conuly | In defense of Slytherin.

No, not of Slitherins, of Slitherin, old Salazar himself.

For right now, we're going to assume that everything we've heard about him in the books is true, that it's not 1. an outright lie 2. a mistake or 3. poetic license. Except when Ron called him a loony. We'll consider that undereducated hyperbole, because he really didn't know too much about the guy, and was picking up on his family's prejudices* about the matter.

So, really, what do we know about Salazar?

1. He was Godric's best friend.
2. He was a founder of a school devoted to finding young wizards in a time when wizardry was distrusted.
3. He thought muggleborn wizards were "less trustworthy" than pureblood wizards.
4. He prized students with ambition.
5. He could talk to snakes.
6. Voldemort is descended from him.
7. He built a secret chamber with a basilisk in a girl's bathroom. Okay, this is kinda loony.
8. After that, and for the past 1000 years there's been a great rivalry between Slytherin and the other houses, especially (it seems) between Slytherin and Gryffindor.

Okay, so we know quite a bit about the guy. We can add idle speculations on his nationality (Salazar is not an English name) and personality (Is there a *reason* he put his favored students in the dungeon? Or was the choice for the Slytherin Dormitory's location made after he left?), but none of that seems to be especially relevant.

Now, it's easy to write Slytherin off as an early racist. After all, the Death Eaters certainly are. There's a lot of racism in the Wizarding world, in fact. Even our beloved Weasleys aren't immune to it (think back on what Mrs. Weasley was saying when Harry first met her....) But is that really true? Remember, we're assuming that everything said about the guy (other than "he's loony") is absolutely true. Mostly because otherwise this whole post falls to pieces. Professor Binns put his reason for not wanting to accept muggleborn students as one over a concern of security. Muggleborns, he said, weren't trustworthy.

And he may have been right.

Think about the world they live in. People fear wizards. And, while centuries later children will learn that their anti-wizard actions were largely futile - do we know that this is true? If it's really true, why on earth would wizards still be hiding out? Don't give me Hagrid's explanation, I don't buy that. It's possible that muggles were more effective than modern wizards would admit, or even know.

Even if adult wizards really were immune to anti-wizard activity, this is a school for children. It seems reasonable to believe that children would be in danger from anti-wizard activity even when adults weren't, because children aren't in control of their magic.

So, here you are in the dark ages, and you have your little sanctuary against the people who want to kill you and all your kind. And somebody is trying to bring in children of the muggles to learn! Okay, fair's fair, they should learn - but what about when they leave? Are they really going to abandon their families? Why should they? So they talk to their families, and what if they let something slip? Or just outright tell their families about where the school is, what it's like, et cetera? These are their families! It's safe!

But it's not safe. People are scared of wizards. You can't trust them not to want to harm you. And you can't trust children not to tell their families about you.

It's not safe.

So Salazar goes "look, we can't stop them from talking to their families, or their muggle friends, and have you forgotten why we're here? Are you MAD, people???" and then, knowing he's about to be kicked out, he builds a secret chamber.

Now, from the view of history, this looks crazy. But maybe he didn't mean for it to be opened and for the basilisk to just randomly kill people. Maybe he meant for it to only be opened when his dire prediction came true, and the muggles were at the gates with pitchforks and torches.

Or maybe he was just nuts. Whatever.

*_{Yeah, his family's prejudices. Not the icky kind like "all muggleborn - excuse me, mudbloods are scum" but the kind like "muggles are just as good as we are, and people who don't think so are loonies".}

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I agree. I don't think we know enough to judge the man. There are lots of possibilities. And I never viewed house Slytherin as evil. They are just more likely to become evil because they are ambitious and more ambitious than they are loyal, courageous, or studeous. But ambition isn't an inherently bad thing. And one of the things I'm still waiting for is some good Slytherins. There should be good Slytherins. There likely have been countless. There's a reason they're a part of Hogwart's in the first place. Being more likely to turn evil is far different from being evil. Sure, some of them will be evil, but I wouldn't want to judge them as a group.

Yeah. I don't think Hogwarts would've maintained House Slytherin if all its members were automatically evil. "Hey, I've got a great idea! Let's put all our evil students in one place so they can band together and learn from each other!"

See, I always figured that Slytherin churned out a higher than random percentage of evil wizards because Slytherins spend six or seven of their formative years stuck with a label that causes other people -- starting with the faculty and fellow students of their school -- to automatically judge them as backstabbing, arrogant, cruel, and likely to do evil, with only themselves, a creepy assed ghost, and the occassional inadequate rolemodel who was low enough on the faculty totem pole to get the job of minding them (Snape) to turn to for emotional support.

heheh As a devoted duffer, I meen hufflepuff, I figure that sllythrins have their place in the world too. if you were to quizz me I'd be forced to admit that i wouldnt be keen on spending time with either the sterotypical gryfandor or slytherin tho.

please excuse spelling, grammer and stuff not working at all. i am not quite over flu yet and am slightly incoherent. meh. i shall adress this subject when i have more than two braincells to rub together cause i have a lengthy rant on why gryfandor is the real house to be aware of, but it;s not comming together. bug me about it some day

You have a pass from me ever complaining about your spelling and grammar. Don't worry about it.

when I am getting it so wrong even I can tell ti;s wrong and yet i cant work out how to fix it.. i apologise.

Yeah, I always figured pretty much the same thing, actually.

I have this whole theory worked out as to why wizards need a separate society, yet not for reasons of being vulnerable to Muggles. I should do a post on it at some point.

If you do it right, any of them could be the truly evil house.
Hufflepuff: It's always the quiet ones.
Ravenclaw: Knowledge is power, power corrupts...
On second thoughts, I'm not so sure about Gryffindor, but there's got to be a way to justify it. Possibly the reckless bravery is a cover for more calculated planning?

Don't forget he had a major falling out with the other founders and stormed off in a huff.

Personally, I pass no judgement over the founders because I don't have the information on either the facts or the circumstances surrounding the time.

I don't pass personal judgements over many historical figures, either. All I want to know is what, not why or should have.

I'll add that perhaps the "girls' bathroom" wasn't a students' bathroom when he left. (Re the Slytherin common room: what's more defensible and easier to put a secret "back door" into...than a dungeon?)

In defense of Slytherin.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

You have some good points.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

You have some good points.