![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
salineaThere's a very odd symbolical dissonance in that Slytherin is the House defined on one hand by cunning and pragmatism, and on the other hand the fact that's it tied so tightly with tradionnalism, "aristocratic power" and Pure Bloods.
JKR's system work quite tightly with archetypal images otherwise. Gryffindor with fire and bravery, is the House of the Warrior caste (those who should be by most Indo-European standarts the aristocracy - they even have the Lion as a symbol) Ravenclaw associated to air and Intelligence fits to the Priest/Scholar class (especially with the way Luna is tied to Death mysteries and certain form of mysicism). Hufflepuff has got earth and harworking and loyalty (and strenght in union) - obviously the Provider's class.
But the Slytherin breaks the mold and disturbs that pretty symbolical pattern.
Because cunning, resourcefulness and disregard for rule is never never the attribute of conservatism, of the people who have all interests to enforce those rules. Cunning is the skill of the Tricksters, of the Puck, of the Loki, the Puss in Boots, the Renart the Goupil. Of the Scapin and Figaro who serve and mock and trap the Aristocracy. It's the skill of the weak folks who have only their wits to triumph (or bring themselves into ever greater trouble), of the ambitious lad who makes a deal with the devil then find a way out of it and makes a fool of the Devil at the same time.
We even say "low cunning" to underline how not noble it is.
And ambition is never the trait of the rightfully powerful people. To have ambition you have to yearn something that you not yet have. You have to want more. For one who has power, there's only to act noble and regal like and not abuse it (and certainly not do "us whatever means necessary) - Exactly like the Gryffindors do.
Yet we find the Slytherin associated with the most conformist and old-fashioned support of power. With people who belong by birth. With extremely rich and arrogant blood lines like the Blacks and the Malfoys... or do we ? Maybe it's because Slytherins gravitate so naturally more toward revolutionnary ideas that they are so many to follow Voldemort (who after all sough to overthrow the WW government in a pretty radical fashion). Except that's not at all how the DE are portrayed.
Then to confuse the matters even more JKR puts all those prankster characters like the Weasley twins and the Maraudeurs and manipulative masters like Dumbledore, Remus and Peter in Gryffindors.
As if the two Houses had exchanged features to make them more similar leaving only the core and very classical moral dilemna between Idealism and Pragmatism. (Watch the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode the Gift if you wonder what I mean by that)
There's different hypothesis we can make from that.
A Pro-Slytherin "JKR just hates them" attitude would be simply to say that JKR took everything that was good and glamourous about Slytherin and put it in Gryffindor, and everything that should have been bad and rank in Gryffindor to put it in Slytherin. But that's not something I believe.
There's the theory that Voldemort has corrupted what Slytherin stood for and that Slughorn, for exemple, shows a better, purer (how ironic) exemple of the Slytherin ethos. But we have good sources to think that Salazar was just as Pure Bloodist as Voldemort was.
Or maybe this stems from the Wizarding World's siege mentality. That's to say, they had more reasons through the ages to fear the Muggle world than we were let to believe from Binn's homeworks and they saw themselves, indeed, as the weak folk fighting against the more powerful (and aristocratic) Muggles using only their wits and magic. And that's why some founders of that society valued cunning, ambition and pragmatism as good traits belonging to their leaders. They were revolutionnaries who succeeded.
There could be other explanations... I just hope that JKR is aware of that dissonance and that it's got a meaning somewhere in her work.
Any thoughts on the subject ?
JKR's system work quite tightly with archetypal images otherwise. Gryffindor with fire and bravery, is the House of the Warrior caste (those who should be by most Indo-European standarts the aristocracy - they even have the Lion as a symbol) Ravenclaw associated to air and Intelligence fits to the Priest/Scholar class (especially with the way Luna is tied to Death mysteries and certain form of mysicism). Hufflepuff has got earth and harworking and loyalty (and strenght in union) - obviously the Provider's class.
But the Slytherin breaks the mold and disturbs that pretty symbolical pattern.
Because cunning, resourcefulness and disregard for rule is never never the attribute of conservatism, of the people who have all interests to enforce those rules. Cunning is the skill of the Tricksters, of the Puck, of the Loki, the Puss in Boots, the Renart the Goupil. Of the Scapin and Figaro who serve and mock and trap the Aristocracy. It's the skill of the weak folks who have only their wits to triumph (or bring themselves into ever greater trouble), of the ambitious lad who makes a deal with the devil then find a way out of it and makes a fool of the Devil at the same time.
We even say "low cunning" to underline how not noble it is.
And ambition is never the trait of the rightfully powerful people. To have ambition you have to yearn something that you not yet have. You have to want more. For one who has power, there's only to act noble and regal like and not abuse it (and certainly not do "us whatever means necessary) - Exactly like the Gryffindors do.
Yet we find the Slytherin associated with the most conformist and old-fashioned support of power. With people who belong by birth. With extremely rich and arrogant blood lines like the Blacks and the Malfoys... or do we ? Maybe it's because Slytherins gravitate so naturally more toward revolutionnary ideas that they are so many to follow Voldemort (who after all sough to overthrow the WW government in a pretty radical fashion). Except that's not at all how the DE are portrayed.
Then to confuse the matters even more JKR puts all those prankster characters like the Weasley twins and the Maraudeurs and manipulative masters like Dumbledore, Remus and Peter in Gryffindors.
As if the two Houses had exchanged features to make them more similar leaving only the core and very classical moral dilemna between Idealism and Pragmatism. (Watch the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode the Gift if you wonder what I mean by that)
There's different hypothesis we can make from that.
A Pro-Slytherin "JKR just hates them" attitude would be simply to say that JKR took everything that was good and glamourous about Slytherin and put it in Gryffindor, and everything that should have been bad and rank in Gryffindor to put it in Slytherin. But that's not something I believe.
There's the theory that Voldemort has corrupted what Slytherin stood for and that Slughorn, for exemple, shows a better, purer (how ironic) exemple of the Slytherin ethos. But we have good sources to think that Salazar was just as Pure Bloodist as Voldemort was.
Or maybe this stems from the Wizarding World's siege mentality. That's to say, they had more reasons through the ages to fear the Muggle world than we were let to believe from Binn's homeworks and they saw themselves, indeed, as the weak folk fighting against the more powerful (and aristocratic) Muggles using only their wits and magic. And that's why some founders of that society valued cunning, ambition and pragmatism as good traits belonging to their leaders. They were revolutionnaries who succeeded.
There could be other explanations... I just hope that JKR is aware of that dissonance and that it's got a meaning somewhere in her work.
Any thoughts on the subject ?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 23 April 2006 08:23 pm (UTC)I mean, they all seem to have such dualistic motives in canon - they all want to be recognised as heroes and upstanding people and so on, but also want all the power possible, and supposedly will do anything to get it. It's a wierd amalgamation of wanting to be a hero and yet knowing you're not going to do really heroic things to get there properly. Slytherins seem to have some kind of latent feeling that everyone knows or will know or will therefore disrespect them if they try to do things the 'gryffindor' way or the heroic way, and yet they feel drawn to doing such things despite their common sense telling them that doing things that way isn't going to get them into power with maximum loss of life or dignity.
And then, as you pointed out, there's the issue of their being both conservative and radical at the same time. I'm not quite sure that's very dualistic, actually, as I believe no pureblooded Slytherin thinks they're being radical in their ridicule and hatred of muggles and muggleborn people - for me, that has the sort of characteristics of a belief long held by anybody who is anybody in the wizarding world. Imho, it's the muggleborns who are the radicals here, in their opinion - it's the muggleborns who are eroding their culture and exposing them to potential danger due to their continued unsafe contact with their dirty muggle relations.
So, to cut a long story short, yes I DO have some thoughts on the subject. ;)
no subject
Date: 23 April 2006 08:55 pm (UTC)Aah, yes, but that makes them fit very fashionably anti-heroic, especially Snape ^^ That kind of dissonance is fascinating, because it brings out the whole idea that sometimes you need to dirty your hand to save the world). (I did mention the Gift in my rambling : "But I have sworn to protect this sorry world, and sometimes that means saying and doing... what other people can't. What they shouldn't have to.")
Slytherins seem to have some kind of latent feeling that everyone knows or will know or will therefore disrespect them if they try to do things the 'gryffindor' way or the heroic way
That's an idea we often find in Fanon, but I have to disagree with it. I think it might be true for Snape, but not for most other people (apart from the usual House pride meaning that all other Houses are seen as junk).
I don't believe there's an actual Gryffindor / Slytherin rivality dating back to ancient times as Fanon is wont to show it.
And then, as you pointed out, there's the issue of their being both conservative and radical at the same time. I'm not quite sure that's very dualistic, actually, as I believe no pureblooded Slytherin thinks they're being radical in their ridicule and hatred of muggles and muggleborn people - for me, that has the sort of characteristics of a belief long held by anybody who is anybody in the wizarding world.
I agree and disagree with you both on this. I think that, yes, pro-Muggle of the Dumbledore and Arthur variety are one extreme of the "radicality" (and that tells us something when someone as patronizing as Arthur is that)
However I think that Muggleborn haters to the point of the Death Eaters is just as radical. It's going farther than respectable, conventational family would do (Sirius tells us as much about the Blacks, and I think it's fair to say the Black were already rather more to the farthest side of conservatism) Fudge is our standart of what the petty, common Wizards think. They're prejudices, but they wouldn't accept whole scale slaughter easily. They, like Slughorn, are surprised when a Muggleborn witch is very gifted, but they would shrug it off as an exception, not want to insult her.
Thanks for bringing your thoughts :D
no subject
Date: 23 April 2006 09:02 pm (UTC)And I definitely agree with you that both extremes of feeling towards muggleborns are radical. That's why I sort of can understand why supposedly upright, conservative families like the Blacks would sort of privately agree with Voldemort's sentiments if not his methods, and therefore understand why Slytherin is such a hotbed of conservatism and, in a way, radicalism.
I think that in the real world, the conservative Slytherins would still be the most susceptible to such extremist thinking because they all want power or feel like they've got something to prove, and that tends to lead one into joining up with such useless or awful causes especially if they espouse a more radical version the beliefs that that you already have. Of course, there are the conservative Slytherins that would privately agree but still keep very, very far away from such activities and feel a sort of grim pity for the people that join causes with such bad publicity, so yeah.
no subject
Date: 23 April 2006 09:43 pm (UTC)Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Wanting to do great things not exactly good things and all...
there are the conservative Slytherins that would privately agree but still keep very, very far away from such activities and feel a sort of grim pity for the people that join causes with such bad publicity
That makes me laugh ^^ I could totally see that. "Oh, Lucius was arrested as a Death Eater, poor dear." *rethinks her agenda for the next New Year party*