World used to be filled with revolutionary movements, and very few managed to grow past Dunbar’s number or so before falling apart by everyone trying to out-politic everyone else.
Most of the Trotskyist groups from the 1930s to the 1960s also adopted democratic centralism, but they infamously split all the time. Of course, Trotskyists are selected (amongst Leninists) as those willing to defect from the majority.
These are good points. Yet I also suggest that monarchies, any kind of feudalism and for that matter republics, religions and democracies are maintained by Slytherins. In the case of monarchies and feudalism in particular all changes in power are more or less the outcome of Slytherin machinations.
There’s also the power behind the throne. Cardinal Richelieu was definitely a Slytherin. (Well, the character in Dumas was; I don’t know so much about the real person.)
How about the Vedic castes of India? Brāhmaṇa = Ravenclaw, Kṣatriya = Gryffindor, Vaiśya (later Śūdra) = Hufflepuff. Nobody admits to being a Slytherin, which is suspicious, don’t you think?
How about the Vedic castes of India? Brāhmaṇa = Ravenclaw, Kṣatriya = Gryffindor, Vaiśya (later Śūdra) = Hufflepuff. Nobody admits to being a Slytherin, which is suspicious, don’t you think?
I would have said Śūdra = Hufflepuff, Vaiśya = Slytherin. Vaiśya are the “merchant” caste, which plays rather nicely into a number of negative stereotypes, including the fat-cat capitalist robber-baron and the Evil Corporation.
Yeah, I thought of that, but I didn’t think that it fit very well. So I went back to the original caste system, before Śūdra existed. I agree that when Śūdra came around, it replaced Vaiśya as Hufflepuff; I just don’t feel that the newer Vaiśya fits any house.
And still later, Dalit = House-Elf?
The pre-Śūdra caste system also corresponds the the Three Estates of pre-Revolutionary France: First = Brāhmaṇa, Second = Kṣatriya, Third = Vaiśya. But again, the Third Estate later consisted (and had for centuries by the time of the Revolution) of both merchants and laborers. If you want to split those, you get a very good correspondence between Hindu castes and the European classes that allegedly inspired the 14th-century playing card suits that we still use: Hearts = Brāhmaṇa, Spades = Kṣatriya, Diamonds = Vaiśya, Clubs = Śūdra.
So by composing these relationships, we get a correspondence between playing cards and Hogwarts houses! (if we accept Vaiśya = Slytherin). There exists a set of Harry Potter playing cards by Bicycle which almost agrees, but they swap Slytherin and Hufflepuff (pic).
There’s also the power behind the throne. Cardinal Richelieu was definitely a Slytherin.
Well yes he was. But he never organized a circle of Slytherins to permanently take over France.
And don’t forget how unsuccessful were Machiavelli—model of everything that is Slytherin.
How about the Vedic castes of India? Brāhmaṇa = Ravenclaw, Kṣatriya = Gryffindor, Vaiśya (later Śūdra) = Hufflepuff. Nobody admits to being a Slytherin, which is suspicious, don’t you think?
Brits were playing Indians against each other extremely successfully. They took over India before anybody even noticed.
Feudalism feels more like Gryffindor to me. It was more about personal authority than about cunning. Not to mention he was the one with the sword.
Personal authority is something that takes rather a lot of cunning to acquire and maintain. A Gryffindor may be claim a territory here or there but his children either adopt a Slytherin mindset their power dwindles or is usurped.
Slytherins by definition lack necessary bravery to keep getting into all fights that maintaining a position within feudal system requires.
As long as acquiring power requires personally charging into an enemy army, Gryffindors will hold most of it. Fellow Gryffindors will be easily impressed by someone who does so without a second thought. Slytherins won’t last long. To someone who actually values their life and comfort like all Slytherins do, this is very expensive kind of signaling.
I don’t agree on this one. Slytherins will do what they need to do to get power. There is also quite a difference between creating, maintaining and enforcing an image of personal bravery and being personally brave. Those who maintain the greatest image of personal bravery will be those that are best at choosing to personally engage in the elements of a battle that pose little risk to themselves and who proficient at arranging the demise of anyone who doubts their courage. It isn’t hard to choose the bravest rivals and ensure they are put in the most dangerous situations. As I understand it that was standard practice for dealing with rivals without damaging morale.
Gryffindors will be in the upper echelons in such a system but they will rarely if ever be at the top.
I don’t agree on this one. Slytherins will do what they need to do to get power.
To get power for themselves, not for other Slytherins, in practice leading to a lot of mutual undermining. A Slytherin has as much chance of out-braving a Gryffindor, out-smarting a Ravenclaw, or out-hardworking a Hufflepuff as any of them out-cunning a Slytherin. It might happen occasionally, but as easily either way.
I’d even say all this taking over the world business was very un-Slytherin. The First Wizarding War was an open Gryffindor style confrontation, and in spite of having the most powerful wizard on their side, Death Eaters were remarkably unsuccessful. As soon as Voldemort was gone, his decades of effort fell apart almost instantaneously. Death Eaters were just ridiculously unsuccessful.
Just compare Voldemort with Horace Slughorn (or MoR’s Lucius Malfoy, but I don’t think original Lucius Malfoy were as successful as in MoR). Slughorn was a good wizard, but nowhere near Voldemort’s level.
Voldemort treated people as disposable pawns, beating them into submission if they resisted, and had no qualms about disposing of even his loyal servants if it suited him. It was parasitic and abusive relationship, only made possible by Voldemort’s vast power.
On the other end there are all Hufflepuffs and Gryffindors willing to sacrifice their own good just to help whoever happens to be their friend or they feel obligation to help. This is a lot less destructive, but not a great recipe for success.
What Slytherins like Slughorn did was the middle ground. Slughorn built a network of people around himself, carefully selecting who was allowed into his inner circle with little prejudice. He was mostly loyal to people in his circle, but it was bounded loyalty, as shown by his abandonment of Malfoys and other Death Eaters. He definitely helped them succeed. Not jumping into action on first suggestion that friend is in trouble like all those silly Gryffindors—just providing crucial “leg-ups” to achieve maximum results without expending too much effort or influence.
And people who succeeded thanks to him willingly returned favors he asked—something he took advantage of but was sure not to overuse. It was highly mutually beneficial relationship—based primarily on everyone’s self-interest, but without short-signedness, without Voldemort’s coercion, or Gryffindor’s blind loyalty.
Slughorn didn’t get to “rule magical Britain”, either overtly or covertly, but why would he want to? Was here anything missing from his life? If he wanted something, all he needed was to ask. And it took no stupid risk, no decades of research, no horrible sacrifices at mere promise of eventual success—Slughorn achieved what he wanted while having fun, risking nothing, and not over-exerting himself.
The history remembers Voldemorts not Slughorns, but relative to their talents, their efforts, and their sacrifices people like Slughorn are ridiculously more successful than people like Voldemort. This should be the essence of House Slytherin. “ambition, cunning, and resourcefulness” do not usually lead to taking over the world, especially since it would strongly conflict with “self-preservation” which is also a major Slytherin value.
According to canon, once you gain an horcrux you turn into an easily recognisable monster. Depending on the exact effects (which aren’t detailed) it may be that you have no way to re-enter society and thus no third option between living as a total hermit or as a lord of terror.
So, if your three options are:
(A) achieve immortality, spend eternity hiding from the world;
(B) achieve immortality, try to take over the world;
(C) live in comfort and respect for less than 200 years;
you could argue that A is better than B, but C is pretty clearly worse than A and B. Although it may be pointed out that there’s little reason not to wait until you’re, say, 150 or so before trying that Horcrux thing.
Of course, there’s (D) get hold of a Philosopher’s Stone and pull a Flamel by achieving society-approved immortality, but that might just be the single greatest plot hole in canon HP. Speaking of which, the Stone was mentioned in passing during one of the early chapters of MoR, albeit only for its alchemical powers, so I’m curious to see if/how Eliezer handles its existence as a life-prolonger.
It isn’t clear from canon if a single horcrux turns one into an easily recognizable monster. We know that Voldemort looked like a monster after he had 1) made multiple horcruxes 2) was killed and then came back using dark magic.
In fact, we know that when he was Tom Riddle he had already made a horcrux when at Hogwarts and he still looked like a normal human until at least the end of his time at Hogwarts.
If the plot hole to which you’re referring is that canon!Voldemort could have used his extreme skill to get the Philosopher’s Stone, instead of going for Horcruxes, the idea that I always got was that the Philosopher’s Stone extended life, by preventing aging, but Horcruxes prevented death, by tethering the user’s soul after their body died. If someone had killed Nicolas Flamel while he was regularly using the Elixir of Life, I don’t believe it would have helped him. Canon never says how Horcruxes deal with death by old age, but if it worked the way Voldemort’s death worked, then a person who died of old age would get a ghost-form that could then in principle be reincarnated as Voldemort was. (Which is another highly evil piece of magic. What is it about life-extension that people think is evil?) It’s never mentioned whether Voldemort’s new body would ever die of old age.
World used to be filled with revolutionary movements, and very few managed to grow past Dunbar’s number or so before falling apart by everyone trying to out-politic everyone else.
Only very few that were extraordinarily loyal like Bolsheviks won. The primary difference between Bolsheviks and everyone else was their strong belief in strict loyalty to the party, whose decisions were to be absolutely binding upon all members.
Even after they started killing each other, very few defected the Party to join some other group.
Compare it with far more typical Slytherining in Kyrgystan where people keep joining, defecting, and plotting everyone against everyone else.
Most of the Trotskyist groups from the 1930s to the 1960s also adopted democratic centralism, but they infamously split all the time. Of course, Trotskyists are selected (amongst Leninists) as those willing to defect from the majority.
Trotsky was a total Slytherin, just see how many times he switched sides even before the revolution.
These are good points. Yet I also suggest that monarchies, any kind of feudalism and for that matter republics, religions and democracies are maintained by Slytherins. In the case of monarchies and feudalism in particular all changes in power are more or less the outcome of Slytherin machinations.
Feudalism feels more like Gryffindor to me. It was more about personal authority than about cunning. Not to mention he was the one with the sword.
There’s also the power behind the throne. Cardinal Richelieu was definitely a Slytherin. (Well, the character in Dumas was; I don’t know so much about the real person.)
How about the Vedic castes of India? Brāhmaṇa = Ravenclaw, Kṣatriya = Gryffindor, Vaiśya (later Śūdra) = Hufflepuff. Nobody admits to being a Slytherin, which is suspicious, don’t you think?
I would have said Śūdra = Hufflepuff, Vaiśya = Slytherin. Vaiśya are the “merchant” caste, which plays rather nicely into a number of negative stereotypes, including the fat-cat capitalist robber-baron and the Evil Corporation.
Yeah, I thought of that, but I didn’t think that it fit very well. So I went back to the original caste system, before Śūdra existed. I agree that when Śūdra came around, it replaced Vaiśya as Hufflepuff; I just don’t feel that the newer Vaiśya fits any house.
And still later, Dalit = House-Elf?
The pre-Śūdra caste system also corresponds the the Three Estates of pre-Revolutionary France: First = Brāhmaṇa, Second = Kṣatriya, Third = Vaiśya. But again, the Third Estate later consisted (and had for centuries by the time of the Revolution) of both merchants and laborers. If you want to split those, you get a very good correspondence between Hindu castes and the European classes that allegedly inspired the 14th-century playing card suits that we still use: Hearts = Brāhmaṇa, Spades = Kṣatriya, Diamonds = Vaiśya, Clubs = Śūdra.
So by composing these relationships, we get a correspondence between playing cards and Hogwarts houses! (if we accept Vaiśya = Slytherin). There exists a set of Harry Potter playing cards by Bicycle which almost agrees, but they swap Slytherin and Hufflepuff (pic).
Interesting. I think that swap can be traced to Rowling, who upset the traditional progression from noble to base by putting Slytherin at the bottom.
Well yes he was. But he never organized a circle of Slytherins to permanently take over France.
And don’t forget how unsuccessful were Machiavelli—model of everything that is Slytherin.
Brits were playing Indians against each other extremely successfully. They took over India before anybody even noticed.
That’s a much later time period than Vedic society, but I like it all the same.
I didn’t realize we cared about such minor issues in a thread that involved analogies between Hogwarts houses and Communist revolutionary factions ;-)
Personal authority is something that takes rather a lot of cunning to acquire and maintain. A Gryffindor may be claim a territory here or there but his children either adopt a Slytherin mindset their power dwindles or is usurped.
Slytherins by definition lack necessary bravery to keep getting into all fights that maintaining a position within feudal system requires.
As long as acquiring power requires personally charging into an enemy army, Gryffindors will hold most of it. Fellow Gryffindors will be easily impressed by someone who does so without a second thought. Slytherins won’t last long. To someone who actually values their life and comfort like all Slytherins do, this is very expensive kind of signaling.
I don’t agree on this one. Slytherins will do what they need to do to get power. There is also quite a difference between creating, maintaining and enforcing an image of personal bravery and being personally brave. Those who maintain the greatest image of personal bravery will be those that are best at choosing to personally engage in the elements of a battle that pose little risk to themselves and who proficient at arranging the demise of anyone who doubts their courage. It isn’t hard to choose the bravest rivals and ensure they are put in the most dangerous situations. As I understand it that was standard practice for dealing with rivals without damaging morale.
Gryffindors will be in the upper echelons in such a system but they will rarely if ever be at the top.
To get power for themselves, not for other Slytherins, in practice leading to a lot of mutual undermining. A Slytherin has as much chance of out-braving a Gryffindor, out-smarting a Ravenclaw, or out-hardworking a Hufflepuff as any of them out-cunning a Slytherin. It might happen occasionally, but as easily either way.
I’d even say all this taking over the world business was very un-Slytherin. The First Wizarding War was an open Gryffindor style confrontation, and in spite of having the most powerful wizard on their side, Death Eaters were remarkably unsuccessful. As soon as Voldemort was gone, his decades of effort fell apart almost instantaneously. Death Eaters were just ridiculously unsuccessful.
Just compare Voldemort with Horace Slughorn (or MoR’s Lucius Malfoy, but I don’t think original Lucius Malfoy were as successful as in MoR). Slughorn was a good wizard, but nowhere near Voldemort’s level.
Voldemort treated people as disposable pawns, beating them into submission if they resisted, and had no qualms about disposing of even his loyal servants if it suited him. It was parasitic and abusive relationship, only made possible by Voldemort’s vast power.
On the other end there are all Hufflepuffs and Gryffindors willing to sacrifice their own good just to help whoever happens to be their friend or they feel obligation to help. This is a lot less destructive, but not a great recipe for success.
What Slytherins like Slughorn did was the middle ground. Slughorn built a network of people around himself, carefully selecting who was allowed into his inner circle with little prejudice. He was mostly loyal to people in his circle, but it was bounded loyalty, as shown by his abandonment of Malfoys and other Death Eaters. He definitely helped them succeed. Not jumping into action on first suggestion that friend is in trouble like all those silly Gryffindors—just providing crucial “leg-ups” to achieve maximum results without expending too much effort or influence.
And people who succeeded thanks to him willingly returned favors he asked—something he took advantage of but was sure not to overuse. It was highly mutually beneficial relationship—based primarily on everyone’s self-interest, but without short-signedness, without Voldemort’s coercion, or Gryffindor’s blind loyalty.
Slughorn didn’t get to “rule magical Britain”, either overtly or covertly, but why would he want to? Was here anything missing from his life? If he wanted something, all he needed was to ask. And it took no stupid risk, no decades of research, no horrible sacrifices at mere promise of eventual success—Slughorn achieved what he wanted while having fun, risking nothing, and not over-exerting himself.
The history remembers Voldemorts not Slughorns, but relative to their talents, their efforts, and their sacrifices people like Slughorn are ridiculously more successful than people like Voldemort. This should be the essence of House Slytherin. “ambition, cunning, and resourcefulness” do not usually lead to taking over the world, especially since it would strongly conflict with “self-preservation” which is also a major Slytherin value.
According to canon, once you gain an horcrux you turn into an easily recognisable monster. Depending on the exact effects (which aren’t detailed) it may be that you have no way to re-enter society and thus no third option between living as a total hermit or as a lord of terror.
So, if your three options are: (A) achieve immortality, spend eternity hiding from the world; (B) achieve immortality, try to take over the world; (C) live in comfort and respect for less than 200 years;
you could argue that A is better than B, but C is pretty clearly worse than A and B. Although it may be pointed out that there’s little reason not to wait until you’re, say, 150 or so before trying that Horcrux thing.
Of course, there’s (D) get hold of a Philosopher’s Stone and pull a Flamel by achieving society-approved immortality, but that might just be the single greatest plot hole in canon HP. Speaking of which, the Stone was mentioned in passing during one of the early chapters of MoR, albeit only for its alchemical powers, so I’m curious to see if/how Eliezer handles its existence as a life-prolonger.
It isn’t clear from canon if a single horcrux turns one into an easily recognizable monster. We know that Voldemort looked like a monster after he had 1) made multiple horcruxes 2) was killed and then came back using dark magic.
In fact, we know that when he was Tom Riddle he had already made a horcrux when at Hogwarts and he still looked like a normal human until at least the end of his time at Hogwarts.
Ok, then scratch everything, he’s an idiot.
Even if it resulted in severe disfiguration, very few people know anything about horcruxes, so you can make up some believable cover story.
If the plot hole to which you’re referring is that canon!Voldemort could have used his extreme skill to get the Philosopher’s Stone, instead of going for Horcruxes, the idea that I always got was that the Philosopher’s Stone extended life, by preventing aging, but Horcruxes prevented death, by tethering the user’s soul after their body died. If someone had killed Nicolas Flamel while he was regularly using the Elixir of Life, I don’t believe it would have helped him. Canon never says how Horcruxes deal with death by old age, but if it worked the way Voldemort’s death worked, then a person who died of old age would get a ghost-form that could then in principle be reincarnated as Voldemort was. (Which is another highly evil piece of magic. What is it about life-extension that people think is evil?) It’s never mentioned whether Voldemort’s new body would ever die of old age.
Strong in the force he is, but not that strong?
Extreme Lifeism is an unusual belief, most people don’t think tiny chance at immortality is worth big risk of throwing your life away.
I doubt anyone thinks so even here, regardless of what people say. If they did, they’d be donating at least half their income to SENS.