Ridiculous babbling about Hogwarts houses
Mar. 14th, 2005 01:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elabyIt was Ravenclaw at first - the obvious one, since I tend to pride
myself on having something in the brains department. I'm independent
(though not without exceptions) and learning is very important to me.
However, I know for a fact that I may be smart, but I'm not clever...
not in the way, at least, it means in my head. In Britain it may just
be a synonym for smart, for all I know. But I don't think up witty
comebacks. I can't figure out puzzles unless I'm given a substantial
amount of time. And I suck ass at Risk and most other board games that
require strategy and thinking ahead. I know things, and school
has taught me how to synthesize such knowledge the way that scholars
are reputed to do, and I think I do that well. But as for being
naturally clever... I don't know. I tend to feel like I've accomplished
most of the stuff I have because I work my ass off. Which, apparently,
puts me in Hufflepuff.
As for the loyalty thing, I don't know
what to think about that. I'm extremely loyal to a few people, my
family and closest friends, but when somebody crosses a certain line...
no matter if I was close with them before, I tend to stop caring. Which
doesn't sound very Hufflepuff-like (or very nice, but I can't help it.)
But I like the idea of being in Hufflepuff, if only because of
my "OMG must be different" complex. There are so few fans
(comparatively) who place themselves there. And now I just read
something interesting on LJ's daily_snitch about what villains would go
in what houses, and the author mentioned Hufflepuffs as being
followers. Which I most certainly am not, on the large scale... but on
the small scale, I guess I could say that about myself. In terms of
being generally passive and not needing to have my way all the time.
When people suggest something to do, I don't object unless I have an
extreme aversion to it. I don't know if that makes me a "follower".
However,
that got me thinking about how those two houses are portrayed in HP
canon, as the two "periphery" houses. I've noticed that Hufflepuffs are
very group-oriented, loyal to one another. They DO seem like
"followers" in the books... they're the ones who generally jump to
conclusions about Harry first, along with the Slytherins (but they're
doing it to aggravate him, which is different). Cedric was fair and
very hard-working, but he's the only one I've notice of the Hufflepuffs
to act very Hufflepuff-like. The others have been kind of paranoid and
fickle. However, I'm not an expert, so my memory of these things can't
be trusted. However... what really struck me was that out of all the
Ravenclaws we've seen, only Luna has showed any signs of real
intelligence, and that was more like... a kind of wisdom, being mature
and able to see past a lot of the petty problems of people her own age.
Luna's a complete weirdo, but she's also got a kind of sageness about
her, in the last few chapters of OotP... and I wonder if it's only
because that's when Harry actually noticed it. Other than her, though,
I can't remember any Ravenclaws who have demonstrated their prodigious
brains at all. Terry Boot and Cho are the only ones I can think of who
we know, and I don't remember Terry doing anything but spectating and
commenting on stuff, and Cho does not ever appear in situations that
would show whether she was "clever" at all. Her emotional state is one
thing; her mental capacity another, and we have no idea as yet what
that is. At least, not that I can remember. That's my big caveat here.
myself on having something in the brains department. I'm independent
(though not without exceptions) and learning is very important to me.
However, I know for a fact that I may be smart, but I'm not clever...
not in the way, at least, it means in my head. In Britain it may just
be a synonym for smart, for all I know. But I don't think up witty
comebacks. I can't figure out puzzles unless I'm given a substantial
amount of time. And I suck ass at Risk and most other board games that
require strategy and thinking ahead. I know things, and school
has taught me how to synthesize such knowledge the way that scholars
are reputed to do, and I think I do that well. But as for being
naturally clever... I don't know. I tend to feel like I've accomplished
most of the stuff I have because I work my ass off. Which, apparently,
puts me in Hufflepuff.
As for the loyalty thing, I don't know
what to think about that. I'm extremely loyal to a few people, my
family and closest friends, but when somebody crosses a certain line...
no matter if I was close with them before, I tend to stop caring. Which
doesn't sound very Hufflepuff-like (or very nice, but I can't help it.)
But I like the idea of being in Hufflepuff, if only because of
my "OMG must be different" complex. There are so few fans
(comparatively) who place themselves there. And now I just read
something interesting on LJ's daily_snitch about what villains would go
in what houses, and the author mentioned Hufflepuffs as being
followers. Which I most certainly am not, on the large scale... but on
the small scale, I guess I could say that about myself. In terms of
being generally passive and not needing to have my way all the time.
When people suggest something to do, I don't object unless I have an
extreme aversion to it. I don't know if that makes me a "follower".
However,
that got me thinking about how those two houses are portrayed in HP
canon, as the two "periphery" houses. I've noticed that Hufflepuffs are
very group-oriented, loyal to one another. They DO seem like
"followers" in the books... they're the ones who generally jump to
conclusions about Harry first, along with the Slytherins (but they're
doing it to aggravate him, which is different). Cedric was fair and
very hard-working, but he's the only one I've notice of the Hufflepuffs
to act very Hufflepuff-like. The others have been kind of paranoid and
fickle. However, I'm not an expert, so my memory of these things can't
be trusted. However... what really struck me was that out of all the
Ravenclaws we've seen, only Luna has showed any signs of real
intelligence, and that was more like... a kind of wisdom, being mature
and able to see past a lot of the petty problems of people her own age.
Luna's a complete weirdo, but she's also got a kind of sageness about
her, in the last few chapters of OotP... and I wonder if it's only
because that's when Harry actually noticed it. Other than her, though,
I can't remember any Ravenclaws who have demonstrated their prodigious
brains at all. Terry Boot and Cho are the only ones I can think of who
we know, and I don't remember Terry doing anything but spectating and
commenting on stuff, and Cho does not ever appear in situations that
would show whether she was "clever" at all. Her emotional state is one
thing; her mental capacity another, and we have no idea as yet what
that is. At least, not that I can remember. That's my big caveat here.
