I think you've generalised we Slytherins very greatly--we are in fact capable of being very protective of people and loving them very deeply, it is just in much fewer numbers than your average Gryffindor or Hufflepuff.
Anyway, this was another factor that contributed to my vote for Gryffindor. You are an activist for the underdog, want to live your own life according to your high principles, and you're a self-described idealist. You also quoted Gandhi, and the quote itself was a very Gryffindor one.
Re: Gryffindor.hermione_angelJanuary 20 2008, 22:02:50 UTC
I didn't mean to come across as so anti-Slytherin, but it's just that I can't really relate to them. I think of Snape loving Lily but in the end, he couldn't give up the Dark Arts for her and possibly save their relationship so I still think most Slytherins only decide to do something in order to milk the benefits for themselves (such as gaining a good reputation, immunity from threats, etc). The only two "good" Slytherins (Snape and Regulus) left other characters wondering whether they were sorted into the right house at all, so I don't really think I was off the mark about canon Slytherins. I don't think being loving or devoted to others for honorable reasons is a Slytherin trait. Slytherins are cunning and brave, but they care more about their own survival, I think (unless we're talking about Regulus who changed his mind, and the Malfoys who were scared out of their wits by DH).
Anyway, I hope I don't come across as if I'm picking on you, just thought I'd make that clear for anyone else that was unsure about my comments about Slytherin :)
Re: Gryffindor.ed1nburghJanuary 20 2008, 23:40:03 UTC
I do think that Snape and Regulus were sorted into the right house. Yes, we Slytherins are highly Machiavellian. We will do what we have to achieve our ends. But that does not mean all of are like Draco Malfoy. Even Malfoy couldn't kill Dumbledore. What does that say about him? Did he have absolutely no decency, was he absolutely inhuman? No. He was a dick, obviously, but so was James Potter, who was just as much of a stuck-up bully as Draco was. The canon traits of Slytherins are ambitious, determined, inclined to power. Regulus was ambitious and determined. So was Snape. Just because they cared for other people does not mean they are not Slytherin. The difference is that we Slytherins have one or two people that we care about, and when it comes to those people, we are very devoted and care about them incredibly. For example, Regulus with Kreacher, or Bellatrix with Voldemort. Bellatrix gives Voldemort absolutely EVERYTHING, because she loves him and needs him. Her reasons for caring for him do not spring from a need for personal glory. The Malfoys cared about their son for than anything. Narcissa's love for her son was enough to make her go against the most powerful wizard of all time, to commit a subterfuge that could have had her killed, in order to get what she wanted. What she wanted was not personal glory, it was the life of her son.
Re: Gryffindor.hermione_angelJanuary 21 2008, 00:53:15 UTC
In Snape's case Dumbledore himself gave an indication that he did not feel that Snape was sorted into the right house. In 'The Prince's Tale', Snape says that he is a brave man and Dumbledore replies with "You know, I sometimes think we Sort too soon ..." Of course, bravery is the canon house trait of Gryffindor. However, I think Slytherin suits Snape just fine ;)
Snape proved himself to be a great man eventually, but I can't understand why he'd pick the Dark Arts over Lily, whom he loved. By staying with the Dark Arts and connecting himself to Slytherin, he was being quite selfish. As for Draco, well, he wasn't evil and I'm not saying he was. The Malfoys ended up becoming trapped with Voldemort. They've always been forerunners for Pureblood superiority but things clearly got out of control for them towards the end. The fact that Lucius and Narcissa even chose to become a Death Eaters show that they aren't very decent people. Narcissa seems less sure of herself so perhaps Lucius Malfoy can be blamed for dragging Narcissa and Draco into the fray. Just like Snape choosing the Dark Arts over Lily, Lucius Malfoy placed his entire family in danger by siding with Voldemort. Clearly, power and reputation meant a lot to him. He wanted it to be known that he cared about being an advocate for Voldemort's ideals about Pureblood superiority... so much in fact that they was willing to compromise his family's safety in return for that power. If you had a family, would you join the Death Eaters? If you cared about your family foremost, you wouldn't do such a dangerous thing. It was selfish on Lucius' (and Narcissa's) part. Although, I like Narcissa because she was aware of just how much danger they were in and honestly, what sort of mother would put her life ahead of her son's? I'm not surprised by her actions at all - it's motherly instincts to want to protect your offspring. Any sane mother would do the same. However, in the end, the Malfoys were once again trying to protect themselves (nothing wrong with this) and of course they didn't want to be killed by Voldemort. They thought that if they stuck with Voldemort, they would've been immune from his wrath. Like I said, it was a survival tactic - they were being cunning.
I never said that Slytherins didn't care about others. All I said was that it wasn't a canon house quality. Loyalty is a canon Hufflepuff trait. I wasn't trying to go anywhere with it. Of course Slytherins care about others, but like most of the Slytherins in the series, they realise they've made a huge mistake when they lose/come close to losing that special person (Regulus Black, Snape and the Malfoys as examples here). Why did they make that mistake? It was mostly because they realised that they should've spent more time trying to care for or protect that person instead of being so wrapped up in what they wanted for themselves. I do admire the canon Slytherin qualities, but I just think it's easier for them to be so focused on one goal/ambition and forget the people around them as a result of it (as was often the case).
As cutting as any of my remarks may have been, I still stand completely by what I wrote under question #9 as it was representative of canon Slytherins. I don't think there's anything inaccurate there.
Anyway, this was another factor that contributed to my vote for Gryffindor. You are an activist for the underdog, want to live your own life according to your high principles, and you're a self-described idealist. You also quoted Gandhi, and the quote itself was a very Gryffindor one.
Reply
Anyway, I hope I don't come across as if I'm picking on you, just thought I'd make that clear for anyone else that was unsure about my comments about Slytherin :)
Thanks for the vote!
Reply
Reply
Snape proved himself to be a great man eventually, but I can't understand why he'd pick the Dark Arts over Lily, whom he loved. By staying with the Dark Arts and connecting himself to Slytherin, he was being quite selfish. As for Draco, well, he wasn't evil and I'm not saying he was. The Malfoys ended up becoming trapped with Voldemort. They've always been forerunners for Pureblood superiority but things clearly got out of control for them towards the end. The fact that Lucius and Narcissa even chose to become a Death Eaters show that they aren't very decent people. Narcissa seems less sure of herself so perhaps Lucius Malfoy can be blamed for dragging Narcissa and Draco into the fray. Just like Snape choosing the Dark Arts over Lily, Lucius Malfoy placed his entire family in danger by siding with Voldemort. Clearly, power and reputation meant a lot to him. He wanted it to be known that he cared about being an advocate for Voldemort's ideals about Pureblood superiority... so much in fact that they was willing to compromise his family's safety in return for that power. If you had a family, would you join the Death Eaters? If you cared about your family foremost, you wouldn't do such a dangerous thing. It was selfish on Lucius' (and Narcissa's) part. Although, I like Narcissa because she was aware of just how much danger they were in and honestly, what sort of mother would put her life ahead of her son's? I'm not surprised by her actions at all - it's motherly instincts to want to protect your offspring. Any sane mother would do the same. However, in the end, the Malfoys were once again trying to protect themselves (nothing wrong with this) and of course they didn't want to be killed by Voldemort. They thought that if they stuck with Voldemort, they would've been immune from his wrath. Like I said, it was a survival tactic - they were being cunning.
I never said that Slytherins didn't care about others. All I said was that it wasn't a canon house quality. Loyalty is a canon Hufflepuff trait. I wasn't trying to go anywhere with it. Of course Slytherins care about others, but like most of the Slytherins in the series, they realise they've made a huge mistake when they lose/come close to losing that special person (Regulus Black, Snape and the Malfoys as examples here). Why did they make that mistake? It was mostly because they realised that they should've spent more time trying to care for or protect that person instead of being so wrapped up in what they wanted for themselves. I do admire the canon Slytherin qualities, but I just think it's easier for them to be so focused on one goal/ambition and forget the people around them as a result of it (as was often the case).
As cutting as any of my remarks may have been, I still stand completely by what I wrote under question #9 as it was representative of canon Slytherins. I don't think there's anything inaccurate there.
Gods that was long! Sorry! o_O;
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment