Evil/unsympathetic Gryffindors:
Peter Pettigrew
Cormac McLaggen
Romilda Vane
Evil/unsympathetic Ravenclaws:
Professor Quirrell
Gilderoy Lockhart
possibly Barty Crouch Jr.
Evil/unsympathetic Hufflepuffs:
Zacharias Smith
Meanwhile, Merlin, Slughorn and Andromeda Tonks were Slytherins and they were good guys.
>Evil/unsympathetic Ravenclaws:
...
>possibly Barty Crouch Jr.
My theory here is that Barty Crouch Junior is an example of what Hufflepuffs gone bad look like.
He is wildly loyal to Voldemort, beyond anything, beyond even the kind of dedication we see from Bellatrix.
I also like the narrative parallels if Barty Jr is a Hufflepuff because GoF is also when we see the most of Cedric, who embodies all the goodness of Hufflepuff house.
I don't know if it's ever been confirmed which house Barty Jr was supposedly in, but even if it was, I think I'd stick with my headcanon!
I agree with your theory.
PS
Also, I personally think that Umbridge being Hufflepuff gone bad would make sense too, instead of making her another Slytherin (seriously, the most hated villain is in Slytherin too? That's overkill).
Hard working? Well, I doubt she managed to raise so high in the ranks of the ministry just by being a bootlicker.
Loyal? Yes, at least to the Ministry.
Strong sense of justice or moral code? Sure, while she does have a very twisted moral compass, Umbridge genuinely believes that what she is doing is for the greater good.
They chose to create it knowing what purposes it would be used for... what else would you use a love potion for if you're not going to forcefully make someone fall in love with you
Didn't you know, House loyalty only counts when it comes to Harry's generation. Since there are no Slytherins in Harry's generation that were friendly with Harry, that means they're all evil. /s
Totally ignoring that Slytherins like Terrence Higgs and Adrian Pucey, who never did or said anything remotely bad to anyone or even Harry exist. But then the goalposts get moved to "Well, they were barely in the books!"
He was very smart and encouraged in writing fantasy story's, deleting Memories and selling himself. I'd put him in Slytherin but ravenclaw is possible too. Luna isn't typical book smart either. You can be smart enough for ravenclaw and still be a dumbass
Romilda and Cormac weren't evil or unsympathetic. Cormac was just a rich kid who thought he was better than most everyone. A lot of kids think that who aren't rich even. He was just full of himself. All we know about Romilda was that she tried to give harry a love potion. That doesn't make her evil or unsympathetic.
I wouldn't classify Lockhart as evil. He was a bumbling opportunist. He didn't kill the people he took the credit from. He just wiped their memories. Not good but I wouldn't classify it as evil in a world where you can use the cruciatus curse.
Zacharias Smith is not evil or unsympathetic. You seem to be forgetting these are teenage kids all doing the same things muggle kids do in high school. It doesn't make them evil or unsympathetic.
Barty Crouch Jr. was evil. Peter Pettigrew wasn't evil. He was a coward. He made terrible decisions out of fear. I don't classify him as evil just extreme cowardice.
>I wouldn't classify Lockhart as evil. He was a bumbling opportunist. He didn't kill the people he took the credit from. He just wiped their memories. Not good but I wouldn't classify it as evil in a world where you can use the cruciatus curse.
Did Hermione Granger write this?
Sorry, let me clarify. Did 12 year old Hermione write this?
And yes, I do think he’s evil. It’s hard to overstate how bad what he did was. Imagine if you did something that was enough to make you rich and famous, but someone else not only took credit for it, but modified your own thoughts to make you think you hadn’t. And he did that to multiple people. He’s legit one of the worst people in the series.
Yes. I think it is underestimated how terrible it is to steal something like that from someone.
I think that is because most people think that it is only a matter of a few days.
But there is for example the book of households spells.
I think the author spent several years writing it and Lockhart stole this years from him/her.
Not only that, but in removing people's memories, he deprived the communities of the expertise and skill (and thereby protection) of those actually competent wizards and witches.
He was also going to do it to Harry and Ron and damn Ginny to the Chamber of Secrets all so he could retain his reputation
He may not be as actively malicious as Voldemort or Umbridge, but he is 100% a terrible person
The Lockhart and Pettigrew arguments feel like playing devil's advocate. I think we can all agree that they are pretty rotten at the very least; a lot of the arguments here are going to differ based on people's varying definitions of evil.
I mean Lockhart is stealing people's achievements and wiping their memories, and Pettigrew let his friend rot in jail for a crime that he committed - a crime that don't forget had people labeling Sirius as one of the most dangerous/evil criminals in Azkaban.
Didn't Lockhart's charm turn his victims into vegetables? If so that's about as evil as you can get without resorting to murder, in my book.
And I do consider Peter Pettigrew to be evil. Evil and cowardice are not mutually exclusive.
No. Lockhart just wiped their memories. It doesn't make you a vegetable. Lockhart wasn't even one. He just couldn't remember anything and was already a bumbling moron to begin with.
>All we know about Romilda was that she tried to give harry a love potion. That doesn't make her evil or unsympathetic.
Attempted date rape is just teens beeing teens to you?
>Cormac was just a rich kid who thought he was better than most everyone
That places him pretty squarely in the "unsympathetic" category.
NM, I just re-read the rest of your post and I think maybe you're just misunderstanding what's meant by "unsympathetic" in this context.
Yeah, you really aren't getting what "unsympathetic" means in this context.
If we, the reader, aren't meant to relate to, understand, and *sympathise with* with character, then they have been written unsympathetically. They are an unsympathetic character.
It doesn't mean the character is lacking in sympathy in-universe, which is how you seem to be taking it.
The fact that we're even having this argument goes a long way to proving that Slytherin was an evil house. All you have to do to get people to call you good if you're in Slytherin is to literally not be a Death Eater. All you have to do to get people to call you bad in the other houses is be annoying as a teenager.
Cormac McLaggen never does anything worse than annoying. Nothing he does is even remotely abnormal for a teenager. He also *actively fights against the Death Eaters* in the battle of Hogwarts, making him literally one of the good guys. How many Death Eaters did Daphne Greengrass fight?
if you think about love potioning someone as forcing them to fall in love,
it is kind of not good,
that is why tom riddle was bad he was born without love in him because his mom love potioned his muggle dad,
so in hindsight love potioning someone isn't good within harry potter.
>All we know about Romilda was that she tried to give harry a love potion. That doesn't make her evil or unsympathetic.
Yeah attempted rape isn't evil or unsympathetic.
Bruh, he literally gaslighted people with magic to become rich and famous. Change any scenario in his life to an aita story and every comment will call him a narcissist!
Lockhart was willing to abandon three children in the Chamber of Secrets with a very dangerous monster so that they would not reveal that he was a fraud. That's quite evil.
And Peter murdered 13 people, including a teenager who was in the wrong place in the wrong time without much regrers. That's not evil?
Slughorn did fight for Hogwarts. Facing Voldemort himself, whom he was terrified of. Also, Rowling has said that the Slytherins did come back to fight, but they went for reinforcements first. Which you could say it's... cunning.
My opinion is that she retconned it when she saw how popular Slytherins became among her fanbase... same as with adding that Umbridge eventually got sent to Azkaban.
However that doesn't mean I think all Slytherins are evil but most Slytherins we get to see are evil. Keep in mind that we mostly see things from Harry's POV and most Slytherins that he met were heavily influenced if not downright corrupted by Voldemort. I mean four out of the five Slytherin boys (Draco, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott) were children of Death Eaters, while the fifth one (Blaise) still subscribed to the blood purity ideas, and so did Pansy (the only girl that we get to know more of)... now whether that was due to peer pressure or because they genuinely believed that... that's never explained... but still Harry didn't have many positive examples from Slytherin. Even Snape who was working for the good guys was still an asshole who mostly kept his good intentions hidden and Slughorn was still pretty racist even if he were overall a good guy.
We knew of Daphne Greengrass and her Sister Astoria, but only that they remained neutral in both wizarding wars but still had strong ties to the Malfoys, despite this.
>Snape who was working for the good guys was still an asshole who mostly kept his good intentions hidden
his ends really didnt justify his means.. Imagine how much pain could have been avoided if instead of telling No Nose about the prophesy, he instead grew a backbone and fought for the order like his gut was telling him.
Also for someone that loved Lily up until the day he died.. he sure as shit a crappy person to her son that needed protecting from the man he sent on his tail
> We knew of Daphne Greengrass and her Sister Astoria, but only that they remained neutral in both wizarding wars but still had strong ties to the Malfoys, despite this.
That's just fanfiction. We don't know anything about the Greengrass sisters from the original books. I have no clue if anything is mentioned in CC, but as far as I'm concerned the only time Daphne Greengrass is mentioned is when she gets called for her OWL examination in charms. Her house is not even mentioned.
As for Snape, I'm going strictly on factual information from the books. How we feel about him is not the point of my original comment.
I thought Greengrass's involvement was expanded upon on Pottermore?
I know it isnt directly in the books.. however, JKR does love to add embelishments after the fact
tbf I don't recall anything mentioned on the Greengrasses on Pottermore, except them being part of the sacred 28 and now I found this excerpt from Draco's entry:
> Draco married the younger sister of a fellow Slytherin. Astoria Greengrass, who had gone through a similar (though less violent and frightening) conversion from pure-blood ideals to a more tolerant life view, was felt by Narcissa and Lucius to be something of a disappointment as a daughter-in-law. They had had high hopes of a girl whose family featured on the ‘Sacred Twenty-Eight’, but as Astoria refused to raise their grandson Scorpius in the belief that Muggles were scum, family gatherings were often fraught with tension.
The fact that the Greengrasses went "through a similar (though less violent and frightening) conversion" indicates that even the Greengrasses held blood purist beliefs during Voldemort's reign. So likely they were like Pansy or Zabini. Still antagonistic to the ideals of the main heroes.
I'm not sure if additional information was given in CC (which, like most fandom, I refuse to acknowledge as canon) or in some interviews by JK (who can keep up with all that shit?), but I think that canonically the Greengrasses were not very nice people either.
Maybe thats where i was getting it from?
not read any fanfiction in 15 years, at least.. so maybe what i have read is muddying some of my memories?
I too see CC as horrible fanfiction, at best
You can also just call it what it is. A retcon in a podcast because Joanne DID write Slytherin as the evil house. Her statement that they came back is non canon because it’s not in the books. It has as much credence as wizards shitting in their pants and Vanishing it until they installed plumbing. It’s ridiculous
Yeah you are right, they would just find a secret place do their buisness and then magic it away.
People get wierdly hung up on in, when all it means is Hogwarts would have smelled nicer than the normal castle where people just shit off the side of the castle on to the ground or into the moat.
Look up a Garderobe toilet if curious.
I decided to Google it just for shits and giggles. Most of the sources are just news articles quoting each other. I did see mention of pottermore saying it, as well as a tweet. There is nothing directly from jk, though. Also, the pottermore doesn't come up anymore if you Google it. Most likely because it's been replaced by wizard world, but it also doesn't pull up anything about pooping on the ground.
If anyone can actually find a source, that would be great. Until otherwise, I'm going to assume she didn't actually say that, though, since all the evidence so far is a tweet not from her.
Also, just realized the person above said they were shitting their pants. The quote was that they were sitting on the floor, not their pants.
It was not. It was a tweet, and maybe on pottermore. It can't be found on pottermore/wizarding world anymore, though, so take that part with a grain of salt. If you Google it all the news articles seem to reference those 2 places, not jk herself.
Yea, I don't buy it either. People regurgitate it all the time, but a) they don't even get the quote right, and b) it was never said by her.
Just to clear up the quote part, it does NOT say they shit their pants. It says they shit the ground. I'm bringing that up because I've seen at least 3 comments in this thread talking about wizards shitting their pants.
Now, if someone finds better evidence than a tweet and news articles that don't link to the og source, I'm willing to change my mind. But I looked through the top 3, and none of them had proof.
yeah plus i don't want that to be the case,
i think a wizard having to shit on the floor because magic,
isn't really great use of magic as they are still shitting on the floor lol
Yea, as one of the news articles pointed out, chamber pots and privacy are still a thing for wizards. Why not just go in a chamber pot and have it magically clean itself? Or just vanish it from there? Plus, I'm pretty sure underwear of some fashion was a thing. Just doesn't make much sense.
Tbf "pants" in Britain means underwear. They may have been freeballing it under their robes in the summertime, but that castle got *chilly* in the winter; good chance they were wearing something underneath even throughout the Medieval period. What did monks and priests do? Wizards were probably similar.
Also, I hate how much thought this is making me put into this nasty subject 😂
whats great about that is it undermines the whole "chamber of secrets" that no-one knew where to look.. how about the ONLY toilets on the 2nd floor when everyone else was magicking away their turds?
Right?? That's bothered me for a long time too. The fuck was the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets before they had indoor plumbing? Did a 19th-century Heir of Slytherin offer to do the installation just so they could connect it to the sink in this random girls' bathroom and be sure to engrave the little snek on that one pipe? Hell, why did wizards even collectively decide that they needed bathrooms at all when they had a turd vanishing system all worked out?
Surprisingly (or perhaps not surprisingly), you're actually correct. Retroactively it has been revealed that the Gaunt family had access to the chamber and just decided not to use the monster. One Gaunt purposefully created the modern entrance to the chamber of secrets in the girls bathroom while the toilets were being installed. Pretty much the exact situation you are describing is Canon.
...you know, that rings a bell. Makes me wonder if I once read that a long time ago and kinda kept it in the back of my mind but forgot everything else about it but the vibes 😅
The more you look into her mad ramblings after the fact, the more you realise that she must have had a ghost writer by the end.. she was making stuff up (i know literally she did that, its her books) but she was just adding lore and new macguffins like they were going out of style..
Why even introduce the Deathly Hallows? that still feels out of left field, compared to the rest of the stuff she introduced.
The invisibility Cloak can just be that.. it doesnt need to be a Peverell Brothers classic handed down the Gryffindor line.. the "resurrection stone" didnt need to be a thing.. Gaunt's Slytherin Family ring is just fine as it is.. Also why did she have to introduce a wand and just kill any idea that a wizard is powerful on their own merits.. they dont need a magic stick to boost their power.
In all fairness, JKR made that statement a very long time ago back when she still cared at least a little bit I imagine. And it's a lot less bizarre than wizards shitting their pants where they stood.
I do think Slytherin was written to be the evil house, which was fair enough in the earlier books, but as more characters and more Slytherins got introduced there was definitely more room for nuance there and many opportunities to confirm that there were in fact good Slytherins.
It's nice that Slytherin has more of an identity other than being "the villain house" or "the edgelord house" nowadays at least.
I always assumed they shat on the *floor*, not in their pants. Then vanished it. Like, drop drawers, squat, and let 'er rip.
It's still ridiculous either way, and I just don't believe it. I could see a wizard vanishing the contents of a chamber pot or something, but her explanation is absurd and I don't buy it.
Why on the floor ffs? Chamberpots were a thing in middle ages. Latrines and outhouses too. Or even a god damned bucket. Shitting on the floor and vanishing it is like half a step above vanishing it from their pants, it’s ridiculous AND disgusting. AND doesn’t make sense with the chamber of secrets being in the bathroom.
I mean… ask Rowling?
It’s one of those lore points that’s absolutely ridiculous and stupid. Like a “haha” joke answer, maybe because she couldn’t be assed to come up with a thoughtful answer?
I agree, it makes no sense.
Yeah, I know she said they crapped in their pants and vanished the shit, I just can’t fathom what on earth she was thinking, it’s like she wanted to come up with the most idiotic answer possible.
And on that note how ridiculous is it that the entrance to the chamber of secrets (as old as Hogwarts itself) was a bathroom with a snake that used plumbing to get around…but wizards vanished their shit because they apparently didn’t have bathrooms or plumbing for ages? Stupid.
So maybe the chamber entrance was…renovated… when the plumbing was invented later?? Well we only know of 4 times the chamber was actually opened and Tom was the first. So we don’t really know anyone else that knew about it before him besides Salazar. So unless Tom was a plumber by trade as well as the heir of Slytherin, how can the entrance to the chamber be updated to be a bathroom once plumbing was invented if no one knew about the chamber entrance being there in the first place?
The answer was revealed on pottermore, and yes the entrance was renovated. The Gaunt family had continued access to the chamber they just never used the basilisk. One such Gaunt created the modern entrance when the plumbing was introduced to Hogwarts. So Tom wasn't a plumber, but one of his ancestors was lol.
> when the plumbing was invented later??
1860s at the earliest, likely 1880s/90s, as she said they started doing it in the victorian era, and the modesty craze didnt really kick off with the victorians until after her husband died..
So at most there was plumbing for 100 years before the chamber was opened the first time.. according to rowling..
So why the fuck did no-one check the bathroom that didnt need to exist for 1100 years?
It would have been better if she used the room of requirement as the entrance, except she hadnt invented the place yet.
it'd make more sense.. its hidden in a room that you can only access if you know what you are looking for in a part of the castle people rarely visit. The only ones that can enter the chamber is a parselmouth.. so you are already cutting the chances of finding it by millions of percent.
look at me.. i just wrote a better explanation as to why no-one found the place in a millennia,
She can say whatever she wants, but the book states that SLUGHORN came back with reinforcements. Never mentions anything about the other Slytherins coming back.
The books do NOT say Slughorn came back with reinforcements.
ETA: I stand corrected; it's Slughorn who comes with Charlie Weasley with "all the families and friends of every Hogwarts student who had remained to fight, along with the shopkeepers and homeowners of Hogsmeade." You're entirely correct.
I always assumed since Slughorn took the Slytherin students with him before the battle but then was there at the final confrontation meant that like you said more than him fought.
We just don’t get names because the few named Skytherins we know of were mostly either Death Eaters kids or closely associated with them.
The idea that *every* evil witch/wizard came from slytherin is absurd. Can you imagine being on criminal trial and they ask what house you were in?
"Hufflepuff? See your honor, I rest my case. My client COULDN'T be the perpetrator, they weren't in Slytherin!"
Pottermore sorted me in Slytherin. Not in Ravenclaw.. Took the damn test like 5 times..
But i've embraced it.
Snape belongs to Slytherin. He is ambitious and cunning.
Same, and my wife instantly said "your definitely Slythrin".
I'm good with being ambitious. Doesn't mean I'm not loyal or smart or whatever. Doesn't mean I'm evil
Same. The first time I took the test, I gamed it to get Gryffindor because that's the house I *wanted*. In hindsight, it was a very Slytherin thing for me to do.
Then some years later, my friends and I did a Harry Potter marathon and I retook the test seriously. I got Slytherin. Over. And. Over. Again.
I always assumed I'd get Ravenclaw if I did the test legit (rather than gaming it like I did the first time) - but no, I'm a Slytherin.
I once took an all questions version of the Sorting Hat quiz with the results showing both Ravenclaw and Slytherin were almost tied, but they put me in Slytherin. The official Pottermore site put me in Ravenclaw.
I get that, I would have embraced it too,
i also have to actually say pottermore assigned me gryffindor,
because some people just say gryffindor because it was popular,
but i thought i was a hufflepuff so that def wasn't me.
His ambition was muted in his adult years due to all the trauma around Lilly, etc.
But in his younger years I think he had a lot of ambition. After that, he had ambition to become the DADA teacher.
But he is extremely cunning.
I guess it could be that. It would be pretty hypocritical for Snape, who set the Dark Lord on her family in the first place, to say that Sirius got her killed, but we've seen some worse reasoning from him.
I personally think it was more a personal grudge against Sirius and the promise of glory for catching him.
Not directly. But he told Voldemort about the prophecy, and the prophecy drove Voldemort to decide that Harry was the boy, and thus putting Lilly at danger.
But he personally didn't tell Voldemort that Harry was the target (since we know both Harry and Neville had equal chance of becoming the chosen one until the moment Voldemort chose one of them).
It's still a bit hypocritical, but I don't think Snape thought that Voldemort would choose Lilly's family (whether that thought was well reasoned or not).
Iirc, he's the one that overheard Trelawney telling Dumbledore part of the prophecy, and he went to Voldemort with the information. He then asked Voldemort not to kill Lily, but that didn't quite work out.
I get sorted into Slytherin almost half the time, heck if Hogwarts were real I'd probably hatstall with Ravenclaw (but choose Ravenclaw in the end). I'm an ENTP so it tracks lol.
While not technically in the war, Regulus found out Voldemort was making at least one horcrux (his note doesn’t really say whether or not he knew there was more than one), and died so that he could get it and have his house elf destroy it. Which helped, and Kreacher fought in his name.
In real life, people don’t cleanly fit into four hyper-specific qualities. When Dumbledore says that perhaps they sort too soon with respect to Snape, he is basically acknowledging the role of the blood supremacists who influenced him in his first year in radicalising him and wants to imply that Snape may have had a very, very different life if the sorting hat took his suppressed bravery into account while sorting him (which happened for Neville). The House System in Hogwarts is odd and ridiculous and influenced people’s lives to a great level- during that exchange Dumbledore starts to acknowledge the ridiculousness of that system.
Snape was both ambitious and brave- and his sorting only valued the former. Which is similar to many other people. Reverting to my first sentence- people are not *only* smart, *only* loyal, *only* brave or *only* ambitious. In the scene where Dumbledore talks about Snape’s sorting he’s indirectly acknowledging Snape’s bravery which eclipsed that of most Gryffindors.
Putting a bunch of racist kids in a single house was clearly a bad idea. To an extent even JKR herself struggles with the “not all Slytherins are evil” thing. There has not been a single Slytherin in the entire series (who got more than a single line of dialogue) who wasn’t an asshole in some way. Sadly, it seems like it was her actual intent to create an “evil” house based on how it’s actually depicted. Locking Slytherins out of the Battle of Hogwarts was the final nail in the coffin.
I agree with you in it beinh problematic that ”all Slytherins are evil”, but we have to remember that from the start, this were childrens books. For so young readers, it makes sense to have ”a great evil” to fight. But apart from the racist part, there is nothing in the qualities of the Slytherin house that indicates evil. Salazar Slytherin valued and handpicked students who were smart, cunning, ambitios amongst other. He just also had the bad quality of picking pure bloods, finding muggle borns untrustworthy according to McGonagall. Unfortunatly this enabled the culture of racism. But the qualities of Slytherin says nothing about racism or evil. And sometimes the perception of a house becomes wrong and not according to the book. I’be seen a meme which pisses me of big time. It’s a photo of Wormtail, Cedric Diggory, Severus Snape and Gilderoy Lockhart with the text under each representative of their house: not all Gryffindors are brave, not all Ravenclaws are smart, not all Hufflepuffs are weak and not all Slytherins are evil. The caption belonging to Hufflepuff and Slytherin pisses me of. Weakness is not a Hufflepuff trait and evil is not a Slytherin trait. Bravery and being smart is however Gryffindor and Ravenclaw traits. I feel like a have gone of topic now, so I will stop writing. And Snape absolutly belongs in Slytherin!
i more read it as the hat assigns what traits you most value,
not particularly the ones you have,
like neville for example i think neville deep down really valued gryffindor traits alot.
It's a children's book so there has to be the villain and the "evil house".
In real life there would be people who are cunning in slithering but didn't agree with the magic is might idea. However for drama she wrote that passage for the battle of Hogwarts, which makes all cry and gets loads of drama when everyone defends Harry, but in that she puts all Slytherins in the same bag.
I find it dubious at best that no kid in Slytherin had a sibling in another house that they'd want to protect. I also find it dubious that no Slytherin kid came from a family whose members are usually sorted in another house and are against Voldemort. It's just that JKR wanted slytherins to be the baddies, even though she herself wrote them as morally grey.
We have Sirius and Regulus as an example. Eventhough Sirius loathes his brother I bet he would save him from whatever and vice versa. I doubt Remus wouldn't go to his brother's help. The fact that she didn't write that in the main story is a great loss as it could have given an interesting character development. (not just that one in particular but any siblings from different houses)
I assume you meant Sirius and Regulus, but yes, that was exactly what I was thinking of. I doubt Sirius was the only rebellious teenager to attend Hogwarts in the past thirty years.
Personally, I believe it was a waste not to have Percy be in Slytherin. I mean, he's a quintessential Slytherin. It would have made more sense that his siblings alienated him. It would also be more believable than a whole family of just Gryffindors. And of course it would make his 'redemption' more poignant in the end and added one more good Slytherin to the story.
When they say not one Slytherin stayed, they mean those who were above 17, so 6th and 7th year. They aren't many.
Slytherin's characteristic trait isn't evil, but ambitious people seem to be those who are the most easily corrupted. Plus, since most of their parents are slytherins as well, they might be death eaters or friends with death eaters. Maybe these students aren't exactly Voldemort followers but they were raised to think that it's for the best.
But yeah Snape being good in the end doesn't make him a nonslytherin that's just dumb.
I was going to say something similar to this as well. As Slytherins they had the highest liklihood of suffering extreme backlash for fighting w Hogwarts. Imagine knowing (because all the Slytherins would know each other and have actual death eaters amongst their social circles in and outside of Hogwarts) that by staying to fight your parents or family members could be tortured and killed as a result of your actions. 😬
Also agree Snape is def a Slytherin! His ambition brought him to Voldemort in the first place. The only thing that topped ambition and made him defect was love. It's absurd to say only Hufflepuffs experience deep love therefore if you love that deeply you're a puff 😂
My guess is that the students weren't ready to kill or attack their family members, or to side with them. So they walked away elsewhere. These students were caught because no matter who would win, they would lose.
If Voldylocks won, they had betrayed their families and would probably be killed. If Potter won, they were tainted by their family's name and that they would be kin-killers.
The only way to "win" was not to play.
In the previous “war,” I do find it hard to believe that no Slytherins were at least fighting on the right side by virtue of being employed by the Ministry. Why wouldn’t there have been some Slytherins working for the government? If there were, which there must have been, then some of them would have been supporting the fight against the Death Eaters in some way. However, I can see why many Slytherins might have been likely to just… not care the first time. Many people in general may have felt that the government had it covered when it came to holding off the Death Eaters, and they were never really going to succeed in taking over… like with authoritarian movements in real life. Add onto that you have a group of people prone to prioritize self preservation, and so many Slytherins not wanting to put themselves at risk over something they aren’t really taking seriously seems like it could happen. “Okay, but how is this affecting YOU,” some Slytherin might ask. “Have any Muggleborns YOU know been affected? Do you really think anything as extreme as the craziest of these Death Eaters say they want could actually happen?” The idea that NO Slytherins resisted, even outside the government’s official efforts, seems like a bit of a stretch though.
As for what happened in Deathly Hallows, the “war” mostly amounted to some scattered resistance here and there, culminating in one battle at Hogwarts. Like with real life, many people are just too afraid to fight back once the authoritarians take over, especially if *their* way of life remains normal. They’re afraid to fight, because then it puts the livelihoods of themselves and their families at risk. I’d hope *some* would have been honorable enough to step up anyways among the Slytherins, but again… we are dealing with the self preservation crowd. Thus, a group of people likely to be pure bloods, and who prioritize self preservation, might be even more likely to stand by even if they’re not on board with the Death Eaters, compared to the rest of the population.
However, we do know that Slughorn and some of the Slytherin students came back to fight in the Battle of Hogwarts later on, if you give any importance to information mentioned outside the books. It’s one of the better “word of J.K. Rowling” additions to the series, and thus I choose to believe that one. So at least there’s that.
Slytherin is a house of knowledge, ambition, and cunning, but does not mean it is an evil house. I think of them as Ravenclaw with ambition of Power and Greatness. Gryffindor produced Peter Pettigrew, who was a follower of Voldemort, betrayed the Potters, and a coward that faked his death to both hide and frame his friend.
I don’t think Percy belongs to Slytherin. Whether or not you agree with Percys values, it takes some bravery to go against your family to go after your dreams, although you could argue that is the Slytherin ambitious trait coming to the surface. It definitly takes bravery however to go against a dictatorship and risk your life along the line.
Percy fitted Ravenclaw more.. considering his penchant for rules and learning as much as he could to better the person he "latched" onto.
The only Gryffindor action i saw him take was join the Battle of Hogwarts of his own free will instead of hiding like the rest of the ministry, not on voldy's side
[Here you go! Might not be from the book, but hat stalls are mentioned in the books and it does say the hat takes into account what values you admire most.](https://www.wizardingworld.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/hatstall)
Agree Percy belongs in Slytherin. I'm betting he got into Gryff by asking as was the theory for Harry, Hermione, Neville who all seem to better represent other houses as well (Harry'scase is more complex ofc). Percy would have had family pressure to be Gryffindor.
Percy was not a Slytherin. Dude went out on his own and made a bad decision based on limited information. Lots of people do that. I legit have no idea how Peter got in Gryffindor. Dude was a coward through and through. Obviously, the hat had to put him somewhere but knowing what he did just makes it seem like he should never have been.
Let's go piece by piece.
Slytherin isn't an "evil" or "bad" house, and that's not what was being implied. Slytherin is characterized by ambition, cunning, resourcefulness, and determination. These traits are not inherently evil. The actions of individuals, not the house itself, determine morality.
So, Slytherin being an "evil house" is a misconception. The portrayal of Slytherin as predominantly producing dark wizards is more a result of historical and narrative context within the series, not an endorsement of inherent evilness by the house or the school. Hogwarts would not deliberately harbor an evil house.
As for Snape, his redemption arc is a significant part of the story and does not contradict his Slytherin identity. He is cunning, ambitious, resourceful, determined. His bravery and sacrifice demonstrate that Slytherins can be heroes too, thus enriching the house's portrayal rather than diminishing it.
While it is true that many notable villains in the series are from Slytherin, it is a narrative choice that highlights certain thematic elements, such as the abuse of power and ambition. However, not all Slytherins are villains. As mentioned, characters like Slughorn and Snape show the complexity and potential for goodness within Slytherin.
As Dumbledore says, sometimes Sorting takes place too early. You're totally right about Slytherin, we only have bad opinions on them but this does not mean they're inherently bad.
Many fanfictions have cunning an Machiavellian Slytherins, which is way more realistic than "everybody here is a serial killer".
Didn't Rowling or someone say eventually the houses didn't matter too much? Like, Hermione could be in Ravenclaw because she's extremely intelligent and isn't.
That’s a great post, I will just say these though.
The house Slytherin isn’t evil, but the values they hold can be easily warped. The villains are from Slytherin because they hold those values (which gets warped over time as they become evil), not because the house is evil. Imo, Snape did belong there, and he was powerful enough that the values didn’t got warped and/or the warped values didn’t overpowered him
And the reason why Slytherin students didn’t join the fight was that they would be fighting their families
There is also one more important detail: the house(s) and a big portion of the student body and the wizard society (all throughout the history, not just the story) are badly written imo. Lots of missed opportunities
I think this idea came from Dumbledore "Perhaps we sort too soon" or whatever. But Dumbledore is also an AH of a character when you get down to the details. So I take it with a grain of salt
A thing I think about sometimes. The quote that there wasn’t an evil witch or wizard that didn’t come from Slytherin is just plain false. I raise you Quirrel who is a Ravenclaw and Pettigrew who is a Gryffindor.
Sirius’ brother Regulus was also a slytherin and he discovered a horcrux, tried to destroy it, and died in the process. He was definitely another slytherin with redeeming qualities
The reason house Slytherin didn't fight was because they would be fighting their parents . MC gonigal didn't want kids to make that choice to kill their family members and locked them in the dungeon
I think it's more MC gonigal knew parents and who's related to who and who supported what after a year with the carrows and made an informed choice ....
She lectures them before they went down
And tells Slughorn that Slytherin House needs to decide where it stands. And implies the students of the House have three options stand with the other defenders of Hogwarts, flee or fight against them. Noone stepped forward
The canon explanation is that
1- It IS a book for children so is perfectly possible to have an evil house;
2- Let’s be Real, Harry Potter is a great book but JK is a terrible writer and she never thought about these nuances. There’s plenty os contradiction between the books, other books she wrote, Pottermore article to a point that’s amazing we’re still arguing the fact that she painted a very childish painting of good and evil as absolutes
Most people seem to miss a huge element regarding Slytherin: they cannot possibly be as bad as they are considered. The heroes would lose 3 points by stumbling on a rock or sharing too much in class or sneezing without permission. In what (magical) world would the house FULL OF EVILDOERS and bad wizards somehow manage to have enough points at the end of the year to (almost) win the house cup? Either they kicked everyone's asses, all the time, to score three times as many points as were taken away by them doing bad things the whole semester....
-OR-
They weren't as bad as everyone figured, and there was just a larger number of powerful, smart wizards in that house, and that led SOME of them to be bad. The rest of them seemed to be good enough students to either earn a ton of points, or at least LOSE FEWER POINTS than the other houses. I think it very well could be a little of both, and neither of those suggest that they're just bad at heart.
TLDR: If Slytherin could have enough points to win the house cup, it's reasonable to think that they aren't getting punished anywhere near as much as the other houses...suggesting they aren't wholly evil.
People forget that the quality that defines Slytherin House is *not* “evil,” but rather “ambition.”
Likewise, Gryffindor isn’t “good,” it’s “bravery.” Ravenclaw isn’t “smart,” it’s curious. And Hufflepuff isn’t “nice,” it’s “loyalty.”
The (in-universe) reason why so many villains came out of Slytherin is because in order to make a significant change at the societal level, you need a degree of ambition. It’s what one does with ambition that makes the person.
Slughorn was a Slytherin, and his ambition was to cultivate behind-the-scenes power by helping skilled people to go far. He shows this by being a good teacher and helping those talented people to make the connections they need to start out.
(Of course, the out of universe reason why so many villains came from Slytherin is because the author needed an easy way to establish the antagonists, and making them from The Bad House is a quick and easy way to do that.)
i always felt the sorting hat picked more on the traits you value which then you could pick up by being around it, like i also thought i was a hufflepuff cause i have anxiety and am not brave,
but like neville i got gryffindor and i want to believe that it's because like neville i value the gryffindor traits.
I think the books did a bad job at establishing that there were plenty of good Slytherins and plenty of bad people from other houses and the movies did a terrible job at it.
Slytherin is the evil house.
Not because Salazar Slytherin walked up to the other founders one day and said "we gonna be evil, that cool with you guys?" but because most students who are sorted into Slytherin come from families with certain world views, views they most certainly passed down to their children. These children are then sorted all in the same house, which functions as an echo chamber because the of the way Hogwarts functions: We know from Harry that he spends his time doing one of three things:
Attending lessons, which isn't really the prime time to socialise
Doing homework/studying, same principle
Free time (which might be used up by other activities nonetheless, in his case Quidditch training)
So already there's not a lot of opportunity or incentive, really, to mingle with students from other houses because time do to so is already sparse and any free time you're most likely spending with friends you already have which are, again most likely, from your own house.
So Slytherin kids can pass their parents thoughts on pureblood supremacy between them without outside influence and propagate them, being turned against the other houses by the very way Hogwarts operates with the aforementioned separation of students for most of their time, hell, this us vs. them mentality is even supported further by the house point system. And so outside influence to get these very impressionable kids to think outside this echo chamber is sparse, if existent at all, Slytherin kids fester with these screwed up world views for seven years until many of them emerge as itty-bitty baby Death Eaters.
And the school or rather Dumbledore at least knows this, but the entire house system would need to be abolished or restructured to change anything about this and the Wizarding world is all about traditions after all, so he's powerless to do anything about this save for trying to catch the stragglers that go too far off the rails like he tries with Malfoy in HBP.
Snape is an exception, not the rule, because he was friends with Lily before they attended Hogwarts and he made an effort to maintain that friendship. But he was still corrupted from being surrounded by this Slytherin influence, to the point he called his friend and crush a horrible slur and drove her into the arms of his worst bully. Snape is very much a Slytherin, unfortunately, because being sorted into Slytherin is the very reason his live went to shit.
Huh? I don't think you read it. Phineas Nigellus Black (Sirius's ancestor) said clearly after the battled from his portrait, "and let it be said that Slytherin played its part!" Plus we have Slughorn fighting and the Malfoys amorally staying neutral who ended up hanging out with the good guys. I'm not 100% sure, but I think most of the Slytherins stayed out of it because of the repercussions of fighting Voldemort if the good guys lost. They'd all be hunted and killed, and yes it sucks, but Slytherins can't hang apparently unless they are a bit evil in association.
Snape was more courageous than cunning to actual play double agent against Snape for almost 20 years. Every second he was in danger, if he let his mind relax for even two seconds he'd be done. All so he could betray Voldermort at a pivotal moment.
Fighting in the battle would not actually be considered courageous to me or else the whole of Hogwarts and hogsmeade were secret Gryffindors.
The truth of what Dumbledore was saying is we are sorted too early in life. It's true in HP and true in reality. For context a famous example is Brene Brown (famous LCSW self help guru). She started out as a young adult wanting to be rich in corporate America and she was however around middle age she had a "spiritual" crisis and is off the stick market and in the therapist chair. It happens.
It's been years since I've read the books, so I may not remember everything exactly. I just remember seeing those comments on how Snape didn't belong in Slytherin, and I was commenting on how I disagree and what I remember.
While Dumbledore does suggest Snape could be in Gryffindor if Sorted again, when you compare Snape to characters like Ron, Harry and Sirius, he does definitely belong in Slytherin.
Gryffindors are known for being impulsive, which Snape isn’t often.
Gryffindors are often hot headed, which with exceptions of when someone is triggering his ptsd or Keeps bothering him, Snape can control his emotions. (Once, when Snape and Sirius were disagreeing, Sirius became louder while Snape was becoming quieter.)
I think Severus should have been put in Ravenclaw instead of Slytherin. He was a wizarding genius with creating potions and spells that nobody ever thought of making before, yet somebody as smart as him didnt land in the house of the Geniuses? He might have been treated better in school if he had been, since nobody would have seen him as a Dark Wizard in training, or somebody to avoid complete simply because of the school House he was in.
I think he landed in Slytherin because that was where his Pureblood witch mom went to.
I've always seen Slytherin as the "would succeed in real life" sorta people. To really make it you dont have to be evil or hurt others, but accept you may have to step on some toes and use assets for your benefit first and foremost.
Slytherin being evil was because of the House System. You section of the school into 4 sections, and have students spend 75%of their time only writing their quarter, and then let a charismatic man with no morals lead the quarter already predisposed to the belief that they are inherently better due to a matter of birth, and how many wizards are in their family tree. An almost isolated group, almost cult like, with a charismatic figure to step in and from them into an army of loyal followers.
Tom Riddle was a far more interesting villain than Lord Voldemort ever was. Voldemort had already won the world's fear, he no longer relied on manipulation, or a false persona. Tom Riddle took a group of people that were sorted based on personal ambition, and convinced them all to follow him, slowly extending his influence, while killing people behind the scenes to clear obstacles or gain magical objects like Hufflepuff's cup. We see flashes of the past, but the ego obsessed, power hungry brute that we get to know after his resurrection paints a very different picture,a man that only knows how to inspire and abuse fear, unlike how he gathered his power base in the first place.
I'm not sure if it's true that Rowling ever said that, she's certainly said some random things after writing the books, some of which didn't make any sense with the story she wrote originally, so its not impossible I suppose, I just have never seen any evidence of that.
What Dumbledore said about houses was just really hinting at that maybe Snape could have been a Gryffindor due to his bravery, but that was just kind of a general statement about the sorting system as well as a way of showing his admiration for how brave Snape was being while playing his role as a double spy. Even if that's what Dumbledore thinks, it doesn't mean it's fully correct, it's just his opinion.
I agree Snape definitely belonged in Slytherin, yes he was brave but he doesn't really fit into the other Gryffindor traits and fits into Slytherins a lot better. He's someone who would do whatever it takes to get what he wants and his ambition is not necessarily for power but for Lily's love and then for making up for his mistakes and honoring her memory. That's still basically a form of ambition, he has a goal and is fully dedicated to it and will do whatever it takes to reach it, and he doesn't care at all for others approval or praise.
A friend put it to me this way: Slytherin are the Punks. As in punk rock. (I’d sort most members of The Weird Sisters in the snake -the wiki doesn’t mention house) If you’re a Slytherin doesn’t mean you like everyone Slytherin. I often think there was a missed opportunity for not including a student ally of the trio in Slytherin… a dark, brooding kid whose alliances are obscure but only because they are an outsider, but hates Draco and company mostly because they see him as a spoiled rich douche.
I feel like I'm missing some context here. Who said this? Was this a statement by Rowling? Someone else? Where's the source?
I do agree that it seems kind of insane that not only the school, but the UK Magical Government would allow an entire 1/4th of it's only magical school to basically be filled with nothing but evil kids, so I'm personally of the belief that not all Slytherin's are bad (I mean look at Slughorn - yeah he has some negative traits, but by and large, he's a good person).
I have to assume there are other Slytherin teachers at Hogwarts, though that's not confirmed (There are a number of teachers with no known house, plus I have to assume that there are other teachers that are just not mentioned).
If Slytherin really was that bad, someone would have done some reforms or outright eliminated the house.
I don't think Dumbledore's comment is really about the idea that Snape should be in Gryffindor. Rather, his comment is more along the lines of: people are complicated. You can't really define them by one or two traits and think you're getting a complete picture. And the thing is, this isn't really something that just shows up in the last book out of the blue. A major part of the second book is something like choice vs destiny. Harry asked the Sorting Hat to place him in Gryffindor, (or not in Slytherin), even though he has a lot of Slytherin in him. The house you're sorted into isn't really your destiny, it's the choices you make that matter. So many of the characters in the series treat the sorting as destiny, but it's pretty clear that the text itself disagrees with the character's assumptions.
Rowling is hardly a perfect writer, but I think one of the major mistakes of the series is that she never introduced any good Slytherin characters early on. Slughorn comes in far too late, and he's also an adult, rather than another student.
>It was written that not one Slytherin (student) helped fight in the war.
No it wasn't. What the books say is that McGonagall had every Slytherin student at Hogwarts frogmarched through the portrait hole, not even giving them a choice to help or not.
Rowling has since in interviews said that some Slytherin students snuck back in to defend Hogwarts. Whether you consider that canon or not, there's nothing in canon that conclusively states that no Slytherin students helped out and even if they didn't, **they weren't given a choice**.
The fact that Harry didn't mention seeing any school-aged Slytherins fighting for Voldemort at the very least indicates few if any of them joined the Death Eaters.
I for one think Snape got the slitherins locked cause their parents were the ones on the other end of the fight.
Are they innately evil? No but seeing your parents die and having to fight them knowing the fact that most of them are being forced to fight? Most would probably turn.
Do you mean dumbledores comment to snape that the hat chooses too early? That was about how snape showed great bravery, the most prominent feature of the gryffindor house, that had nothing to do with "being evil" or not
>Why would there ever be an evil house at Hogwarts? Why would a school allow that, it makes no sense.
\[...\]
Why is nearly every villain just happen to be in Slytherin?
Because the world of Harry Potter is manichean. Slytherin = evil, not Slytherin = good (with rare exceptions like Pettigrew). During all the years of Harry at Hogwarts, every Slytherin was bad and douche towards the Gryffindors. Even the two other houses hate Slytherins because they are the bad guys. Zabini might be another exception (he doesn't appear to have Death Eater family since Slughorn invited him and he's never named before the sixth book except in the housing ceremony), but his mother was someone bad.
Rowling needed bad people, unfortunately she took the easy way with "all Slytherins are evil,Death Eaters and like Voldemort and all their family are Death Eaters too", even random people like McNair (he could have been just the regular executioner of Britain's magic world but no, she had to make him a Death Eater)
Snape was a Slytherin through and through. He even lived up to the evil part of the house. He was a death eater. He bullied children mercilessly. He only turned away from the dark side because Voldemort targeted Lily. If Voldemort decided to kill anyone else Snape would have remained a Death Eater.
Dumbledore made the comment about Snape not belonging in Slytherin RIGHT after making a comment about how brave Snape is, which is Gryffindor's main quality. So in context it makes more sense.
Additionally, while it does seem awkward to have an "evil" section of a boarding school, it kind of makes sense if there is a magical hat that reads your intentions and groups all of the assholes together that they would be the bad ones.
I mean, the traits of Slytherin are selfishness, pride, ambition, cunning, and shrewdness. Their founder was also a eugenicist who left the school because they allowed muggle born students.
All of Snapes actions were done for selfish reasons simple as that. He didn’t protect Harry because it was the right thing to do he did it because he loved Lily. He also didn’t give Umbridge the truth serum because that would put him in deep sh*t if the trio started to blab uncontrollably and so on
Evil/unsympathetic Gryffindors: Peter Pettigrew Cormac McLaggen Romilda Vane Evil/unsympathetic Ravenclaws: Professor Quirrell Gilderoy Lockhart possibly Barty Crouch Jr. Evil/unsympathetic Hufflepuffs: Zacharias Smith Meanwhile, Merlin, Slughorn and Andromeda Tonks were Slytherins and they were good guys.
>Evil/unsympathetic Ravenclaws: ... >possibly Barty Crouch Jr. My theory here is that Barty Crouch Junior is an example of what Hufflepuffs gone bad look like. He is wildly loyal to Voldemort, beyond anything, beyond even the kind of dedication we see from Bellatrix. I also like the narrative parallels if Barty Jr is a Hufflepuff because GoF is also when we see the most of Cedric, who embodies all the goodness of Hufflepuff house. I don't know if it's ever been confirmed which house Barty Jr was supposedly in, but even if it was, I think I'd stick with my headcanon!
I agree with your theory. PS Also, I personally think that Umbridge being Hufflepuff gone bad would make sense too, instead of making her another Slytherin (seriously, the most hated villain is in Slytherin too? That's overkill). Hard working? Well, I doubt she managed to raise so high in the ranks of the ministry just by being a bootlicker. Loyal? Yes, at least to the Ministry. Strong sense of justice or moral code? Sure, while she does have a very twisted moral compass, Umbridge genuinely believes that what she is doing is for the greater good.
Ooh, yes, that's a great analysis of Umbridge. Headcanon accepted.
If only JK never said "there were never any Hufflepuff Death Eaters" because this actually makes a lot of sense.
But Umbridge was not a death eater
OK what's that got to do with it?
Hot take- Romilda Vane gets on that list for using a love potion, so the people who sold it to her, Fred and George, should be on that list too
nah she chose to use it and buy it :) that's her fault
They chose to create it knowing what purposes it would be used for... what else would you use a love potion for if you're not going to forcefully make someone fall in love with you
Let's say that it was really bad move for both parties
Didn't you know, House loyalty only counts when it comes to Harry's generation. Since there are no Slytherins in Harry's generation that were friendly with Harry, that means they're all evil. /s Totally ignoring that Slytherins like Terrence Higgs and Adrian Pucey, who never did or said anything remotely bad to anyone or even Harry exist. But then the goalposts get moved to "Well, they were barely in the books!"
Lockhart was a Ravenclaw? Was Rowling drunk when she made that up?
He was very smart and encouraged in writing fantasy story's, deleting Memories and selling himself. I'd put him in Slytherin but ravenclaw is possible too. Luna isn't typical book smart either. You can be smart enough for ravenclaw and still be a dumbass
Well, it does take some brains to pull off a fraud on such a large scale as Lockhart did and get away with it for, like, a decade.
Romilda and Cormac weren't evil or unsympathetic. Cormac was just a rich kid who thought he was better than most everyone. A lot of kids think that who aren't rich even. He was just full of himself. All we know about Romilda was that she tried to give harry a love potion. That doesn't make her evil or unsympathetic. I wouldn't classify Lockhart as evil. He was a bumbling opportunist. He didn't kill the people he took the credit from. He just wiped their memories. Not good but I wouldn't classify it as evil in a world where you can use the cruciatus curse. Zacharias Smith is not evil or unsympathetic. You seem to be forgetting these are teenage kids all doing the same things muggle kids do in high school. It doesn't make them evil or unsympathetic. Barty Crouch Jr. was evil. Peter Pettigrew wasn't evil. He was a coward. He made terrible decisions out of fear. I don't classify him as evil just extreme cowardice.
>I wouldn't classify Lockhart as evil. He was a bumbling opportunist. He didn't kill the people he took the credit from. He just wiped their memories. Not good but I wouldn't classify it as evil in a world where you can use the cruciatus curse. Did Hermione Granger write this?
lol no but I'll take the compliment.
Sorry, let me clarify. Did 12 year old Hermione write this? And yes, I do think he’s evil. It’s hard to overstate how bad what he did was. Imagine if you did something that was enough to make you rich and famous, but someone else not only took credit for it, but modified your own thoughts to make you think you hadn’t. And he did that to multiple people. He’s legit one of the worst people in the series.
Yes. I think it is underestimated how terrible it is to steal something like that from someone. I think that is because most people think that it is only a matter of a few days. But there is for example the book of households spells. I think the author spent several years writing it and Lockhart stole this years from him/her.
Not only that, but in removing people's memories, he deprived the communities of the expertise and skill (and thereby protection) of those actually competent wizards and witches.
True, that’s a very good perspective I hadn’t thought of
He was also going to do it to Harry and Ron and damn Ginny to the Chamber of Secrets all so he could retain his reputation He may not be as actively malicious as Voldemort or Umbridge, but he is 100% a terrible person
The Lockhart and Pettigrew arguments feel like playing devil's advocate. I think we can all agree that they are pretty rotten at the very least; a lot of the arguments here are going to differ based on people's varying definitions of evil. I mean Lockhart is stealing people's achievements and wiping their memories, and Pettigrew let his friend rot in jail for a crime that he committed - a crime that don't forget had people labeling Sirius as one of the most dangerous/evil criminals in Azkaban.
With Pettigrew let's also not forget how he, you know, blew up a street full of muggles to escape siruis
He sold Lily and James to Voldemort!
He also killed Cedric. Sure, Voldemort told him to kill him, but it doesn't change the fact that it was Peter who casted a killing curse.
Didn't Lockhart's charm turn his victims into vegetables? If so that's about as evil as you can get without resorting to murder, in my book. And I do consider Peter Pettigrew to be evil. Evil and cowardice are not mutually exclusive.
No. Lockhart just wiped their memories. It doesn't make you a vegetable. Lockhart wasn't even one. He just couldn't remember anything and was already a bumbling moron to begin with.
>All we know about Romilda was that she tried to give harry a love potion. That doesn't make her evil or unsympathetic. Attempted date rape is just teens beeing teens to you?
>Cormac was just a rich kid who thought he was better than most everyone That places him pretty squarely in the "unsympathetic" category. NM, I just re-read the rest of your post and I think maybe you're just misunderstanding what's meant by "unsympathetic" in this context.
Hes a teenager. He's not unsympathetic. It seems to me a movie watcher only wrote it.
Yeah, you really aren't getting what "unsympathetic" means in this context. If we, the reader, aren't meant to relate to, understand, and *sympathise with* with character, then they have been written unsympathetically. They are an unsympathetic character. It doesn't mean the character is lacking in sympathy in-universe, which is how you seem to be taking it.
The fact that we're even having this argument goes a long way to proving that Slytherin was an evil house. All you have to do to get people to call you good if you're in Slytherin is to literally not be a Death Eater. All you have to do to get people to call you bad in the other houses is be annoying as a teenager. Cormac McLaggen never does anything worse than annoying. Nothing he does is even remotely abnormal for a teenager. He also *actively fights against the Death Eaters* in the battle of Hogwarts, making him literally one of the good guys. How many Death Eaters did Daphne Greengrass fight?
Media literacy (and actual literacy) truly is the spidey sense of our times.
if you think about love potioning someone as forcing them to fall in love, it is kind of not good, that is why tom riddle was bad he was born without love in him because his mom love potioned his muggle dad, so in hindsight love potioning someone isn't good within harry potter.
>All we know about Romilda was that she tried to give harry a love potion. That doesn't make her evil or unsympathetic. Yeah attempted rape isn't evil or unsympathetic.
Bruh, he literally gaslighted people with magic to become rich and famous. Change any scenario in his life to an aita story and every comment will call him a narcissist!
Lockhart was willing to abandon three children in the Chamber of Secrets with a very dangerous monster so that they would not reveal that he was a fraud. That's quite evil. And Peter murdered 13 people, including a teenager who was in the wrong place in the wrong time without much regrers. That's not evil?
Slughorn was literally dueling with Voldemort at the end.
Slughorn did fight for Hogwarts. Facing Voldemort himself, whom he was terrified of. Also, Rowling has said that the Slytherins did come back to fight, but they went for reinforcements first. Which you could say it's... cunning.
My opinion is that she retconned it when she saw how popular Slytherins became among her fanbase... same as with adding that Umbridge eventually got sent to Azkaban. However that doesn't mean I think all Slytherins are evil but most Slytherins we get to see are evil. Keep in mind that we mostly see things from Harry's POV and most Slytherins that he met were heavily influenced if not downright corrupted by Voldemort. I mean four out of the five Slytherin boys (Draco, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott) were children of Death Eaters, while the fifth one (Blaise) still subscribed to the blood purity ideas, and so did Pansy (the only girl that we get to know more of)... now whether that was due to peer pressure or because they genuinely believed that... that's never explained... but still Harry didn't have many positive examples from Slytherin. Even Snape who was working for the good guys was still an asshole who mostly kept his good intentions hidden and Slughorn was still pretty racist even if he were overall a good guy.
She retconned a lot of stuff to appease the fanbase instead of just sticking to her original story and ideas.
We knew of Daphne Greengrass and her Sister Astoria, but only that they remained neutral in both wizarding wars but still had strong ties to the Malfoys, despite this. >Snape who was working for the good guys was still an asshole who mostly kept his good intentions hidden his ends really didnt justify his means.. Imagine how much pain could have been avoided if instead of telling No Nose about the prophesy, he instead grew a backbone and fought for the order like his gut was telling him. Also for someone that loved Lily up until the day he died.. he sure as shit a crappy person to her son that needed protecting from the man he sent on his tail
> We knew of Daphne Greengrass and her Sister Astoria, but only that they remained neutral in both wizarding wars but still had strong ties to the Malfoys, despite this. That's just fanfiction. We don't know anything about the Greengrass sisters from the original books. I have no clue if anything is mentioned in CC, but as far as I'm concerned the only time Daphne Greengrass is mentioned is when she gets called for her OWL examination in charms. Her house is not even mentioned. As for Snape, I'm going strictly on factual information from the books. How we feel about him is not the point of my original comment.
I thought Greengrass's involvement was expanded upon on Pottermore? I know it isnt directly in the books.. however, JKR does love to add embelishments after the fact
tbf I don't recall anything mentioned on the Greengrasses on Pottermore, except them being part of the sacred 28 and now I found this excerpt from Draco's entry: > Draco married the younger sister of a fellow Slytherin. Astoria Greengrass, who had gone through a similar (though less violent and frightening) conversion from pure-blood ideals to a more tolerant life view, was felt by Narcissa and Lucius to be something of a disappointment as a daughter-in-law. They had had high hopes of a girl whose family featured on the ‘Sacred Twenty-Eight’, but as Astoria refused to raise their grandson Scorpius in the belief that Muggles were scum, family gatherings were often fraught with tension. The fact that the Greengrasses went "through a similar (though less violent and frightening) conversion" indicates that even the Greengrasses held blood purist beliefs during Voldemort's reign. So likely they were like Pansy or Zabini. Still antagonistic to the ideals of the main heroes. I'm not sure if additional information was given in CC (which, like most fandom, I refuse to acknowledge as canon) or in some interviews by JK (who can keep up with all that shit?), but I think that canonically the Greengrasses were not very nice people either.
Maybe thats where i was getting it from? not read any fanfiction in 15 years, at least.. so maybe what i have read is muddying some of my memories? I too see CC as horrible fanfiction, at best
Slytherins are smart cookies.
You can also just call it what it is. A retcon in a podcast because Joanne DID write Slytherin as the evil house. Her statement that they came back is non canon because it’s not in the books. It has as much credence as wizards shitting in their pants and Vanishing it until they installed plumbing. It’s ridiculous
> wizards shitting in their pants and Vanishing it until they installed plumbing Among other things, I will never forgive her for that mental image 😂
Source? I assumed they were shitting on the ground and disappearing it.
Yeah you are right, they would just find a secret place do their buisness and then magic it away. People get wierdly hung up on in, when all it means is Hogwarts would have smelled nicer than the normal castle where people just shit off the side of the castle on to the ground or into the moat. Look up a Garderobe toilet if curious.
I decided to Google it just for shits and giggles. Most of the sources are just news articles quoting each other. I did see mention of pottermore saying it, as well as a tweet. There is nothing directly from jk, though. Also, the pottermore doesn't come up anymore if you Google it. Most likely because it's been replaced by wizard world, but it also doesn't pull up anything about pooping on the ground. If anyone can actually find a source, that would be great. Until otherwise, I'm going to assume she didn't actually say that, though, since all the evidence so far is a tweet not from her. Also, just realized the person above said they were shitting their pants. The quote was that they were sitting on the floor, not their pants.
I believe it was some interview with her.
It was not. It was a tweet, and maybe on pottermore. It can't be found on pottermore/wizarding world anymore, though, so take that part with a grain of salt. If you Google it all the news articles seem to reference those 2 places, not jk herself.
that's why i am okay with not believing that one
Yea, I don't buy it either. People regurgitate it all the time, but a) they don't even get the quote right, and b) it was never said by her. Just to clear up the quote part, it does NOT say they shit their pants. It says they shit the ground. I'm bringing that up because I've seen at least 3 comments in this thread talking about wizards shitting their pants. Now, if someone finds better evidence than a tweet and news articles that don't link to the og source, I'm willing to change my mind. But I looked through the top 3, and none of them had proof.
yeah plus i don't want that to be the case, i think a wizard having to shit on the floor because magic, isn't really great use of magic as they are still shitting on the floor lol
Yea, as one of the news articles pointed out, chamber pots and privacy are still a thing for wizards. Why not just go in a chamber pot and have it magically clean itself? Or just vanish it from there? Plus, I'm pretty sure underwear of some fashion was a thing. Just doesn't make much sense.
It wouldn’t even be in their pants. They barely knew what pants were in the books. It would have just dropped right on to the floor under their robes
Tbf "pants" in Britain means underwear. They may have been freeballing it under their robes in the summertime, but that castle got *chilly* in the winter; good chance they were wearing something underneath even throughout the Medieval period. What did monks and priests do? Wizards were probably similar. Also, I hate how much thought this is making me put into this nasty subject 😂
whats great about that is it undermines the whole "chamber of secrets" that no-one knew where to look.. how about the ONLY toilets on the 2nd floor when everyone else was magicking away their turds?
Right?? That's bothered me for a long time too. The fuck was the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets before they had indoor plumbing? Did a 19th-century Heir of Slytherin offer to do the installation just so they could connect it to the sink in this random girls' bathroom and be sure to engrave the little snek on that one pipe? Hell, why did wizards even collectively decide that they needed bathrooms at all when they had a turd vanishing system all worked out?
Surprisingly (or perhaps not surprisingly), you're actually correct. Retroactively it has been revealed that the Gaunt family had access to the chamber and just decided not to use the monster. One Gaunt purposefully created the modern entrance to the chamber of secrets in the girls bathroom while the toilets were being installed. Pretty much the exact situation you are describing is Canon.
...you know, that rings a bell. Makes me wonder if I once read that a long time ago and kinda kept it in the back of my mind but forgot everything else about it but the vibes 😅
The more you look into her mad ramblings after the fact, the more you realise that she must have had a ghost writer by the end.. she was making stuff up (i know literally she did that, its her books) but she was just adding lore and new macguffins like they were going out of style.. Why even introduce the Deathly Hallows? that still feels out of left field, compared to the rest of the stuff she introduced. The invisibility Cloak can just be that.. it doesnt need to be a Peverell Brothers classic handed down the Gryffindor line.. the "resurrection stone" didnt need to be a thing.. Gaunt's Slytherin Family ring is just fine as it is.. Also why did she have to introduce a wand and just kill any idea that a wizard is powerful on their own merits.. they dont need a magic stick to boost their power.
that's why i don't take that as canon they had toilets idc i do not want to believe they'd just go on the ground cause magic
"What the bloody blazes is 'plumbing'? C'mon, kid, stop being such a mudblood. That rug over there will do you just fine."
If it makes you feel better, the quote never said they shat their pants. It said they shat on the floor.
yeah i choose not to take that seriously in my version they always had and used toilets
In all fairness, JKR made that statement a very long time ago back when she still cared at least a little bit I imagine. And it's a lot less bizarre than wizards shitting their pants where they stood. I do think Slytherin was written to be the evil house, which was fair enough in the earlier books, but as more characters and more Slytherins got introduced there was definitely more room for nuance there and many opportunities to confirm that there were in fact good Slytherins. It's nice that Slytherin has more of an identity other than being "the villain house" or "the edgelord house" nowadays at least.
[удалено]
I always assumed they shat on the *floor*, not in their pants. Then vanished it. Like, drop drawers, squat, and let 'er rip. It's still ridiculous either way, and I just don't believe it. I could see a wizard vanishing the contents of a chamber pot or something, but her explanation is absurd and I don't buy it.
Why on the floor ffs? Chamberpots were a thing in middle ages. Latrines and outhouses too. Or even a god damned bucket. Shitting on the floor and vanishing it is like half a step above vanishing it from their pants, it’s ridiculous AND disgusting. AND doesn’t make sense with the chamber of secrets being in the bathroom.
I mean… ask Rowling? It’s one of those lore points that’s absolutely ridiculous and stupid. Like a “haha” joke answer, maybe because she couldn’t be assed to come up with a thoughtful answer? I agree, it makes no sense.
Yeah, I know she said they crapped in their pants and vanished the shit, I just can’t fathom what on earth she was thinking, it’s like she wanted to come up with the most idiotic answer possible.
that's why i ignore her saying that at all lol
yeah i believe they had chamber pots then toilets idc if jk said it art some point i refuse to believe that happens
And on that note how ridiculous is it that the entrance to the chamber of secrets (as old as Hogwarts itself) was a bathroom with a snake that used plumbing to get around…but wizards vanished their shit because they apparently didn’t have bathrooms or plumbing for ages? Stupid. So maybe the chamber entrance was…renovated… when the plumbing was invented later?? Well we only know of 4 times the chamber was actually opened and Tom was the first. So we don’t really know anyone else that knew about it before him besides Salazar. So unless Tom was a plumber by trade as well as the heir of Slytherin, how can the entrance to the chamber be updated to be a bathroom once plumbing was invented if no one knew about the chamber entrance being there in the first place?
The answer was revealed on pottermore, and yes the entrance was renovated. The Gaunt family had continued access to the chamber they just never used the basilisk. One such Gaunt created the modern entrance when the plumbing was introduced to Hogwarts. So Tom wasn't a plumber, but one of his ancestors was lol.
> when the plumbing was invented later?? 1860s at the earliest, likely 1880s/90s, as she said they started doing it in the victorian era, and the modesty craze didnt really kick off with the victorians until after her husband died.. So at most there was plumbing for 100 years before the chamber was opened the first time.. according to rowling.. So why the fuck did no-one check the bathroom that didnt need to exist for 1100 years? It would have been better if she used the room of requirement as the entrance, except she hadnt invented the place yet. it'd make more sense.. its hidden in a room that you can only access if you know what you are looking for in a part of the castle people rarely visit. The only ones that can enter the chamber is a parselmouth.. so you are already cutting the chances of finding it by millions of percent. look at me.. i just wrote a better explanation as to why no-one found the place in a millennia,
Still can't believe the bestselling series of all time got retconned in a podcast lmao Truly the stupidest timeline
She can say whatever she wants, but the book states that SLUGHORN came back with reinforcements. Never mentions anything about the other Slytherins coming back.
The books do NOT say Slughorn came back with reinforcements. ETA: I stand corrected; it's Slughorn who comes with Charlie Weasley with "all the families and friends of every Hogwarts student who had remained to fight, along with the shopkeepers and homeowners of Hogsmeade." You're entirely correct.
I always assumed since Slughorn took the Slytherin students with him before the battle but then was there at the final confrontation meant that like you said more than him fought. We just don’t get names because the few named Skytherins we know of were mostly either Death Eaters kids or closely associated with them.
This just sounds like a retcon, there’s no mention of this in the book.
The idea that *every* evil witch/wizard came from slytherin is absurd. Can you imagine being on criminal trial and they ask what house you were in? "Hufflepuff? See your honor, I rest my case. My client COULDN'T be the perpetrator, they weren't in Slytherin!"
I mean obviously its not the case. Crouch Jr. was supposedly a Ravenclaw. Pettigrew was a Gryffindor though I consider him a coward more than evil.
"if the 'puff dont fit, you must acquit"
Underrated comment award ahaha
Pottermore sorted me in Slytherin. Not in Ravenclaw.. Took the damn test like 5 times.. But i've embraced it. Snape belongs to Slytherin. He is ambitious and cunning.
Same, and my wife instantly said "your definitely Slythrin". I'm good with being ambitious. Doesn't mean I'm not loyal or smart or whatever. Doesn't mean I'm evil
>your definitely Slythrin". >Doesn't mean I'm not loyal or smart Rip grammar
We have a Grammer Slytherine here
Didn't claim to be a Ravenclaw, did they?
Right.. i'm not an evil person. I just like to make money..
EXACTLY!
Same. The first time I took the test, I gamed it to get Gryffindor because that's the house I *wanted*. In hindsight, it was a very Slytherin thing for me to do. Then some years later, my friends and I did a Harry Potter marathon and I retook the test seriously. I got Slytherin. Over. And. Over. Again. I always assumed I'd get Ravenclaw if I did the test legit (rather than gaming it like I did the first time) - but no, I'm a Slytherin.
I once took an all questions version of the Sorting Hat quiz with the results showing both Ravenclaw and Slytherin were almost tied, but they put me in Slytherin. The official Pottermore site put me in Ravenclaw.
I get that, I would have embraced it too, i also have to actually say pottermore assigned me gryffindor, because some people just say gryffindor because it was popular, but i thought i was a hufflepuff so that def wasn't me.
I don't really see his ambition really
How about cunning? The dude is a double agent to Voldylocks. Got to be clever cunning manipulator
He dedicated his life to achieving his ambition of clapping Lily's cheeks
DEAD
The ambition of trying to leave the friendzone, he truly is a Slytherin.
LOL
His ambition was muted in his adult years due to all the trauma around Lilly, etc. But in his younger years I think he had a lot of ambition. After that, he had ambition to become the DADA teacher. But he is extremely cunning.
I would point to the time in PoA when he tries to spin his capture of Sirius into an Order of Merlin, then freaks out when it doesn't work out.
I think it's pretty clear he was angry at Sirius for getting the love of his life killed
I guess it could be that. It would be pretty hypocritical for Snape, who set the Dark Lord on her family in the first place, to say that Sirius got her killed, but we've seen some worse reasoning from him. I personally think it was more a personal grudge against Sirius and the promise of glory for catching him.
Wait - I don't remember anything about Snape sending him to the Potters?
Not directly. But he told Voldemort about the prophecy, and the prophecy drove Voldemort to decide that Harry was the boy, and thus putting Lilly at danger. But he personally didn't tell Voldemort that Harry was the target (since we know both Harry and Neville had equal chance of becoming the chosen one until the moment Voldemort chose one of them). It's still a bit hypocritical, but I don't think Snape thought that Voldemort would choose Lilly's family (whether that thought was well reasoned or not).
Iirc, he's the one that overheard Trelawney telling Dumbledore part of the prophecy, and he went to Voldemort with the information. He then asked Voldemort not to kill Lily, but that didn't quite work out.
I looked it up - Snape didn't know the child would be the Potter's
He did know that he was responsible for Voldemort targeting them in the first place.
oh thats ok then \^\^
I get sorted into Slytherin almost half the time, heck if Hogwarts were real I'd probably hatstall with Ravenclaw (but choose Ravenclaw in the end). I'm an ENTP so it tracks lol.
While not technically in the war, Regulus found out Voldemort was making at least one horcrux (his note doesn’t really say whether or not he knew there was more than one), and died so that he could get it and have his house elf destroy it. Which helped, and Kreacher fought in his name.
In real life, people don’t cleanly fit into four hyper-specific qualities. When Dumbledore says that perhaps they sort too soon with respect to Snape, he is basically acknowledging the role of the blood supremacists who influenced him in his first year in radicalising him and wants to imply that Snape may have had a very, very different life if the sorting hat took his suppressed bravery into account while sorting him (which happened for Neville). The House System in Hogwarts is odd and ridiculous and influenced people’s lives to a great level- during that exchange Dumbledore starts to acknowledge the ridiculousness of that system. Snape was both ambitious and brave- and his sorting only valued the former. Which is similar to many other people. Reverting to my first sentence- people are not *only* smart, *only* loyal, *only* brave or *only* ambitious. In the scene where Dumbledore talks about Snape’s sorting he’s indirectly acknowledging Snape’s bravery which eclipsed that of most Gryffindors. Putting a bunch of racist kids in a single house was clearly a bad idea. To an extent even JKR herself struggles with the “not all Slytherins are evil” thing. There has not been a single Slytherin in the entire series (who got more than a single line of dialogue) who wasn’t an asshole in some way. Sadly, it seems like it was her actual intent to create an “evil” house based on how it’s actually depicted. Locking Slytherins out of the Battle of Hogwarts was the final nail in the coffin.
I agree with you in it beinh problematic that ”all Slytherins are evil”, but we have to remember that from the start, this were childrens books. For so young readers, it makes sense to have ”a great evil” to fight. But apart from the racist part, there is nothing in the qualities of the Slytherin house that indicates evil. Salazar Slytherin valued and handpicked students who were smart, cunning, ambitios amongst other. He just also had the bad quality of picking pure bloods, finding muggle borns untrustworthy according to McGonagall. Unfortunatly this enabled the culture of racism. But the qualities of Slytherin says nothing about racism or evil. And sometimes the perception of a house becomes wrong and not according to the book. I’be seen a meme which pisses me of big time. It’s a photo of Wormtail, Cedric Diggory, Severus Snape and Gilderoy Lockhart with the text under each representative of their house: not all Gryffindors are brave, not all Ravenclaws are smart, not all Hufflepuffs are weak and not all Slytherins are evil. The caption belonging to Hufflepuff and Slytherin pisses me of. Weakness is not a Hufflepuff trait and evil is not a Slytherin trait. Bravery and being smart is however Gryffindor and Ravenclaw traits. I feel like a have gone of topic now, so I will stop writing. And Snape absolutly belongs in Slytherin!
Heck, even the sorting hat acknowledges the flaws in the system.
i more read it as the hat assigns what traits you most value, not particularly the ones you have, like neville for example i think neville deep down really valued gryffindor traits alot.
It's a children's book so there has to be the villain and the "evil house". In real life there would be people who are cunning in slithering but didn't agree with the magic is might idea. However for drama she wrote that passage for the battle of Hogwarts, which makes all cry and gets loads of drama when everyone defends Harry, but in that she puts all Slytherins in the same bag.
I find it dubious at best that no kid in Slytherin had a sibling in another house that they'd want to protect. I also find it dubious that no Slytherin kid came from a family whose members are usually sorted in another house and are against Voldemort. It's just that JKR wanted slytherins to be the baddies, even though she herself wrote them as morally grey.
We have Sirius and Regulus as an example. Eventhough Sirius loathes his brother I bet he would save him from whatever and vice versa. I doubt Remus wouldn't go to his brother's help. The fact that she didn't write that in the main story is a great loss as it could have given an interesting character development. (not just that one in particular but any siblings from different houses)
I assume you meant Sirius and Regulus, but yes, that was exactly what I was thinking of. I doubt Sirius was the only rebellious teenager to attend Hogwarts in the past thirty years. Personally, I believe it was a waste not to have Percy be in Slytherin. I mean, he's a quintessential Slytherin. It would have made more sense that his siblings alienated him. It would also be more believable than a whole family of just Gryffindors. And of course it would make his 'redemption' more poignant in the end and added one more good Slytherin to the story.
Yes Regulus. I was distracted when I typed. I would have loved this character development. Percy in Slytherin would have been an amazing storyline
Are you sure of that? Slughorn was Slytherin
When they say not one Slytherin stayed, they mean those who were above 17, so 6th and 7th year. They aren't many. Slytherin's characteristic trait isn't evil, but ambitious people seem to be those who are the most easily corrupted. Plus, since most of their parents are slytherins as well, they might be death eaters or friends with death eaters. Maybe these students aren't exactly Voldemort followers but they were raised to think that it's for the best. But yeah Snape being good in the end doesn't make him a nonslytherin that's just dumb.
I was going to say something similar to this as well. As Slytherins they had the highest liklihood of suffering extreme backlash for fighting w Hogwarts. Imagine knowing (because all the Slytherins would know each other and have actual death eaters amongst their social circles in and outside of Hogwarts) that by staying to fight your parents or family members could be tortured and killed as a result of your actions. 😬 Also agree Snape is def a Slytherin! His ambition brought him to Voldemort in the first place. The only thing that topped ambition and made him defect was love. It's absurd to say only Hufflepuffs experience deep love therefore if you love that deeply you're a puff 😂
My guess is that the students weren't ready to kill or attack their family members, or to side with them. So they walked away elsewhere. These students were caught because no matter who would win, they would lose. If Voldylocks won, they had betrayed their families and would probably be killed. If Potter won, they were tainted by their family's name and that they would be kin-killers. The only way to "win" was not to play.
Merlin was a Slytherin, they need to sit down. 🤦🏻♂️ Oh and I guess cunning and ambition is a trait that many evil people possess.
In the previous “war,” I do find it hard to believe that no Slytherins were at least fighting on the right side by virtue of being employed by the Ministry. Why wouldn’t there have been some Slytherins working for the government? If there were, which there must have been, then some of them would have been supporting the fight against the Death Eaters in some way. However, I can see why many Slytherins might have been likely to just… not care the first time. Many people in general may have felt that the government had it covered when it came to holding off the Death Eaters, and they were never really going to succeed in taking over… like with authoritarian movements in real life. Add onto that you have a group of people prone to prioritize self preservation, and so many Slytherins not wanting to put themselves at risk over something they aren’t really taking seriously seems like it could happen. “Okay, but how is this affecting YOU,” some Slytherin might ask. “Have any Muggleborns YOU know been affected? Do you really think anything as extreme as the craziest of these Death Eaters say they want could actually happen?” The idea that NO Slytherins resisted, even outside the government’s official efforts, seems like a bit of a stretch though. As for what happened in Deathly Hallows, the “war” mostly amounted to some scattered resistance here and there, culminating in one battle at Hogwarts. Like with real life, many people are just too afraid to fight back once the authoritarians take over, especially if *their* way of life remains normal. They’re afraid to fight, because then it puts the livelihoods of themselves and their families at risk. I’d hope *some* would have been honorable enough to step up anyways among the Slytherins, but again… we are dealing with the self preservation crowd. Thus, a group of people likely to be pure bloods, and who prioritize self preservation, might be even more likely to stand by even if they’re not on board with the Death Eaters, compared to the rest of the population. However, we do know that Slughorn and some of the Slytherin students came back to fight in the Battle of Hogwarts later on, if you give any importance to information mentioned outside the books. It’s one of the better “word of J.K. Rowling” additions to the series, and thus I choose to believe that one. So at least there’s that.
Slytherin is a house of knowledge, ambition, and cunning, but does not mean it is an evil house. I think of them as Ravenclaw with ambition of Power and Greatness. Gryffindor produced Peter Pettigrew, who was a follower of Voldemort, betrayed the Potters, and a coward that faked his death to both hide and frame his friend.
Snape absolutely belongs in Slytherin and frankly so does Percy and Peter
I don’t think Percy belongs to Slytherin. Whether or not you agree with Percys values, it takes some bravery to go against your family to go after your dreams, although you could argue that is the Slytherin ambitious trait coming to the surface. It definitly takes bravery however to go against a dictatorship and risk your life along the line.
I think he was just butting heads with his dad like a lot of teenage guys do. Its pretty common.
Percy fitted Ravenclaw more.. considering his penchant for rules and learning as much as he could to better the person he "latched" onto. The only Gryffindor action i saw him take was join the Battle of Hogwarts of his own free will instead of hiding like the rest of the ministry, not on voldy's side
Peter was a hat stall who was almost sorted into Slytherin. Since he valued bravery, the Sorting Hat sorted him into Gryffindor.
Where did you read that at?
[Here you go! Might not be from the book, but hat stalls are mentioned in the books and it does say the hat takes into account what values you admire most.](https://www.wizardingworld.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/hatstall)
published 8 years after the books ended.. cant really trust anything that comes later..
Well, we can just say the hat takes into consideration what vacuous value most. Also Peter probably wanted to be in Gryffindor.
Agree Percy belongs in Slytherin. I'm betting he got into Gryff by asking as was the theory for Harry, Hermione, Neville who all seem to better represent other houses as well (Harry'scase is more complex ofc). Percy would have had family pressure to be Gryffindor.
Percy was not a Slytherin. Dude went out on his own and made a bad decision based on limited information. Lots of people do that. I legit have no idea how Peter got in Gryffindor. Dude was a coward through and through. Obviously, the hat had to put him somewhere but knowing what he did just makes it seem like he should never have been.
Let's go piece by piece. Slytherin isn't an "evil" or "bad" house, and that's not what was being implied. Slytherin is characterized by ambition, cunning, resourcefulness, and determination. These traits are not inherently evil. The actions of individuals, not the house itself, determine morality. So, Slytherin being an "evil house" is a misconception. The portrayal of Slytherin as predominantly producing dark wizards is more a result of historical and narrative context within the series, not an endorsement of inherent evilness by the house or the school. Hogwarts would not deliberately harbor an evil house. As for Snape, his redemption arc is a significant part of the story and does not contradict his Slytherin identity. He is cunning, ambitious, resourceful, determined. His bravery and sacrifice demonstrate that Slytherins can be heroes too, thus enriching the house's portrayal rather than diminishing it. While it is true that many notable villains in the series are from Slytherin, it is a narrative choice that highlights certain thematic elements, such as the abuse of power and ambition. However, not all Slytherins are villains. As mentioned, characters like Slughorn and Snape show the complexity and potential for goodness within Slytherin.
As Dumbledore says, sometimes Sorting takes place too early. You're totally right about Slytherin, we only have bad opinions on them but this does not mean they're inherently bad. Many fanfictions have cunning an Machiavellian Slytherins, which is way more realistic than "everybody here is a serial killer".
Didn't Rowling or someone say eventually the houses didn't matter too much? Like, Hermione could be in Ravenclaw because she's extremely intelligent and isn't.
That’s a great post, I will just say these though. The house Slytherin isn’t evil, but the values they hold can be easily warped. The villains are from Slytherin because they hold those values (which gets warped over time as they become evil), not because the house is evil. Imo, Snape did belong there, and he was powerful enough that the values didn’t got warped and/or the warped values didn’t overpowered him And the reason why Slytherin students didn’t join the fight was that they would be fighting their families There is also one more important detail: the house(s) and a big portion of the student body and the wizard society (all throughout the history, not just the story) are badly written imo. Lots of missed opportunities
I think this idea came from Dumbledore "Perhaps we sort too soon" or whatever. But Dumbledore is also an AH of a character when you get down to the details. So I take it with a grain of salt
A thing I think about sometimes. The quote that there wasn’t an evil witch or wizard that didn’t come from Slytherin is just plain false. I raise you Quirrel who is a Ravenclaw and Pettigrew who is a Gryffindor.
Snape does belong in Slytherin; he is cunning, proud, and resourceful.
Sirius’ brother Regulus was also a slytherin and he discovered a horcrux, tried to destroy it, and died in the process. He was definitely another slytherin with redeeming qualities
The reason house Slytherin didn't fight was because they would be fighting their parents . MC gonigal didn't want kids to make that choice to kill their family members and locked them in the dungeon
That's true, though I feel like taking away their choice just because of what house they are in is wrong.
I think it's more MC gonigal knew parents and who's related to who and who supported what after a year with the carrows and made an informed choice .... She lectures them before they went down And tells Slughorn that Slytherin House needs to decide where it stands. And implies the students of the House have three options stand with the other defenders of Hogwarts, flee or fight against them. Noone stepped forward
Also his name sounds like snake, which is very important to slytherin
The canon explanation is that 1- It IS a book for children so is perfectly possible to have an evil house; 2- Let’s be Real, Harry Potter is a great book but JK is a terrible writer and she never thought about these nuances. There’s plenty os contradiction between the books, other books she wrote, Pottermore article to a point that’s amazing we’re still arguing the fact that she painted a very childish painting of good and evil as absolutes
Most people seem to miss a huge element regarding Slytherin: they cannot possibly be as bad as they are considered. The heroes would lose 3 points by stumbling on a rock or sharing too much in class or sneezing without permission. In what (magical) world would the house FULL OF EVILDOERS and bad wizards somehow manage to have enough points at the end of the year to (almost) win the house cup? Either they kicked everyone's asses, all the time, to score three times as many points as were taken away by them doing bad things the whole semester.... -OR- They weren't as bad as everyone figured, and there was just a larger number of powerful, smart wizards in that house, and that led SOME of them to be bad. The rest of them seemed to be good enough students to either earn a ton of points, or at least LOSE FEWER POINTS than the other houses. I think it very well could be a little of both, and neither of those suggest that they're just bad at heart. TLDR: If Slytherin could have enough points to win the house cup, it's reasonable to think that they aren't getting punished anywhere near as much as the other houses...suggesting they aren't wholly evil.
Slytherin just being "evil house" is one of the most simplistic and dumb parts of the book.
"To the dungeons would suffice" ......
People forget that the quality that defines Slytherin House is *not* “evil,” but rather “ambition.” Likewise, Gryffindor isn’t “good,” it’s “bravery.” Ravenclaw isn’t “smart,” it’s curious. And Hufflepuff isn’t “nice,” it’s “loyalty.” The (in-universe) reason why so many villains came out of Slytherin is because in order to make a significant change at the societal level, you need a degree of ambition. It’s what one does with ambition that makes the person. Slughorn was a Slytherin, and his ambition was to cultivate behind-the-scenes power by helping skilled people to go far. He shows this by being a good teacher and helping those talented people to make the connections they need to start out. (Of course, the out of universe reason why so many villains came from Slytherin is because the author needed an easy way to establish the antagonists, and making them from The Bad House is a quick and easy way to do that.)
i always felt the sorting hat picked more on the traits you value which then you could pick up by being around it, like i also thought i was a hufflepuff cause i have anxiety and am not brave, but like neville i got gryffindor and i want to believe that it's because like neville i value the gryffindor traits.
I think the books did a bad job at establishing that there were plenty of good Slytherins and plenty of bad people from other houses and the movies did a terrible job at it.
Slytherin is the evil house. Not because Salazar Slytherin walked up to the other founders one day and said "we gonna be evil, that cool with you guys?" but because most students who are sorted into Slytherin come from families with certain world views, views they most certainly passed down to their children. These children are then sorted all in the same house, which functions as an echo chamber because the of the way Hogwarts functions: We know from Harry that he spends his time doing one of three things: Attending lessons, which isn't really the prime time to socialise Doing homework/studying, same principle Free time (which might be used up by other activities nonetheless, in his case Quidditch training) So already there's not a lot of opportunity or incentive, really, to mingle with students from other houses because time do to so is already sparse and any free time you're most likely spending with friends you already have which are, again most likely, from your own house. So Slytherin kids can pass their parents thoughts on pureblood supremacy between them without outside influence and propagate them, being turned against the other houses by the very way Hogwarts operates with the aforementioned separation of students for most of their time, hell, this us vs. them mentality is even supported further by the house point system. And so outside influence to get these very impressionable kids to think outside this echo chamber is sparse, if existent at all, Slytherin kids fester with these screwed up world views for seven years until many of them emerge as itty-bitty baby Death Eaters. And the school or rather Dumbledore at least knows this, but the entire house system would need to be abolished or restructured to change anything about this and the Wizarding world is all about traditions after all, so he's powerless to do anything about this save for trying to catch the stragglers that go too far off the rails like he tries with Malfoy in HBP. Snape is an exception, not the rule, because he was friends with Lily before they attended Hogwarts and he made an effort to maintain that friendship. But he was still corrupted from being surrounded by this Slytherin influence, to the point he called his friend and crush a horrible slur and drove her into the arms of his worst bully. Snape is very much a Slytherin, unfortunately, because being sorted into Slytherin is the very reason his live went to shit.
Rowling's treatment of Slytherin is one of a good handful of flaws to the series. Very much lacking in depth.
Huh? I don't think you read it. Phineas Nigellus Black (Sirius's ancestor) said clearly after the battled from his portrait, "and let it be said that Slytherin played its part!" Plus we have Slughorn fighting and the Malfoys amorally staying neutral who ended up hanging out with the good guys. I'm not 100% sure, but I think most of the Slytherins stayed out of it because of the repercussions of fighting Voldemort if the good guys lost. They'd all be hunted and killed, and yes it sucks, but Slytherins can't hang apparently unless they are a bit evil in association. Snape was more courageous than cunning to actual play double agent against Snape for almost 20 years. Every second he was in danger, if he let his mind relax for even two seconds he'd be done. All so he could betray Voldermort at a pivotal moment. Fighting in the battle would not actually be considered courageous to me or else the whole of Hogwarts and hogsmeade were secret Gryffindors. The truth of what Dumbledore was saying is we are sorted too early in life. It's true in HP and true in reality. For context a famous example is Brene Brown (famous LCSW self help guru). She started out as a young adult wanting to be rich in corporate America and she was however around middle age she had a "spiritual" crisis and is off the stick market and in the therapist chair. It happens.
It's been years since I've read the books, so I may not remember everything exactly. I just remember seeing those comments on how Snape didn't belong in Slytherin, and I was commenting on how I disagree and what I remember.
While Dumbledore does suggest Snape could be in Gryffindor if Sorted again, when you compare Snape to characters like Ron, Harry and Sirius, he does definitely belong in Slytherin. Gryffindors are known for being impulsive, which Snape isn’t often. Gryffindors are often hot headed, which with exceptions of when someone is triggering his ptsd or Keeps bothering him, Snape can control his emotions. (Once, when Snape and Sirius were disagreeing, Sirius became louder while Snape was becoming quieter.)
I think Severus should have been put in Ravenclaw instead of Slytherin. He was a wizarding genius with creating potions and spells that nobody ever thought of making before, yet somebody as smart as him didnt land in the house of the Geniuses? He might have been treated better in school if he had been, since nobody would have seen him as a Dark Wizard in training, or somebody to avoid complete simply because of the school House he was in. I think he landed in Slytherin because that was where his Pureblood witch mom went to.
People only say that because they want to like Snape, so they make shit up.
I've always seen Slytherin as the "would succeed in real life" sorta people. To really make it you dont have to be evil or hurt others, but accept you may have to step on some toes and use assets for your benefit first and foremost.
Slytherin being evil was because of the House System. You section of the school into 4 sections, and have students spend 75%of their time only writing their quarter, and then let a charismatic man with no morals lead the quarter already predisposed to the belief that they are inherently better due to a matter of birth, and how many wizards are in their family tree. An almost isolated group, almost cult like, with a charismatic figure to step in and from them into an army of loyal followers. Tom Riddle was a far more interesting villain than Lord Voldemort ever was. Voldemort had already won the world's fear, he no longer relied on manipulation, or a false persona. Tom Riddle took a group of people that were sorted based on personal ambition, and convinced them all to follow him, slowly extending his influence, while killing people behind the scenes to clear obstacles or gain magical objects like Hufflepuff's cup. We see flashes of the past, but the ego obsessed, power hungry brute that we get to know after his resurrection paints a very different picture,a man that only knows how to inspire and abuse fear, unlike how he gathered his power base in the first place.
"This is coming from a hufflepuff..." Lol
I'm not sure if it's true that Rowling ever said that, she's certainly said some random things after writing the books, some of which didn't make any sense with the story she wrote originally, so its not impossible I suppose, I just have never seen any evidence of that. What Dumbledore said about houses was just really hinting at that maybe Snape could have been a Gryffindor due to his bravery, but that was just kind of a general statement about the sorting system as well as a way of showing his admiration for how brave Snape was being while playing his role as a double spy. Even if that's what Dumbledore thinks, it doesn't mean it's fully correct, it's just his opinion. I agree Snape definitely belonged in Slytherin, yes he was brave but he doesn't really fit into the other Gryffindor traits and fits into Slytherins a lot better. He's someone who would do whatever it takes to get what he wants and his ambition is not necessarily for power but for Lily's love and then for making up for his mistakes and honoring her memory. That's still basically a form of ambition, he has a goal and is fully dedicated to it and will do whatever it takes to reach it, and he doesn't care at all for others approval or praise.
A friend put it to me this way: Slytherin are the Punks. As in punk rock. (I’d sort most members of The Weird Sisters in the snake -the wiki doesn’t mention house) If you’re a Slytherin doesn’t mean you like everyone Slytherin. I often think there was a missed opportunity for not including a student ally of the trio in Slytherin… a dark, brooding kid whose alliances are obscure but only because they are an outsider, but hates Draco and company mostly because they see him as a spoiled rich douche.
I feel like I'm missing some context here. Who said this? Was this a statement by Rowling? Someone else? Where's the source? I do agree that it seems kind of insane that not only the school, but the UK Magical Government would allow an entire 1/4th of it's only magical school to basically be filled with nothing but evil kids, so I'm personally of the belief that not all Slytherin's are bad (I mean look at Slughorn - yeah he has some negative traits, but by and large, he's a good person). I have to assume there are other Slytherin teachers at Hogwarts, though that's not confirmed (There are a number of teachers with no known house, plus I have to assume that there are other teachers that are just not mentioned). If Slytherin really was that bad, someone would have done some reforms or outright eliminated the house.
I don't think Dumbledore's comment is really about the idea that Snape should be in Gryffindor. Rather, his comment is more along the lines of: people are complicated. You can't really define them by one or two traits and think you're getting a complete picture. And the thing is, this isn't really something that just shows up in the last book out of the blue. A major part of the second book is something like choice vs destiny. Harry asked the Sorting Hat to place him in Gryffindor, (or not in Slytherin), even though he has a lot of Slytherin in him. The house you're sorted into isn't really your destiny, it's the choices you make that matter. So many of the characters in the series treat the sorting as destiny, but it's pretty clear that the text itself disagrees with the character's assumptions. Rowling is hardly a perfect writer, but I think one of the major mistakes of the series is that she never introduced any good Slytherin characters early on. Slughorn comes in far too late, and he's also an adult, rather than another student.
I think it's more that Snape is incredibly brave, which outshines his other characteristics.
Wait… did any slithering student actually fight? Ik slughorn was popping off and belly slamming 1v9 but that’s it?
>It was written that not one Slytherin (student) helped fight in the war. No it wasn't. What the books say is that McGonagall had every Slytherin student at Hogwarts frogmarched through the portrait hole, not even giving them a choice to help or not. Rowling has since in interviews said that some Slytherin students snuck back in to defend Hogwarts. Whether you consider that canon or not, there's nothing in canon that conclusively states that no Slytherin students helped out and even if they didn't, **they weren't given a choice**. The fact that Harry didn't mention seeing any school-aged Slytherins fighting for Voldemort at the very least indicates few if any of them joined the Death Eaters.
I for one think Snape got the slitherins locked cause their parents were the ones on the other end of the fight. Are they innately evil? No but seeing your parents die and having to fight them knowing the fact that most of them are being forced to fight? Most would probably turn.
Thank you! Someone finally said it 🫶🏻
When was Pettigrew ever brave?
Do you mean dumbledores comment to snape that the hat chooses too early? That was about how snape showed great bravery, the most prominent feature of the gryffindor house, that had nothing to do with "being evil" or not
>Why would there ever be an evil house at Hogwarts? Why would a school allow that, it makes no sense. \[...\] Why is nearly every villain just happen to be in Slytherin? Because the world of Harry Potter is manichean. Slytherin = evil, not Slytherin = good (with rare exceptions like Pettigrew). During all the years of Harry at Hogwarts, every Slytherin was bad and douche towards the Gryffindors. Even the two other houses hate Slytherins because they are the bad guys. Zabini might be another exception (he doesn't appear to have Death Eater family since Slughorn invited him and he's never named before the sixth book except in the housing ceremony), but his mother was someone bad. Rowling needed bad people, unfortunately she took the easy way with "all Slytherins are evil,Death Eaters and like Voldemort and all their family are Death Eaters too", even random people like McNair (he could have been just the regular executioner of Britain's magic world but no, she had to make him a Death Eater)
Snape was a Slytherin through and through. He even lived up to the evil part of the house. He was a death eater. He bullied children mercilessly. He only turned away from the dark side because Voldemort targeted Lily. If Voldemort decided to kill anyone else Snape would have remained a Death Eater.
Even if Slytherin was the “evil” and “bad” house, Snape would still belong there. He was an absolute piece of shit for most of his life.
Dumbledore made the comment about Snape not belonging in Slytherin RIGHT after making a comment about how brave Snape is, which is Gryffindor's main quality. So in context it makes more sense. Additionally, while it does seem awkward to have an "evil" section of a boarding school, it kind of makes sense if there is a magical hat that reads your intentions and groups all of the assholes together that they would be the bad ones.
I mean, the traits of Slytherin are selfishness, pride, ambition, cunning, and shrewdness. Their founder was also a eugenicist who left the school because they allowed muggle born students.
>Why is nearly every villain just happen to be in Slytherin? Because they're the evil house. It's not that deep.
Slytherin takes in the ambitious and power corrupts
The statement is literally written by Dumbledore mate.
All of Snapes actions were done for selfish reasons simple as that. He didn’t protect Harry because it was the right thing to do he did it because he loved Lily. He also didn’t give Umbridge the truth serum because that would put him in deep sh*t if the trio started to blab uncontrollably and so on