~~ 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

[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 :>