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.