Well, the Slytherin in the books were largely social conservatives as written — old families who did things old ways and didn’t want to change or accept the new people.
What was the social commentary on the other Houses?
What I took from it:
- Slytherin = conservatives, old money
- Hufflepuff = average, middle of the road folk who didnt fit any of the other Houses
- Ravenclaw = the Smartest/most purely intellectually inclined
- Gryffindor = the Brave? Or most reckless warm-blooded folk of any kind who would throw it all away for the adventur
As I understood it:
Gryffindor = The brave Ravenclaw = The smart Hufflepuff = The stupid Slytherin = The evil
Or, in storytelling terms: the protagonists, the mentors, the comic relief, the antagonists.
You missed something, or I did. Gryffindor is bravery, Hufflepuff is hard work, Ravenclaw is intelligence, and Slytherin is cunning. They were portrayed as evil but they weren’t evil by default. The Slytherin guy the house is named for was not evil. Snape was not evil (he was kind of a bastard at times though.)
I think stupid is harsh, seems more communal or less individualistic/egoic perhaps even, and doesnt fit so much in any of the others
I’d say Hufflepuff were the ones who valued hard work and coöperation; Slytherin and Ravenclaws were much more individualistic, and even Griffindor puts an emphasis on the actions of individuals and small groups led by individuals.
Ravenclaws were intellectual and curious more than intelligent — some of them act quite stupid, just like real life academics.
Slytherins valued not just tradition and money but status in general and social skills and cunning.
Griffindors prized bravery and strength. Honestly, the most like Slytherin in that they’re fiercely tribal in defense of their champions, and view success as more important that method.
Supremacist
Cuz they’re evil, narcissistic, supremacists.
