But here's the thing: using that as an identifier doesn't actually work. Let’s get into why.
Being vs. Valuing
With Gryffindors and bravery, it's not about being brave all the time. It's about valuing that courage and trying our best to follow suit. Some days those of us who care a great deal about courage don't have it when the time comes, but we keep trying to be what we value.If it was about having it already, then Neville would not have been a Gryffindor in his first year. It took him a long time to work up to the status of Hogwarts folk hero.
Hermione most certainly would have been a Ravenclaw because she WAS intelligent and scholarly and clever, but in her very own words: "Books! And cleverness! There are more important things—friendship and bravery and—oh Harry, be careful!”
She valued friendship and bravery more than cleverness, even though cleverness was clearly her strongest suit. And that's why she got put in Gryffindor.
Luna was as gutsy as any Gryffindor could ever hope to be, but she valued curiosity and exploration more. That’s why she was a Ravenclaw.
Let’s not even talk about Peter Pettigrew, because OOF. How that embarrassment ended up in Gryffindor really can only be explained by the values over traits theory. I have no other idea how he ended up there.
Gryffindors value courage and passion and heart above many other things. Hufflepuffs value loyalty and fairness. Ravenclaws value wisdom and intelligence and curiosity. But Slytherins don't actually value ambition so much as are purported to have it. And that doesn't fit the pattern at all.
"Ambition" is Way Too Vague
On top of being the wrong kind of descriptor, "having ambition" is too vague to actually have value as an identifying trait. Ambition manifests itself in so many different forms that it's hard to measure in any meaningful way.
Someone might have a great deal of ambition to settle down in a nice house with a family of their own, just living a simple life. They aren't on the warpath to become the next CEO of their company.
However, that doesn't mean their ambitions are less worthy. And having such a strong ambition doesn't make them Slytherin any more than wanting to play quidditch automatically makes someone a Gryffindor.
However, that doesn't mean their ambitions are less worthy. And having such a strong ambition doesn't make them Slytherin any more than wanting to play quidditch automatically makes someone a Gryffindor.
If it did, then Percy Weasley would have been the Slytheriniest Slytherin who ever Slythered in to the world of fiction. (Except maybe Scarlet O'hara. But that's another discussion.) And yet he, too, was placed in Gryffindor, despite the fact that he actively and aggressively pursued very serious ambitions for his career.
Luna's mother was the Ravenclaw to beat all Ravenclaws, but was killed in pursuit of her ambition to recreate the lost diadem.
Fred and George were actually just as ambitious as Percy was, albeit in a very different direction. The work they put into their joke shop is truly impressive.
Hermione was extremely ambitious in her studies. Especially in third year, and again with the OWLs. But not even a little bit Slytherin.
There are just too many ways to be ambitious. So I would posit that what matters so much more than ambition is why. Why are they pursuing certain things? What result do they hope to achieve from their actions? What motivates them to be ambitious in that arena?
Those things are what separate the Slytherins and the Gryffindors and the Ravenclaws and the Hufflepuffs. Motive. Goals. Desires.
So, What IS a Slytherin, Then?
I'll be honest, I don't have an answer to this question. I have several friends who are very definitely Slytherin, and I wouldn't put them in any other house. But I also don't know exactly why. Not yet.
The reason for that is largely that the canon isn't helpful on that regard. And also that there are so many different kinds of people that there isn't just one way to be a Slytherin. Just look at the source material. What kinds of Slytherins do we see canonically?
First, we’ve got Snape. He’s the kind of Slytherin who fought the dark arts not because it was right or he was good, but because they offended him, and he wouldn't stand for it. There’s something extraordinarily self-serving about that.
He did some good things and did risk his life several times. And I do believe he wasn’t wholly without merit. But his motivations were… problematic and very selfish.
But then we’ve got Horace Slughorn. He’s a man that values connections and oblique power over just about anything else. During the height of the Voldemort era, there would have been no one more useful to be able to call in favors from, and Slughorn could have done it. If he wanted.
Yet that’s the one thing he never did. In fact, he gave up a life of comfort and power and connections—everything he cared most about—in order to actively NOT have a connection with Voldemort.
I don’t think Slughorn gets nearly enough credit for the things he did simply because it was right. Whatever his flaws are, there stands a guy who stood up to be counted when it really mattered.
These are two dramatically different examples of people who somehow ended up connected by the same house.
Another example: Bellatrix Lestrange and her sisters Narcissa and Andromeda. All three Slytherins. All three raised exactly the same. All three having taken enormously different paths.
- One became the most dedicated Death Eater Voldy had.
- One became a “blood traitor” by marrying a non-pure-blood (Ted Tonks).
- One betrayed Voldemort when it mattered most because it was never him to whom she was loyal, but her family.
(I also think that Narcissa’s character is fascinating, and often wonder how different she might be under other circumstances. She seems more like Andromeda than Bellatrix, to me. But that’s a blog post for another day.)
None of these five people followed the same path. None of them had nearly the same kinds of ambition, nor the to same levels. So what do all of them have in common?
Well, for one thing, I’d say each person here had some degree of ruthlessness. Each of them, whatever their motivations, did what it took to get things done. The Sorting Hat canon of “those cunning folk use any means to achieve their ends” applies very well across the board.
This “doing whatever it takes” mentality does lend itself to selfishness, and it certainly can be corrupted. Often easily. But in itself, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
In fact, in the cases of Horace Slughorn and Regulus Black, it can turn someone into a valuable and stalwart ally. One who will give up everything else in order to accomplish something important.
The ends justified the means in both of those cases.
Conclusion
I still don’t know what words I would use instead, to describe what Slytherins value. Results? Cunning? Sheer Getting-Stuff-Done-ness? I don’t know. I’d have to consider for longer than one blog post, and do some observation of my real life Slytherin friends.
But I maintain that using “ambitious” as the house’s descriptor is both inaccurate and doing them a disservice. Slytherin deserves something much better to identify with. And maybe opening that door will make it easier for the rest of us to not see them as “the evil house”. (That includes you, J.K. Rowling.)
