Are they supposed to be evil? Why are all the “bad guys” associated with them? Why are they shown as dark and conniving? If they are evil, why does the school foster this sect?
I don’t think they’re necessarily evil. Just that they’re closer to being evil than the other houses. To put a D&D spin on the world of Harry Potter, Slitherin members all seem to be Chaotic Neutral characters.
I don’t think they are evil, either. It seems like a lot of people took the quote (I think it was Hagrid in CoS) that “every wizard that went bad came out of Slytherin” to mean that everyone in Slytherin was bad. That is a logical fallacy.
All bad wizards were in Slytherin.
NOT
All wizards in Slytherin were bad.
Also, was it ever established what house Peter Pettigrew was in? If he wasn’t Slytherin, that would make Hagrid’s assumption wrong in at least one case, anyway
The House of Slytherin is the Republican Party of wizards.
Slytherins do seem to be, to a man, intolerant of mudbloods. So that starts them off on the wrong foot right there. I mean, their house was FOUNDED on the idea of genetic elistism by a guy who’s big idea was to create a genocide monster and hide it in a school.
According to one of the Sorting Hat’s songs, the main attribute that characterizes Slytherins is ambition. I wouldn’t call it a house of evil as much as one of self-interest, albeit self-interest that often involves a homicidal disregard for others.
I would call them “easily corrupted”.
Brian
Hagrid said it in The Philosopher’s Stone, but the biggest fallacy is the assumption that Hagrid is imparting a piece of carefully considered, absolutely correct piece of information about the wizarding world to Harry. Many in the wizarding world do not like Slytherins, Hagrid included. The best interpretation is to assume that he’s just making a generalisation that may agree with ones personal prejudices but doesn’t stand up to closer scrutiny - “Liberals hate America,” “Republicans hate the poor,” “White people aren’t good at basketball.”
I’d say there are plenty of wizards from the other houses that went to the dark side (after all, it’d make the wizarding world’s job a hell of a lot easier if they could dismiss people suspected of following Voldemort just by grabbing an old yearbook), but why would Hagrid tell Harry that when he can instead make a generalisation about some not very nice people that he doesn’t like?
The latest book strongly implies that the real character of the houses is this:
Slytherin: Ambition
Ravenclaw: Intellect
Griffindor: Great Deeds
Hufflepuff: Everyone Else
I always make the distinction between houses in terms of work ethic.
Griffindor: “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!”
Ravenclaw: “Use your head to keep from breaking your back.”
Hufflepuff: “Slow and steady wins the race.”
Slytherin: “What’s in it for me?”
Slytherins are not necessarily evil. Just more likely to be cold, calculating, and cynical.
Something I’ve never understood about the whole “pureblood” deal: Just what the heck is so special about having old-wizard heritage? Does it mean you’re more likely to be very powerful or gifted magically? Does it mean there’s less chance of squibs being born in the family? Given that there are so few magical people at all in the world that the wizarding community finds it expedient to hide from the Muggles, you’d think they’d be grateful for any and every last magical person, muggleborn or not.
Of course the whole deal may simply be an allegory of the British class-struggle thing, and prejudice is seldom rational to begin with; but since someone had to be the founders of the wizarding clans, just where do the “Purebloods” think they can from? Unless they think that Adam and Eve were the first wizard and witch, and that only they are of unbroken heritage and everyone else is descended from squibs.
well the ‘mudblood = not worthy’ mentality is probably at least partially stemmed from the fact that muggles have persecuted (or at least attempted to persecute) wizarding kind out of blind fear, making them dangerous to the prosperity of wizards.
wizards have been hiding from muggles since as far back as we can tell (in fact much of the evolution of quidditch has occurred to keep wizards and witches safe from muggle sightings).
it’s kind of like x-men… the slytherins are like magneto. if it got out to the muggle masses that there were wizards around, they’d have MASSIVE problems on their hands. why then, should wizards allow muggle-borns into their society when it’s the muggles that forced them into constantly looking over their shoulders?
So 80’s , I love it
Declan
I always thought that part of the point of the mudblood-hate is that it wasn’t based in any kind of logic whatsoever, kind of like racism.
Like Hagrid points out, Hermione is pretty much as talented as they come, and she’s a mudblood.
Very true. After all, Hagrid has also said that dragons make wonderful pets, that Harry and Ron going to Aragog is a good idea, and that Grawp is a nice kid, just a little misunderstood. There’s a nugget of truth to all of these, but it’s wrapped in a giant gob of oversimplification, unintended consequences and just plain poor thinking.
Chaotic Neutral? I don’t think so.
Doesn’t sound like any Slitherin I know. (And I know a lot of them.)
I’d say most of them fall under the auspices of Lawful Evil.
With maybe a few of them leaning towards Neutral Evil, except of course the very bad, who are Chaotic Evil.
Man, you can’t be slinging those terms around like they don’t mean anything. That way lies madness.
The culture at Hogwarts is for people to tend to hang arond with friends from their own house. The adolescent James Potter does not strike me as being likely to have a non-Gryffindor as one of his three best friends. For this reason, I have generally assumed Peter Pettigrew to have been a Gryffindor.
This fact makes Hagrid’s pronouncement in ]The Sorcerer’s Stone (“There wasn’t a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn’t in Slytherin.”) ridiculous on the face of it. Granted, Hagrid didn’t know at the time that Pettigrew had gone to Voldemort, but even this doesn’t let him off the hook for intellectual sloppiness. Even believing that Sirius Black was the spy, he would have had to recognize that, as a non-Slytherin, Black disproved his . . . I hesitate to dignify it with the term thesis; how about generalization?
The lesson that the Potterlogian can take from the above is that, as gex gex and Sublight point out, Hagrid’s tidbits of wisdom to Harry need to be taken with a grain of salt. A Slytherin member is not automatically evil, and it is my belief that before book seven ends, Harry will be befriending a Slytherin. Perhaps not closely, but sincerely, and each with genuine respect for the other’s qualities and talents.
It remains to be seen whether Ms. Rowling can create a character who is complex enough to be at once a convincing Slytherin and worthy of (and interested in) Harry’s friendship.
I think we can agree that Hagrid’s statement is incorrect. However, the simplest answer to why may be sloppiness by Rowling. She may have thought of the story in terms of black and white in the beginning, but then realized it would be much more compelling with shades of grey and went in that direction.
Hmm, here’s a theory: You put the “ambitious” ones all in one house, they fight amongst themselves. You let them spread out among the houses, and the houses soon start fighting amongst themselves for dominance and control. Whereas in Slytherin, they’re corralled.
It’s easy who it will be. Snape.