Slytherin House : Group Character Analysis

[Rell]

Even though McGonagal said it was time for the Slytherin's to make their choice, at the time that no one stood up to Pansy, and given their past allegiances, there wasn't time to take a chance on them - they were about to go to battle - it would have been stupid to take the chance that they might defect, or give information on harry to the enemy. Better to just make them leave.

[Lord Godric]

Originally Posted by Rell

Even though McGonagal said it was time for the Slytherin's to make their choice, at the time that no one stood up to Pansy, and given their past allegiances, there wasn't time to take a chance on them - they were about to go to battle - it would have been stupid to take the chance that they might defect, or give information on harry to the enemy. Better to just make them leave.

Exactly, and McGonagall heard the Sorting Hat just like the rest of the school did, they would have to unite from within to fight external foes, and that in the scene where Pansy stands up and faces the three Houses shows that they were united, without the Slytherins, and the Slytherins would have to leave.

[rareb]

Originally Posted by Ifink2much

Even though Rowling said that all Slytherins aren't bad it seems the last book leaves us with no other conclusion really.

Yes. And that's not satisfying at all for anyone who has studied the system of the Houses in Hogwarts.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by Lord_Godric

I don't think Voldemort stretched the truth a lot, but if he did, it was still a fact that Slytherins had come to join him, whether they were there for fighting or for protection we do not know. Also I do not think that was the sadistic remark to Lucius the sadistic remark part was "perhaps he has befriend Harry Potter." Lucius was worried about his son, he didn't care what the rest of the Slytherins did.

And I agree, the qualities of Slytherins may be good in fighting a war, but why did only one Slytherin stand up and use his skills for the good of the Wizarding Kind?

Also like I have said before, this is a book, and it is the final book in the series, if Voldemort was lying about Slytherins coming to join him we would have a contradiction somewhere else, because no contradiction can come in later books, and no such contradiction was evident.

You are absolutely correct. I think it escapes people how many names of Slytherins are the same as names of Death Eaters. LV had expanded his power and put DE's in the school. Why wouldn't he have gone right back to the practice of recruiting at Hogwarts? The best that could be expected from any Slytherin is that they run and hide, the worst that they join LV. Either way, with little exception, the Slytherins made their choices and did so before MacGonagal said anything at the great hall.

[BlackSerpent7]

Rell, the easiest way to find out if you can trust someone is to trust them. Throughout the series, Dumbledore is the only person to give a Slytherin that chance. Mcgonnagall refused to trust them.

[LoveWeasleys]

Originally Posted by Lord_Godric

and that in the scene where Pansy stands up and faces the three Houses shows that they were united, without the Slytherins, and the Slytherins would have to leave.

For standing up and saying what she did I was not upset to see Pansy go. However, I really would have liked to see some of the Slytherians stay. Zabini perhaps? Or another child of a Death Eater rebelling against their family. I just would have liked to see all four houses unite to fight Voldy. What a slap in the face it would have been to him, to have people from his prized house fight against him!

[Rell]

Originally Posted by BlackSerpent7

Rell, the easiest way to find out if you can trust someone is to trust them. Throughout the series, Dumbledore is the only person to give a Slytherin that chance. Mcgonnagall refused to trust them.

In the middle of a major battle isn't the right time for that.

Originally Posted by LOVEWEASLEYS04

However, I really would have liked to see some of the Slytherians stay. Zabini perhaps? Or another child of a Death Eater rebelling against their family. I just would have liked to see all four houses unite to fight Voldy. What a slap in the face it would have been to him, to have people from his prized house fight against him!

Actually, I would have liked to see this too. I think that if someone had insisted on staying, that it would have been permitted.

[Lord Godric]

Originally Posted by BlackSerpent7

Rell, the easiest way to find out if you can trust someone is to trust them. Throughout the series, Dumbledore is the only person to give a Slytherin that chance. Mcgonnagall refused to trust them.

For good reason, they were dividing the school, there wasn't time to settle petty differences. The Slytherins showed who they were loyal to when they did nothing about Pansy standing up, and for they they had to leave. There was no other option for McGonagall.

Originally Posted by LOVEWEASLEYS04

For standing up and saying what she did I was not upset to see Pansy go. However, I really would have liked to see some of the Slytherians stay. Zabini perhaps? Or another child of a Death Eater rebelling against their family. I just would have liked to see all four houses unite to fight Voldy. What a slap in the face it would have been to him, to have people from his prized house fight against him!

It would have been great to see it, since we saw other creatures fighting against Voldemort as well, but it wouldn't happen, the Slytherins were loyal to Voldemort.

Originally Posted by OldLupin

You are absolutely correct. I think it escapes people how many names of Slytherins are the same as names of Death Eaters. LV had expanded his power and put DE's in the school. Why wouldn't he have gone right back to the practice of recruiting at Hogwarts? The best that could be expected from any Slytherin is that they run and hide, the worst that they join LV. Either way, with little exception, the Slytherins made their choices and did so before MacGonagal said anything at the great hall.

It's good to have some back-up now.

[maebelle]

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

Exactly, and McGonagall heard the Sorting Hat just like the rest of the school did, they would have to unite from within to fight external foes, and that in the scene where Pansy stands up and faces the three Houses shows that they were united, without the Slytherins, and the Slytherins would have to leave.

I agree. If they didn't take a stand against Pansy, there was not time to sort out who would fight with the other houses. Time was of the essence. McGonagall made the decision. It was her right and her responsibility to do so.

Originally Posted by OldLupin

I think it escapes people how many names of Slytherins are the same as names of Death Eaters. LV had expanded his power and put DE's in the school. Why wouldn't he have gone right back to the practice of recruiting at Hogwarts? The best that could be expected from any Slytherin is that they run and hide, the worst that they join LV. Either way, with little exception, the Slytherins made their choices and did so before MacGonagal said anything at the great hall.

I agree with this, as well. With the story being from Harry's point of view, who's to say that McGonagall did not already suspect who the Slytherin students would support, merely from their actions throughout the school year? Anyone not of age was to leave anyway. Mostly 7th years would have been the ones allowed to remain. Crabbe, Goyle, Draco and Pansy were four of that group. Others were known to be children of Death Eaters. IMO, McGonagall made the right choice.

Originally Posted by BlackSerpant7

Rell, the easiest way to find out if you can trust someone is to trust them. Throughout the series, Dumbledore is the only person to give a Slytherin that chance. Mcgonnagall refused to trust them.

Also, to expect someone to trust you, you must be trustworthy. Apparently, that was questionable.

Originally Posted by LOVEWEASLEYS04

For standing up and saying what she did I was not upset to see Pansy go. However, I really would have liked to see some of the Slytherians stay. Zabini perhaps? Or another child of a Death Eater rebelling against their family. I just would have liked to see all four houses unite to fight Voldy. What a slap in the face it would have been to him, to have people from his prized house fight against him!

I would imagine that the children of Death Eaters would be more afraid of 'not' joining Voldemort, for fear that he would turn against their parents and kill them. Lots of Voldemort's followers only followed him out of fear.

Originally Posted by Lord_Godric

they were dividing the school, there wasn't time to settle petty differences. The Slytherins showed who they were loyal to when they did nothing about Pansy standing up, and for they they had to leave. There was no other option for McGonagall.

No, there really wasn't. The last thing she needed was for those remaining to be fighting amongst themselves.

[BlackSerpent7]

In Defense of Slytherin
History's Stain
Legend has it that Salazar Slytherin's stance against admittance of non-purebloods into the school was the factor that divided it. Fine I will accept that as fact within context. And as I have said many times before on these forums in historical context Slytherin's aims were not only reasonable but to anyone facing a similar situation at the time, they may have been expected. The children that the other three founders were so adamant should be allowed into Hogwart's without a second thought were the same children who were born from those who persecuted witches and wizards. What would have stopped those children from running back home and reporting on Hogwarts? Nothing. In essence, the muggleborns of Slytherin's day were in the same position as the children of death eaters in present day Potterverse. But the other founders were willing to reach out to them then. Why now, can they not reach within and rescue the children of those who some out of fear and some out of their own folly, are within Lord Voldemort's ranks. Why haven't they?
The Sorting Hat vs. Reality
"Or perhaps in Slytherin, you'll make your real friends, those cunning folk use any means to achieve their ends"
"And Power-hungry Slytherin, loved those of great ambition"
"Where were there good such good friends anywhere, as Slytherin and Gryffindor...We'll teach just those whose ancestry is purest...Slytherin took only pureblood wizards of great cunning just like him...And then there came a morning, when old Slytherin departed, and though the fighting then died out, he left us quite downhearted. "
The three quotes I selected show two sides to Slytherin, the way it is and the way it could be. The third quote shows the current side of Slytherin, notice how the values of ambition have entirely disappeared consumed with the quest to maintain the only thing Slytherin has left, the polluted inbred bloodline. The reason that this is the only thing Slytherin has left is that the rest of the school refuses to reach out. So Slytherin adopts a stick together, almost ganglike, mentality which makes them easy prey for Voldemort's aims. Notice that Voldemort always speaks to the disfranchised group, I hate to say it, but Slytherin fits that bill. Also notice that a tendency towards the darker arts are apparently NOT required to join Slytherin house. Shrewdness and Ambition are required though. Shrewdness is a necessary quality in any wartime situation no matter what side you're on. Ambition, well, what about the ambition to have brave deeds to your name?
Characters
Tom Riddle
Sociopath from the time he was destined to grow up in a European orphanage. A difference in the sorting practices couldn't have saved him.
Regulus Black
Slytherin who made bad choices. Found out how creul Lord Voldemort's regime is and turned on him.
Severus Snape
Fell in love with Lily Evans at an early age. Lived a tortued life of unrequited love thereafter, because she couldn't deal with some of his choices and he was too deeply immersed in the Darker Arts until it was much too late. Realized his mistakes and lived the rest of his life attempting attonement for those acts in her name.
Albus Dumbledore
"Any Means to Achieve their ends". This quote describes many of Dumbledore's life actions, yet many are blinded by the greater good DD seemingly fights for. Yet many of his actions would do Slytherin proud.

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

You are absolutely correct. I think it escapes people how many names of Slytherins are the same as names of Death Eaters. LV had expanded his power and put DE's in the school.

No, it didn't escape people. In fact, I already mentioned it: 4. That's all we know of, I checked.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

No, it didn't escape people. In fact, I already mentioned it: 4. That's all we know of, I checked.

I think we're safe in assuming that more than four of them joined the bad guys in the final battle.

We also saw their propensity for evil in the way they rallied to Umbridge in OotP. "Certain trustworthy students" indeed!

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Kowning and assuming isn't the same thing, the didn't escape people: we just have no way of knowing beyond those four

[Lord Godric]

Originally Posted by BlackSerpent7

In Defense of Slytherin
History's Stain
Legend has it that Salazar Slytherin's stance against admittance of non-purebloods into the school was the factor that divided it. Fine I will accept that as fact within context. And as I have said many times before on these forums in historical context Slytherin's aims were not only reasonable but to anyone facing a similar situation at the time, they may have been expected. The children that the other three founders were so adamant should be allowed into Hogwart's without a second thought were the same children who were born from those who persecuted witches and wizards. What would have stopped those children from running back home and reporting on Hogwarts? Nothing. In essence, the muggleborns of Slytherin's day were in the same position as the children of death eaters in present day Potterverse. But the other founders were willing to reach out to them then. Why now, can they not reach within and rescue the children of those who some out of fear and some out of their own folly, are within Lord Voldemort's ranks. Why haven't they?

I don't see how the Muggleborns of the Founder's day were anything like those of the current-era Slytherins. Muggleborns are being thrust into a world that they had no clue existed. They could preform magic, and unless contacted to go to Hogwarts, they had no way of mastering it or perfecting it. I strongly do not believe that there were even many Muggleborns during this time, surely they were not widely accepted or broadly based. The Founding Four founded Hogwarts circa 1,000 A.D. and to be a Muggleborn means that in your past you have a Wizard or Witch in the family who married a Muggle, had a Muggle child and that Muggle married another Muggle so on and so forth, with little pieces of Magic showing up here and there. The Wizarding World couldn't have been so diluted with Muggles 1,000 years ago, because if they were then they would be even more diluted then they are today, probably with no Pureblood families than with few. So although Slytherin didn't want Muggleborns in his house, or the school for that matter, I don't see how this makes them out to be anything like the Slytherins of today. Muggleborns had no bad reputation, they weren't about to join an evil dictator and take over the Wizarding World. The Founders (excluding Slytherin) reached out to these young Wizards because they needed to be taught and to perfect the art of Magic.

The Sorting Hat vs. Reality
"Or perhaps in Slytherin, you'll make your real friends, those cunning folk use any means to achieve their ends"
"And Power-hungry Slytherin, loved those of great ambition"
"Where were there good such good friends anywhere, as Slytherin and Gryffindor...We'll teach just those whose ancestry is purest...Slytherin took only pureblood wizards of great cunning just like him...And then there came a morning, when old Slytherin departed, and though the fighting then died out, he left us quite downhearted. "
The three quotes I selected show two sides to Slytherin, the way it is and the way it could be. The third quote shows the current side of Slytherin, notice how the values of ambition have entirely disappeared consumed with the quest to maintain the only thing Slytherin has left, the polluted inbred bloodline. The reason that this is the only thing Slytherin has left is that the rest of the school refuses to reach out. So Slytherin adopts a stick together, almost ganglike, mentality which makes them easy prey for Voldemort's aims. Notice that Voldemort always speaks to the disfranchised group, I hate to say it, but Slytherin fits that bill. Also notice that a tendency towards the darker arts are apparently NOT required to join Slytherin house. Shrewdness and Ambition are required though. Shrewdness is a necessary quality in any wartime situation no matter what side you're on. Ambition, well, what about the ambition to have brave deeds to your name?

I don't understand how the fact that Hogwarts justly so, treated the Slytherins the way they did has anything to do with Slytherins having noting left but their inbred bloodline. Slytherins just are so blinded by what is important that they think marrying their cousins to keep them Purebloods will prove important somewhere done the line.

Slytherins do adopt a "stck together, almost ganglike, mentality" but it is not because they are mistreated at Hogwarts, it's because they have a reputation to fulfill. The reputation of Pureblood supremacy, all those who aren't Purebloods (and more especially aren't Slytherins) are looked down upon by the Slytherins, and treated unjustly.

Slytherins were not easy target for Voldemort. I think you are forgetting that Slytherin House shaped who Tom Riddle became. Voldemort founded a small gathering of friends while at school, who held the same ideals that he did, the ideals those usually in Slytherin believe, and that is Slytherins go to Voldemort, not because they are weak, and desperate and clinging to themselves for support, but because he is strong, and shares many of the same ideals they themselves would love to see come true in the Wizarding World, those ideals of the Founder of their House, and, in Riddle case, their ancestors.

Characters
Tom Riddle
Sociopath from the time he was destined to grow up in a European orphanage. A difference in the sorting practices couldn't have saved him.

He never would have been sorted differently, he was the heir of Slytherin, obviously he would be placed in Slytherin's House.

Regulus Black
Slytherin who made bad choices. Found out how creul Lord Voldemort's regime is and turned on him.
Severus Snape
Fell in love with Lily Evans at an early age. Lived a tortued life of unrequited love thereafter, because she couldn't deal with some of his choices and he was too deeply immersed in the Darker Arts until it was much too late. Realized his mistakes and lived the rest of his life attempting attonement for those acts in her name.

I can't help but wonder if a quality of Slytherin is that one will always look out for their own best interests. Both of these "good" Slytherins turned on Voldemort because he harmed someone close to them, not because they no longer believed his ideals or any of that sort. Like you said Snape fell in love with Lily, and only turned "good" after Voldemort murdered her. The same can be said of Regulus, he turned "good" after his House-Elf was nearly murdered. They were only looking out for their own interests by turning "good."

Albus Dumbledore
"Any Means to Achieve their ends". This quote describes many of Dumbledore's life actions, yet many are blinded by the greater good DD seemingly fights for. Yet many of his actions would do Slytherin proud.

Dumbledore was never fighting for his own "end," he was fighting for the "end" of the Wizarding Kind, he showed bravery and loyalty far beyond any other characteristics and that is why not only was he a Gryffindor, he was the embodiment of it.

[snapegirl]

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

Kowning and assuming isn't the same thing, the didn't escape people: we just have no way of knowing beyond those four

Like you said, we have no way of knowing who stayed and joined Voldemort or who left.
But, it is safe to reason that many Slytherins stayed and joined Voldemort during the battle:

1. There were only four Death Eater kids at Hogwarts, right? But, those Death Eater kids have friends who were also in Slytherin. Look at Pansy, we never hear of a Death Eater named "Parkinson," but it's clear to see she's sympathetic to Voldemort. It's very possible many children currently in Slytherin grew up in families that were sympathic to Voldemort. ( not just Death Eater mom or dad ) They may of had uncles, aunts, cousins who were Death Eaters, or they may have just believed in what Voldemort was doing, but never took action.
Just as Harry learns he's not the only student whose family suffered losses from Voldemort, I think it's very possible more than four Slytherin students had some sort of family connection to Voldemort.
Therefore, it's safe to reason either through friend influence or growing up in a family that was sympathetic to Voldemort many Slytherins would fight along side Voldemort.

2. Like other posts have said, none of the Slytherins stayed in the Great Hall before the battle started. Also there where no Slytherin students hiding in the Room of Requirements.

3. We no have evidence in any of the books that any Slytherin student tried to reach out to Harry and the fight against Voldemort. We have Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs who do this, though.

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Originally Posted by Lord_Godric

Slytherins were not easy target for Voldemort. I think you are forgetting that Slytherin House shaped who Tom Riddle became. Voldemort founded a small gathering of friends while at school, who held the same ideals that he did, the ideals those usually in Slytherin believe, and that is Slytherins go to Voldemort, not because they are weak, and desperate and clinging to themselves for support, but because he is strong, and shares many of the same ideals they themselves would love to see come true in the Wizarding World, those ideals of the Founder of their House, and, in Riddle case, their ancestors.

As Dumbledore said the Death Eaters are a assortment of the weak seeking protection (namely Peter, but half the HP fandom dedicates itself to finding why he wasn't sorted into Slytherin, so the point still stands), the abitious seeking shared glory ( such as Lucius) and the brutish seeking more refined forms of cruelty (Crabbe, Goyle, Rowle, the list goes on). i wouldn't say that Slytherin was particularly strong compared to the others. But when Tom came to Hogwarts Slytherin wasn't nearly as isolated as we experienced it. The Chamber of Secrets hadn't been opened yet and the main Dark Wizard was from Durmstrang. I agree that Slytherin gave Voldemort his objectives but I wouldn't say he would be any better in another house. Both Godric Gryffindor and Ravenclaw had demands that at this day and age woud be considered absurd.

[Lord Godric]

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

As Dumbledore said the Death Eaters are a assortment of the weak seeking protection (namely Peter, but half the HP fandom dedicates itself to finding why he wasn't sorted into Slytherin, so the point still stands), the abitious seeking shared glory ( such as Lucius) and the brutish seeking more refined forms of cruelty (Crabbe, Goyle, Rowle, the list goes on). i wouldn't say that Slytherin was particularly strong compared to the others. But when Tom came to Hogwarts Slytherin wasn't nearly as isolated as we experienced it. The Chamber of Secrets hadn't been opened yet and the main Dark Wizard was from Durmstrang. I agree that Slytherin gave Voldemort his objectives but I wouldn't say he would be any better in another house. Both Godric Gryffindor and Ravenclaw had demands that at this day and age woud be considered absurd.

I don't think I quite follow what you are trying to say with this post.

[rareb]

I think the question stands why would you only teach the brave or the intelligent? Is it any better than only teach the purebloods - in Medival Times, where you can only be sure the purebloods don't put you in danger by betraying your secret to the Muggles?

The choice of Salazar isn't worse than the one of Gryffindor or Ravenclaw - he just seemed to be more determined to have it his way than the others. It's over time that his choice became highly questionable, it hadn't been like this in the beginning.
Plus - if Tom Riddle had been in another house, e.g. Gryffindor, it could have turned out the other way 'round. Because highly talented people with a lot of criminal energy and no empathy with their fellow humans tend to wretch a lot of havoc when you let them.

My theory is that Slytherin house and their ideals were already slowly fading away out of power when he came. And there is nowhere more potential brutality and danger than in something that considers itself to be threatened from the outside. (You can see that in almost every conflict of extreme brutality in 20th century. Starting with 2ond World War up to islamistic terrorism these days. In fact, what Voldemort has been doing with Slytherin in my opinion is the same as Al Quaida is doing with Islam today. A small minority that's taking advantage of a culture that's in an identity crisis and feels threatened from the outside.
That's also an important reason why I would have wanted to see Slytherins that aren't bad and aren't joining Voldemort by their own choice.)

[Rell]

Originally Posted by rareb

I think the question stands why would you only teach the brave or the intelligent? Is it any better than only teach the purebloods - in Medival Times, where you can only be sure the purebloods don't put you in danger by betraying your secret to the Muggles? The choice of Salazar isn't worse than the one of Gryffindor or Ravenclaw - he just seemed to be more determined to have it his way than the others. It's over time that his choice became highly questionable, it hadn't been like this in the beginning. Plus - if Tom Riddle had been in another house, e.g. Gryffindor, it could have turned out the other way 'round. Because highly talented people with a lot of criminal energy and no empathy with their fellow humans tend to wretch a lot of havoc when you let them.

Before DH, I had a whole theory that Salazar Slytherin put the basilisk away in the castle to defend the students in case the muggles came to attack them all. I still don't think that's a bad theory. The fear of muggles turned into a lack of education and understanding of muggles as well as bigotry. But it may very well have been inspired by fear many centuries ago.

But Slytherin isn't all about being pure blood, they seem to be a manipulative and devious (to me at least). I disagree with you about Tom Riddle. I think his choices would have been the same no matter what house he was in, and I think the choices he had made previously predisposed him to Slytherin house.

[rareb]

I know that Slytherin isn't just about pure blood. Cunning and ambition are the other criteria. But my main point is, that it's not cunning and ambition that make you become bad, not more than unreflected bravery or unchecked intelligence.

Tom Riddle like he is in the books has been rightly placed in Slytherin because he was cunning and ambitious and the heir of Slytherin to that. I should have been more precise, you've got a point. Tom Riddle like he is couldn't have been in another house - but you could create a similarily evil character and let him turn the qualities of any other house (perhaps except Hufflepuff) bad.

I'm a political scientist, my diploma thesis was, among other subjects, about the creation and the nature of good and bad, dualism and the enemy. That's why I'm so intrigued by the story of Slytherin House and ultimately so disappointed by the use of it in the final series.

Anyway - the point is, that bad is always a paradoxon, because it's on one hand created socially and highly subjective and on the other hand you can't just say it's all created, some actions are bad no matter what the circonstances. It's complicated.
But I think it's fundamental to understand that the potential for good and bad is in every person - and that the worst things are often done by people who are convinced that they're doing this for the Good. Self-defence can easily turn into aggressive violence that can't be justified by anything whatsoever.

Voldemort is bad, he is objectively so and on his own accord. But he's abusing people for his selfish goals, and those people wouldn't be all bad. And I would have liked to see a bit more of that.