![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, some nice person inside the hotel has set up their own wireless network, so I am logged in through some random kindness (thanks "deepthot" whoever you are). I have a free moment between panels and setting up for a party so I'm posting.
Earlier today I spoke on a panel on "The Slytherin Question," i.e. why do we have a house for dark wizards, anyway? The moderator, Hilari Bell, came up with a suggestion just before the panel, which is that we, the panelists, should pose as a panel of professors debating whether Slytherin House should be abolished, with the audience as the Wizarding public. We went for it of course. I took the part of Galatea Gullwing (the potions professor in Tempus), though I modified her to be a Ravenclaw for the purpose of the discussion. (There were four of us, one from each House). Hilari became Professor "Humbledore, Dumbledore's humble replacement," Kevin Murphy became Magnus Murphy, professor of hexes, curses, and lycanthropology, and Jean Lorrah became Lorelei Janus, professor of spellcasting and glamours.
My assertion is that Salazar Slytherin was motivated to help found a school for wizards a thousand years ago because that was the age when the Wizarding world was going underground/separating from the Muggle world. Merlin was the last publicly known wizard in Britain, and with Muggle civilization on the rise, Slytherin (and the other founders as well), knew it was time for an organized system to educate young wizards to join Wizarding society. My speculation is that this is why Hogwarts was founded in the first place, because that was the time of transition.
Dear old Salazar wanted to educate only the pure-blooded (and probably close Wizarding society to all but the purebloods, as well), whereas the others had their own ideas, and what one ends up with is a mix of the brave, cunning, intelligent, and hard-working. In the 900 years that preceded Voldemort, how was Slytherin seen? When Harry arrives, the house has a reputation as being the only house to produce the dark followers of Voldemort, but also as the elite. Slytherin expects to win the house cup every year. Slytherin students, by their achievements, do earn positive points. They are clearly not a house of criminal malcontents, much as members of other houses would like to paint them as such.
So you have a group who feel themselves superior, but who are reviled by the others. Isn't that a win-win situation? When it comes time to blame someone, wouldn't the Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs, and Gryffindors like to have a house they can point the finger at? Someone has to be reviled, after all. (Think: New York Yankees). Snape is the ultimate Slytherin because he can take the heat. He doesn't care that others think him the bad guy--he has his own opinions and his own moral sense. (Nor surprisingly, the majority of the audience believe that Snape will turn out to be a good guy in book seven).
I'm on another panel on Saturday which is to be all speculation about what happens in Book 7. More later!
Earlier today I spoke on a panel on "The Slytherin Question," i.e. why do we have a house for dark wizards, anyway? The moderator, Hilari Bell, came up with a suggestion just before the panel, which is that we, the panelists, should pose as a panel of professors debating whether Slytherin House should be abolished, with the audience as the Wizarding public. We went for it of course. I took the part of Galatea Gullwing (the potions professor in Tempus), though I modified her to be a Ravenclaw for the purpose of the discussion. (There were four of us, one from each House). Hilari became Professor "Humbledore, Dumbledore's humble replacement," Kevin Murphy became Magnus Murphy, professor of hexes, curses, and lycanthropology, and Jean Lorrah became Lorelei Janus, professor of spellcasting and glamours.
My assertion is that Salazar Slytherin was motivated to help found a school for wizards a thousand years ago because that was the age when the Wizarding world was going underground/separating from the Muggle world. Merlin was the last publicly known wizard in Britain, and with Muggle civilization on the rise, Slytherin (and the other founders as well), knew it was time for an organized system to educate young wizards to join Wizarding society. My speculation is that this is why Hogwarts was founded in the first place, because that was the time of transition.
Dear old Salazar wanted to educate only the pure-blooded (and probably close Wizarding society to all but the purebloods, as well), whereas the others had their own ideas, and what one ends up with is a mix of the brave, cunning, intelligent, and hard-working. In the 900 years that preceded Voldemort, how was Slytherin seen? When Harry arrives, the house has a reputation as being the only house to produce the dark followers of Voldemort, but also as the elite. Slytherin expects to win the house cup every year. Slytherin students, by their achievements, do earn positive points. They are clearly not a house of criminal malcontents, much as members of other houses would like to paint them as such.
So you have a group who feel themselves superior, but who are reviled by the others. Isn't that a win-win situation? When it comes time to blame someone, wouldn't the Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs, and Gryffindors like to have a house they can point the finger at? Someone has to be reviled, after all. (Think: New York Yankees). Snape is the ultimate Slytherin because he can take the heat. He doesn't care that others think him the bad guy--he has his own opinions and his own moral sense. (Nor surprisingly, the majority of the audience believe that Snape will turn out to be a good guy in book seven).
I'm on another panel on Saturday which is to be all speculation about what happens in Book 7. More later!
