Hogwarts Houses
Nov. 22nd, 2010 02:35 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackI mentioned this elsewhere, but decided it was worth recording as a post.
Firstly, Hogwarts houses are like a roleplaying game alignment system: an intriguing set of axes to project people onto, and an interesting premise for a fictional world, but not a complete reflection of real people.
However, it occurred to me that lots of people get stuck on questions like "Why isn't Hermione in Ravenclaw?" and that an equally plausible and possibly more consistent interpretation was also inherent in the description. Namely, what if your house reflects, not what you're best at but what you value most.
The houses might be loosely categorised as:
Gryffindor: Bravery, justice, rashness, self-importance
Ravenclaw: Intelligence, curiosity
Hufflepuff: Loyalty, hard-workingness,
Slytherin: Ambition, ruthlessness
In this interpretation, it doesn't mean that Hermione is more brave than she is academically brilliant -- but that if she had to choose, she'd think Hermione-without-brilliance is more Hermione than Hermione-without-Justice. Put in those terms, it suddenly makes a lot more sense: many people I know fall into a similar category: I don't know how I would cope without my skills, to a large extent they define who I am -- but not as much as my moral positions, as scraggly as they are.
The same for Neville: it's always difficult for him to show courage -- but he never ever gives up trying. And for Cedric Diggory: I don't know, but I can imagine that he's quite brave and intelligent, but being loyal and hard-working is what is at his core.
Of course, there are things Rowling says about the system that we never see: like a likeable Slytherin, or one who doesn't seem honestly repulsive. But I think Rowling genuinely meant that to exist, even if the books fail in presenting it.
It also ties in to the defining idea that Harry chose his destiny.
Of course, this may all be made explicit in the books, but I don't think it is. Conversely, the system may not have a plausible rationale, but I still like this way of looking at it.
Firstly, Hogwarts houses are like a roleplaying game alignment system: an intriguing set of axes to project people onto, and an interesting premise for a fictional world, but not a complete reflection of real people.
However, it occurred to me that lots of people get stuck on questions like "Why isn't Hermione in Ravenclaw?" and that an equally plausible and possibly more consistent interpretation was also inherent in the description. Namely, what if your house reflects, not what you're best at but what you value most.
The houses might be loosely categorised as:
Gryffindor: Bravery, justice, rashness, self-importance
Ravenclaw: Intelligence, curiosity
Hufflepuff: Loyalty, hard-workingness,
Slytherin: Ambition, ruthlessness
In this interpretation, it doesn't mean that Hermione is more brave than she is academically brilliant -- but that if she had to choose, she'd think Hermione-without-brilliance is more Hermione than Hermione-without-Justice. Put in those terms, it suddenly makes a lot more sense: many people I know fall into a similar category: I don't know how I would cope without my skills, to a large extent they define who I am -- but not as much as my moral positions, as scraggly as they are.
The same for Neville: it's always difficult for him to show courage -- but he never ever gives up trying. And for Cedric Diggory: I don't know, but I can imagine that he's quite brave and intelligent, but being loyal and hard-working is what is at his core.
Of course, there are things Rowling says about the system that we never see: like a likeable Slytherin, or one who doesn't seem honestly repulsive. But I think Rowling genuinely meant that to exist, even if the books fail in presenting it.
It also ties in to the defining idea that Harry chose his destiny.
Of course, this may all be made explicit in the books, but I don't think it is. Conversely, the system may not have a plausible rationale, but I still like this way of looking at it.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-22 03:58 am (UTC)But I read a fanfic recently where Snape is talking about the naiveté of children believing there are exactly the same number of each House in each year being because there is something intrinsic about the people.
That makes more sense to me; that it's somewhat random, because we see clearly demonstrated that some people show no traits of their House. Specifically Ginny Weasley has zero interest in justice (hello, she tried to kill a dozen people and never said 'sorry'; the forgiveness would have been trivially granted since no one really blamed her), is completely cowardly without even trying to do better (in the early books), and she's really annoyed by other people being brash and overt.
A large part of why the characters in the books seem pigeonholed is that despite the narrative style, we really only see things from Harry's perspective and Harry's been taught by everyone he's ever encountered that stereotyping is how to tell who is who. (No way the Dursleys aren't racist, for example. And Hagrid came right out and lied to Harry about the Slytherins being inherently evil.)
It's so weird to me that Harry is so accepting of the Weasleys though, because that was so obviously a setup and Harry never questions why he tells Draco he can choose his own friends when really he just latched onto the first people who talked to him in his life and agreed with their opinions.
Just think, if Dumbledore had sent McGonagall to retrieve Harry instead, she wouldn't have buggered off for a pint and let his view of the wizarding world be poisoned by Malfoy parroting racism. And really. No one else who looked magical was in the station? Really? Then there must be another way onto the platform, which means the Weasleys were stationed there to manipulate the situation by appearing helpful. So as much as Harry chose Gryffindor, it wasn't a free choice, he'd already been coerced into hatred of Slytherins.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-22 12:22 pm (UTC)FWIW, I assume Rowling intended Harry's conclusions to be justified, but failed to make what she wrote convincing to non-eleven-year-olds, rather than supporting the logical conclusions of what she actually depicted.
some people show no traits of their House
FWIW, I think they're supposed to always have hidden depths (even though in real life you can always say that and it's uncheckable).
no subject
Date: 2010-11-22 04:13 pm (UTC)And the first book was completely convincing when I was reading it, (which was before other people caught on because the second book had just come out, and I really worried about sending the first two books to my nephew since who knew if the author would finish the series! hahahahahaha.) but when I wasn't reading it, it felt wrong. By the time I'd read the fourth book, I'd begun hating the Weasleys. I kept wondering why they were so prominent in the books since none of the other supposedly evil characters got that much "page time".
Then I started asking myself why Harry, who was abused by his mundane relatives would think saving people like that was actually a good thing. (Thus my really liking your "core sense of justice" idea.)