![[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
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