Lul, I think you're going into the story looking for something to hate. And you can't really judge a story or a character if you jump to a random chapter without knowing any sort of context. Some examples, maybe?

 

I always check random chapters of a story before I read it, because I don't wanna invest time in something that turns into crap. So that's just what I usually do, and Prince failed every time I tried -- I'm really not purposefully picking out shit. You said something about the first year, so that's where I looked this time.

... you're going to make me read it, aren't you?

Alright, so I did read up to Christmas, and skimmed around some more. TL;DR: I stand by what I said.

--

First, in more general considerations, about Slytherin, Slytherin!Harry, and what kinds of characters you can write.

--Harry: "Because all the Hat said to me was that Slytherin was the house of cunning and ambition where I'd have the best chance to prove myself. I might have asked to go somewhere else if it had warned me that Slytherin was also the house of selfish prats who abandon their friends when things get tough."

... and that is precisely the point of contention, no? Slytherins are selfish. From Snape to Slughorn they are that, or rather: they aren't when it's easy to be selfless (which arguably then isn't selflessness at all), but hardly when it gets tough. Snape only ever cared about Lily because he loved her. Slughorn would have rather kept the Horcrux memory hidden than admit his greatest mistake.

And hence, I consider an unselfish Harry an ill fit. Or perhaps rather, you can change Slytherin that way. You can do anything you like. But I guess, ultimately, that's not what I went looking for, then, when started to read a Slytherin!Harry. Labels have meaning. Slytherin!Harry means a certain degree of self-serving, of selfishness. Additionally, rational considerations over feelings and impulses. Otherwise, why bother?

In that regard, as I said, Den (and also Souls Touch, the other story) are exemplary. You point out the CoS ending in Monster of Slytherin, but it's precisely the fact that they end up forced in there that makes it work. Harry wouldn't randomly jump into the hole, for no reason. And yeah, I very much would have liked to see the fallout in Prince after Harry refusing to risk his neck even when Quirrelmort took hostages, and the Gryffindors ended up dead when Harry didn't come.

That would make for a great plot. Harry having to live with the consequences of his character and his actions. Stuff like that is why I'm in the genre -- flawed people making choices because they aren't heroes, because they pick what's easy, and the world dealing with it as it will, sometimes rewarding selfishness, sometimes punishing it.

Instead, I get Canon (talk about forcing stuff). A Harry who dies for his friends I have seven books worth of, I don't need that here.

In the same vein, from a story-building perspective: What's a pity in Den is Dumbledore and the "Light" side's non-reasoning. Not their stance in general. I very much enjoy Den's take on blood purity, Muggleborns and what it means to be a Witch and a Wizard, and that Harry absorbs all those values, instead of converting Slytherin House -- putting him at odds with his family and Dumbledore. I mean, that's the sad thing here in the first place -- James, Jules, Dumbledore, they have a point when they lump him with all the rest of the "snakes" and "Death Eater Kids". He is one, yes. Hell, if Voldemort wasn't Voldemort, he'd already have signed up with the movement, he agrees with every argument they ever made. And I appreciate that. It's just that, because the other side's argument is non-existent, Harry's (and the Slytherin's) POV is the objectively sensible one and the other side appears retarded.

Additionally, and on a more technical level, it's by no means easy to write a Slytherin!Harry, insofar as this means cunning, resourcefulness, clever schemes and plans -- subtlelty, because you have to have an idea of what it means to be all that, and some people just don't. In Prince, the author certainly talks about it, but Harry comes off as a cocky little shit. There's speeches. There's scenes he creates. There's ridiculous nicknames. And people in awe or at once convinced of his shit by author's fiat. It sometimes reads like an Indy!Harry, to be honest, in all the worst ways.

Makes me agree with Snape when he's on his James Potter clone tear, except for some bizarre reason here, where it would be appropriate, he doesn't. That chapter with the Prince of Slytherin stuff in first year alone is like nails on chalkboard, to say nothing of the last Halloween one. That thing where I wrote in my OP about dumb people's ideas about smart people? Yeah.

Of all the people, I enjoyed Peter Pettigrew most. Now that was a clever, sneaky, underhand scheme well executed. Give Harry his character, and we're talking.


So the former points are to a certain degree subjective and a matter of taste. But the latter, about the technical execution of the character, I think, not.

What's also not subjective is quality of writing. Den's author can write. Skill or talent, but he puts out a well above-average prose. They have a hand for building sentences, scenes; it was a pleasure to simply read for me every now and then, regardless of the content. A clever line here, a carefully constructed scene there ... I appreciate that. Prince showed me nothing of that. Instead, I got stuff like

Like ... am I reading a story or a play? Stage directions, are you fucking kidding me? And that's entirely leaving aside that Slytherin!Harry does not get kicked out of the library for yelling because he does not yell. (See above point.)

And this is not a one-off, it's exemplary.

--Harry: "BINGO!" shouted Harry loudly. All the Slytherins nearby were startled by his outburst. "Sorry. That's a Muggle thing. You finally managed to work mudblood, blood traitor, and my father into a single sentence. I thought if I pointed it out first I might win a prize."

Whaaa...?

I dunno if the author has watched too much anime, but it's the usual over-emotional expressiveness. I think I caught a literal instance of banging his head against the table? The tone is flippant. Things are played for comic relief. It downright descends into whackieness at times. That's really not an appropriate style if you want to write a serious story. Whatever you feel about Den, I think you must concede it takes itself seriously. Harry is serious. The tone of the story is serious. The topics are serious. And James and Dumbledore, too, are serious (to their detriment); it's always played straight. Nothing in there is even hinting at a crackfic. That alone makes it more enjoyable than Prince to me already.


All in all, from what I caught about Prince's first year, there are indeed similarities. My verdict is that Den is Prince, only better. Better characters. Better writing. Better plot. Better Slytherin, better pureblood politics, better conflict -- the one place where Den is lacking is the "Light" side, but since I don't care about them anyway, I can ignore that.

Hyperboles aside, I didn't hate what I read of Prince. But it's not fun to read, and I honestly don't see how it's better than Den.

 

Edit: I'm going to write a better review for this later when I'm not on mobile.

 

This is exemplary of everything that is wrong with WBWL stories though. They use this mechanic a lot in books they've written so far to an extent that really just boggles my mind how they think it logically makes sense. There are leaps of intuition, and just outright animosity that happens only to make their story work.

I think that's the biggest flaw with this fic, and fics that are based around similar concepts like this. There is no logical flow to the chain of events they use to get them through points of canon. The troll incident, the puzzle for the stone, the tri-wizard tournament each use things that make no fucking sense.

Yet, I can't stop reading it. I think in large part its because there's a lot of it there and I'm just desperate for something to read.

The execution of larger concepts within the story leaves something to be desired. I felt like I was waiting for something more specific to happen and it never did. Gotta give it credit for a canon rehash, it made it further than first year, and their execution of the tasks weren't all that terrible despite not being something new.

Overall, I'd give this a 3/5. If only because its something to read.

Prince of Slytherin is a more evolved version of this, and is better only because the narrative and the plot are a lot tighter. There are no leaps of logic weighing it down, despite James and Lily going full fucking retard when faced with how they should treat one of their children.

This story uses it as a setup for Dumbledore bashing, whereas PoS uses it as a means to create animosity between James and Lily and Harry and largely keeps Dumbledore out of it.

I think its unfair to compare one to the other despite being of a very similar nature. They each have their merits, but they each have very distinct flaws.

 

... it's stating a fact? Both are broken, but Harry more so than Daphne. Still, she's the only one that even comes close to matching -- and understanding -- him. No one else (except Theo) even sees what you just quoted. Also, the second never followed the first, her reasoning only was that they worked better as friends -- because she had (has) illusionary expectations for her relationships. She, too, is fucked up, but hasn't quite accepted the consequences in the way Harry has. That's the missing step. I expect they both will try someone else (Harry & Pansy), and realise afterwards that they were, in fact, better off together.

At least, that's what I would write with if I had this setup. Which is me saying that I consider Daphne constructed to match Harry here.

 

Edgy <--- | ---> This Harry.

Edgy == being intentionally whichever provocative way when you actually aren't. PoS!Harry is edgy when he channels the ghost of all bad Indy!Harrys. Harry here genuinely is lacking just about any sort of morals or warm feelings. What on earth is your definition of "edgy"?

 

Right, I enjoy my stories dead serious

So, I wouldn't call that edgy at all, but (beyond confusion cleared up) that's just semantics. The point indeed is we disagree entirely what's good, yeah. Fair enough.

 

Well that just figures.

 

They abandoned it. As you can see like four or five post above yours. Maybe less I'm not actually counting but it was mentioned here.