~~ wherein Reena rails against Slytherin. again.

[reenka]

That's it, I've snapped (...again). I... I have to come up with actual -reasons- now for why I don't think that the way to rebel against a fictional school's House system is to decide the "ambitious, cunning" house is All That. So okay, I'll say it.

(I think) Slytherin House sucks. Or, let me rephrase that. It does not, under any circumstance, deserve admiration, except on a per-individual basis. Same could be said for almost -any- group.

...Gryffindor & Hufflepuff & Ravenclaw aren't much better. But Slytherin sucks worst, because-- well-- playing nicely with others isn't my idea of a Chief Virtue or anything (I hardly do), but. Making some sort of ideal out of being manipulative? That's just lame.


Maybe it's just... all right, I'll just say it... I don't think ambition or cunning are admirable qualities. That's... that's just all there is to it. I can never -admire- Slytherinness -because- it's so "Slytherin". I mean... being underhanded and manipulative and self-centered (one for one and all for one) or whatever-- what's so cool about that? That's your basic Scrooge mentality, man, like the way Victorian factory owners were supposed to think, employing homeless little boys to work 20-hour days in their clothing factories or whatever, no?

I'm oh-so-tired of people feeling sympathy for the underdog to the extent that they let their contrary nature overwhelm their sense of... I dunno... goodness. Just because "0" isn't quite right, doesn't mean "1" is the answer, does it? Binary systems. They annoy me :>

It's like the way so many people assume they must support the Democrats if they hate what the Republicans are doing. Jeez. The way people assume if I'm not one way, I'm the other all the time, in so many different ways, when they're all bad choices, when everything's corrupt. Every human group-- let's face it, it's corrupt. It gets to me, that's all. People not -thinking- about things in theory, only choosing to support the opposite from the option that annoys them, instead of reforming the option most deserving of support. Bleh!

Do all the go-go-Slytherin people seriously think that's the "best" idea for a House, somehow? Do people seriously think Houses in general are a good idea? Do they seriously think these ideals they stand for mean -anything- without the others?! Isn't it obvious they're all supposed to work in concert? Why god, WHY do people always choose sides?! WHY? (Okay I know why, but it's still frustrating.)

I mean... just because people think Harry is wrong in his behavior towards Draco or whatever (and he is, but he's understandable) doesn't mean Draco is a w00bie, does it? Just because a character is understandable or likable doesn't mean he's not a bastard, does it?

So, I mean. I love Draco, for instance, and not even -in spite- of the whole Slytherin issue-- I think it's a part of him, obviously, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. Necessarily. Just like Harry's a Gryffindor/Slytherin mix, and that's neither a good or a bad thing, necessarily, though the Slytherin ideals/virtues require much more fortitude and caution to use well. Gryffindor & Slytherin are different sides of the same coin, as Harry himself demonstrates, doesn't he? Isn't that part of the whole -point- of Harry's characterization, and thus, by extension, the HP books in general? So how can there be this rift in fan alliance between the two Houses?

I can't stand it when people are all woo-woo-Slytherin. It makes me all... disturbed and creeped out, because if people seriously think ambition and ruthless cunning are the main qualities to strive for in life, they've got... issues. Of course, by extension, I suppose all of the American (and Japanese) capitalist system is built around those things to a large extent, so. No surprise, eh? Every man for himself, all that. Great. Must we applaud it?? Must we? DUDE! *stews*

I also hate it when people take the opposite view and are blindly pro-Gryffindor, 'cause I mean... who the hell cares about bravery and righteousness? Where's the understanding and mercy here? How could we trust any school-age child to know what "justice" is? What the hell? Are we seriously supposed to believe that everyone in Gryffindor either knows what bravery is or cares about these ideals? (Of course not, it's just what they want to see themselves as the most.) Or that all the clear idiots in Slytherin would even know cunning if it bit them on the ass?

...On the other hand, okay, maybe the fans (and some of the actual Slytherins) choose to cast their lot with that House 'cause they don't feel "good". (Though, how silly is it to associate oneself with fictional Houses, anyway?) Like, it's a low self-esteem problem that turns into "We're Here and We're Weird"... you know... except not. I love the idea of Slytherin House as having self-esteem issues while Gryffindors are the cocky ones and the Hufflepuffs are the shy/meek ones and the Ravenclaws are the stand-offish ones. Ha!

Feel my Hufflepuff rage, man. Feel it :D
~~

I think this is slightly related to all the people who love Spike (I was gonna say 'like Spike', but... no) because he's "evil" (aka the Big Bad). Also, y'know, the people who like Draco 'cause he's... well... Slytherin. I love Spike, too, but it's because he's Spike-- a set of contradictions and evasions and er... moods. Not because he's messed up and violent. I mean... just because I love someone doesn't mean it has to be because of their moral/ethical system, does it? And just because I love a pairing doesn't have to be because they represent an ethical stance in my head, does it? Ok, good.

I tend to want goodness (happiness) to come from dark painful things. It's unrealistic but I'm obsessed. I want Spike to be happy and fulfilled. I don't care how boring that is-- I don't care how unlikely it is-- I don't care who does or doesn't believe it with me. I think -everyone- should try to be the most complete, fulfilled self they can be, because otherwise they won't enjoy life as much as they can. Everyone can be happy, in theory, with who they are.

This is also related to me not grokking the whole "character torture" thing where people like to emotionally hurt their favorite characters. Maybe I just think of them as -real- too much. And. And, I take things too seriously. Yes~:)
~~


1. Go into your LJ's archives.
2. Find your 23rd post (or closest to).
3. Find the fifth sentence (or closest to).
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.

i'm all buzzy and wired now.

Comments

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

*waves Ravenclaw flag with you*

I don't even get where the idea of Slytherins being weird and goth comes from anyway. None of them are weird in that way. I mean, they're weird like Draco is weird, but Draco's not intentionally weird.

The way they're presented they're supposed to be sort of the rich elite only in an alternate universe where that means nothing and nobody wants to be friends with them. Anyway, so Pansy goes around with a group of girls and talks about people's looks and she giggles and she holds Draco's arm when they go to the ball and wears floaty pink ruffles that are probably expensive. And Draco has shiny blond hair and wears a uniform and goes to the ball in the equivalent of a designer suit only it's for a 14-year-old so he doesn't look like James Bond. And they all probably grew up playing the Muggle equivalent of tennis at Country Clubs and went sailing and took ballroom dancing lessons.

Let's make this clear: If they went to your school, they wouldn't be the goths. They wouldn't be the misfits. They'd be the kids driving the nice cars, living in big houses and wearing very expensive clothes.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

*cracks up* Omg, I'm having this really wrong vision of an AU story where Draco's all into gangsta rap and likes to, y'know, live it up with the "other side" Saturday nights, y'know, and he meets Harry who's like... I dunno... collecting Dudley for the Dursleys at some kinda wacked-out club hang-out (where they play pool, ahahah).

And Pansy's like, trying to hit on Harry the whole time, and Draoc's all disgusted and like, she won't leave Harry along so Draco gets all resentful and Harry hates Draco anyway, 'cause who does he think he is? So Draco finds excuses to go out his way (since they're in different schools) to come and taunt him, while Pansy tries (unsuccesfully) to offer to sort of "sympathy" and she says Harry should sleep with her 'cause Draco will beat him up whether he does or not :D

And he's like, "BUT I DON'T WANT YOU!!"
And she'd be like, "Oh, don't be -silly-, Potter, of course you do," and she'd smile that wide lip-sticky smile.
And Harry would yell, "WELL, I CAN'T, ALL RIGHT, I CAN'T BECAUSE I'M BLOODY QUEER!!!1"

...And of course Draco would hear and......


... :D

[candytaiyo.livejournal.com]

If you write that, I may just have to give you my soul. Or whatever else you want for it. That is just brilliant.

o.0

[lestrange.livejournal.com]

LIEK OMG WRITE THAT PLZ!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!



No, seriously, that would make such a cool AU. :D

[mhari.livejournal.com]

I don't even get where the idea of Slytherins being weird and goth comes from anyway.

I expect it's watered down through the average 13-year-old brain: Evil --> Dark --> Goth --> Misunderstood Poetic Tortured Soul!!!1

Which is the same kind of logic that says a broken nail is a character flaw, so.

Let's make this clear: If they went to your school, they wouldn't be the goths. They wouldn't be the misfits. They'd be the kids driving the nice cars, living in big houses and wearing very expensive clothes.

Heh. Maybe that's the appeal.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

*waves Slyther-claw flag! Is there no room for the indecisive?!* ;)

Except the problem with the way they're presented means they would be the rich popular kids; as long as they weren't more rich and popular than the 'Real' stars.
Because Harry's a rich jock. Hermione seems to be middle-class, Ron working-class; but they're both prefects, Ron a jock; all three being *extremely* popular.
So there's a huge inconsistency with the Slytherin's image.
They're the bullies; but they always lose, rarely attack physically, are unpopular with three quarters of the school and all but one teachers (as far as we know).

I think: "Let's make this clear: If they went to your school, they wouldn't be the goths. They wouldn't be the misfits. They'd be the kids driving the nice cars, living in big houses and wearing very expensive clothes"; could actually apply to the Gryffindors excellently.

(Magpie...did we just...disagree?! *brain explodes*)

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Except the problem with the way they're presented means they would be the rich popular kids; as long as they weren't more rich and popular than the 'Real' stars.
Because Harry's a rich jock. Hermione seems to be middle-class, Ron working-class; but they're both prefects, Ron a jock; all three being *extremely* popular.

Ahaha, thank you. I was waiting for someone to say it, cos... yeah, rich popular elite. Except when they're marginalized by their own author. And the thing where Harry is the geek will never ever stop to crack me up.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

As I said, I'm not sure I'd be a Slytherin myself, but I loathe the idea that bravery is anymore 'useful' than cunning or ambition.
I think probably loyalty is the most admirable characteristic, intelligence the most 'useful'...

Harry the underdog...man, I wish I'd been an underdog in that case!

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think Harry is a difficult character to get a handle on because he's both the underdog and the top dog, depending on who's doing the looking. Generally, I see Harry from Harry's pov (as in, I identify with him), so to me it makes sense to see most of the things in his life as he sees them-- the responsibilities as burdens, the people who love him as barely -real-, the supposed fame as a curse, etc. I don't automatically hate the Slytherins 'cause Harry does, of course, it's just that... I think it's more important to me how the person perceives themselves compared to how other people perceive them. Maybe it's the writer in me? I dunno.

So, I mean... I don't think most people would really want Harry's life. I sure wouldn't. Even if he hasn't got the -right- to be unhappy, he -is-, and he's not even as unbalanced as he could be. I mean... do most Slytherins seem unhappy? Is Draco unhappy with his lot in life, aside from Harry & the rest raining on his parade? Is he dissatisfied with his very identity? I doubt it. But he should be, at least more than he is, I think. Draco is pretty secure with who he thinks he is, I think, as are most Slytherins-- and Gryffindors, for that matter. But Harry isn't, really. He's never -stable- enough.

I don't think bravery is more useful-- use is a weird concept to me. What's useful? I think intelligence, yes... also intuition. Cunning can be useful. Bravery is least useful-- and most selfless, most wild-card insane, most... most like a brilliant flare-- randomly lighting up the sky and disappearing. Only useful in extreme situations, bravery is~:) I've always thought a whole House built around it was part of the reason the books are (semi-heroic) fantasy. Bravery is very useful-- for heroes, you know~:)

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

See, I see Harry as a lot more content with himself than you (and maybe he? :) believe.
If Voldemort etc left him alone, I don't think he's strive to improve himself or anything. He's basically happy with himself, imho.
I see him as arrogant, at times, but he's never known his life any other way, so he's completely unconscious of it.
And I see Draco as a lot less satisfied. Simply because, to me, a person, any person, can not be happy if they're constantly spitting bile and venom at people. All that anger and unhappiness...*brr*
I don't know if, without Harry, Draco would be much happier, or would he just focus all his negativity on someone else?

"use is a weird concept to me."
Ahaha! Guess I am a Slyth after all ;)
Bravery - the motivations of it confuse me.
Why is a person brave? Why is that good?
Is it because they want to protect themselves? The people they love? Isn't that just selfishness? Not being willing to face the world without them?
I don't know, they're just questions.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hm, well, the whole burden and responsibility of saving the Wizarding world, y'know, I think it's gone a long way towards shaping Harry's identity.
I know Draco's unhappy, but that's more focused on Harry-- and anyway, I just think Harry's more -conscious- of the things he's dissatisfied with, like the Dursleys and Dumbledore and the Order and Snape & not knowing things and having to kill or be killed and having those dreams and having to... etcetc.
They're both messed up, let's just say :>

Most people aren't brave, but... the definition of it is verysimple-- acting regardless of fear. It doesn't matter -why-, it only matters that you go in and -fight- (in whatever arena) instead of choosing "flight". You fight for your life and the lives of whoever you choose to fight for, and you overcome your fear. Bravery is a trait necessary for good warriors. You look your own death in the face and you laugh. You know you'll pay for something with your life and you do it anyway. You know something will be likely to cause you lots of pain and you do it anyway. You basically are selfless in this one way of not caring as much as you probably should for your continued health, however the situation demands.

So like, bravery is looking a dragon in the eye moreso than killing it, or something like that. It's a personal strength of spirit. Blah, blah :>

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Maybe in Ootp...
Harry's characterization is very mixed *blames everything once again on bad writing*
Sometimes he's very passive, other times reactive...

"It doesn't matter -why-"

Ah, here I totally disagree. Motivations are important.
Are the Death Eaters brave? They're willing to die for their cause.
Isn't it braver to "live" for a cause?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I forget how much of "my Harry" is really "OoTP Harry". *coughs* oops -.-
Yeah, he used to be quite blase, almost, didn't he. "lalala, the Dark Lord is coming again". Well, no, but ><
The blissful days of childhood? Er. Yeah, he was really weird with the Dursleys, wasn't he? Like, he didn't just "take it" entirely, but he was all... passive resistance and slight amounts of cunning and back-talk when he could get away with it. Eh. Harry is... I think he used to take the path of least resistance a lot, didn't he.... silly boy ><

Hmm, hmmm, motivations..... Yes, it can eb braver to die for a cause, depending on the situation, if that's the thing that requires "no fear". Um. Well, I meant, the fear-factor is important as much as the motivations (which would be what's driving one to fear). The more cerebral, modern definition of... I dunno... ideological bravery (which would lead one to live for something) is... a side thing, I think, and is more like mental independence or something. Hmmm, that would apply more to reform movements and ideological revolutions and so on, but that... isn't the core definition, still, is it?

Hmm, hmmm, motivations, yes, are always important, and you need independent thought (which the Death Eaters don't have), otherwise you're not -choosing- what you're doing, you're just acting on someone's orders and thus you're not -giving- of yourself. A brave act has to be self-directed, and done regardless of fear or consequence to oneself. As far as -what- that act is-- to live, to die, to try to save everyone and everything, to lie to the Kubla Khan through one's teeth, whatever-- it's hard to predict, depends on particular circumstances, I think. I think in general, bravery has to do with just disregarding that little voice in your head that's usually called "common sense" for the good of... something. Whatever you thin is "good" :> So the -first-, self-directed Death Eater dying for their ideals to accomplish something they see as good-- sure, that was brave as I see it~:)

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

To me, bravery is not that important, as an isolate characteristic. Motivations cloud it.
Bravery is a very shady quality - like ambition, intelligence and loyalty, I suppose, which is why, imho, the idea of a House system for characteristics is so ridiculous.
Intelligence alone leads to a certain coldness.
Loyalty alone leads to blindness.
Ambition alone leads to selfishness.
Bravery alone leads to stupidity.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oh, most definitely. I was only talking about bravery as far as definition, since, in a roundabout sort of way, you asked what it was~:) Thus I attempted to define it, since I've never tried before, really. I'd always said the House system was silly & I thought the whole idea was ridiculous, though I have to say that bravery alone can't really exist, 'cause human beings always have the other human characteristics in some degree or other. Thus not all heroes are equal and not all learned men are uniformly wise, or whatever :>

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

You know, I really haven't thought of that before, but it's true, I guess the Gryffindors are like the popular jock House or whatever, though I dunno about the expensive clothes-- more like trendy, hip clothes prolly. Like, the Slytherins seem more likely to wear the "good quality" yet conservative stuff while the Gryffindors seem more likely to wear the latest fashions and jewelry or whatever and have piercings (it's always the Slytherins having piercings in fic, of course, 'cause everyone knows Gryffindors are Just Not Cool). Heh. Also, I doubt Gryffindors, as a house, have big houses, 'cause that's indicative of Old Money (purebloods) and Gryffindors are more of a mixed bag.

...I can't believe I just talked about that -.-

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Just that there seems to be a contrast in image and reality with JKR's (presumed) intentions.
If she wants the Slyths to be baddies, they have to lose all the time.
But they have to be the nasty rich winners sneering at the underdogs.
But they also have to provide competition, so the heroes aren't spoilt, and there's tension.
But they can't provide too much, because they're not as 'good' or 'worthy' or even 'mature'.
But they have to be worth fighting, or else the heroes being childish bothering with them.

The Gryffindors have to be winners eventually, so they can't be too confident.
But they should be, because they're better and smarter than the Slytherins who are all fat and stupid (!)
But it's not heroic to be arrogant. They have to be underdogs and misfits.
Who are more popular, talented, and successful than the rest of the school.

*brains explodes a second time*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hmm... yes, bad writing ahoy :>
Truthfully, not all Slytherins are complete dolts, 'cause there's Snape and all that. And er... Tom Riddle, he's not that much of a loser, now is he? (I'm having this weird, insistent urge to write about him-- write... like... porny things about him. It's... disturbing. Like my intellislash seeds are flowering or something.) That portrait guy seems not to be too much of a joke. And all the Blacks, y'know. They're nothing to sneeze at, are they?

Sooo... it's just the current crop of Harry's yearmates that we know anything about. I think the difference is, they're in direct competition with Harry, and Harry has other things to deal with, he can't be bothered fighting them too much. They're more like plot-devices than actual well-characterized human beings, doing what they have to do. I think Lucius and Snape were more like "typical" Slytherins-- they seem in power and picked on simultaneously, depending on who it was. Like, Lucius wasn't picked on but he had plenty of power, whereas Snape didn't have anything and he was almost sympathetic in his utter misery, or something.

So... I dunno if Draco's supposed to truly stand for Slytherin. Honestly, I think Tom Riddle stands for Slytherin best.

Still, I chalk it all up to bad writing, man ;>

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Bad writing is to blame for all the universe's ills. ;)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

LOL! I don't think we disagreed--it's more just that this aspect of the book makes no sense.:-)

To me it seems like if the Slytherins were students they would have been the rich kids. The Gryffindors (many of them) could have been as well. James Potter, for instance. The weird thing about the books is that they're sort of given these superficial traits of "popular and priveledged" (rich, best of everything, ambitious to win, snobbish, taunting other students about looks and clothing) but then all the actually reasons these people are hated are taken away. It's like saying, "Wouldn't it be great if the popular kids weren't popular? Wouldn't it be great if nobody envied the things the rich kids have that everybody envies?" In a real school, the Slytherins probably wouldn't be beaten down at every turn, is what I mean.

Which sort of leaves us with some of the Gryffindors who are more the popular, bullying kids who really are popular and bullying, like James and Sirius and the twins. Since the Slytherin's advantages have been taken away, they sort of move into that spot on the food chain.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

I think your point : "Let's make this clear: If they went to your school, they wouldn't be the goths. They wouldn't be the misfits. They'd be the kids driving the nice cars, living in big houses and wearing very expensive clothes"; is definitely what JKR intended.
I just don't think she's accomplished it, imho.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes that's totally what I mean. If they were at a real school, they would be successful, so don't assume they'd be the misfits. In JKR's school, they just don't work that way at all.

It's like in the Mad Magazine parody where Draco is introduced with, "I'm Draino Malformed, the obnoxious child of privilege. Despite my money and connections Potter still manages to beat me at everything. That's why these books are filed under fiction!"

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Those were some fucking excellent charicatures as well. I've got them all iconized somewhere...