![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaThat'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.
(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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-15 04:13 am (UTC)I think all in all I am an Hufflepuff who wants to reform and save and appreciate the Slytherins. I don't know. My House ship is definitely Hufflepuff/Slytherin, with Hufflepuff as the dom. (!!!)
Although I really disagree with this:
Maybe it's just... all right, I'll just say it... I don't think ambition or cunning are admirable qualities.
I think you're sort of pathologizing them, only seeing the extreme BAD manifestations of them. A good politician will have to be cunning, for example, not to climb the social ladder but to achieve world peace. Like The Prince. You don't like Macchiavelli, do you? Also I unlike 99,9999999% of the fandom don't think bravery is All That, but I don't even think is bad or despicable. :)
I also disagree on the Spike! I never cared for him to be good or evil, I just wanted him to retain his outsider status (which he completely lost when he was redeemed cos apparently difference can't be integrated.)
no subject
Date: 2004-05-15 04:01 pm (UTC)Anyway, deviousness & cunning can be "useful" (ahahah), yes, but as I said at one point in the post, they have to be better controlled; more wisely, anyway. I didn't say it should be like, -destoryed- off the face of humanity, just that it wasn't a great central ideal to strive for in my eyes. Sure, it can be used well, but. It's still creepy and easily corruptible. That's what I mean. It's v. v. v. (very very) often corrupted. Also. I HATE POLITICIANS!!1 >:O
My House ship is Gryffindor/Slytherin because I'm more about equality and two passionate spirits beating each other up sometimes (ahahah). I don't like dom/sub relationships or inequal balances 'cause I'm all about independence and freedom and FUCK THE MAN, so you know, I can't be for literally -fucking- the man ^^; Sometimes this gets extreme and I hate being born female because by default this means I get things -done to- me. I don't want to be on the other end, really, I just want there not to be this issue. I too, have issues, clearly :D
I want to reform the Slytherins too, though I'm not obsessed with it like some. Heh. Not just you~:) There are a number of people. Um. I don't care about anyone but Draco (and Harry) anyway-- they can all go to hell (except Ron, I would be sad-- and Sirius, but what's done is done-- note, these are the people Harry loves best, heh).
I never cared if Spike was "good" or whatever, I just wanted him to be fulfilled, outsider or not. I'm all about the happy, as you might be gathering ;) Well... more like... people being true to themselves.
I don't think bravery is All That, but I like heroes & anti-heroes and rogues and tricksters and... I like them all~:) Mmmm, archetypes. Yum.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-16 03:20 am (UTC)Politicians… eh! I totally relate with what you say about power and being corrupted by it. I also think most politicians are corrupted because say, their cunning isn’t used to serve the people but rather their personal agendas. I’m philosophically an anarchic, I reject power as an means to govern, it’s just that, as you say, it’s not very viable in reality. Though I’ve got to say I feel equalling all politicians with corruption and greed is a bit of a prejudice. I want to believe that the enlightened politician (or Prince) can exist.
Your thing with Harry is so cute. *bonds*
no subject
Date: 2004-05-16 02:38 pm (UTC)I think my own resentfully dominant/independent streak colors everything I consider "worthwhile" sometimes, by way of projection. I hate being controlled in any way, shape or form, so I totally overreact and start to consider any form of psychological control pretty much the devil's work :>
I'm philosophically an anarchic also, though I have fantasies of rule by "the wise", like where there's a King (prince?) who's worthy and kind and brilliant, but I don't gather that's what Macchiavelli had in mind. 'Cause my idea of a king is very... I dunno, gentle(?) He'd have much intuitive insight and understanding of people. Sort of like Solomon, y'know?
I don't equal them with greed/corruption in reality, I just hate the -idea- of politics as a practice... uh... which doesn't mean I condemn any politician wholesale. I do take people as individuals, generally, even if I have distaste for what they do :> I can see how some of them are quite idealistic and admirable, like say... Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson or Ghandi or... yeah. I like the Greek idea of politics :> Damn my philosophy class, anyway :>
Heee. Yeah, and you haven't even seen my Harry plushie. *grins* I cuddle him a lot :D
no subject
Date: 2004-05-18 03:01 pm (UTC)I love how you call psychological control the devil’s because I feel the same and I also feel it’s everywhere… but especially in cheesy, manipulating storylines or characterization like the Matrix or Neville Longbottom and maybe it’s better I stop here before I start twitching.
Macchiavelli is cool. Because he’s not trying to push your emotional buttons, but to save your ass. *g* Though I know what you mean with Solomon. Sort of like Luis XIV but without the monarchy and the above-you-ness. Plato! Oh, the tyrant was a fine damn idea. Also because he didn’t have the God-like status, he just had full-powers because it was more practical. Still, democracy is better. /obvious
I'm getting incredibly defensive about my Slytherin thing reading the comments here. Bleah, I hate myself and my lack of self-control sometimes.