin bravery, I think, would have assessed the situation, and figured out the best strategy for success. Snape's bravery cannot be questioned, but had he chosen to intervene, it would never have been a rash and headlong (and ultimately meaningless) rush to immediately confront the injustice.
So, this desire for effective results as the consequence of one's actions is a positive Slytherin trait.
Slytherins really seem to value respect and respectability. They understand that it is a fluid thing, something that can be lost and gained but is fundamental to one's standing in society. Even if they feel entitled to the world's respect, they still appear to strive for it.
Lastly, I think that Slytherins understand the importance and necessity of rules. They may bend or work around them as it suits their purposes but they rarely flat-out break them (Death Eater activity notwithstanding). Snape and Draco frequently relied on pointing out the blatant rule-breaking of their Gryffindor enemies to get them in trouble. Both Snape and Draco retaliated against the Gryffindors by crafting schemes within the rules (Snape outing Lupin, Draco's pin and song campaigns). Neither often used magic until they had been attacked or insulted and then only in the heat of the moment. Gryffindors, as a House, seem prone to flouting the rules as a matter of course. Percy is the only one I can think of who never outgrows his general adherence to rules.
Once a Gryffindor and (presumably a Hufflepuff) gives you his/her loyalty, you have it virtually for life regardless of what you do
I assume you say this because you see the blatantly bad things that Gryffindor friends routinely do (to each other and other human beings), but I suspect Gryffindor friends themselves *don't* see the wrongness of those acts. When they find the kinds of wrongness that they are capable of recognizing in their friends, they are very quick to turn their back on even their so-called best friends.
The best example of this is the Marauders. True, Remus was loyal to James and Sirius despite their bullying, but that may have only been because he was too spineless to think for himself and disapprove of their activities. When Sirius is perceived to have done something that's considered wrong by their *own* code of conduct (betrayal), Remus turns his back on him entirely and never even tries to investigate the possibility that his beloved friend might have been innocent. He believes what everybody else says, and doesn't even stop to think "Would Sirius do that to James?" Remember, he was the only person in the position to realize what had truly happened. The fact that the only part of Peter's body that could be found from the debris was his finger was publicized in the news. Did he pause to wonder? No. Because he thought Sirius did wrong, and that fact immediately stopped his sympathetic feeling for Sirius, cutting off the possibility of him thinking about Sirius' motivations and emotions. The same goes for Sirius, who says he had suspected Remus of being the traitor. What did he do when he gained this unfounded suspicion? He cut off all contact with this erstwhile friend, and didn't even let him know that the Potters were no longer Fideliused by Sirius (if he held suspicions, he could have kept Peter being the real Keeper a secret). It's not just Peter that the "friends" of the Gryffindor House befriends on an entirely conditional basis. It's everybody, really. Harry and his trio just got lucky because none of them ever did anything to make them want to permanently ditch that friendship.
When I think of the Slytherin model of loyalty, I was thinking of how Crabbe and Goyle turned on Draco in DH and how, I suspect, the Malfoys turned on Voldemort way before the final battle. Crabbe and Goyle, or maybe just Crabbe, seemed to see Draco as a dictator who'd lost his power and therefore had no right to tell them what to do. And I'd argue that after the events of HBP, the Malfoys hated Voldemort with a deep and burning passion regardless of their outward show of continuing loyalty. Lucius and Draco's attempts to satisfy Voldemort's goals felt more like survival instincts kicking in than any real desire to see Voldemort succeed. Resistance would just get them killed. Personal betrayal on the level of what Voldemort did to their family killed any loyalty the Malfoys had to him. They'd do what they had to do to survive but Voldemort could have gone and screwed him in front of a speeding train for all they'd care.
For the Gryffindors, I was thinking primarily of the way they blindly follow Dumbledore without question. Their loyalty to each other is also based on the unquestioned virtue of their House. I don't recall a single Gryffindor saying a truly bad word about Dumbledore, not even Sirius or Peter. (I'm sure I'm wrong about that but I geniunely don't recall it.) The party line is that Dumbledore is great and wonderful--the greatest personification of all that is good and true and wise in the world. They will and do follow him to their deaths just because they owe him so much and ... I feel a rant coming on so I'll stop them. But that's what I had in mind when I made that statement.
As for the Marauders, you're right about them. Their group dynamic is too unbalanced for true loyalty. To me, the Marauders were never as close and brotherly as they thought. James and Sirius loved each other as brothers. They were moreorless equals. I suspect the loyalty they felt for each other is eternal. Remus is not really their equal and Peter certainly isn't. Sirius thoughtlessly betrays Remus for a prank and never appears to realize he did so. Remus presumably forgives it, at least on the surface. Still, when Sirius tells Remus what Peter did, all is forgiven and they confront Peter together. I'm not saying it's perfect loyalty, but there is the sense of it lying dormant waiting for their misconceptions to be proven false and the relationship to be restored to its former state.
Or I could be talking nonsense. :)
With Gryffindors, it's not really "friendship" that's unconditional -- it's how blindly everyone follows their alphas that strikes us as odd and dysfunctional. In some cases the dominance manifests itself in a so-called friendship (as in how Remus is supposed to immediately forgive Sirius for everything he'd done -- including his misjudgment about Peter and his suspecting *Remus himself* -- just as soon as it gets proven that Sirius didn't betray the guy that's either equal or higher up the ranks than him) and in some cases the phenomenon is a more straightforward case of subordinates never questioning their boss (Dumbledore and every single one of his spineless Order members, most notably Harry), but astonishingly, the hierarchical fidelty system is the same in both cases: the wolf pack mentality is set in stone.
Whereas the Slytherins tend to have the mental capacity to question those standing on top of them, as you vividly point out. Snape, Lucius and Crabbe turns on their once-alleged friends/bosses just as soon as they realize that the promise of the bond has been broken from the other end: Snape whose faith in Voldemort was betrayed when this boss picked his beloved after he brought him the prophecy; Lucius who also realized just how badly his Lord was prepared to use him and his entire family -- even non-DE members like Narcissa; and Crabbe who stuck with Draco all these years because he thought the powerful boy promised him protection and connections, both of which have been lacking lately because of Draco's and his family's ineffectualness... A Gryffindor follower wouldn't see these breakdown of ties. They'll follow their superiors regardless of how badly they get treated, because they lack the "cunning" to see the blatantly obvious. Sacrificial? Yes. Sensible? No. Healthy relationships? No way.
(And places Ron's leaving and return in DH in very different light.)
- Oryx
Friendship (1/2)
Another distinguishing character of the Slytherins IMO is their peer loyalty and sense of camaraderie. The Sorting hat sings "You'll make your real friends," and that word "real" there isn't put in without reason. Despite what we're led to assume (especially because of that word "cunning" being in there too) the friendships of the Slytherins are way more genuine than the ones found in the Gryffindor norm.
The Gryffindors tend to make friends when it serves them well. Harry was lonely, Hermione was anxious to assimilate into the WW, and they formed a bond on the train with Ron, who had been wishing all his life to escape the shadow of all his brilliant brothers. James and Sirius all but use the timid Peter and Remus as hangers-on and excuse-givers. And most important of all, the nuclear-shaped friendships of the Gryffindor House seldom seem to grow into a larger web of social interactions with a genuine feeling of closeness. They're capable of teamwork when it serves their needs. The personal caring, however, don't come naturally to them -- if it ever comes to them at all. Note Harry's reaction of *surprise* as he discovers the extent of Luna's caring for *all* of her friends... Harry is content with the trio bond that he needs and has, and all the other people around (even those he likes) are just there as an abstraction of "nice people" in his eyes, most of the time. The same kind of detachment is found in Lily (who could let Severus writhe on the ground while she chatted with James about the ethics of bullying), James and Sirius (who could even risk their "friend" Remus' life and sanctuary in first using him as an instrument of attempted murder and then letting the entire school know that James had saved Severus), and definitely in Dumbledore (whose callous behaviors toward fellow human beings are too numerous to name).
Contrast them with the Slytherin capacity for inclusive friendship. Snape's circle of Slytherin friends, despite what "Dark" and evil things they were doing, are large and welcoming towards new Slytherins (which was how Severus the greasy half-blood found himself in their midst in the first place) as well as loyal and faithful, as far as we get the sense from Sirius' comments and the argument between Severus and Lily. Regulus had the picture of the entire quidditch team in his post-Hogwarts bedroom. Not some token of their victory, but their *picture*. That's the team spirit of the Slytherin, the thing which other Houses shun as "cunning" and self-serving, because to them (especially to the Gryffindors) such a huge network of friendship can only be guessed as a means to a personal gain. And some Slytherins like Tom Jr. and Slughorn indeed take advantage of their friend-making abilities for their own benefit. But the majority of the Slytherins are people who genuinely care for peers whose strengths they admire, and whose weeknesses and hardships they truly sympathize with. Lucius the aristocrate places a hand on the poorly clothed Severus the moment he gets sorted into under his wings. Draco makes a heartfelt attempt to befriend Harry, the boy whose existence led to the defeat of Voldemort and almost got his father in jail, and whose family is notorious (from his POV) as an enemy of Dark Arts -- the thing he wanted to learn at Durmstrang instead of coming to Hogwarts. The Slytherin inclination for building strong and wide friendships is truly great, and it's a laudable quality -- if not in HP (possibly, maybe) then surely in my own view of the world.
Friendship (2/2)
Slytherins are less hot-blooded and golden. But they are capable of caring for and bonding with their peers in a much truer fashion than we've ever seen from the Gryffindors.
...Or so I feel. Unfortunately, most of this is just conjecture, as we don't really get to *see* the Slytherin bonds in action, and when we do see them it never seems as nice as all this (Cf. Draco's "friendship" with Crab and Goyle). But when you think about the ties that just *had* to be there for Snape to truly start to want to join a Death Eaters, and for him to be *allowed* to do so, it seems there's some strong network of real friendship getting woven behind the scene, in some dark place that we somehow don't get to see.
Re: Friendship (1/2)
I agree that "real" is not put in without reason... but I read this as a caution that if you're destined for Slytherin, then those of the other houses aren't going to be your real friends.
Re: Friendship (1/2)
*Lily* was incapable of making a real friend of Severus. Her "friendship" was only as good as her ideological compatibility. Severus, OTOH, held Lily as his dear friend despite her close association with the bullying Gryffindors. In spite of his aversion to James and his gang, he never saw their closeness to Lily as anything that taints *her* in his eyes. He only ever wanted to make her *see* how bad they were, and I seriously doubt her failure to cut off contact with the Marauders would ever have made him want to ditch Lily as his friend. That's the type of loyalty and friendship that a *Slytherin* is essentially capable of; Snape *had* a best friend in Lily for all his life, and cherished it and pulled strength from it to his death. From Lily's POV, however, she couldn't find a "real" friend in the Slytherin House thanks to her own stunted sense of friendship. Her loss, if you ask me, but that's how she could enjoy her marriage and new friends (i.e. her husband's friends) without any saddening regrets.
Re: Friendship (1/2)
Re: Friendship (1/2)
But it's just, you know, as much as I feel for the poor Slytherins, in some ways I feel the Gryffindors are even more pitiable. For all that they're "popular," their psychological make-up is so stunted that they're not even capable of the type of "real friendship" bonds that the snake boys regularly feel.
Re: Friendship (1/2)
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. I've always thought Harry had two friends and everyone else were just people he chose to associate with when the occasion arose. This always seemed strange to me because Harry had always been denied friendship, yet when he's presented with the chance to make genuine friends, and a network of them besides, he only makes two. I guess that's why it always surprises me in fic when a character other than Ron or Hermione refers to Harry as a friend because he doesn't choose to spend time with anyone but the two of them.
And most important of all, the nuclear-shaped friendships of the Gryffindor House seldom seem to grow into a larger web of social interactions with a genuine feeling of closeness.
I've also never understood why Ron and Hermione were so friendless. Ron is the most personable of the three and not exactly shy so he should have been much more popular. Hermione should have at least found some friends among the Ravenclaws because of their shared interest in learning. They all seem so removed from Hogwarts at large. It's a shame really.
Re: Friendship (1/2)
Hermione must have shared classes with Ravenclaws - I bet there were quite a few of them in Arithmancy and Ancient Runes, but I guess she valued her adventures with Harry and Ron, and even mothering the two boys over hanging out with those who were more into academics for their own sake.
Re: Friendship (1/2)
But Harry was pretty oblivious to everyone's existence until the DA. I remember being amazed that Hermione had to tell Harry the Slytherin boy's name in the library (Nott). Harry had been to almost 5 years of Potions classes with that kid and had no idea of his name. Especially telling since it seems most 'probable' that he was the same kid whom Harry noticed at the beginning of the year that could see Thestrals - yet he never bothers to ask his name until he sees him talking to Draco.
Alternatively, Hermione's self-value seems wrapped up entirely in her 'smarts'. The idea of 'pretty girls' makes her quite defensive (hence her dislike of Fleur, who may not have been as much of a challenge in the Tri-Wizard as Cedric, but yet whom must have been one of the 'best' Beaubatons had to offer) And remember her 'boggart' - the fear of failing ALL her classes and her reaction to Harry's sudden improvement in NEWT Potions? Hermione might have associated with Ravenclaws, but I doubt she liked to admit anyone might be her equal in intelligence. I can't imagine that her attitude would win her many friends in Ravenclaw. -- Hwyla