![[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: 24 April 2006 02:01 pm (UTC)With the book 7's opportunity to explore the Founders' history via the horcruxes quest, I hope we'll get a more nuanced and complex outlook on them...
very close friends indeed ^^ SalazarxGodric OTP
no subject
Date: 25 April 2006 02:46 am (UTC)Oops, I think my bitter's showing.
I'm quite sure that the text doesn't absolutely support the idea that Salazar had other reasons for denying the Muggleborns entrance, but my point was more that we didn't really have hard evidence either way, considering the circumstances in the WW's past. A couple of lines from the Sorting Hat that aren't necessarily Salazar's own words and which only say that he only wanted Purebloods don't really show his ideas in context. Since we're not only getting Harry's unreliable viewpoint, but he's been flat out lied to before (Hagrid's "not a Dark Wizard who hasn't come from Slytherin," anyone?), I'm hardly inclined to take anything at face value.
Of course, you're also right that the idea that Slytherin was into blood purity all the way is a reasonable extrapolation from the text as well, especially if we take the idea that the Hat does have the Founders' personalities imbued into it.
One thing that I will never understand (outside of a purely metatextual perspective, which can't be entirely ignored, I realize very well) is why, if Slytherin House is really so bad, so bigoted, and so Dark, hasn't it been disbanded?!? Why was it allowed to exist past Slytherin leaving the school to begin with? No one is so one sided that s/he could only fit into that one House. Why didn't the other Founders nip the problem in the bud and simply get rid of Slytherin House and place the students into the other Houses of best fit? There's got to be more to it, and I think Salazar's actual beliefs might play into it. Unless it's simply a case of JKR going "because I said so!", which is her right.
I'm going way off course from your original essay, aren't I? Sorry. :x
very close friends indeed ^^ SalazarxGodric OTP
Damn straight.
no subject
Date: 25 April 2006 02:47 am (UTC)