View Topic

I thought I had it right by not just calling Ravenclaw the smart house or Slytherin the evil house, I see I still have room to learn about the true meaning of the houses..

Hey now, I'm just being pedantic as buggery. You've got the general grasp of the whole thing. At the end of the day they are just arbitrary divisions for a story. =D

Anywho, did the pedantic explanations help out at all?

Plus, Ravenclaw isn't really about creativity; it's more about curiosity, wanting to explore the unknown, finding out what they don't yet know.
Plus, Gryffindor isn't so much about being brave for the sake of it; it's more being passionate and standing up for what and who they believe in.
Plus, Slytherin isn't so much about latching onto a specific ambition; more about "what do other people think of me" and to a greater extent "how will I be remembered?" or "what legacy do I wish to have?"
Plus, Hufflepuff isn't just about being friends with everyone; they do their best to stick to the safe and reliable and avoid starting needless conflicts.

Hmm... I'd actually partially disagree with some of your interpretations there. And the Pottermore quiz, IMO, shouldn't be the end of how we assess House traits.

Gryffindor isn't simply about bravery or courage, true, but I think much of the motivation includes a strong drive for adventure and heroism as well as "doing the right thing."
For Slytherin, I'd argue the opposite from what you said. Legacy is merely one ambition that people might want to work towards; what matters more for Slytherin is the drive to personally succeed no matter what.
And for Hufflepuff, I've always placed greater emphasis on the loyalty aspect; rather than simply being friendly, Hufflepuffs are good friends, work with others well, achieve great things together, etc.

This is all beyond me.

I mostly wanted to focus on the "stereotype" and go "no, that's not the full picture." The houses aren't hyper defined within the source material, after all. Plus, the Pottermore quiz was made by JK. Yes, it shouldn't be the end-all, but it's another place people can draw their information on.

You have a good point regarding Slytherin. I always saw them as people working to being seen in a particular light, but that does still fit under the umbrella of "ambition." Hm. I'm not fond of that conclusion.

Gryffindor, however, I disagree with. I don't think adventure and the desire to be a hero is a purely Gryffindor thing -- I'd honestly picture that as Slytherin (well, more the "hero" part. The adventure part still holds, but being a hero seems more "ambitious" than "brave" to me). Gryffindor's more the house of passions than heroics, in my opinion, it's just that the former has a tendency to lead into the latter. (And then Harry and every other person in the source material get a hefty bias thanks to all the heroes seeming to come from Gryffindor XD).

With Hufflepuff though, I am strongly biased towards that house so I didn't want to toot my own horn, so to speak. Hufflepuff always ends up reading to me as "Look, we are the house of the good people" for some strange reason. =P Still, I place more emphasis on conflict avoidance/solving than anything else -- though the loyal/friend part is still important.

JK Rowling being directly related to the Sorting Hat quiz does lend it some weight, but I still wouldn't consider it authoritative, especially since we're doing meta-analysis on what probably isn't the most serious game. And Death of the Author and all that, especially with how biased Rowling still seems against Slytherin.

For Slytherin, I just don't think characterizing them as image-obsessed is too accurate. Generally, their image and reputation is still often the means to another goal.

I agree with you there on Gryffindor. I just thought that your statement was a bit too oversimplified, but now that I see that you were trying to combat the standard House stereotypes it makes far more sense.

Fair enough there. Slytherin got really rubbish answers in the quiz =D

I don't think one definition excludes the other. Gryffindors are brave and/or passionate and/or bold and so on, after all. Sytherins should get more adjectives!

Fair enough there. Slytherin got really rubbish answers in the quiz =D

I don't think one definition excludes the other. Gryffindors are brave and/or passionate and/or bold and so on, after all. Sytherins should get more adjectives!

Slytherins have plenty, IMO: ambitious, cunning, clever, resourceful, determined, evil, etc.

Oh yeah. Whoops. Though, some people with those traits would be more likely to associate themselves with Ravenclaw or Gryffindor.

Oh yeah. Whoops. Though, some people with those traits would be more likely to associate themselves with Ravenclaw or Gryffindor.

Mostly only because the "evil" part throws them off, though. It's the same way in the books; even Harry does it.

I was trying to imply that point XD. That said, it may also be because Ravenclaw and Gryffindor's labels are more noticible, since they are at the top of their list of adjectives.

The evil part is definitely the main turn-away, though.

It was disappointing at first that the author make it look so blatantly Good vs. Evil. With two Neutral/Goodish alternatives that didn't get mentioned much in the first few books except for when they needed to lose at Quidditch and the House Cup.
Since I look for it now, I notice all the time in books in other media, and consider it to be poor writing when the designated antagonists have their "Look at me, I'm being evil!" scenes just to remind you who is good or bad. If the story is well written, that isn't necessary. It's especially bad in far too many movies where the protagonist's morality is questionable, but there is a limited amount of time to establish who the main bad person is, so they have to use that time to go around kicking puppies or something so you don't question at the end if the protagonist was actually the main bad person all along, because at least they were less bad than the antagonist.
It's fortunate that Harry Potter's author started to fix that near the end. Horace Slughorn the good Slytherin and Cormac McLaggen the evil Gryffindor, with no doubt that they still belonged in their respective houses. It was pretty blatant why they suddenly started existing at the same time, but I'm okay with that, it's as if it was a statement of honesty that an error was made and this was a step to correct that.
Unfortunate that those who only watched the movies never found out that many Slytherins fought against Voldemort at the Battle of Hogwarts in the end.

The books were originally made for children. Further, they were JK's first books (I think?). If there wasn't a major flaw like that, chances are we'd end up with a flaw elsewhere.

Besides, I'm in it for the delicious world building and stealthy foreshadows. I'll take some antagonistic designation if I can have that. Especially since I can easily shift from "ew the author is biased" to "ew the character is biased." He was eleven, for goodness sake!

Regarding the "hey lookit me" scenes in general, they do have their place. Show versus tell is very difficult to balance, after all.

You can always casually have the "bad guy' say some lines that hints that when they say "edit line three" they mean "forge evidence bwah ha ha." But, there is always the risk that people don't pick up on it and take it as foreshadowing after the reveal instead of a noen sign label of THIS ONE IS THE BAD GUY and the reveal was just them being a bit more obvious. And then there's the risk that people abruptly put the character into Leather Pants because they can easily ignore or excuse those neon signs. Granted, the latter happens anyway.

Or, you could outright tell the reader "The chanceller was evil, of course, but the King didn't agree and the common folk too concerned witu day-to-day life to care." But that's telling, that's "bad writing," and people want you to prove it. And so, kicking puppies ensue.

N: all the quotes came from my brain, unless I subconsciously stole them.

I remember someone (it might have been Eliezer Yudkowsky, who'd written Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, which often makes fun of HP's plotholes/idiot balls/etc.) saying how good children's books take a special talent to write that most writers would find incredibly difficult to achieve. There has to be a balancing of simple and complex, so that children can understand the core meaning yet everyone can appreciate the more nuanced layers beneath.

I think that goes for all fiction directed towards children.