In Defence of Slytherins

I'm a Ravenclaw and proud, though I definitely have Hufflepuff. Actually, the fact that I manipulated my answers the very first time I did the Pottermore sorting test in an attempt to get Gryffindor shows I'm more Slytherin than I initially thought.

Until a couple of years ago, I used to call myself a Gryffindor. I don't think that's because I was one, but more because Hermione, James, and Sirius were Gryffindors. If I'm honest, I'm too much of a wimp to be sorted into the 'brave' house, and that's perfectly fine with me. I feel comfortable clad in blue and bronze, rather than pretending to be the kind of person who wouldn't run away screaming if I angered a Death Eater. Because I totally would.

I'm not here to talk about my own house. I'm not going to talk about Hufflepuff, which I think is under loved and effin' awesome. I'm going to defend the Slytherins.

If I have one criticism about the Harry Potter books, is that it the Slytherins are often villainized (is that a word?). Whilst there are obvious exceptions, they're made out to be cruel and vindictive. I've never liked that the Slytherins weren't allowed to fight in book seven, and that other houses were prejudiced against them and got no stick for it, hating on the Slytherins for doing the same things that they were.

Some of the traits for Slytherin are resourcefulness, cunning, and ambition. Yes, in excess these things can be negative, but nowhere does it say that having such traits make you evil. Actually, I'm pretty sure that I'd get more pissed off at a pompous Ravenclaw than an average Slytherin.

Whilst I'm not that Slytherin in real life, my favourite kinds of characters would probably be sorted theree. I like the antiheroes who exist in that moral grey area, and I love characters that use their ambition and cunning to get what they want. Give me Rachelle, Rhysand and Victor over a righteous hero, any day.

Pure and simply, I can't relate to the guy who runs into battle, or goes out of their way to save everyone. I get that they're often great heroes, but real life is made up of people who aren't always so noble. And, just because someone wouldn't make the same decisions as Harry Potter, it doesn't make a person less valuable.

I'm currently reading Prince of Fools by Mark Lawrence and it centres around Prince Jalan Kenneth. I fucking love this guy. To give you an insight to what kind of character he is, this is the first paragraph:

I'm a liar and a cheat and a coward, but I will never, ever, let a friend down. Unless of course not letting them down involves honesty, fair play, or bravery. 

Basically, Jalan is a little shit. He's not completely Slytherin, but if I had to pick a house for him it would be that one. Still, I can relate to Jalan more than I can Harry. I don't know what that says about me, but it just shows that the world isn't made up of Gryffindors, and just because he's a wimp it doesn't mean that his story isn't worth telling, or that he isn't worth being the protagonist even if he isn't the 'hero'.

I feel like a lot of people dislike Slytherin because of their portrayal in the books, but imagine this. From the moment you start school, three quarters of the pupils dislike you just because of your house. They constantly judge, and when the world goes to shit you're told that you're going to join the 'dark side', that it's inevitable. On one hand there are people who reject you, who think that you're going to turn out rotten. On the other hand there is a group of people who are going to accept you, who will challenge you, who--despite their questionable motives--won't dislike you just because of a few simple character traits.

I'm not justifying becoming a Death Eater, but I think that people forget how hard it was for the Slytherins. They had to choose between killing their parents or fighting alongside of them. It's an impossibly hard decision, and whilst I'm not saying many of them made the right choice I can understand where these Slytherins are coming from.

It's so easy to say that you should try to be more Gryffindor, as if that's the pinnacle of human existence. The problem isn't that people aren't Gryffindor enough, it's when people tell someone that they're going to be evil just because of a few traits they have.

Out of all the Harry Potter books, it isn't Voldemort or Bellatrix or even that cow Umbridge who strikes me as the worst. It's Peter Pettigrew. He may not be the most evil, or the most terrifying, but in my mind it's easier to think badly of someone who had friends that loved and trusted him yet still turned dark. What's worse, someone who was raised by racists and monsters and turned out like their parents, or someone who made the same choice out of cowardice, despite the fact that they were loved?

I'd love to read Harry Potter from Malfoy's point of view. It would be so interesting to see his internal debate between good and evil, possibly even more so than Harry's own conflict. The books would be darker, but maybe they'd be more honest.

I don't want to sound like I'm hating on Harry Potter because I'm not. Each and every book in the series was a five star read for me, and it has a permanent position on my favourites shelf.

I just really, really wish that people listened to the Sorting Hat and inter-house unity would just be a thing.