death to capslock

What an interesting post! Discussions about how the four houses are portrayed in the HP world are fascinating to me - mainly because I still can't fully fathom what message JKR was going for when it comes to the Slytherin v. Gryffindor conflict.

However, if I had to guess, I think the Slytherin house was written to be a mass antagonist for Harry to clash with. I also think Slytherin was depicted as the "shadow" side of its defining traits.

Ambition, cunning, and resourcefulness are not inherently harmful traits. Hermione, the Weasley twins, Harry, and Ron all show a drive and desire for success. They represent the "light" side of ambition. They exhibit Slytherin traits in a positive or neutral manner approved by the author.

On the other hand, the Slytherin characters exhibit their traits of ambition and cunning in a negative manner disapproved by the author. I think that's why JKR did not wish to place too many muggleborns, half-bloods, and working-class kids in Slytherin - the kids placed in Slytherin are meant to be some variant of evil, dark, or morally ambiguous. Slytherin house is not meant to display the positive side of ambition but the "dark" side of it.

I also find it telling how half-blood working-class Snape is never praised for his Slytherin traits. It's his bravery (and devotion to a Gryffindor) that is seen as positive by Dumbledore, Harry, and JKR herself. Regulus Black is another example of a Slytherin who is deemed heroic because of his courage and self-sacrifice - both viewed as characteristics of a typical Gryffindor. Slytherins themselves are not allowed to show off the traits of their house to prove how good they are; any ounce of goodness they have has to go back to being similar to a Gryffindor.

Placing a good and lovable character like Hermione, or any random morally righteous person, into Slytherin would've ruined JKR's depiction of Slytherin being the shadowy house the protagonist is supposed to distrust and dislike. Harry's choice to reject SLytherin is the right choice because Slytherin is nothing more than a hotbed of corruption and the negative aspects of ambition.

This is why it agitates me when HP fans try to insist that JKR never meant for Slytherins to be overwhelmingly bad. The founder of the house himself, Salazar Slytherin, is established as a blood purist who deemed muggleborns untrustworthy. The animal representing the House is a snake - a common symbol for evil, temptation, and deceit. The majority of Slytherin characters Harry interacts with are evil, cruel, rude, corrupt, or shady. Even Slughorn, who is praised by the fans for being "nice", isn't helpful or pleasant out of the good of his heart. And not a single Slytherin student stays behind to fight against Voldemort in the Battle for Hogwarts. Overall, it paints an unfavorable picture for Slytherin in a way the other Houses are not subjected to.

If the Wizarding World were logical, then yes, I do believe Slytherin House wouldn't be overrun with purebloods, rich kids, and racists. The other three houses, including nobility-obsessed Gryffindor, would have racist and prejudiced kids as well. But JKR wasn't going for logical, in my opinion; she was going for a house of "darkness" to contend with Harry. I don't think she redeemed any Slytherins in the end either. There was no reconciliation with any major Slytherin characters. No teamwork, no understanding, and no integration with the "shadow" side of Hogwarts. The Gryffindors remained overwhelmingly morally righteous and good, while the Slytherins remained overwhelmingly morally bad and dubious.

Conscientious and humane working-class and muggleborn kids don't belong in Slytherin - no matter how ambitious and resourceful they are - because only the "bad" kids get sorted into Slytherin. If they want to show off the "good" parts of being ambitious, then they belong in the other three houses. At least, that's how I suspect JKR's world operates....

Sorry for the long response. I can almost never summarize my jumbled thoughts concisely.

From:

No need to apologize! I enjoyed what you had to say, and I agree; I think Slytherin was always meant to be the dark side of Gryffindor. I'm still trying to get a handle on the disconnect between what Rowling apparently intended and what she actually showed us. Based on what we actually see, Gryffindor is the aristocratic house and the house most likely to contain purebloods. But it's clear that's not what Rowling intends.

Thanks for the comment!

From:

I'm glad what I wrote make sense. I have a lot on my mind, but sometimes feel self-conscious posting here because I know I've arrived over a decade late. I'm always jumping in last-minute in different fandoms when all the discussions have been done already.

I remember in PS/SS, when Hermione tells Harry there are more important things than "books and cleverness" such as "friendship and bravery", I found that quote sweet as a child. However, as an adult, it made me wonder if it explains why JKR has a lot of love for Gryffindor and created Slytherin as an opposite to "friendship and bravery." Bad to the bone Slytherins are cowards who look after themselves and only acknowledge others if they can get something in return. Slytherins who have an ounce of goodness within them are courageous and self-sacrificing; they're slightly good in spite of their Slytherin nature, not because of it.

Being a coward, especially a selfish coward, is a big no-no in JKR's world. Which is why the only bad Gryffindor is the personification of a skulking rat. And, if I remember correctly, JKR wrote an article on Pottermore titled "Hatstall" where she states Peter was almost placed into Slytherin before the hat chose to place him in Gryffindor. I know Pottermore isn't canon on the same level as the books, but I find it revealing nonetheless how the lone terrible Gryffindor was almost a Slytherin....

In my opinion, Gilderoy Lockhart would've made a better representation of the dark side of Gryffindor; an arrogant man obsessed with grandeur and adventure without care or consideration for other people's opinions (and safety). But JKR confirmed him as a Ravenclaw who was almost sorted into Slytherin (surprise surprise).

Anyways, on the topic of pure-bloods and aristocracy: if JKR wanted to create a world where being muggleborn or half-blood made you into a target, then all the four houses would have a degree of prejudice and discrimination, including Gryffindor. Gryffindor values chivalry and nobility, which have strong connotations of glorifying the elite and "betters" of society. Gryffindor would be full of rich snobs who look down on those deemed ignoble or "plebeian." It wouldn't only be Slytherin concerned with status and superiority.

But JKR's strong love for Gryffindor wouldn't allow her to blemish the house in general or attempt to treat the four houses as equal. Gryffindors can be flawed, such as Sirius and Remus who are both imperfect men, but they can't be as terrible as Slytherins. The Slytherins have to fulfill their villainous role, and placing too many muggleborn and working-class kids in the house of villains would've sent the wrong message.

From:

She confirmed LOCKHART as a ravenclaw who nearly got sorted into Slytherin? Lockhart? In what way does he value learning? The man is a total Gryffindor!

I can't believe her. I really can't.

But you're right; she was much too prejudiced in favor of Gryffindor to present the house realistically. It's too bad.

Oh, you know who else would be a natural Slytherin, based on his character and not his family? Ron!

From:

I have to run, so I'll edit a better response later, but yes - JKR did confirm Lockhart as a Ravenclaw. It's in an article titled "Gilderoy Lockhart" on Pottermore. It's also on the Harry Potter wiki page for him.

Lockhart is such a Gryffindor to me that I can't fathom how JKR sees him as a Ravenclaw, but JKR and I have different opinions on many things. :p

Edit: Back home, and I agree with Ron's potential to be sorted in Slytherin. He has insecurity and jealousy issues, but he's also ambitious, competitive, and crafty at times. I think the Weasley twins could've made a good potential case for Slytherin as well. They're resourceful, devious, and determined to make something of themselves. They're jokers (or bullies depending on how you view them), but they have a surprising serious side they use to get ahead in life. Percy Weasley too.

I find it iffy that your family background can influence which house you end up in. The Weasley family in Gryffindor, the Malfoys in Slytherin, the Blacks in Slytherin (with the exception of Sirius), the Potters in Gryffindor, etc. I know family background influences who we are as people - it's inevitable. Nonetheless, it's a bit too simple to have multiple family members overwhelmingly placed into one house. At least we had the example of the Patil twins being placed in separate houses - Parvati in Gryffindor and Padma in Ravenclaw.

Ron and Hermione being in Gryffindor also makes it easier for JKR to write the trio as close friends. Since they share a house, they'll be spending a lot more time together. I can understand why she placed the trio all in Gryffindor, but I would've liked to see more variety among the Slytherins.

Edited Date: 2019-02-03 02:59 am (UTC)

From:

I think the obvious conclusion is that Lockhart Obliviated everyone who remembered which House he was really in and only pretends to be an intellectual Ravenclaw. Or maybe he Obliviated the real Lockhart and stole his identity! ;-)

From:

Ha, well JKR did write on Lockhart's Pottermore article that the one and only spell he had a real ability for was the Memory Charm. Maybe Lockhart really was flinging around convenient Memory Charms left and right, not only to steal other people's achievements and modify them to his own, but to reinvent himself as a witty and original Ravenclaw. :p

Speaking of the article, she does write this about Lockhart and his Ravenclaw status:

Sorted into Ravenclaw house, Lockhart was soon achieving good marks in his schoolwork, but there was always a kink in his nature that made him increasingly unsatisfied. If he was not first and best, he would rather not participate at all. Increasingly, he directed his talents towards short cuts and dodges. He valued learning not for its own sake, but for the attention it brought him. He craved prizes and awards. He lobbied the Headmaster to start a school newsletter, because he liked nothing better than to see his name and photograph in print.

So he didn't care about learning, he wanted the glory and attention he would receive from succeeding in his endeavors. Doesn't sound very Ravenclaw to me, but not every character fits their house perfectly. I suppose I should be astounded JKR didn't use the excuse of Lockhart being a cowardly liar to place him in Slytherin with the rest of the characters she doesn't want us to like....

From:

jana-ch.livejournal.com

I agree about Lockhart being a Gryff. For those who argue that he showed himself to be a coward in Book Two, I say that he was a coward as an adult, but he was Sorted at eleven. Back then I’m sure he really wanted to go out and fight monsters in proper Gryffindor fashion. But when he tried it, he discovered that monster-fighting takes more than courage; it also takes competence. So he switched over to memory charms.

Another wizard who is disguising his House is Professor Dumbledore. That manipulative master of politics—who won awards and corresponded with adult scholars as a schoolboy, and dreamed of world conquest as a rebellious teen—is obviously a Slytherin. But after the disaster with Gellert and Ariana, he repudiated the House of Ambition and spent his life trying to crush Slytherin as the source of all evil. By the time Hermione came to Hogwarts, he had disguised his history enough that she had just “heard” that the Headmaster was a Gryffindor. She clearly hadn’t found it in any written record or (being Hermione) she would have quoted chapter and verse. This muddying of the record was made easy because Dumbledore was in Gryffindor: Aberforth Dumbledore. And no one ever remembers Aberforth.

From:

Yes! Dumbledore is obviously a Slytherin, and Aberforth is equally obviously a Gryffindor! I love it!

From:

jana-ch.livejournal.com

Aberforth is equally suited to Hufflepuff, but him being a Gryff slots so perfectly into the story of Albus successfully disguising his own House that it tips the scales in favor of the Lions rather than the Badgers for Abe.

From:

Gryffindor definitely ought to be the house of high-born knights, and Slytherin the house of merchants.

I wonder... Crabbe and Goyle are not portrayed as well-spoken aristocrats, or even retainers. Isn't having well-spoken, elegant retainers part of the image the Malfoys would be trying to achieve? We don't know that Millicent Bulstrode, Pansy Parkinson, Wilkes in the previous generation, or some of the other background Slytherins come from money or old families; the fact that they aren't noted as bragging about their wealth or backgrounds might suggest they don't have anything to brag about. When they do, we usually hear about it (Blaise, Draco, the Black family). Maybe a lot of Slytherins are actually working-class kids who are either barely purebloods or are technically half-bloods like Harry, and they're all trying to improve their lots. How often is a terrorist group composed almost entirely of rich people who already feel like they have power and influence, after all?

Gryffindors might say, "I know like five Slytherins who are rich and have a lot of influence at the Ministry. That shows they're decadent aristocrats who rule the wizarding world!" ...while conveniently ignoring how many Gryffindors also have influence at the Ministry, or money, or how they dominate a vigilante army. (Were the Longbottoms or the Potters without money and influence and social standing? Or Dumbledore with his purported Gryffindor membership?) And how many Slytherins don't.

And maybe a lot of the Muggle-borns are nervous enough that they want to keep their heads down at first, and by the time they might develop more ambition, they're already sorted? Maybe they're mostly in Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, but if they sorted a few years into school, the balance would change. And any Muggle-borns in Slytherin probably learn to keep that quiet really quickly, and maybe claim to be unacknowledged members of wizarding families who were tragically left in the Muggle world by accident (and as in Tom's case, they might even be right sometimes).

I don't think that can explain it all, but it might make the situation a little less clear-cut.

Edited Date: 2019-02-01 06:16 am (UTC)

From:

It does! Thank you. And it's true that kids with a certain type of bravery would be most eager to assimilate into the Wizarding World. More thoughtful types, or those with close ties to friends and family, wouldn't be so eager.

But, of course, as Torchedsong has said, it's not just the inconsistency in the way the houses are presented (Crabbe and Goyle are definitely not upper crust! Just as you say). It's that Rowling demonizes fully a quarter of the school, without even knowing she's done so. Not one Slytherin is redeemed in the text. And yet Rowling is convinced she wrote a scene with Slughorn leading the Slytherins into battle against Voldemort. She didn't. I wish she had, but she just didn't.

From:

It's really hard for me to understand designating a House of Evil Kids and sticking to it. I thought for sure part of Book 7 would be about uniting the Houses and finding out Slytherin isn't inherently evil. Harry might believe that, but the text doesn't have to support it! Instead, everyone from another House who went bad was nearly in Slytherin. When does Peter ever show any ambition?

Maybe she'll take lessons from George Lucas and have Slughorn lead the Slytherins into battle in the Special Edition one day. She's got a good start on an Expanded Universe of her own. She just needs to license about fifty more authors to write Potterverse comics and movies and books...

From:

elanor-x.livejournal.com

I do not view traits like ambition as belonging to any one House; instead, different Houses tend to display different kinds of various traits. If ambition simply means dedication and making efforts to achieve one's goals whether they are running the best pub in the village or becoming an Auror like Harry, how can this trait be restricted to only one House?

As for our 11-year-old Muggleborn, the child could also enter WW with the burning desire to have friends among people like oneself and get sorted into the Hufflepuff House. Or, if magic has never been experienced as frightening in the first case - Lily found joy in it before Hogwarts too, only Petunia had a negative reaction because of jealousy - then a child may enter the new world with Ravenclaw desire to explore it all.

Probably the previous paragraph is irrelevant since the Sorting Hat looks deeper into the child's inner soul than the first reaction deriving from shock of entering the new world. After the shock of immigration passes, one's inner nature is left and the Hat sorts the child according to long term considerations.

For another take on this question, wanted to share one of my favorite speculative posts regarding the natures of the 4 Houses:

https://lightning-war.livejournal.com/491.html

From:

You're probably right that the hat looks at things other than children's shock and fear at being wizards. Thanks for the link!

From:

Just read the post, and I see where the author's coming from--it's interesting. But, as one of those water types, I'm not sure I agree. My morality is much more what s/he describes as Gryffindor. I do think everyone looks out for "their own"; I certainly do. But the question then is: how do you define your own? I learned early on that it's everybody. The whole universe, and all that dwell therein. Why wouldn't that be equally true of some Slytherins?

Also, if Salazar Slytherin were anti-Muggleborn, there may well be a reason. That reason is exemplified by Tommy Riddle. Little Tom became a monster because he had power no one could control; mentally/morally, he stayed three years old, or less, all his life. It may well be true that the overwhelming majority of Dark Lords or Dark Ladies (and I agree Hermione is a candidate!) were Muggleborn. It's not us agains them, then. It's trying to keep the world safe from a real danger.

The weirdest thing of all is that, no matter what her books seem to imply, in her interviews, Rowling keeps proclaiming the Death Eaters are right! For example, all Muggleborns have a wizard somewhere in their ancestry (she says); Muggles really can produce bursts of uncontrolled magic if they get hold of a wand; and so on.

From: