Current Events > Should all Slytherins be on a dark wizard watchlist? >_>

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm not saying all Slytherins are dark wizards

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut

I think one of the worst things that happened in the final book is how there was just no redemption arc for slytherin.

I mean I was kind of expecting that there'd be some lesson in there about how it's not the house, it's the individuals, and that being ambitious is not inherently bad. But nope. The whole damn lot just continued to be universally evil until they were locked in the dungeon.

It felt like some weird kind of...racism? Or some kind of discrimination of some sort. "look these are just bad people, no question".

Hufflepuff can't be evil

Hufflepuff can't be anything

NeonTentacles posted...

Hufflepuff can't be anything

Cedric Diggory is prime hufflepuff

I guess theres a scene where a random hufflepuff student says something mean about mudbloods

Hufflepuff needs to be on a watch list, not because they might hurt someone, but they might just walk off a cliff without supervision.

pinky0926 posted...

I think one of the worst things that happened in the final book is how there was just no redemption arc for slytherin.

I mean I was kind of expecting that there'd be some lesson in there about how it's not the house, it's the individuals, and that being ambitious is not inherently bad. But nope. The whole damn lot just continued to be universally evil until they were locked in the dungeon.

It felt like some weird kind of...racism? Or some kind of discrimination of some sort. "look these are just bad people, no question".

It's almost like taking all of the elitist, superior-feeling rich kids with daddy issues and locking them all together in a dungeon for seven years doesn't create the most stable people.

If anything, I wonder why Slytherin house is allowed to continue to exist, considering it's 100% rooted in the teachings and ideologies of a well known race supremacist who openly preached for genociding actual children. And put plans in place to enact that genocide. Twice.

It would have helped if we had met even just one unambiguously good Slytherin. But we don't. Closest we ever get is Slughorn, and he's still an elitist asshole to most people.

Poorly posted...

Cedric Diggory is prime hufflepuff

until he wasn't

Poorly posted...

Cedric Diggory is prime hufflepuff

And look what it got him.

Were they all actually that bad? You had one dude that went full Hitler and convinced a bunch of other people but you don't really hear much about other Slytherins outside of those people.

Why didn't they get rid of The Evil House

NeonTentacles posted...

until he wasn't

Two words

Cho Chang

DarkBuster22904 posted...

It's almost like taking all of the elitist, superior-feeling rich kids with daddy issues and locking them all together in a dungeon for seven years doesn't create the most stable people.

If anything, I wonder why Slytherin house is allowed to continue to exist, considering it's 100% rooted in the teachings and ideologies of a well known race supremacist who openly preached for genociding actual children. And put plans in place to enact that genocide. Twice.

It would have helped if we had met even just one unambiguously good Slytherin. But we don't. Closest we ever get is Slughorn, and he's still an elitist asshole to most people.

I always imagined there was potential for draco or some other slytherin to join the trio and battle with a kind of romeo and juliet story dynamic, but i guess that would have been a whole book series in itself.

pinky0926 posted...

I think one of the worst things that happened in the final book is how there was just no redemption arc for slytherin.

I mean I was kind of expecting that there'd be some lesson in there about how it's not the house, it's the individuals, and that being ambitious is not inherently bad. But nope. The whole damn lot just continued to be universally evil until they were locked in the dungeon.

It felt like some weird kind of...racism? Or some kind of discrimination of some sort. "look these are just bad people, no question".

That tends to happen when you have a lot of characters with no real relevance. Malfoy and Snape were the only significant Slytherin characters, and they both kind of got redemption. The rest are practically blank slates with no characterization beyond being shitty kids related to shittier people. It's all too easy to write the entire group off as lost causes.

pinky0926 posted...

I think one of the worst things that happened in the final book is how there was just no redemption arc for slytherin.

I mean I was kind of expecting that there'd be some lesson in there about how it's not the house, it's the individuals, and that being ambitious is not inherently bad. But nope. The whole damn lot just continued to be universally evil until they were locked in the dungeon.

It felt like some weird kind of...racism? Or some kind of discrimination of some sort. "look these are just bad people, no question".

The problem comes from JK being fucking awful at worldbuilding. She never established any kind of sympathetic Slytherin student (outside of last minute Malfoy and he's a shit for 99% of his runtime) and even Slughorn is a kind of last minute thing, so there's no character there besides smug evil kids and then she just has them locked in the dungeon for the final battle.

Would have been way better to establish throughout the books that Malfoy and crew are poor representatives of the house and make it clear that most of them are fine.

Murphiroth posted...

The problem comes from JK being fucking awful at worldbuilding. She never established any kind of sympathetic Slytherin student and even Slughorn is a kind of last minute thing, so there's no character there besides smug evil kids and then she just has them locked in the dungeon for the final battle.

It's kids books. Nuance and moral ambiguity aren't really a thing in that market.

Questionmarktarius posted...

It's kids books. Nuance and moral ambiguity aren't really a thing in that market.

The annoying thing is that nuance in morality is a consistent theme in the books. Like right from book 1 Harry is teased about being a natural slytherin, and then right there in the epilogue he tells his kid that it's ok to be slytherin because "albus severus dumbledore ginny hermione tonks snape lupin potter, the best and the bravest men i ever met were slytherin" or whatever. Throughout the books there's lot of "fighting your worse nature type" stuff.

So since it's established it just feels like a miss on a part of the writing.

pinky0926 posted...

The annoying thing is that nuance in morality is a consistent theme in the books. Like right from book 1 Harry is teased about being a natural slytherin, and then right there in the epilogue he tells his kid that it's ok to be slytherin because "albus severus dumbledore ginny hermione tonks snape lupin potter, the best and the bravest men i ever met were slytherin" or whatever. Throughout the books there's lot of "fighting your worse nature type" stuff.

So since it's established it just feels like a miss on a part of the writing.

Yep.

DarkBuster22904 posted...

It's almost like taking all of the elitist, superior-feeling rich kids with daddy issues and locking them all together in a dungeon for seven years doesn't create the most stable people.

I feel Slytherin are just inserts for the school bullies that JK has never gotten over. As such, they were never going to be redeemed. It's the same way all the child bullies in Stephen King novels are serial killers who die painfully in the end.

bump

Slytherin sucks lawl