Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[eHalcyon]

Also, they are good at finding things.

wut?

Seriously, wut? You'd think they would have won a Quidditch match once in a while if their seeker was so good at finding things.

Oh man, have you two read xkcd's Ten Thousand comic?

Let me introduce you to A Very Potter Musical

(The joke might actually be in the sequel, but might as well start with the first one.)

[liopoil]

[Dsell]

Where my Gryffindors at? I'm like, best friends with HP.

[Awaclus]

Where my Gryffindors at? I'm like, best friends with HP.

Are you MP?

[silverspawn]

why are you slytherin awaclus? wouldn't that translate into, like, feeling proud about being an american?

[silverspawn]

So which do I pick if I've never read any Harry Potter book nor seen any Harry Potter movie?

WINDED EXPLANATION NOBODY WANTED

Gryffindor: Brave, tend toward being good & noble, but often overconfident or naive (Ron Weasley is the quintessential one in the books)
Hufflepuff: Loyal, caring, make friends easily.  Tend to let people walk all over them or not stand out. (As evidenced by how few factor in to the story)
Ravenclaw: Intelligent and/or creative, but often lacking social skills or being awkward (Luna Lovegood is the perfect representation of both sides)
Slytherin: Cunning, calculating, generally excellent in social situations.  However, they tend toward being dark and manipulative. Most of the villains in the series are Slytherins. (Draco Malfoy represents the house well)

Of course, as we learn in the books, the Sorting Hat chooses houses partially based on the wearer's choice, so if you will yourself toward one you probably end up in it.  (Choice being a key important element of the story)

i kind of doubt these. that's what the hat said in book 1, but he said something different in book 5, and i'm much more willing to believe the second version, because a) the first one is a childrens book and readers have a harder time grasping the concept of racism, and b) shit got real in the fifth one, so the hat is more pressured to tell people what's actually going on and c) he has reason to make stuff up in the first book (which is to not make huffle...things feel bad), but he doesn't have any reason to make things up in the fifth book

according to that:
your gryffindor and ravenclaw are fine
slytherin goes whoever is pure blood/half blood and proud of it. being manipulative and that stuff may also play a part, but it's probably much less important (look at malfoy's friends)
hufflepuff goes whoever doesn't have anything of the above

it makes a lot more sense too, hufflepuffs just tend to not be special in any way.

[Awaclus]

why are you slytherin awaclus? wouldn't that translate into, like, feeling proud about being an american?

I wasn't thinking that way, I just thought of some characters from the books and the Slytherin ones reminded me of myself the most. I definitely do not think that some races should be considered better than others.

[eHalcyon]

it makes a lot more sense too, hufflepuffs just tend to not be special in any way.

Hufflepuffs are plenty special.  From Rowling herself:

This may surprise people, but it is the truth...In many, many ways, Hufflepuff is my favourite House. Here's my reasoning, bear with me. (Again, I don't want to spoil things too much for people who haven't read the whole series, so I'm going to say what I'm about to say quite carefully). There comes a point in the final book where each House has the choice whether or not to rise to a certain challenge, and that's everyone in the House. The Slytherins, for reasons that are understandable, decide they'd rather not play. The Ravenclaws, some decide they will, some decide they won't. The Hufflepuffs, virtually to a person, stay, as do the Gryffindors. Now, the Gryffindors comprise a lot of foolhardy and show-offy people, that's just the way it is, I'm a Gryffindor, I'm allowed to say it. You know, there's bravery, and there's also showboating, and sometimes the two go together. The Hufflepuffs stayed for a different reason; they weren't trying to show off, they weren't being reckless, that's the essence of Hufflepuff House. Now my oldest child (my daughter, Jessica) said something very profound to me, not very many days ago, actually, she said to me --and she, by the way, was not sorted into Hufflepuff House-- but, she said to me, 'I think we should all want to be Hufflepuffs.' I can only say to you, that I would not be at all disappointed to be sorted into Hufflepuff House.

[silverspawn]

mhh well if the author said it, that's probably case closed. it's sort of a personal disappointment though.

[eHalcyon]

mhh well if the author said it, that's probably case closed. it's sort of a personal disappointment though.

Why is it disappointing?

[2.71828.....]

mhh well if the author said it, that's probably case closed. it's sort of a personal disappointment though.

case closed?  Of course not.  She is just covering for those Hufflepuffs.  Who find things

[silverspawn]

mhh well if the author said it, that's probably case closed. it's sort of a personal disappointment though.

Why is it disappointing?

because that's such an easy thing to say. "oh they aren't actually useless, they just have hidden strength, look here at this scene I deliberately build in to prove my point."

in the fifth book, the hat says (I don't know the english version, so I'll paraphrase):

Gryffindor said: I only take the ones who are brave
Slytherin said: I only take the ones that are of pure blood, and cunning on top of it
Ravenclaw said: I only take the ones who are smart
Hufflepuff said: I will take them all, regardless of their talents

that was cool, because it meant that all Hufflepuffs are inherently less gifted than the other houses. it's not just something everyone says, it's actually true. you would never create a system like that, but it just happened to be like that because of what the founders did. the students are about 11 years old when they get distributed to their houses, you don't want to tell an 11 year old kid that he isn't special, so the hat had to make up some stuff. "oh, they're just, and they spare no efforts. fluff."

when they get older, they must find out the truth eventually, but it's probably something that's not talked about much. Dunno, I just thought that was really neat. it would've been cool if it was thematized more, but it was at least a little bit at the end of book 4.

but even with what rowling said, i still think that slytherin is way more about caring about your blood and legacy than anything else

[Eevee]

Where my Gryffindors at? I'm like, best friends with HP.

Omg! Me too.

[silverspawn]

hp is an idiot though 

[WalrusMcFishSr]

A Defense of Hufflepuff

I think going from "I will take them all, regardless of their talents" to "all Hufflepuffs are inherently less gifted than the other houses" is quite the leap.

First of all, here's the English source material about Hufflepuff from the Sorting Hat, which is perhaps somewhat more canon:

Those patient Hufflepuffs are true
And unafraid of toil...

For Hufflepuff, hard workers were
Most worthy of admission...

Said Hufflepuff, "I'll teach the lot
And treat them just the same."

Good Hufflepuff, she took the rest
and taught them all she knew...

So it would seem there are themes of working hard and egalitarianism. Now, you may dismiss this as fluff, but I think these are pretty positive themes. I would guess that Hufflepuffs are more "well-balanced" than the other three houses, with personalities not dominated by a single attribute. Which again, you might say is just sweeping the dullards into one catch-all category. But working hard and keeping things in balance tends to lead to happiness and success in life. Which ought to be the primary purpose of a school, rather than a war academy or waspy evil wizard breeding ground. Everyone should have a chance to learn, and if you work hard, you'll succeed. In academic pursuits and life in general there is a lot to be said for diligence, 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration, that sort of thing. If you want to learn a musical instrument, you work hard at it. And then you get good at it.

And there is a fair degree of variance in intelligence/coolness/whatever for members of all the houses. Sure there are some duds but that's true of all the houses, and there are some bright stars too. Cedric Diggory was selected to champion the whole school in the Triwizard Tournament (although I guess it's not clear how much that selection process was rigged). There have been numerous Hufflepuff Ministers of Magic and Heads of Hogwarts. Surely they're not from the house of "don't tell the 11 year old he's slow". Meanwhile, Ravenclaw (for example) has had some recent doozies like Quirrel and Lockhart, who I think we can agree were both pretty lame.

And that's to say nothing of Hufflepuff herself, who was presumably a great wizard on par with the other three. She and Ravenclaw were besties, and there's no reason to think she was any less respected than the others, otherwise why would she have been included? Unfortunately there's not a whole lot about the personal lives of the Hogwarts founders on the wiki, but there's not much more about the others than there is about her. They all created a signature magical artifact and helped to bring the Sorting Hat to existence. Gryffindor was an accomplished duelist. Ravenclaw designed the sweet amorphous architecture of Hogwarts. Slytherin was an accomplished jerk and was really good at being a jerk. And Helga's contribution was apparently food charms for the feasts and such, she was kind of fat and good with food magic. But this matches her personality perfectly. Dueling is fine, obviously it's important to prepare people for the harsh realities of life. But shouldn't we be striving for a peaceful, prosperous, democratic society, with food and education for all?

Finally, I'd like to appeal to the literary angle. Harry Potter does not take place in the real world (obviously), there are wizards and shit primarily, but also a world of storytelling and moral absolutes. Sure in the real world, some people are demonstrably smarter or more successful than others, to the point that some people are classified as disabled. Maybe there are schools for the disabled in magical Britain, I'm not sure. But retardation is not a theme of Harry Potter. "Everyone is special" is. Ron is a podunk C student and Hermione is an upper middle class tryhard genius, but the books are very careful to remind you repeatedly that Ron has just as much to offer as Hermione for various reasons. And throughout the books concepts like goodness, kindness, and love are super duper important. To the point where they sometimes have actual, physical consequences in magical charms and such. So the fact that Hufflepuffs are good and honest and kind is quite relevant. They're part of the "good guys", and may even have access to powerful love magic or whatever that could be an overambitious Slytherin's undoing.

Mind you, I'm no Harry Potter expert, this is just one opinion. And if I had to say, all this anti-Hufflepuffism sounds like Slytherin talk to me

[silverspawn]

if this

Good Hufflepuff, she took the rest
and taught them all she knew...

is a literal quote, than the german translation is really misleading. i know it by heart, and it's

Sagt Hufflepuff, ich nehm sie all
Ohn' ansehen Ihrer Gaben

which translates to

Says Hufflepuff, I take them all
Without regards of their Talents

which is very different from the english version, because that one doesn't imply that their talents are irrelevant. I'm kind of baffled that he would translate it like that, but I guess it had to rhyme...

Without that quote, I probably wouldn't have gone that far in the first place.

And that's to say nothing of Hufflepuff herself, who was presumably a great wizard on par with the other three. She and Ravenclaw were besties, and there's no reason to think she was any less respected than the others, otherwise why would she have been included? Unfortunately there's not a whole lot about the personal lives of the Hogwarts founders on the wiki, but there's not much more about the others than there is about her. They all created a signature magical artifact and helped to bring the Sorting Hat to existence. Gryffindor was an accomplished duelist. Ravenclaw designed the sweet amorphous architecture of Hogwarts. Slytherin was an accomplished jerk and was really good at being a jerk. And Helga's contribution was apparently food charms for the feasts and such, she was kind of fat and good with food magic. But this matches her personality perfectly. Dueling is fine, obviously it's important to prepare people for the harsh realities of life. But shouldn't we be striving for a peaceful, prosperous, democratic society, with food and education for all?

I never said that Hufflepuff herself was in any way less great of a person than the other houses. Quite the contrary actually, I imagine Slytherin to be more or less a misguided asshole, and Gryffindor to have great traits but also be kind of an idiot, although there isn't much prove to this except some hints in the #7 book that he might have stolen the sword from the... how're they called? Kobolds? goblins? gremlins?

So anyway, I even thought of Hufflepuff to be the wisest of those 4, precisely because she took everyone.

Finally, I'd like to appeal to the literary angle. Harry Potter does not take place in the real world (obviously), there are wizards and shit primarily, but also a world of storytelling and moral absolutes. Sure in the real world, some people are demonstrably smarter or more successful than others, to the point that some people are classified as disabled. Maybe there are schools for the disabled in magical Britain, I'm not sure. But retardation is not a theme of Harry Potter. "Everyone is special" is. Ron is a podunk C student and Hermione is an upper middle class tryhard genius, but the books are very careful to remind you repeatedly that Ron has just as much to offer as Hermione for various reasons. And throughout the books concepts like goodness, kindness, and love are super duper important. To the point where they sometimes have actual, physical consequences in magical charms and such. So the fact that Hufflepuffs are good and honest and kind is quite relevant. They're part of the "good guys", and may even have access to powerful love magic or whatever that could be an overambitious Slytherin's undoing.

this is unfortunately true, and it's one of the books weaknesses imo. the moral is worse, but also the "everything is special" theme should rather not be there to this extent.

and I also want to remind you that I have given up on arguing that it was ever meant like this since I read the quote from rowling. After that, I was just arguing why I think it would have been a lot better if it were like that. I still think it would be.

[eHalcyon]

mhh well if the author said it, that's probably case closed. it's sort of a personal disappointment though.

Why is it disappointing?

because that's such an easy thing to say. "oh they aren't actually useless, they just have hidden strength, look here at this scene I deliberately build in to prove my point."

in the fifth book, the hat says (I don't know the english version, so I'll paraphrase):

Gryffindor said: I only take the ones who are brave
Slytherin said: I only take the ones that are of pure blood, and cunning on top of it
Ravenclaw said: I only take the ones who are smart
Hufflepuff said: I will take them all, regardless of their talents

that was cool, because it meant that all Hufflepuffs are inherently less gifted than the other houses. it's not just something everyone says, it's actually true. you would never create a system like that, but it just happened to be like that because of what the founders did. the students are about 11 years old when they get distributed to their houses, you don't want to tell an 11 year old kid that he isn't special, so the hat had to make up some stuff. "oh, they're just, and they spare no efforts. fluff."

when they get older, they must find out the truth eventually, but it's probably something that's not talked about much. Dunno, I just thought that was really neat. it would've been cool if it was thematized more, but it was at least a little bit at the end of book 4.

but even with what rowling said, i still think that slytherin is way more about caring about your blood and legacy than anything else

Here's what you're missing -- you are saying that the other houses are more "gifted", but that isn't true at all. 

First, the attributes may be negative.  Gryffindors can be brave to a fault.  As Rowling said, they may be foolhardy or prone to show-boating.  We've seen how reckless Harry can be, and his dad was certainly pompous and full of himself (at least while he was a student).  Ravenclaws can get lost in the clouds and can be socially inept (Luna is the example here).  The negatives of Slytherin are obvious.

Second, not everybody fits neatly into a house.  Hermione could easily have been in Ravenclaw (this is canon; there is an article on Pottermore that mentions the hat stalled while deciding which house to put her in).  Characters who ended up fighting with Dumbledore's Army were certainly brave.  Heck, Snape was incredibly brave, intelligent, and completely defined by his lost love.

Third, I don't think having a certain "defining attribute" means that you are necessarily above average in that attribute anyway.  There could be some hateful, cowardly, stupid and bland Muggle-born, where the house he gets sorted in is really a matter of which attribute is least deficient.  Conversely, being best suited for Hufflepuff doesn't mean they can't be exceptionally talented either.

So as far as Hufflepuffs go, there are positives in their personality that run counter to the other houses.  They are humble, honest, hard-working and loyal.  All excellent traits.  The three other founders were narrow-sighted in the types of students they wanted, and that can certainly be considered a weakness.  Hufflepuff knew that everybody has potential, if only someone would help it flourish.

Now, you can argue that this is unrealistic, but hey -- it's a kid's book.  And I also don't think it's too far from the truth.  Many of the most talented are the ones who were most dedicated to the craft.  Raw talent falters without some effort behind it.  And I'm pretty sure that studies have shown people tend to be more successful when they have other advantages in life (read: money, education, social support).




Re: your last point that you think it would be more interesting if Hufflepuff really were just all the losers.... eh, I can see how that would be neat in a literary sense, but I think that the everybody-is-special angle is interesting too, in that it is that much more accurate when we are talking about people with MAGIC.

[silverspawn]

Here's what you're missing -- you are saying that the other houses are more "gifted", but that isn't true at all.

First, the attributes may be negative.  Gryffindors can be brave to a fault.  As Rowling said, they may be foolhardy or prone to show-boating.  We've seen how reckless Harry can be, and his dad was certainly pompous and full of himself (at least while he was a student).  Ravenclaws can get lost in the clouds and can be socially inept (Luna is the example here).  The negatives of Slytherin are obvious.

Second, not everybody fits neatly into a house.  Hermione could easily have been in Ravenclaw (this is canon; there is an article on Pottermore that mentions the hat stalled while deciding which house to put her in).  Characters who ended up fighting with Dumbledore's Army were certainly brave.  Heck, Snape was incredibly brave, intelligent, and completely defined by his lost love.

Third, I don't think having a certain "defining attribute" means that you are necessarily above average in that attribute anyway.  There could be some hateful, cowardly, stupid and bland Muggle-born, where the house he gets sorted in is really a matter of which attribute is least deficient.  Conversely, being best suited for Hufflepuff doesn't mean they can't be exceptionally talented either.

This is all well and good, but it's not really disproving my point, it's just relativizing it. So it's not that bad. Yea, of course I'm generalizing when I say "none of them is special." but even if that's just a broad concept, you're still going to be bothered by it if you are a hufflepuff. that's the kind of thing I'd find really interesting.

The only real  point is that the traits can be negative. Well, harry is a bigger idiot than anyone we know from Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw, so that's probably true. But again, it's not going to make you feel that much better if you're a hufflepuff. You're just going to be like, what the fuck I'm not special? and then you have to live with that. I think most people want to be special.

So as far as Hufflepuffs go, there are positives in their personality that run counter to the other houses.  They are humble, honest, hard-working and loyal.  All excellent traits.  The three other founders were narrow-sighted in the types of students they wanted, and that can certainly be considered a weakness.

They are excellent traits, if they are there. I was originally arguing that they aren't.

Hufflepuff knew that everybody has potential, if only someone would help it flourish.

here's the thing though, I despise this moral. It's naive, it's stupid, and it's false. Or to be exact, of course everyone has potential, but not everyone has the same amount. Much less when you're already 11, at a point when what's arguably the most important part of your education is already past you. It's the right thing to take in everyone, but it's not right to pretend like genetic advantages don't exist.

it's a kid's book

I really don't agree with that. It's labeled as one, and the first book is certainly one. But the appeal becomes much more mature as it goes along. I'd argue that the target demographic is always roughly at the same age harry is. Read the first book, it's totally cute and innocent, and then read the seventh one. Not only is it hinted that d. is gay, but the whole blood thing is clearly resembling racism, and V. is very obviously inspired by Hitler. these aren't really themes for kids.

That's actually anther reason for my original point. In the first book, you're supposedly 11, and you get the innocent description of the 4 houses. In the fifth book you get the realistic one.

Also, notice that j.k.r is very good at subtly implying things without ever mentioning them directly. I had no idea that d. was supposed to be gay after my first read. I also had no idea that the seventh book is taking place shortly before the first book was published in the real world until someone told me. So she could have totally made implications of this nature if she wanted to, kid's book or not.

But it doesn't even matter, because she's instead rather bashing utilitarianism, promoting the idea of family above everything else and apparently also implies that everyone is special.

[Titandrake]

I prefer the HPMoR definition of each house, if only because it makes things more balanced.

Gryffindor: Brave, heroic, but often foolhardy, prone to breaking rules, doesn't think plans through

Slytherin: Manipulative, social engineer, fond of trying to game the system, but less empathetic and the whole racism thing. The HPMoR theory is that Slytherin started out with more pure bloods because most kids in it came from rich (i.e. established) families, then when they started looking down on non-purebloods no one but the pureblood haters wanted to join it, causing the house to slowly become filled with only purebloods that hate others.

Ravenclaw: Bookish, likes studying, likes having logically precise thoughts, but tends to focus more on the tree than the forest and tends to be absentminded.

Hufflepuff: Studious, hard working, actually gets things done, but doesn't stand out particularly in any way.

You know, I think in retrospect HPMoR doesn't change the defintions - all it does is go out of the way to make Hufflepuff stand out more.

[Kirian]

And Helga's contribution was apparently food charms for the feasts and such, she was kind of fat and good with food magic. But this matches her personality perfectly. Dueling is fine, obviously it's important to prepare people for the harsh realities of life. But shouldn't we be striving for a peaceful, prosperous, democratic society, with food and education for all?

Helga Hufflepuff was a medieval Gene Roddenberry.

Heck, Snape was incredibly brave, intelligent, and completely defined by his lost love.

On some level, I feel like there is one concept that doesn't get through to people who don't look deeply enough into Campbellian mythic stories, and it's carried in the books by Snape.

Harry Potter is not the most important person in the HP universe.  We assume he is because his name is on the front of the books, and the books follow him and his friends.  But that's just a perspective.  He's not even particularly heroic; he's had his greatness thrust upon him, and his most heroic act is sacrificing himself for others.  Most of the time, he just happens to be in the right place at the right time.  After his resurrection, his victory over Voldemort is all but certain; the theoretically climactic duel has a forgone conclusion.

Severus Snape is the hero of the HP universe.  He represents the best qualities of all four houses. He makes multiple heroic sacrifices.  When a hero is needed, he does the dirty work while everyone is distracted by the prophecied child.  The Prince's Tale is the defining chapter, the true lynchpin of the HP series upon which every other action hinges.

(Similarly, Luke Skywalker is not the hero of the Star Wars universe.  In Episode VI, it's Anakin Skywalker, not Luke, who fulfills the prophecy discussed in Episode I.  Luke is a pawn--an important one certainly--but not the true hero.)

[eHalcyon]

So as far as Hufflepuffs go, there are positives in their personality that run counter to the other houses.  They are humble, honest, hard-working and loyal.  All excellent traits.  The three other founders were narrow-sighted in the types of students they wanted, and that can certainly be considered a weakness.

They are excellent traits, if they are there. I was originally arguing that they aren't.

I was suggesting that most of those traits are there by virtue of them not being in another house.  If they were less humble and more brashly confident, they'd be in Gryffindor.  If they were less honest (read: cunning), they'd be in Slytherin.  Perhaps they aren't as naturally talented as Ravenclaws, so they make up for it through hard work.  They are often looked down upon, so they stick together and truly cherish their friends.

Not only is it hinted that d. is gay, but the whole blood thing is clearly resembling racism, and V. is very obviously inspired by Hitler. these aren't really themes for kids.
...
I had no idea that d. was supposed to be gay after my first read.

I don't think we give kids enough credit.  Racism is something that many young readers will have already experienced first hand.  Certainly the idea of homosexuality shouldn't be considered adult-only, unless you want to omit all sexuality -- and that would include all the teen romance in the novels too.

As for Dumbledore himself, this is actually an issue that has been brought up before.  If Rowling meant for him to be gay, as she has stated, perhaps she should have brought it up in the novel itself.  As written, those "hints" are only hints if you really, really want them to be.  As it is, it reads like nothing more than a close friendship.  So as not to be heteronormative, I'd say the same thing if Dumbledore's friend had been a woman.

To be fair, she probably had to omit any direct statement for the publisher.  There's already plenty of misplaced controversy about Harry Potter.  Heh.

Should we be moved to RSP yet?

[Awaclus]

Should we be moved to RSP yet?

Let's make a poll!


I thought that the hints for Dumbledore's homosexuality were pretty obvious. The Finnish translation might or might not have influenced this.

[silverspawn]

As for Dumbledore himself, this is actually an issue that has been brought up before.  If Rowling meant for him to be gay, as she has stated, perhaps she should have brought it up in the novel itself.

But that would have broken the unspoken rule "we do NOT thematize sex in the hp novel," which is a cute thing to have there.

[Watno]

Well, heterosexual tendencies of some characters are made very clear.. Lots of peoples partners in heterosexual relationships are established.

[Morgrim7]

Only three Slytherins? Pity.