The problem of Slytherin

Thanks, Tulle. Tulle points out that I need to prove that Slytherin's portrayal harms the series rather than me simply disliking it. This is an acceptable standard, and my arguments all meet it as they analyze how the series would've been better had Slytherin been portrayed more fairly and realistically.=Neg case= 1. Harry's perspectiveTulle is right that the series is through Harry's eyes and therefore we are exposed to the Wizarding World from a biased lens. This is an easily turnable argument--*because* the series was from Harry's perspective, forcing Harry, and the reader, to come to the conclusion that they too were prejudiced and in a sense just as bad as their enemies would be that much more compelling. First person point of view didn't prevent Rowling from showing the reader through Harry's eyes a good Slytherin. The world of virtually every other work of fiction is also colored by the biases of their protagonists, but that doesn't mean we can't be shown how those biases are wrong. To the contrary, it makes proving them wrong all the more compelling as the reader, too, is shown that they were wrong! There was nothing from stopping Harry from meeting a genuinely good Slytherin to show him that his prejudice was incorrect. Tulle's argument that most of the negative portrayal of Slytherin is just Harry's bias relies upon some very open interpretations of the text. For example, Tulle says that from the start Ron "bullies" Draco by laughing at his name, but if you actually read the exchange, Ron coughs in a way that may have been *concealing* a laugh, and Draco responds by insulting his family, his poverty, calls him "'riffraff", insinuates that Harry will die like his parents, and sends his goons to try and steal their candy. The reader is supposed to side with Harry and Ron because Draco is unquestionably in the wrong by any standard. Rowling could have shown in the later novels that judging the entirety of Slytherin house through the behavior of a few members was wrong, but we aren't given any reason whatsoever to believe that this is actually the case.While it's true that some of Slytherin's dark reputation is due to Harry's bias, most of it seems to be based upon objective fact. There is not a single Slytherin the reader meets who isn't at the very least, slightly prejudiced--compared to the other houses where there is not a single character who is even a little biased. The only password we ever learn of Slytherin's dormitory is a quasi racist sentiment: "pureblood"[1]. Every member of a genocidal movement, the death eaters, was a Slytherin except for one. Voldemort would've abolished all of the other houses and left only Slytherin[2]. This is the house who's founder hated muggleborns so much that he left the school with a monster in it to exterminate them. I find it hard to believe that Tulle actually believes that the series benefited thematically by showing that Harry's prejudice was correct--this undermines the entire theme of discrimination by showing that prejudice against Slytherin's is justified and also renders it unrealistic. The resolution basically boils down to the question of if the series would've been better if there had been a single Slytherin character who was fully likable or good. The answer to that question, as I've shown, is a resounding yes.I agree with Tulle that Rowling did mitigate Slytherin's dark reputation very slightly towards the end of the series and Harry does acknowledge his bias somewhat, but what occurs could best be described as too little, too late. True, Harry and the reader both gain a good deal of respect for Snape, and for good reason, but this does not outweigh the objective facts we are given about Slytherin and that the most respectable Slytherin character, Snape, is at best morally grey. Harry's son still had every reason to fear being sorted into Slytherin. Ultimately, the problem with pointing out that the series is from Harry's perspective is twofold. The first is that for whatever bias exists due to Harry's perspective, it is vastly outweighed by the objective facts that show Slytherin to be overwhelmingly evil. The second reason is that there was nothing forcing Rowling to not show how Harry's perspective was wrong like his perspective on Snape and his father was wrong, and she didn't.2. Slytherin and themesTulle argues that there is a theme of Harry's first impressions being wrong. This would be a great argument if we were ever shown that Harry's first impressions about Slytherin were wrong, and we are not! This is an easily turnable point because showing how Harry was wrong about Slytherin would've been extremely compelling as it would link the themes of prejudice and the dangers of judging on a first impression. This is probably the biggest reason to vote Pro--all of the themes come together perfectly to give Rowling the set up to show how Harry was wrong about Slytherins and painted them with too broad of a brush and she doesn't do it. If Harry's judgements of Slytherin characters other than Snape were indeed wrong, we are given not shown so. Instead, everything objective we manage to garner about Slytherin house confirms Harry's first impressions about it. Tulle argues that another key theme is the greyness of morality and good/evil. I agree completely and, again, turn this argument. Like Sirius said, the Wizarding world isn't so evenly split between good people and death eaters. The split is actually "Good people and Slytherins, except for Wormtail and maybe Snape or Slughorn". The entire moral greyness theme is undermined by having every single evil person with a one exception come from Slytherin, and every single entirely good and wholesome character coming from one of the other houses. Contrary to Tulle's argument, it seems that Harry's perception of who is good and evil is entirely accurate with the exception of Snape. The third theme Tulle brings up about the golden rule also falls flat. The biggest issue with this argument is that, while he is not without his flaws, Harry is an overwhelmingly good and kind character who *does* treat people the way he wants to be treated, and the Slytherins still hate and bully him. Draco never offered Harry his friendship in any serious way--Draco offered to show Harry what kind of wizards were "better" than others while insulting one of his newly made friends. Had Harry taken Draco up on his offer of friendship, he would've ceased to be an understandable character. If this argument were true, Tulle should be able to cite a Slytherin character who Harry mistreated and later came to terms with and realized was actually a decent person. She should be able to cite such a character, because such a character should've existed. But they don't. That, in sum, is the problem of Slytherin. 3. A one dimensional portrayal isn't necessarily badThis argument actually exposes a number of flaws in the series. A series being for children doesn't mean it has to be one dimensional. There is no reason to believe that having a good Slytherin character would've made children unable to understand the work. As the series went on the content, along with the readership, steadily got more mature. What makes Slytherin house such an outlier is that the way it was written in the final book is essentially the same as it was in the first--one dimensional and immature. Treating Slytherin as the evil house in the first few books was justifiable. Keeping that portrayal throughout the series was not and significantly detracted from the work as a whole. What would've been compelling themes and images regarding Slytherin house are thrown away in exchange for treating 25% of the population as evil and second class citizens. In conclusion, the one dimensional portrayal of Slytherin most definitely harmed the series. There's hardly a theme in the entire series that wouldn't have been strengthened by a good Slytherin. The resolution is affirmed. Sources:1. Book 2, Ch 122. Book 7, Ch 36