Lindsay Ellis

Oh, yeah, Slughorn. He is genuinely cool, forgot about him. Still too little I felt. But if he was created because she realized there was too few sympathetic Slytherin characters, it makes all more baffling she made sure to remove all Slytherin students from the final battle.

I guess this might be an example of her tokenism mentality. It shows up even in her "progressive" retcons. Dumbledore is gay, so there is gay representation! Any student is gay? Dunno, Dumbledore is enough! Also, there is one Jewish kid in Hogwarst! Yeah, just one, that is it.

Edited by Heatth on Mar 22nd 2019 at 8:49:27 AM

It wouldn't have much sense for the Slytherins to stay because beside (just like with the other houses) most of them were underage anyway, for the others it would have meant fighting against their relatives or even parents. I am more upset that the book didn't communicate this clearer, outside of Draco's role in the final fight.

Didn't they initially naff off only to then come back with reinforcements though?

Guys, this is the wrong thread. We have a Harry Potter thread where we can discuss this.

Other houses had students that stayed to fight, despite being underage. And the assumption that every single Slytherin had family fighting for Voldemort, and that none of them would oppose them regardless is the point. Slytherin is clearly written as the "evil house", but Rowling likes to pretend that wasn't really the case. She is bad with the nuance, that is my point.

There's a Harry Potter thread right here

Given there isn't going to be anything from Ellis in a while, I'd say Harry Potter discussion as it pertains to Death of the Author is reasonable, and that's what is happening; specifically people are discussing where the author's text conflicts with their Word of God and stated goals.

If they start, say, talking about whether thestrals are immune to a Dementor's Kiss then that's one thing, but it's not like a discussion on Death of the Author as it pertains to JK Rowling is derailing any other conversation.

Edited by Larkmarn on Mar 22nd 2019 at 8:46:46 AM

Yeah, that is a pathetically weak justification. It also highlights the fact that apparently every single Slytherin and anyone who is related to a Slytherin is a bad guy.

Except Slughorn!

Ambar Son Of Deshar used to point out how even Slughorn is still a cowardly, self-serving racist. Sure, he's the best Slytherin around (and he improves as the story goes along into a more-or-less heroic character), but that's just when compared to the fact every other one is a member of the Hitler Youth.

It's just logical. Since Slytherin valued being pureblood since the start of Hogwarts (which would discourage half-bloods, Muggleborn and purebloods who don't believe that they are special from joining the house), and beliefs are something which are impressed on children when they grow up and not something people just acquire out of the thin air, plus purebloods tended to intermarry, this is would be a realistic result.

Edited by Swanpride on Mar 22nd 2019 at 8:01:24 AM

I dunno if I'd use the word Cowardly. I guess Coward in that he's self conscious about his own self-perception? Which to be fair a lot of people have that kind of stuff, it's a built in aspect of human nature that you'll gloss over or try to forget the stuff you did that you know was bad. Slughorn just goes further by magically neuralizing himself. And yeah he travels around to avoid being found, but getting murdered by Death eaters doesn't really serve anything.

But I don't think I'd necessarily use the term cowardly when ultimately the guy actually does duel Voldy himself.

He is a bit of a of a bigot

What's weird is that Rowling absolutely had the opportunity to correct the mistake of all Slytherins being bad in the film version of Deathly Hallows by actually showing some of them staying behind and fighting the Death Eaters, like she claims some of them did. Instead, the movie made things worse by including a scene where McGonagall sends all of them to the dungeons. Which, yes, is where their dormitory is located, but the movie still explicitly precludes even the off-screen possibility of any Slytherin students standing up to Voldemort.

“nothing further of worth to contribute to society.”

K Ind of a...harsh way to put that.

It is only logical because Slytherin was designed from ground up to be the evil house. Which is what we are criticizing. In universe justification is honestly kinda irrelevant when we are talking about how the author dealed with this stuff.

Not to mention I just flat out disagree this would translate to a 90% evil rate of members, even by the logic of the universe.

Edited by Heatth on Mar 22nd 2019 at 8:00:02 AM

this.

In universe explanations dont matter brcause in the end its Rowling who made the rules.

And the rules make for a story with not lgbt representation, a The Hero house, a The Villian house, somehow deciding "werewolves are an allegory for AIDS", wizards shitting their pajts until the 19th century and hardcore Dumbledore/Grindlewald sex.

You misunderstand. I wasn't trying to excuse the plot point. My point was that Rowling had the opportunity to fix the plot point in the movie by showing some Slytherins fighting against Voldemort, and instead she (or the screenwriter) inexplicably doubled down on making the Slytherins irredeemable by making them explicitly excluded from the battle altogether.

I would argue that there isn't really much to fix there in the first place, but that is because I always read Slytherin as a cautionary tale. Meaning that if you see the different houses as political leanings, Slytherin is basically the Republicans (just an example, you can naturally insert whatever toxic organisation you have in mind). And while it is not impossible to escape those teachings - see Snape, see Regulus - the general insistence that there had to be "good Slytherins" always sounded odd to me. Yes, I know they are children. But they are children which are raised in a specific attitude. It's a little bit like saying that those who meet in the local anti-immigrant club are "fine people".

To me the problem with the book was never that there weren't many good Slytherins there, the problem was that Dumbledore never did anything to interrupt a house system wich would ensure that those children were more isolated from "positive" groups than they had to be. Also, that muggle studies was designed as if non-magical people where some sort of different species, and that it wasn't a regular lesson for all students instead of an elective.

Though I wouldn't go so far to claim that JKR intentionally described the structures which lead to racism in the first place. I mean, sometimes she does it, but I am not sure how much Slytherin plays into this.

Edited by Swanpride on Mar 22nd 2019 at 12:22:16 PM

Well, the thing is, Rowling herself insisted that Slytherin was not itself inherently evil and that there were decent people in there...that we barely ever got to see. If she didn't want people to think Slytherin was the Hitler Youth, she did a poor job of it.

We've already concluded that Rowling SAYING things, and Rowling PORTRAYING them in her writing, are two completely different things.

Ah, sorry, not directed at you. Got ninja'd while writing and forgot to check after.

This.

Which is the point we were talking about. Her problems with representation and portraying "on camera" what she talks about spills even to made up categories.

Edited by Heatth on Mar 22nd 2019 at 8:03:10 AM

Yeah, well, a lot of what JKR says is about placating her fans. I have tuned it out ages ago. In order to be still able to appreciate the books, I have to for Death of the Author.

Tangentially related. This guy does a good breakdown of how the last FB movie failed from a screenplay perspective, and his dig is pretty good, pointing out that JK seems to be very used to writing books, where length isn't a concern, while it's a much bigger one for screenplays. The entire movie constantly shifts perspective and does it so much it can't fit anything meaningful in its runtime because it's juggling too many POV and characters.

Meanwhile with the lack of content from her, here is another interesting tweet from her with link below to an interesting analysis of democracy and current problem of some democrats.

I kinda feel like she misinterpreted that statement. The whole tax returns things does bother people; I think a lot of folks thought that releasing tax returns was a requirement until Trump just refused to.