![[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: 2004-05-16 04:33 am (UTC)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*
no subject
Date: 2004-05-16 02:17 pm (UTC)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 ;>
no subject
Date: 2004-05-16 02:21 pm (UTC)