Ambition - Our Much Maligned Friend
What started off as a simple little comment before breakfast turned into this monstrosity. I'm really not that bothered by the Tonks thing, rather it's something that's been building up for a while.
So Tonks is a Hufflepuff. It’s about time we got another Hufflepuff hero and thank goodness I haven’t made too many references to her being in a different house in fanfic.
But I was always leaning towards Tonks as a Slytherin, mainly because joining a secret band of rebels whose objective happens to run against her employers doesn’t scream “loyal” to me, and getting the Dursley’s out of the house for the Order to get in was pretty cunning.
That and to fulfil my own personal wish that we have a good Slytherin character who doesn’t need a redemptive arc, because ambition and cunning by themselves do not make a person evil. Ambition, despite what JKR and the writers of Pirates of the Caribbean think, it not a “bad" quality for a person to have. Ambition is drive; it is a person reaching for something that others tell them is beyond their reach, and what is so bad awful about that? In fact, some of the great think have resulted out of person's or a group's ambition to achieve change, civil rights movements for instance. What we don’t like is ambition without a moral code, but ambition in itself does not remove a person’s moral code. Same goes for cunning. What is so awful about a person using their mind instead of there brawn or magical ability to achieve what they want? On the sport field we love players with cunning, it can win a game. Again, cunning in itself is not a “bad” quality; it is when it is used without a moral code. (Okay I’m going to stop with the quotation marks around bad now because it’s now bugging me).
You know what; the act of seeking knowledge without a moral code can be despicable. Do I really have to get into the heinous acts that have been committed throughout history in the name of “science?” The thought of an amoral Ravenclaw running around doing experiments is far too frightening a thing to put in a kids book.
Further, loyalty has been one of the most devastating human qualities throughout history. We all want to belong and when we do, we have a tendency to follow without question. Some of the worst acts I can think of, genocide, terrorism etc are a result of either loyalty to a person or an ideology or just basic everyday people who would normally not do such things losing the ability to say ‘no’ because of the loyalty they feel to the people in their group.
And bravery’s all well and good until it’s used without thought it gets another person killed (see: Black, Sirius)
The thing that really bothers me is that the moral message tends to be that either ambition and cunning do make a person bad, or that anyone who enters into Slytherin House ends up bad, corrupted by the environment of the house, and this removes a persons choice (Well, there is a choice, but you make it when you are 11 and nobody ever tells you what the full ramifications are, which is hardly fair), and neither of these sits comfortably with me.
So Tonks is a Hufflepuff. It’s about time we got another Hufflepuff hero and thank goodness I haven’t made too many references to her being in a different house in fanfic.
But I was always leaning towards Tonks as a Slytherin, mainly because joining a secret band of rebels whose objective happens to run against her employers doesn’t scream “loyal” to me, and getting the Dursley’s out of the house for the Order to get in was pretty cunning.
That and to fulfil my own personal wish that we have a good Slytherin character who doesn’t need a redemptive arc, because ambition and cunning by themselves do not make a person evil. Ambition, despite what JKR and the writers of Pirates of the Caribbean think, it not a “bad" quality for a person to have. Ambition is drive; it is a person reaching for something that others tell them is beyond their reach, and what is so bad awful about that? In fact, some of the great think have resulted out of person's or a group's ambition to achieve change, civil rights movements for instance. What we don’t like is ambition without a moral code, but ambition in itself does not remove a person’s moral code. Same goes for cunning. What is so awful about a person using their mind instead of there brawn or magical ability to achieve what they want? On the sport field we love players with cunning, it can win a game. Again, cunning in itself is not a “bad” quality; it is when it is used without a moral code. (Okay I’m going to stop with the quotation marks around bad now because it’s now bugging me).
You know what; the act of seeking knowledge without a moral code can be despicable. Do I really have to get into the heinous acts that have been committed throughout history in the name of “science?” The thought of an amoral Ravenclaw running around doing experiments is far too frightening a thing to put in a kids book.
Further, loyalty has been one of the most devastating human qualities throughout history. We all want to belong and when we do, we have a tendency to follow without question. Some of the worst acts I can think of, genocide, terrorism etc are a result of either loyalty to a person or an ideology or just basic everyday people who would normally not do such things losing the ability to say ‘no’ because of the loyalty they feel to the people in their group.
And bravery’s all well and good until it’s used without thought it gets another person killed (see: Black, Sirius)
The thing that really bothers me is that the moral message tends to be that either ambition and cunning do make a person bad, or that anyone who enters into Slytherin House ends up bad, corrupted by the environment of the house, and this removes a persons choice (Well, there is a choice, but you make it when you are 11 and nobody ever tells you what the full ramifications are, which is hardly fair), and neither of these sits comfortably with me.