donnaimmaculata | The Hogwarts Houses

I've been meaning to say this for quite some time: I don't believe in the Hogwarts houses and don't take them into account when writing fics or considering characterisation. There.

All right, that's not quite correct. Obviously, the Sorting is an important initiation ritual at Hogwarts, and the houses form the way a student is thinking and acting. But that's exactly the point: the Hat does not sort the children with regard to the character traits that are developed the strongest a priori. It sorts the children into the house in which they will do best and which will help them to develop certain character traits. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy: tell an 11-years-old that they are supposedly hard-working and loyal and put them into an environment that promotes hard work and loyality and award them for being hard-working and loyal, and you most likely will get a hard-working and loyal person in the end.

During Sorting, the Hat listens to the children's wishes and does not put them into houses they don't want to be in, as Harry and Hermione's examples prove. This shows that the Hat acknowledges that each person has many different character traits, all of which can be promoted and nourished, and that putting them into a certain house does not mean that the other characteristics do not exist. Being sorted into Gryffindor means that one values bravery most as a method of getting things done, not that one is completely unable of logical thinking, cunning or loyalty.

Also, it should be obvious, given the strong family bonds in the wizarding world, that children grow up in an environment that favours one particular house over the others before they get to Hogwarts. The Weasleys were all sorted into Gryffindor not necessarily because they are braver than, say, the Malfoys, but because they grew up believing that Gryffindor is the best house to be sorted into. They most likely sat under the Hat thinking, "Not Slytherin, not Slytherin... Please let me be in Gryffindor..." and the Hat said, "Not Slytherin, eh? Very well, then... GRYFFINDOR!" - I understand that when a boy comes from a family with a long Oxford tradition, he will go to Oxford, too, and not to Cambridge, and he will be considered later in life to be a typical Oxfordian. The same happens with the Hogwarts students. If someone behaves in a certain manner, everyone says, oh, yeah, that is because they're such an [insert house here]! Had they been in a different house, everyone would say, oh, yeah, that is because they're such an [insert different house here]!

Basically, this is the way logic works. You don't start at A, proceed through B and arrive at C. - You know what C will be from the very beginning, and then start looking for a B that will get you there from your starting point A.

IIRC, it took the Hat quite some time to sort Neville. This is because the Hat tried to put him in Slytherin first*. When Harry was sorted, the Hat said that he had a great desire to prove himself. When Neville was sorted, I bet that he was clutching his father's wand and repeating the words like a mantra: "Please let me prove that I am a wizard, please let me prove that I am worthy my father's wand, please let me prove I'm a true wizard..." etc. etc.

Also, Neville keeps the secret of his parents' mental state for over four years, which indicates some capability of deception and cunning. More than Draco Malfoy ever shows, whose "cunning" schemes, such as dressing up as a Dementor to frighten Harry, prove not very well thought through in the long run.

*No, I don't believe that Neville was supposed to be a Slytherin. This is merely to illustrate that, had he been sorted into Slytherin, it could be justified on the basis of canon facts and extrapolation. This hold true for every other character/house combination. Because, really, Harry is such a Hufflepuff. And Dumbledore is so obviously a Slytherin.

And before you ask: Yeah, I'm a Ravenclaw. We love logic games and intellectual exercises.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

tammaiya.livejournal.com

What *I* really don't like about the House system is the way book 5 basically says, "Yeah, the Hufflepuffs are the rejects. The other three took the ones they wanted, and... well, Ms Hufflepuff felt sorry for the rest of 'em. *shifty look*"

(*is somehow unable to remember her first name, despite being able to remember Salazar, Godric and Rowena* *CURSE YOU, MURPHY!*)

From:

marksykins.livejournal.com

Helga. :)

And in an 'in the rest' sense, Harry's a Hufflepuff, though I don't think of him as overly loyal. The Hufflepuffs are my favorite tertiary characters; for a group that probably has 25 lines total in canon, they're certainly a memorable group. I mean, Ernie Macmillan, Justin Finch-Fletchley, Susan Bones, and Zacharias Smith even all have something resembling a personality.

I've read a fic that dealt with that Neville premise, only the author was trying to lead the reader to believe it was Draco telling the story. She fooled me, and it made sense when I looked back at what she'd written, but as I can't remember the title or author, I'll just leave it at that.

From:

tammaiya.livejournal.com

Ah, I thought so, but I was unsure enough to leave it out. *g*

And good point about the Hufflepuffs- I really love Zacharias, especially. The thing with Hufflepuffs is by essentially classing them as "other", you're not restricting them so much.

Ooh, that's clever.

From:

donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com

Harry's a Hufflepuff, though I don't think of him as overly loyal.

I love you for saying that. I think Harry is nothing but loyal. And as I was planning on discussing people's perceptions of different character traits and their manifestations at some point, I will make sure to ask for your input. It'll be very interesting to see which attributes different readers contribute to the characters.

From:

donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com

Hm, I've never had a problem with that. I think that's because I never took the whole house thing seriously and the choice of the applied criteria doesn't bother me. Any in any case, that sort of shows how absurd the whole thing is: while Hufflepuffs were said to be hard-working and loyal in the first four books (presumably, we don't know the songs from CoS and PoA), they suddenly are reduced to being the rejects. Makes me wonder how valid the other three house's characterisation is.

From:

missfahrenheit.livejournal.com

I always saw that as a good thing, personally. I never read it as Hufflepuffs are rejects, but that Hufflepuff as a house was more accepting and didn't take people and define their lives on who they are at age eleven, but shaped them in to valuble and significant members of society.

I've lately been subscribing to the theory of Gryffindor as the reject house. Bravery strikes me as a more abstract trait than the others, and Gryffindor gets a lot of idealist types who want to be heroic and noble and Do The Right Thing, which is more about what they think than who they are.

FWIW, I class myself as a slightly arrogant, heroically inclined Gryff.

From:

tammaiya.livejournal.com

Oh, I think Hufflepuff IS the best house, theoretically, especially with how the character of Zacharias illustrates that there is no real stereotypical type of Hufflepuff. It's just the way the hat phrases it that annoys me; it makes them sound like an afterthought. "Oh well, they're not smart or brave or cunning, what do we do with them now?"

That, and the way everyone puts down the Hufflepuffs as being stupid in the books. -_-;

From:

lanjelin.livejournal.com

Hello, here from the Snitch, sorry to butt in...

I just had to answer this particular comment because I actully saw someone state that Zacharias was Ravenclaw!

Yes, so stuck in fandom interpretaion of what the Houses represent was she, that she couldn't believe such a strong character came from Hufflepuff.

This despite the fact that the school champion (in GoF), Cedric, was a Hufflepuff as well. People tend to just... forget these things.

Of course, Harry is not an objective narrator, and he's not very social either. (I was so happy when he started to finally get to know people outside his own House in OotP.) He simply doesn't notice some things. (I find it significant how quickly he forgot that he could have been in Slytherin... this is going to bite him in the ass later on I think.)

From:

imadra-blue.livejournal.com

I sort of agree with you and sort of don't. I think we've spoken about this before? My theory is the Sorting Hat observes the traits in each person, and based on what is needed for what house (it seems to be evenly divided) and the traits that could be nurtured, it chooses a House, but obviously not one you don't want to be in. Neville might have even had that same Slytherin dislike Ron had.

When characterizing, the characters themselves ALWAYS come first, House second. ALWAYS. When characterizing OC or canon OCs, the House is important to help flesh them out, since we have nothing else, but again, character comes first. To me, the characters help define the Houses, not the other way around.

Now, online? I love Sorting people in the fandom based on their traits and whatnot, it's a fun little game (and a handy excuse to say, "Sorry, I'm a Gryffindor, I don't think before I speak." ^_~), but one not to take home and, you know, take terribly seriously? I do indentify and understand the charactets in Gryffindor the most, and I consider them my best characterizations.

But, as it was before, interesting perspective. ^_~

From:

donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com

Yeah, I think we did.

My point is not that the people don't have the traits according to which they are sorted. My point is that they have a lot of other traits, as well. Being in Gryffindor means one's brave, but it does not mean that one isn't intelligent/loyal/ambitious, too. Also, "brave" does not necessarily mean "reckless". My impression is that it was Rowling's intentions to illustrate the many faces of bravery, but as it is, fandom often assumes that "brave'" equals "reckless" and concludes that ever Gryffindor must be reckless. But "brave" can be the exact opposite of "reckless":

Say, a group of teenagers stands on a cliff and they dare each other jumping off the cliff. Some jump because they are brave and that's not a big deal for them. Some refuse to jump saying that that's a stupid thing to do and thus stand up to their peer group. Both acts imply bravery - one on the physical, the other on a moral level.

Both acts can also be acts of cowardice: Some jump because they are terrified that if they don't, their peer group will abandon them. Others don't jump because they are just plain terrified.

So what I'm saying is that you can't say that because a person shows character trait A, they necessarily also show character trait B, but will never show character trait C. This, however, is an argument that often pops up in discussions ("Snape is a Slytherin, he would never do that!") Also, two people can do the exact same thing but because of entirely different reasons: Draco's dressing up as a Dementor is considered an act of Slytherin cunning. Had it been Harry who dressed up as a Dementor to frighten Draco, it would be considered an act of very Gryffindoresqe stupid recklessness. (Because it was a stupid thing to do, he could not have expected to get away with it. Only because we know that Draco is in Slytherin we consider it an act of cunning.)

I find the whole house discussion interesting - not with regard to how much Gryffindor Harry really is, but with regard to how much his desire to live up to Gryffindor standards influences his behaviour and how much our knowledge of his being a Gryffindor influences our interpretation of his actions.

From:

imadra-blue.livejournal.com

You are preaching to the choir in regards to most of that. By using the characters to interpret the houses, you can apply the many faces of bravery, cunning, etc. None of these traits are black and white, and can manifest in 207589423785 different ways. I never argue the "Snape would never say that because he's a Slytherin" argument because that's ridiculous. Snape would never do something because he's Snape. And if you're going to do it, explain it and and make me believe it, you know? The houses are good for a very general guideline, especially on the lesser fleshed out characters, but Gryffindors can be cunning, Hufflepuffs can be snarky, and Slytherins can be weak -- that's canon. I always take character first, and even the most House-y of people I know generally do that, too.

From:

mafdet.livejournal.com

My impression is that it was Rowling's intentions to illustrate the many faces of bravery, but as it is, fandom often assumes that "brave'" equals "reckless" and concludes that ever Gryffindor must be reckless. But "brave" can be the exact opposite of "reckless":

On that note, I want to point out that Neville may be physically not a risk-taker (he fell off his broom in PS/SS) but he is emotionally very brave. Case in point: Who was the first of the Gryffindor boys to actually ask a girl to the Yule Ball? And who, when the first girl he asked turned him down, just sucked it up and asked another girl, rather than turning tail and pulling the covers over his head?

And to make an example of someone in another House, Luna Lovegood is not the stereotypical "brainy" analytical sort that gets stereotyped as Ravenclaw. She is dreamy and lives in her own little world, but is nevertheless brilliant and intellectually curious for all that.

Crabbe and Goyle, ambitious? Well, think about it. By attaching themselves to Draco Malfoy and making themselves indispensable, they might well be positioned to rise in the world more than their limited abilities would allow by themselves.

From: (Anonymous)

you can't say that because a person shows character trait A, they necessarily also show character trait B, but will never show character trait C. This, however, is an argument that often pops up in discussions ("Snape is a Slytherin, he would never do that!")

Yes! Thank you! If a good Slytherin is like Fanon!Lucius --subtle, restrained, manipulative and skilled at presenting himself in a good light -- Snape is less of a Slytherin than Remus Lupin or Dumbledore. He's inflexible, he works hard and is, I think, completely loyal (whether to DD or Vmort is moot). He'd have done pretty well in Hufflepuff, imho.

Here from DS, btw.

From: (Anonymous)

Oh yeah, I totally agree. Severus Snape is *such* a Hufflepuff...
I can picture the Hat trying to talk to a little boy with a big nose, though.
"Slytherin? Why Slytherin? Hufflepuff would be were you could make some *real* friends..."
Tessa

From:

mbmargarita.livejournal.com

faaabulous icon.

From:

imadra-blue.livejournal.com

I love the icon, it was made by

momadicwriter.

From:

out-fox.livejournal.com

I agree the Houses reflecting character concept is a bit of a farce (fics that challenge the idea of Sytherins as cold & evil are my favourite) but..Harry as a Hufflepuff?

He has a tendency to save all who need saving, but isn't that as much impulsive Gryffindor heroics as loyalty?

As for hardworking, he's very targetted to working where he anticpates potential rewards, rather than having a consistent work ethic. He'll push himself to his limits in Quidditch practice & mastering patronus conjuring but he's hardly a diligent student is he? Even important things like working ot the Triwizard Tournament clues in GoF he leaves untill the last moment.

Harry is an inevitable Gryffindor to me, too non-reflective and unconcerned with knowledge to be Ravenclaw, too unsubtle in his self-expression and understanding of ethics to be Sytherin, too volatile in his loyalties and erratic in his labour to be Huffepuff, but absolutely consistent in showing bravery that borders on reckless stupidity.

That said, I keep getting sorted as a Gryffindor, despite being a total coward.

From:

lanjelin.livejournal.com

This is very interesting; I've thought a lot on Harry's personality and would like to ask you what you mean more exactly by "unsubtle in his selfexpression and understanding of ethics". Not necessarily because I disagree with you of course, I just want to hear some opinions. :)

I myself suspect that he has this "saving things" behaviour because of his (subconscious) utter lack of trust in the adults. (Brought on by his upbringing with the Dursley's.) He just doesn't expect them to be of any help to him, because that's what he's been used to all his life.

his bravery is sometimes useful, sometimes not; but who's expecting an 11-15 year old to have perfect control? What I always think when reading the books is that he throws himself so completely into danger, because he's really saving the only things he's got. His friends, Hogwarts, the wizarding world even; where would he be without them?

I've never seem him as overly demonstrative with his emotions though. Well, except when he grew so angry he couldn't hold it in anymore. And that was after an entire summer of being kept in the dark!

I mean, even after GoF he doesn't want his friends to see him cry, and he's just seen a schoolmate get murdered! After the events in OotP, he just goes to the lake and tries to cope with his feelings all by himself. Ron and Hermione rarely know what he thinks and they have to drag the words out of him almost one by one.

I think this is also a product of his upbringing. Showing his feelings to the Dursley's couldn't have done him any good, right?

From:

froda-baggins.livejournal.com

So, basically what it boils down to is "house stereotypes are stupid"? I agree with that.

Personally, I think the Sorting Hat probably uses a lot of different factors in deciding the house of a particular student, like, well first the students should be relatively evenly divided amongst the houses, the personalities of the students, the traits that need to be nurtured, which houses the children prefer, and any number of other things that are probably taken into account.

Which is why a lot of the characters in the books don't fit neatly into one house; because the traits they show are not the only factor in deciding their house, not by a long shot.

Er, dunno where I'm going with that. *taps chin*

From:

sistermagpie.livejournal.com

This is such a fascinating idea, the way that seriously, any character could be put into any house and be seen as the "typical" character of that house. It's a great way to just trick the reader--people just fit characters into the house traits as they know them. Once you know *any* character well you start questioning why he wasn't put in some other house. That means most of the Gryffindors are suspect: I know I've read essays suggesting better houses for Hermione, Neville, Percy and Harry at least--oh, and Crabbe and Goyle.

That's why, I think, it's so fun for people to take a character where we don't know their house and discuss what it might have been. Some people assume Gilderoy was a Slytherin--personally I like him as Gryffindor. Obviously it doesn't change his personality, it just changes how he's perceived.

From:

mafdet.livejournal.com

Interesting post. I think that trying to get a handle on someone's entire character via their House is rather like trying to pigeonhole someone using just their astrological (Sun) signs. If you're a typical Taurus, you'll act like such and such; if you're a typical Hufflepuff, you'll be hardworking, loyal, et cetera.

Now while I doubt that someone like, say, Marietta Edgecombe who is completely backstabbing and disloyal could be placed in Hufflepuff, there's certainly a gray area where a child would fit into more than one House. Hermione, to me, is the clearest example of a character who could reasonably be said to fit into all four Houses. We know she's smart, and the Hat considered putting her into Ravenclaw, but she's extremely hardworking (Hufflepuff) and is not averse to using any means to achieve her ends like a Slytherin. Hermione must have put the hat into a tizzy. Two other characters who could have gone into any House are Fred and George Weasley. The boys are brilliant and hard-working (they just don't apply those traits to their lessons!) as well as ambitious.

And at eleven, as you said, a child who is told "You are loyal and hard-working" and placed in the House which encourages such traits will, unless he or she is bone-deep lazy, develop those traits. Humans may not be blank slates but our natures are not set in stone, either.

From:

fizzygp.livejournal.com

I'm probably one of the few people who could imagine Hermione in any house BUT Ravenclaw.

From:

eska-rina.livejournal.com

I agree with you - Hermione doesn't study because learning is fun, she study because she wants to be the best.

She's intelligent, no doubt about that, but she doesn't learn for learnings sake. She learns because it's useful.

Yeah, I just said the same thing in two ways *grin*

From:

slinkhard.livejournal.com

Oh, I don't know. Marietta and Cho appeared to have a very devoted friendship - Marietta attending the DA when she clearly didn't wish to and had a conflict of interests with it; Cho forgiving her 'disloyal(ty)'. Not to mention, Marietta could be seen as a) being loyal to her family (her mother working for Umbridge) and b) perhaps even seeing her 'backstabbing' of the DA and Cho as helping them in the long-run, much like Hermione's telling McGonagall about the Firebolt in PoA against her friends' wishes.

From:

donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com

Yes! This is exactly what I mean. Thank you for this example.

From:

magicicada.livejournal.com

Very interesting premise and quite possibly true. As far as we’ve seen, no student at the school is typical of any one house, and most of their houses would be hard to guess if they weren’t mentioned.

I’ve always thought the sorting hat put students in the house they most wanted to be in, but your idea seems better in terms of giving the kids what’s best for them, seeing as eleven year olds don’t always know what they want and aren’t really thinking about what will be good for them years down the road.

From:

fizzygp.livejournal.com

Slytherin Neville, huh? Hmm... interesting.

From:

masterofmystery.livejournal.com

That's usually the argument I hear when it comes to Peter Pettigrew, that at eleven perhaps he had Gryffindor-like qualities, but as he got older he became, well, more evil and probably more Slytherin-like. I doubt any Gryffindor would grow up to do the horrible things he's done, so yeah, I can see where the sorting is a bit well, dysfunctional in that way as it only judges you as a child and really isn't a fortune-teller, now is it? I've always been a bit wary of what the hat does, to be honest.

From: (Anonymous)

Canon-wise, Peter Pettigrew does not lack courage. Or maybe what he doesn't lack is bravery. Or sheer nerve.
He is awfully good at surviving things that would down most people. I don't think Sirius, James or Remus could have survived, if they had been put in his position.
And I also think that Sirius of all people saying that he should have died for them was a bunch of s**t, frankly. Sirius himself might have died for James, or Remus, maybe--but Peter? Naah, I don't think so...
Tessa

From: (Anonymous)

I agree that Pettigrew is great at surviving things that would down most people. I think that Sirius could have survived, though, and that's where we disagree. He survived 12 years Azkaban with his sanity mostly in tact, while the other prisoners there went insane and died within a few months. He escaped when no one else had, and while the Dementors were guarding Azkaban (the Book Five escapees didn't have to worry about the Dementors so theirs wasn't a big accomplishment.)

As for Sirius saying they would have died for him, I believe he would have. Just because he was the least valued member of their group didn't mean he had NO value. Even wolves will fight for the Omega member of the pack's life, even though they themselves will treat him with scorn. I think that's similar to the way a lot of gangs, groups, and even families work.

From:

clare-dragonfly.livejournal.com

Here from the Snitch and I really, really like this essay. So much that I'm putting it straight in my memories and thinking about it when creating RPG characters from now on (as I don't really write fic).

I feel like what you've said has something to do with the fact that I love to play Hufflepuffs. There's a lot of possibilities there. I never play Gryffindors, either--they feel generic to me somehow, which is probably how a lot of people feel about Hufflepuffs. I see the Hufflepuff House as much more tight-knit than the others--everyone there is friends with everyone else.

From:

shannon-sue.livejournal.com

I don't necessary agree with your theory, though I think it's interesting.

The Hat picks which house is best for the child--and can it really be argued by anyone that Harry would have survived in Slytherin, surrounded by people who hated him and the things he supposedly stood for? In a world that was willing to turn on him just because he could speak Parseltongue, would he have survived the press that being an "evil" Slytherin would have resulted in? Would poor, attention-starved Harry have turned out as normally in a house where I would assume people aren't as friendly and huggy and loving as Gryffindor? (I'm not saying that there aren't friendships and love in Slytherin, just that they show their love in different ways, and Harry needed the obvious kind.)

I think that the Hat is somewhat psychic in that it looks at the relationships that will develop if students are put into a house. Harry Potter and Ron Weasley needed Hermione Granger. She's saved both of their lives on countless occasions--maybe the Hat sensed that and made sure to put the three together.

And Ron Weasley is the most Gryffindor person I have ever known of. How many people would be able to deal with not only their greatest fear, but there greatest fear enlarged a thousand times, and hundreds of them to boot? Ron frequently does things he doesn't want to do, that he's incredibly scared of, just because one of his friends needed him.