Ramblings on Houses

[turayza]

Everyone always associates "Slytherin" with "bad", but that's not quite true, really. Slytherins are more about elevating themselves to better positions...but that's not something to be ashamed of. It’s really the methods that change everything.
And the opposites of Slytherins aren’t Gryffindors at all—Hufflepuffs, in terms of personality, are more of an opposite. If Slytherins are ambitious for themselves, then Hufflepuffs are that way for others. Instead of focusing on personal success, they (or at least, they are supposed to) work to help the people around them.
What, then, are Gryffindors? The stereotype is simple-minded and rash, or courageous if you want to be positive, but Gryffindors are actually just a little more emotion-driven than logic-driven, if I’m going to be very deductive. Put aside the concepts of good and bad Rowling tries to drill into the houses and you can see that Gryffindors are most different from Ravenclaws.
That brings me to the last house, which all the bajillions of quizzes I’ve taken (except one, which said Hufflepuff) have told me I belong to. If Gryffindors are more touchy-feely, then Ravenclaws are more distant and detached, right? And then with distant and detached you associate coldness, evilness, bwahahaha-ing and genocide. Lovely, isn’t it? (Not really.)
So which houses are good and which are bad? None of them. I really don’t like how Rowling sets up the Slytherins as evil people, when anyone from any house has that same potential. I’m still figuring out how to explain, but any comments?


♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
 

[SuzelovesJamesPotter]

I completely agree with everything. biggrin

Slytherin aren't bad, they simply are just ambitious and work for themselves to generally get a higher position. I think the reason Slytherin has such a bad connotation is because throughout the books was because DEs are very ambitious and cunning and sly. Look at Snape, an ex-DE. He was able to convince two of the greatest wizards ever that he was on both their sides. He wasn't evil, just very cunning.

I also don't think that if your bad, you automatically go into to Slytherin. (Look at Pettigrew. He wasn't ambitious at all. He just became a DE not because he agreed, but he was scared.) Or if your family is in one house, you'll automatically be in it. I think with the whole family thing, it's not really true at all. How you act depends on traits you inherit and your home enviroment. You see so many on one family go in the same house because they were raise in such similar fashions and that's what they know. But sometimes, like Sirius, could disagree with their family's attitude, and they would be in a whole different house.

Oooh , I like the way you explained Gryffindors because it is completely right.They are courageous because they disagree with other's ways and want to fight them against it. They are rash because something drags that emotion out of them over an issue.

Ravenclaw's explanation was excellent. They are not distant and cold, they just think with their mind and what they know is right over their heart and it's rashness generally. Like I always say, I have the mind of a Ravenclaw and the heart of a Gryffindor. To tell where I truly am supposed to be, it depends on which one I use the most to make the biggest decisions. To be a Ravenclaw doesn't mean your cold, it just means you use your logic over emotion when a decision calls on it.

I agree neither are good or bad. Everyone has good and bad in them, it depends how they use it. Slytherins have been set up that way because they have the nescessary traits for DEs. A Gryffindor could be just as evil if their heart tells them something is wrong (even if it's right.) or a Ravenclaw if their logic tells them it is wrong. Or even a Hufflepuff (even if it is a bit hard to imagine.).

Ohh I had fun with this and I love your theories! heart  

[turayza]

Thanks for reading! XD I was inspired after taking a ton of Harry-Potter-related quizzes on Facebook....brought on by the HBP movie, no doubt.
Lol, took me a moment to figure out what DEs were. : P
I think it's really hard to us to assign good character traits to houses based on canon characters because everyone isn't all one house--they're just mostly one house. (: It's crazy HP nuts like us who kill the poor stereotypes.

I was thinking about the Hufflepuff thing, and actually, if a mostly-Hufflepuff person felt like his/her friends were being wronged, I think he/she would definitely do something about it...maybe not Voldemort's way, because he was all about causing pain, but I'm sure some Hufflepuffs would've been willing to torture Voldie...especially if something affected someone close to them O:

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
 

[ScottieBears MiaKitty]

Of course all the houses have a potential for evil. Every facet of human character can become twisted into evil, so of course it's impossible to say that only one house would have evil potential. I think that it's not so much that the other houses themselves are not evil, it's that the personality traits that Slytherin valued over others in combination with each other do tend to create evil personalities. He valued a thirst for power, cunning, ambition, and wanted to keep his house pureblooded. Those things together create a very dark sort of personality. I think that the reason Slytherin's students came out so evil is because he took the one thing from each of the other houses that gives them the potential for evil.

Ravenclaws, I think, are the easiest to use as an example of this. Ravenclaws can become evil if their thirst for knowledge becomes so great that they are willing to go to any lengths to get it. They all have the desire to learn all that they can, but most stop at wanting to learn within the boundaries of what is right. They lack the drive and ambition to cause harm to others in their quest for knowledge. Slytherins have that drive and ambition, and they thirst, not quite for knowledge, but for power. Everyone knows that knowledge is power. Thus, the desire inherent in Ravenclaws is also present in a Slytherin, the difference being that a Ravenclaw lacks the drive to actually go to any great lengths for the knowledge if what they have to do to gain it is wrong to them.

Hufflepuff is probably the most difficult to say, but I think I can manage. As the Sorting Hat said the very first year, Hufflepuff decided to 'take the rest.' The rest being students who did not show a great potential for bravery, ambition, or knowledge. I'm not saying by any means that the people in that house don't have any redeeming features, of course, just that they were not really specified in the stories. A lot of fanfiction writers say that Hufflepuff's feature is that they are trusting and loyal, but this doesn't really go with CoS, when a whole group of Hufflepuffs decided that because Harry was a Parseltongue, he was the Heir of Slytherin. Hufflepuff is a house which is regularly taken for granted, almost like it doesn't matter. It stands to reason then that perhaps the students in that house are often treated like they don't matter. This can create a feeling of anger in people towards the outside world. They become mad at the people around them for not noticing them, not seeing them, not caring about them. This can cause people to become bad or evil. Again, though, the Hufflepuffs are not ambitious, like the Slytherins are. They probably do not have an exceptional desire to be noticed for the most part, and thus do not become angered by the lack of attention.

I have to say I'm a little annoyed at another misconception you both have about Gryffndors. You have both said something that basically amounts to the idea that Gryffindors are too stubborn to listen to the point of view of others when their emotions are involved. This idea was banished fairly early in the series, in PoA. No one can deny that Harry's emotions were involved in the scene in the Shrieking Shack. He was furious. He thought that the man before him, Sirius Black, had killed his parents. He wanted to kill Sirius. But when the time came for the story to be told, Harry listened. He didn't believe Sirius and Remus at first, of course, but he did ask them to prove their claims, which shows that he was thinking about what they were saying. If a Gryffindor was truly incapable of stopping to think when his emotions were involved, the third book would have had an entirely different ending, I think. It is difficult to say when a Gryffindor's stubborness truly comes into play, but it is safe to say that it does not occur when emotions are involved. Nor is it when they are 100% sure that they are right. Harry had no doubts that Sirius had killed his parents. He had heard the same thing from several people. Perhaps the fact that Remus was involved and Harry trusted Remus was the defining factor, but it still shows that he wasn't too stubborn to listen. I think that a Gryffindor's emotions are part of the reason that they do not have the same potential for evil as the Slytherins. Gryffindors think with their hearts, they let their emotions and their beliefs guide them. Slytherins let the ambitions and what they want guide them. If a Gryffindor and a Slytherin were both faced with something they wanted, and in order to get it they had to cause another person harm, a Gryffindor would turn away because it was wrong to hurt that other person, whereas a Slytherin wouldn't even see a person, they would see an obstacle. I find it interesting that the one Gryffindor who was converted to the dark side was the only one who didn't deserve to be called brave, and that the one Slytherin who in the end was good was one who did what he thought was right in his heart. And the one good act committed by a true Death Eater was when Narcissa Malfoy allowed Harry to live because someone she loved was still alive.

I don't think that the house Slytherin itself is bad, or that everyone in that house is automatically evil. I simply think that it is the combination of characteristics that Slytherins are chosen for that gives the house the greatest potential for evil.
*cough* Join Dueling Club at the Haven *cough*

 

[Flarityxx18]

I really don't understand the point of Houses in the first place. I really don't think that everyone TRUELY belongs to just one House. I mean, look at Blaise. He has the mind of a Ravenclaw but the heart of a Slytherin. And Ron? Heart of a Hufflepuff, but mind of a Gryffindor. I think it should be based on more individuality than anything else. And I don't really like how Rowling judges all the characters on what House they're in, which is where my ranting starts.

I always had a theory that Malfoy wasn't "evil" just because he was in Slytherin. I just think that they put people in Slytherin because they're more like "Oh, I wanna get what I want all the time" and stuff like that. That doesn't mean they're evil. Yeah, Malfoy's mean to Harry, but he was raised like that, he wasn't born that way. I mean, didn't you all notice in HBP, when Bellatrix was destroying Hogwarts, didn't Malfoy look like she was destroying part of his home? Like, he really didn't want her to do it because he became attached to it? I think that's more of his "good" side coming out. I think Sirius was right, everyone has light and dark inside of them, so I really don't understand why there are Houses anyway.

I do agree that Gryffindors aren't all they're cracked up to be. They seem to be more arrogant than anything else. I agree that Gryffindors being the opposite of Slytherin isn't necessarily correct. They're both arrogant, they both act before they think...I mean, yeah Gryffindors are courageous and Slytherins are cowards, but I think that's the only difference, really. I do think that Slytherins are only the opposite of Hufflepuffs. Hufflepuffs being all happy and sweet and Slytherins being cunning and ambitious. Same goes for Gryffindors being the opposite of Ravenclaws. Gryffindors don't ALWAYS think with their heads or do what's right. I mean, look at Prisoner of Azkaban, when Harry and Hermione went back in time and Harry saw Ron with Scabbers (aka Pettigrew). He wanted to go and kill it, but that wasn't the smart thing to do. See? Gryffindors aren't always the most intelligent people and they would think of doing what they want rather than what is right. I think that's why Ravenclaws would be the opposite of Gryffindors.

I also think that Slytherins and Ravenclaws can actually get along. I mean, it's just like Hufflepuffs and Gryffindors can get along. Slytherins are smart people, really. And they do think before they act, unlike Gryffindors. And I agree that Ravenclaws aren't cold and distant, but maybe Slytherins think they are. But you never really see anyone other than Malfoy making fun of Ravenclaws, do you? But I always think of Ravenclaws and Slytherins like the intelligent side of Hogwarts and Gryffindors and Hufflepuffs as more...like, they have good intentions, but they don't always think before they act. I agree with what Mia said about Ravenclaws. They seem to have the same traits, it's just that Slytherins will go farther because they won't do what's right, but they have the intelligence to get there. Ravenclaws will do what's right and will stop before they get to cause any trouble. I think that's the only difference between Ravenclaws and Slytherins. Just like the only difference between Hufflepuffs and Gryffindors is that Gryffindors will be brave and go out to defeat evil, but Hufflepuffs won't. Let's think of them as the Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz. They really DO have the courage to do everything the Gryffindors do, but they choose not to use it. I mean, do you see any Hufflepuffs fighting in the last battle (at least from this era)? No. They're all Gryffindors and Ravenclaws, basically (unless I'm missing something, but the only Hufflepuffs I know of are Ernie MacMillion, Cedric Diggory, and Hannah Abbot, and I don't think any of them were in the final battle). But of course, they can work together because Rowling made it so Gryffindors and Slytherins can't work together.

But I do think she's somewhat right. I mean, Slytherins are very close to Ravenclaws in the mind end of it, and Ravenclaws are more the opposite of Gryffindors, and adding that Slytherins will do evil (I'm not saying all of them will, but some will), Gryffindors don't really WANT to work with them. But I think if you put all that aside, they could work together.

And I know I seem a little like a hypocrite now because I do think of them as a whole instead of individuals like I said before, but I'm really not, I'm just using the material Rowling gave us, which is pretty much wrong compared to what we think. But, it's her book and she can do what she wants with it.  

[Alexia_1492]

I don't think that Slytherins are Bad, but I think that they can be very rude. I personally don't have a problem with them. If they were just the tiniest bit nicer, I might even like them. (No offense to any Slytherins)  

[ScottieBears MiaKitty]

Meatball: Ced wasn't the only hero in Hufflepuff, Tonks was a Hufflepuff, too, and she did die in the final battle. Although this isn't really fair to Huffflepuff, I think. They only get two 'good guys' and the rest of them are just background characters. Slytherin was also given two 'good guys' in the end, Snape and Regulas. They just took longer to come around.

I think if you pay attention to people who went against their stereotype, you'll notice something interesting. Peter Pettigrew, the Gryffindor Death Eater, was a coward. Severus Snape, the Slytherin member of the Order of the Pheonix, loved Lily Evans. These two characters are show a marked contradiction of what they were 'supposed' to be. Pettigrew as a Gryffindor should have been brave, and Snape as a Slytherin should not have been able to love Lily to the extent that he did, especially given the fact that she was muggleborn.

Again, being in that house doesn't make you evil. Ambition doesn't make you evil. Ambition coupled with the bigoted opinion of the pureblood families in that house and a thirst for power is what made them evil. All the members of Slytherin who became evil were not evil for being in that house. It was just that the qualities they possessed coupled with living with the stereotype they had been given made them come out that way. If you tell a person they don't matter enough times, eventually they will either begin to believe it or prove you wrong. Voldemort, as an orphan, grew up with the idea that he didn't matter, and he chose to prove the world wrong in the most extreme sense, by becoming the most powerful and feared wizard of all time. All of the Death Eaters chose to accept the stereotype of being Dark Wizards, while Snape went against what was expected of him by befriending Lily Evans. It was a small rebellion, but still effective, as it lead him to being a good guy in the end.

Of course, the movie got the quote about Slytherin wrong. In the movie, they say that not a wizard went bad who wasn't in Slytherin, making it sound as though all evil wizards came from Slytherin. In the book, it was that not a wizard who came out of Slytherin didn't go bad, meaning that everyone who came out of Slytherin was bad. These, of course, are not exact quotes, but the idea is the same. And in each quote, note that it says bad, not evil. One doesn't have to be a dark wizard to be bad. It could simply mean bigoted, like Umbridge, or corrupt, like Fudge turned out to be. And again, not all 'bad' wizards were in Slytherin in the book. All Slytherins simply turned out to be 'bad' and even the one Slytherin who really turned out to be good, Snape, was 'bad' because he allowed his feelings towards Lily and his hatred of James to lead him to treat Harry in a way that was uncalled for.
*cough* Join Dueling Club at the Haven *cough*

 

[Minerva the Bookwyrm]

Such brilliant theories and explanations; I agree with all of it! biggrin I'm so impressed that everyone that posted in this thread earns five points! exclaim biggrin Well, everyone except for Lexi. No offense, Lexi; I'm glad that you participated, but everyone else put long paragraphs of analysis, and you only put two sentences.

Turayza, I loved how you explained the opposites. Brilliance! idea

Suze, I really liked the examples you used (Sev, Wormtail, Sirius). whee

Mia, great job on quoting The Hat regarding the Puffs, and kudos to you for defending your House! razz

meatball, thanks for pointing out how stereotypes exist everywhere, and that if we don't meet people to dispute them it's hard to shake them. 3nodding

Kineka, I've always thought that Slytherins and Ravenclaws would make good friends, and I liked how you went into detail about it. smile  

[turayza]

Mia: I don’t think Gryffindors are incapable of reason, just that they value emotions more than reason. Also, even though a lot of canon’s “bad guys” are from Slytherin, Grindelwald was a Ravenclaw. I feel like there is so much weight placed on ambition that a drive to succeed has morphed into the perception of ruthlessness. I think that is still balanced with the strongest sense of self-preservation of the four houses, and being evil tends to be bad for your health (:
Omg! I never noticed the thing about bad and evil. Guess I don’t pay close enough attention XD That’s a really good point. I’ll have to use that later n.n

Kineka: Of course. If we all were completely one house, humans would be very boring x3 It’s always a combination, and the House you end up in tends to be either the one with traits you value most, or the one with traits you demonstrate most. (Sometimes those are different, interestingly enough.)

We can all work together! :3 Group hug! Only the most drastically one-Housed people will find nothing in common with others. (They probably wouldn’t get along too well with people in their own House, either…)

Minerva: Awesomesauce! (: I posted that thinking that I would get some amazing responses to nominate for HPs, but you beat me to the punch : P

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
 

[turayza]

The amount of thought put into all the responses is really heartening (:
It's good to see we've still got some brains left after all the magical vending machines and alphabet games XD

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
 

[ScottieBears MiaKitty]

Yay, house points for being proud of my Gryffyness!

tura: I didn't know that Grindelwald was a Ravenclaw.. I didn't know he attended Hogwarts, I thought he was from another country... I guess I don't pay attention, either, hee hee. And yeah, of course I know that there are bad guys in other houses. It would be extremely messed up for Rowling to have made all the bad guys Slythys. I find it interesting that Hufflepuff is the one house that didn't have a 'bad guy' character. More neglect on JKR's part, or proof that Hufflepuff is the 'good' house? An interesting thought. And yeah, I didn't even think about it until I was trying to remember the quotes for the thing about how the movie got it wrong. And then I realized it and was like 'wow, that is also a very good point!' And from what you have said, you have followed my line of thought, I think, with the Slytherins. It's not that the house is evil, it just has the greatest potential. Evil can come from all facets of life. Even love can cause evil, if a person's mind is twisted enough.

And I am very happy with the amount of thoughtful posts that have been cropping up. The games are nice, but these threads remind me of why I joined the Haven. Serious discussions and consideration of the story is something that I am in love with.

I noticed a very interesting connection when I was reading the other night (I wasn't even reading HP, but this thought came to me). Slytherin is the 'bad house' in green and Gryffindor is the 'good house' in red. So how funny is it that Durmstrang is a dark magic school and also in Bulgaria, whose Quidditch team played in the QWC in red robes against the Irish team in green robes? And that Harry and the Weasleys, though they were fans of Krum, were rooting for the Irish? It's almost a sort of role reversal.
*cough* Join Dueling Club at the Haven *cough*

 

[ScottieBears MiaKitty]

turayza

Grindelwald was a Ravenclaw.

ScottieBears MiaKitty

tura: I didn't know that Grindelwald was a Ravenclaw.. I didn't know he attended Hogwarts, I thought he was from another country... I guess I don't pay attention, either, hee hee.

I've been doing some digging, tura, and Gindelwald didn't attend Hogwarts. Remember in DH, when Krum is angry at the symbol that Xenophilius Lovegood is wearing is the symbol of Grinelwald, who 'carved it into a wall at Durmstrang when he was a pupil there.' He was expelled from Durmstrang when he was 16.
*cough* Join Dueling Club at the Haven *cough*

 

[turayza]

Whoops! Must be too much fanfiction getting to me XD
Ah well, that's good to know.

The green-red thing is kind of strange...in general red and green are always the evil colors (though not together). Voldie's eyes are red. Slytherin is green. But then Gryffindor is red. Hrmm...


♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥