Did jk rowling make slytherin 1 dimensional?

[Sdm]

Its like she put all the evil kids in one house. The only "good" character was slughorn and maybe snape

[Seunghee's eyebrows]

Quite possibly  

 

Is this thread an inspiration because of my thread?

 

[starsocks]

Nah there's a stereotype there, but being in Slytherin doesn't automatically make you evil 

[Sdm]

Quite possibly

 

Is this thread an inspiration because of my thread?

 

 

 

yes lol. I just thought of it while answering your thread

 

[gore]

yes   and it still makes me mad

[multifandom_af]

From Harry's perspective, yes. But being Slytherin doesn't make you evil. There are good Slytherins.

[Poeski]

Slytherin is the housing of the cunning and resourceful, no? It isn't about being evil.

[ByulHarangBona]

It depend on how you look at it. But not all of them are necessary evil. Slughorn, Snape..etc

 

In fact, Snape earned my respect for going against Voldermort due to love and protected Harry just for Lily.

 

Also Sirus Black's brother who is from Slytherin went against Lord Voldermort by swapping out one of his hoxcruxes which is in a locker for a fake locker at the cost of his own life

[Midnight Circus]

Not really, there's still Narcissa Malfoy and Regulus Black. Both are interesting character even when they only appear for a short time.

 

Edit : forgot to mention Andromeda Tonks. She was in Slytherin and doesn't have evil trait at all. Married a muggleborn, and accepting a werewolf as son in law.

[love]

yes tbh...most of the expansion on slytherin characteristics that i've read is from secondary sources and not in the actual books..even if jk had a hand in sharing that information she could've done them more justice within the series

[Green Willow]

yes tbh...most of the expansion on slytherin characteristics that i've read is from secondary sources and not in the actual books..even if jk had a hand in sharing that information she could've done them more justice within the series

this tbh.

[Exi]

Slytherins are "cunning and resourceful" 

 

it just so happens that a lot of evil people seem to have those traits.

 

CoInCiDeNcE? 

[sakurahanabira]

Not really, there's still Narcissa Malfoy and Regulus Black. Both are interesting character even when they only appear for a short time.

Narcissa supported her husband and sister being Death Eaters though. She only wanted out when her son's life was at risk and couldn't care less if Voldemort, her husband, and her sister killed every Muggle born or anyone who opposed Voldemort at the school.

[moondoll]

yes. just because they have other positive traits doesn't mean they were really portrayed that way in the books, save a few characters (snape isn't an example of this lol he was still shitty). the books are biased to harry's perspective, and he has a negative view of slytherins, but even outside of the books jk rowling hasn't done a whole lot to curb the idea that slytherins are evil tbh.

 

when their 'positive' traits are shown they've been shown in a negative context as well? ambitious shown as being heartless and uncompromising when it comes to getting what they want. loyalty shown as blindly following and sticking with people for their own benefit. resourcefulness shown by using their status/nepotism to get things done.

 

i've always associated myself w/ gryffindor but it irks me that slytherins are not really shown with redeemable features tbh. they are shown as very one dimensional. 

[Mogwai]

Andromeda Tonks (née Black) and Regulus Black were good too. Regulus was... late and it cost him brother, but he tried to undermine Voldemort even if he didn’t know how. But it is a shame that we never really got to see a good Slytherin with more character development. Draco Malfoy came really close with how reluctant he was to identify Harry but then that scene with the fire happened which sadly threw all that down the drain

 

Anyways... I can understand to some extent. I’m a Slytherin and I imagine that those of us who don’t want chaos and murder... prefer self-preservation. Not Gryffindor level of brashness. They were at war and engaging in that means putting yourself in danger. But then they were at a point where Voldemort was so powerful that not fighting him would also mean danger. So that’s why Regulus acted the way he did, in secret.

[memeyoongi]

she made all the houses one dimensional tbh 

[Midnight Circus]

Narcissa supported her husband and sister being Death Eaters though. She only wanted out when her son's life was at risk and couldn't care less if Voldemort, her husband, and her sister killed every Muggle born or anyone who opposed Voldemort at the school.

I didn't say she's not evil, just that she's an interesting character and definitely not 1 dimensional.

[Haus of Tzu:Lai]

Not really.

 

Snape was a Slytherin and he was one of the better (and multi-dimensional) characters in HP. Slughorn despite his shortcomings/flaws is seen as generally a 'good' character. 

 

Even Voldemort who was like the ultimate evil was an interesting character. Then you had people like Malfoy, Narcissa and Regulus who weren't one-dimensional evil 'villains' and had redeemable qualities. 

[semisomniac]

she did.

I like what HP fans have done with Slytherin though. Not as clear-cut or cliche evil

[blank_stare]

Not really.

 

Snape was a Slytherin and he was one of the better (and multi-dimensional) characters in HP. Slughorn despite his shortcomings/flaws is seen as generally a 'good' character. 

 

Even Voldemort who was like the ultimate evil was an interesting character. Then you had people like Malfoy, Narcissa and Regulus who weren't one-dimensional evil 'villains' and had redeemable qualities.

 

I think Narcissa was Ravenclaw. There’s Peter Pettigrew: Gryffindor and McLaggen of Gryffindor.

[DC3]

From harry's pov yes

 

But I disagree with anyone calling Snape a good slytherin, motherfucker was a bully and an asshole whose redemption arc did not work for me

 

There are good slytherins such as Scorpius, Albus, Andromeda. 

 

I will agree with a comment that said all houses were depicted as 1 dimensional

[cyphersonic]

I think a lot of the houses other than Gryffindor ended up a bit one-dimensional just because of the POV the books were told from. Luna added some dimension to Ravenclaw. I still hold out wild hope that in ten years we will get a new series in the HP universe, weep.

[ruppi]

You only hear harrys view ...gryffindor and slytherin aint known to like eachother.

[Sapphic]

Not really, there's still Narcissa Malfoy and Regulus Black. Both are interesting character even when they only appear for a short time.

 

Edit : forgot to mention Andromeda Tonks. She was in Slytherin and doesn't have evil trait at all. Married a muggleborn, and accepting a werewolf as son in law.

Thank you !!!

 

Everyone forgets Andromeda who, while looking almost identical to Bellatrix, was a good person and the only family member Sirius liked.

 

--

 

(God, this is long but hey ho!)

 

J.K. Rowling didn't make the houses one dimensional, she splattered all of the houses with good and bad to prove that it's not about "Oh, those three good houses and that one that's evil."

 

1. Hufflepuff, in it's prefect letter, states that "We have the lowest turn-out of dark wizards" which sounds an awful lot like they have had a few in the history of Hogwarts.

 

2. Ravenclaw holds wisdom and knowledge above everything else, which allows for them to use this trait of theirs to excuse evil doings. Looking at Quirrell. The statement above also says that they have had more than 1 dark wizard.

 

3. Gryffindor has had its healthy share of dark wizards, and it's traits are about bravado and chivalry, and neither of those traits are "good" traits unless the person with them uses them to assist others. Think about Gaston? What was he all about? Yeah. Also, Dumbledore was literally on the brink of becoming a Dark Wizard if he hadn't killed his sister, as FBAWTFT is about to show.

 

4. As Harry has proven, you can choose which house you want to be with, your opinions on what a houses values are to you is taken into consideration by the Sorting Hat as your own personal reflection means a great deal. Had Harry not met Draco or Ron then it's likely he could have been placed into Slytherin as his traits aline with that of both houses (it's stated on Pottermore that Slytherin and Gryffindor are similar in a lot of ways), it's the association with evil that deter students from seeing Slytherin in a positive light. You could argue that a lot of houses have a family dependency too. 

 

Slytherin is dependent on fraternity, and older families like the Blacks, Malfoys, etc. are all exceptionally aggressive with this idea so being placed in another house against your family members would probably lead to a lot of scorn. Remember the family tree and those who were burned off.

 

Also, this made me think a lot about why Harry would specifically not want to be in Slytherin: I think he was terrified of proving the Dursleys right about him being a bad kid. Petunia would know about Slytherin and it's history, and they'd use it against him. But you can see the moments throughout the books and in the films where Harry is cunning, resourceful, and determined. 

 

So no, Slytherin is not one dimensional, and those that read the situation as so fail to either 1. Have read the books or, 2. Understand the complexity of the characters and what J.K. Rowling was actually trying to say.

 

P.S. J.K. Rowling needs to stop adding more bullshit to the franchise already. She goes backwards and forwards on what she's written all the while. She insists that Cursed Child ( ) is canon, which has Cedric becoming a dark wizard just because he was humiliated at the Triwizard Tournament. I don't consider that bullshit canon at all.

[noodlenoodle]

I think that a lot of fans of the series who stereotype Slytherins forget that Harry is our narrator; we're shown the Slytherin that he sees. Doubtless the house wasn't exactly putting its best foot forward during the war, but the all-encompassing evil vibe we get has a lot to do with Harry's own prejudices. That being said, I think that the almost universal sorting of Death Eaters (and their families) into Slytherin is unrealistic on Rowling's part. Being from old wealth doesn't change someone's core personality traits, though indoctrination and upbringing may shape someone's values. The Sorting hat seems to place emphasis on deeper things than social beliefs for all characters except for those sorted into Slytherin and all the kids who seemed quite cunning and ambitious but were "good guys" and didn't end up in Slytherin. I think that Regulus Black is the most underrated hero of the series, and Andromeda is another gem, and though Pettigrew existed as a counter-example of the Gryffindor villain, a single notable outlier seems like just that -- an outlier. Especially given that his personality traits didn't especially coincide with that Gryffindor vibe, in which case it seems less like a case of "Gryffindors can't do bad things" but "why the fuck was he a Gryffindor" -- a "maybe we sort too early" sorta case. 

 

So, I guess that I wouldn't say that she portrayed Slytherin as one-dimensional (also in the Play That Must Not Be Named, we get some good slytherins but that's not really JK besides not being a lot of other things lmao), but that a) Harry is an unreliable and biased narrator and b) she definitely could have highlighted the nuances of some of the other Slytherin characters more. I think Narcissa was an incredible example of where she did that well.

 

I also agree that a lot of the typecasting of Slytherin is not from the primary source but from readers being dumb and people talking until "Slytherin" doesn't really mean "Slytherin" anymore.