The fact that Slytherin House pretty much either abandons Hogwarts in the time of need or fights for it's destruction. Not one Slytherin student is actually seen duelling. Parkinson wants to give up Harry to Voldemort. When McGonagall challenges Slughorn, we get no redemption of Slytherin House, the uniting of the four houses Hogwarts standing tall and together against evil forces. Slytherin House fighting proudly amongst the other houses but apparentily being sorted into one house automatically makes you either evil or a coward. It appears Slytherins are characterised by either a need for self-fulfillment no matter the cost, plain evil or a complete lack of testicles whatsoever.

 

Really, Alexx? Another?


Anyway, I believe there's a passage in DH which implies that the Slytherin's who left recruited the people of Hogsmeade to fight.

 

Fixed it for yah.

 

Alexx, you've been paying to much attention to the movies.

In the books, the Slytherins aren't sent en masse to the dungeons. They leave with Slughorn, gather reinforcements, and most of them return to the castle to fight. In fact, their arrival is the turning point in the battle.

The books are ambiguous as to how many Slytherins return, though we know at least some do. JKR in interview, however, makes it clear that it's a good number:

 

Well said! One of the many, many failings of the movies. There is however a legitimate point to be made that we don't really see any non-superflawed Slytherins; Slughorn is the closest, and he's only mostly okay. Naturally, that's a part of Harry's POV, myopic as it is in the series. Obviously JKR doesn't see Slytherin as evil, but it's understandable why readers might see it that way.

Still, McGonagall's "Please escort ALL Slytherins to the dungeons" was so stupid I was actually angry when I saw the movie, despite the idiots in the audience cheering the act.

 

No. That was the whole point of the shitty epilogue. People are evil, and evil people are just more likely to get sorted into Slytherin due to having the ambitious and self-serving qualities that Slytherin prided.

This an old and pretty firmly settled discussion in the fandom. No need to breathe life into it. Please try again.

Or... you know... don't.

 

They are children. It's too early to be evil in most cases. I personally know of one exception, though. Jesse Pomeroy. But that's just exception.

 

Honestly, I think a lot of the "evilness" of the Slytherins is not down to the nature of the house, but the current political climate within Britain at the time. Basically, Voldemort turned most of his generation of Slytherins into his lackeys, and thanks to Hogwarts being the kind of school where family history matters a lot his influence stayed firmly in place even decades afterwards. Harry's crop of Slytherins are the grandkids of Voldemort's original lackeys, after all. Slytherin basically stopped being about the original ideals of the house, and increasingly became the de-facto Pro-Voldemort house.

 

This. So much. I still remember how annoyed I was at that scene and the audience that cheered. It's just so, so against the 'it's our choices that show who we really are'. Bah.

 

To be fair to the movies, I hated this order just as much in the book.

Are you sure about that? I re-read the passage in the book, and it says Slughorn and Charlie came back with the families and friends of the students fighting in the castle. It would specifically mean not the Slytherins.

I read your quote which contradicts it, but I think it's the main reason for Slytherin-hate: JK is always saying (on Twitter, on interviews, etc...) that Slytherins are not evil, are just as normal people as other houses, but she never explicitly shows it in the books. I mean, how hard would it have been to show Blaise/Pansy/any other known Slytherin fighting alongside the others in the ruckus?

 

Because all the named Slytherins that Harry was classmates with were DE sympathisers. Or at the least, scared enough of Voldemort that they were ready to give Harry up to him.

Also, Alexx you're a bloody dill.

 

There's nothing to indicate that the list was exhaustive (it also included the population of Hogsmeade, however, which must include some Slytherins). Further, I don't agree that "friends and family" doesn't include a large number of Slytherins.

Since Slughorn left with the Slytherins and was in charge of them, his return strongly implies the Slytherins' return. JKR didn't need to say it outright, because she probably assumed readers would think "Slughorn has returned with lots of people" = "the Slytherins have returned".

That said, I very much doubt Pansy etc returned, given that they directly support the Death Eater cause.

 

This I disagree on. I may be dense, but the "strongly implies" never really seemed that obvious to me.
Basically what we have is "the only Slytherin you see doing something good is Slughorn, but I tell you that all Slytherins aren't evil, so you know every time I don't make a list of the good guys, there are unnamed Slytherins with them".

Whatever, I'm not saying that you or JK are wrong, just that having it explicit would have gone a long way for the "choices show who we are" idea.

 

This isn't a run of the mill fighting situation. They are aware that if they don't stand up to the evil right now and win, there will be no future for them. If anything, I'd compare their situation to Polish youth who joined the resistance against Nazis.

So, while I agree that not fighting doesn't evil make, I also think that calling those fighting insane is unfair.

 

Especially as they experienced in Hogwarts how new order will work.

End in many cases it is either "nearly certain murder after final victory of Voldemort, maybe also torture gratis" or "risk death in a battle".

 

Uh, besides Slughorn, where in the DH does it say the Slytherins come back?

 

Also in the epilogue Albus Severus is scared of being sorted into Slytherin still seen as a slimy house. There really is no redemption for them.

 

That would be a better argument that there's no redemption for everybody else.