Jacqui Larson ([info]magdaleina) wrote in [info]deleterius,
@ 2003-12-30 23:53:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: accomplished
Current music:Sailor Moon - Heart Moving

What all HP Sues Should Read
In the RPG Artema and I frequent, I was given permission to write up a Sorting Guide, since many of the rejected applicants (and some that were passed) of late did not seem to understand what it meant to be a Gryffindor or Slytherin or Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff. I post it here for your enjoyment. And may the Sues finally understand it someday.

I'll Tell You Where You Belong
A Definitive Guide to Sorting Your Character Into the Proper House


So you're joining the RPG? Making your own character? If you've read the rules, then you know you have to sort yourself. Even if you feel you have a perfect grasp on where your character belongs, I suggest you take to heart the information given here. It may help you in the longrun, and you might learn a few things you did not know before.

Note About The Sorting Hat
The Sorting Hat chooses house based upon a character's innermost qualities. That figures in ambition, desire, and personality. Not past deeds. Not family association. Not by breeding. Look at Sirius Black.

The Houses

I. Gryffindor - Founded by Godric Gryffindor, whose symbol is the Lion. Gryffindors are favored for their bravery, which can be defined in many forms. In a positive sense, it can mean a person is willing to go above and beyond to defend their beliefs, their families, and their friends, even in the face of danger. It could entail having your character simply step out of their comfort zone every once in a while in order to do something worthwhile. On the other hand, it can also mean your character is overly bold, and therefore prone to pulling pranks (like the Weasley Twins), stunts, or being openly rude or obnoxious for the sake of attention. Gryffindors are not inherently good, just like Slytherins are not inherently Evil. Look at Peter Pettigrew.

II. Slytherin - (this will be long because this is the one house that is most often mis-defined) Founded by Salazaar Slytherin, whose symbol is the Serpent. Slytherins are catagorized for cunning, or, in simpler terms, street-smarts. They know how to survive on their own and generally like having their way. A Slytherin can be the sharpest pencil in the pack when it comes to grades and success, and a Slytherin wears prestige with grace and pride. They make wonderful business people because they examine the details carefully in search of loopholes. They forge connections for their own benefit and know exactly how to feed themselves physically, mentally, and emotionally. Positively, Slytherins can be very self-sufficient, confident, and cool in a crisis. Negatively, as is the case with such characters as Draco Malfoy, they can be cowards, liars, and cheats. However, a person who lies, cheats, and steals for the sake of self-fulfillment is no different from one who will lie, cheat and steal just to see how long they can get away with it, which is a Gryffindor sensibility.

(Note to Clarifiy the Pureblood Dilemma: Slytherin only wanted to let in purebloods. That was him. Not the Sorting Hat. I would also stress against your making your character Pureblood regardless, as Pureblood is merely a fancy way of saying one's family is inbred.)

III. Ravenclaw - Founded by Rowenna Ravenclaw, whose symbol is the Bird of Prey. Ravenclaws are chosen and sorted through a desire to learn. You needn't be a genius prior to enrolling in order to belong here. You needn't be a genius the entire seven years of your schooling to be true to the name. Ravenclaws love to learn and that often means they are studyminded as well, but not always. Always inquisitive, a Ravenclaw can tend to be the first to try something new, but it can also mean a Ravenclaw character is a terrible gossip as well. Positively, they can be very open to change and the bizarre, like Luna Lovegood, but not all are like this. Negatively, a Ravenclaw can allow his or her intellect to go to the head and become rather elitist. They can become aversed to things unlike themselves and therefore become rather competitive, and sore losers besides. Their tendancies make it hard for them to make friends outside of their own house at times as well.

IV. Hufflepuff - Founded by Helga Hufflepuff, whose symbol is the badger. Hufflepuffs are loyal; as described by the Sorting Hat, Helga wished to accept everyone into her house, and those who were became eternally grateful, but also intent upon proving their house was just as worthy as any other's. They prefer to work in groups, adoring team work above all else. There is no truer friend than a Hufflepuff, who are known by nature to be rather unconditional and accepting. Hufflepuffs are refuted for being hard workers and will always try (often more than once) before giving up. Strangely enough, these qualities can mean they possess many that might qualify them for other houses, but being eclectic makes them exclusive to this one. People of an unjudging nature fit here best. However, being so open to other personalities is not all sunshine and daisies either. A desire to work together and see the good in all tends to make a Hufflepuff easily manipulated or the most sustainable to abuse of any kind. As a matter of fact, a Hufflepuff will generally take a lot of pain before finally putting his or her foot down.


I hope this stands as helpful for the lot of you hoping to join, and those of you members who wish to make new characters. Good luck and good RPing.




(Post a new comment)


[info]pockettheroach
2003-12-31 07:28 am UTC (link)
Wow. That's really good. Mind if I link to it as an aid for the RPG I'm starting up on GJ?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]magdaleina
2003-12-31 04:29 pm UTC (link)
Um *blush* certainly, as long as credit is given where due. However, it looks like I might need to make some revisions. Tis only a first draft after all ^^

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]saeva
2003-12-31 07:57 am UTC (link)
I'd like to make a few points that I think you missed for each house.

I. Gryffindor. The willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty for what one believes can also lead to a resistence to compromise or even stringent insistence that one is *always* right (Hermione would be a wonderful example of this, it isn't her Ravenclaw traits that lead to that, look at Cho and Luna, but her Gryffindor ones, see the Weasleys). Such views is how things like the Crusades began.

II. Slytherins. Cunning is hardly the only defining point of Slytherin as you seem to be presenting. To note, neither Draco, Lucius, Crabbe and Goyle, or Pansy show cunning (or effective cunning. Only Narcissa's and Severus's -- most of the time-- plans actually work from what we've seen). They do, however, show much determination and ambition, though the ambitions vary. As well, they show loyalty, which is *also* a defining trait of Slytherin. That is what "true friends" implies. Loyalty is an important trait to Slytherins (they do all seem to stick together, regardless of which generation we're discussing).

III. Ravenclaws. Actually, Ravenclaw, not Gryffindor, would be the most likely to do something just to see how long they could get away with it. It comes with being inquisitive. As well, if you notice in the books it's the *Hufflepuffs* who are the gossips (Smith, MacMillan, Abbott) not the Ravenclaws. Which brings me to...

IV. Hufflepuffs. As I stated above, it's the Hufflepuffs who are the gossipers in canon, not the Ravenclaws. This would go along with them being people-oriented, as gossip is the blood of the people (to use an oft turned phrase). They are not, however, unjudging from what we see, nor are they particularly team workers (it certainly wasn't Cedric's first impulse and Zacharias is actually against teamwork).

I'd suggest instead of paying so much attention to the Sorting Hat in order to make a write-up like this you look at what we know from the characters of various houses. Surely Rowling didn't write them the way they're written randomly.

- Andrea.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Further exceptions
[info]i_satin
2003-12-31 04:15 pm UTC (link)
- Gryffindor: many people also count among the Gryffindor characteristics a tendency to rush into things without thinking them through. Harry and Ron have certainly done this time and time again, and I'll bet George and Fred don't pause to consider the long-term effects of their pranks. The same can be said for [M]WPP in their decision to attempt the Animagi transformation. Apparently it comes with bravery and the feeling that they can get away with anything.
- Slytherin House, as portrayed in the books, is merely a dumping ground for evil characters ("We like to keep all our baddies in one place, for easier management."--Sluggy Freelance). Much as fans like to complain about this (and I'm as big a fanon!Draco fan as they come), it's true. There is no single unifying characteristic for Slytherins, other than their fundamental undesirability. The Hat says it's cunning and ambition, but are Crabbe and Goyle either of these things? Not as far as we've seen in the books. For that matter, is Pansy cunning? Is Marcus Flint? Are they ambitious? Perhaps; we don't know the Slytherins well. But from what we have seen, they don't seem to fit any single mold. Neither, of course, do Gryffindors; but not to the same degree.
The agreed-on characteristics of Slytherins are, in fact, more "fanon" than canon. This is one area where it's apparent that the Harry Potter books are children's books. So I think that practically any interpretation is a valid one, where Slytherin House is concerned.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Further exceptions
[info]amber_and_ash
2003-12-31 04:43 pm UTC (link)
My favourite division is

Gryffindor - rule-breaking selfless
Slytherin - rule-breaking selfish
Ravenclaw - rule-keeping selfish
Hufflepuff - rule-keeping selfless

It is overly simplistic of course, but for me it was the clearest explanation of cannon placements.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Further exceptions
[info]i_satin
2003-12-31 06:15 pm UTC (link)
So borrowing from DnD terminology we get:
Gryffindor - chaos/good
Slytherin - chaos/evil
Ravenclaw - law/evil (more like neutral probably)
Hufflepuff - law/good

(Notice how the slashes align in a perfect line?
Coincidence? I think not.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Further exceptions
[info]mhari
2003-12-31 09:12 pm UTC (link)
You inspired me. :)


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Further exceptions
[info]i_satin
2003-12-31 09:41 pm UTC (link)
Whoa, those are beautiful!
I've never inspired anyone to make icons before, I have this warm feeling inside now :-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Further exceptions
[info]mhari
2003-12-31 10:19 pm UTC (link)
*grins*

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Further exceptions
[info]mhari
2003-12-31 06:18 pm UTC (link)
I love that!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]hapes
2004-01-01 01:18 am UTC (link)
I. In the case of Fred and George, I think they're brave. They might not have had a chance to prove it yet, but that doesn't mean they're any less brave than Harry (see Nagel's "Moral Luck.") Look at what they did with Umbridge-- openly flaunting the rules. Just because Gryffindors haven't had a chance to show their bravery doesn't mean they don't have it.

II. Loyalty is an important trait to Slytherins (they do all seem to stick together, regardless of which generation we're discussing).

I'm not sure it's so much loyalty as it is pack mentality; safety in numbers and that sort of thing. Mutually rewarding relationships. I'm sure Crabbe and Goyle would beat Draco down like the snot-nosed little punk he is... if his father couldn't have their fathers killed in an instant. Survival of the fittest. Slytherins are very much social Darwinists (... which doesn't explain why they're the least evolved of all the house animals.)

III. Ravenclaw, in short, are those who are curious and inquisitive. They're the ones who take AP Calculus simply for the sake of AP Calculus, even though they're no good at math; they're the ones who can't put down a game of Clue until they've figured out who killed Mr. Boddy.

IV. From the aberations shown in canon... I really would say, in my heart of hearts, that Hufflepuff is the everybody-else house, but I think that they're probably just the ones who take a while to get into the pool and a while to get out. They're the steady ones. Zachirias took a while to accept the DA, but note that *he* wasn't the one who ratted them out. They're Chevys-- like a rock.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]saeva
2004-01-01 01:31 am UTC (link)
I'm not sure it's so much loyalty as it is pack mentality; safety in numbers and that sort of thing.

The Hat states Slytherin may be where "you find your true friends" and then we see Slytherins showing loyalty to each other and causes (all of Severus's Hogwarts friends later became Death Eaters with each other, Crabbe and Goyle certainly seem loyal to Draco).

Therefore I'm highly curious where you get the impression that it's anything other than what's stated? It says. It shows. But it isn't because that doesn't fit in with your view?

- Andrea.

Post-Script: Oh, and it's Mr. Body.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]hapes
2004-01-01 02:05 am UTC (link)
But a nation of philosophers is as little to be expected as the philosophical race of kings wished for by Plato. -- James Madison, “The Federalist No. 49.”

"Make your true friends" could easily be construed as "meet the people who will be your future bosses/meet the people who will be your future lackeys" or even “meet the people who will be your greatest allies” or “meet the people who are the most like you” (there’s only so much the Hat can say without breaking meter, and I’m under the impression that it has to lean towards political correctness). The Slytherins are showing loyalty to each other, yes, but who else is there to show loyalty to? The Gryffindor rabble, the Ravenclaw geeks, the Hufflepuff duffers?

Yes, the MWPP age Slytherins seem to have become Death Eaters, but that's a survival thing, too. Give into peer pressure and don't worry about the Death Eaters killing your family. Crabbe and Goyle's loyalty to Draco is easily explained by the positions Lucius holds in the Death Eater hierarchy: he can knock their daddies out in an instant, if he wants to, and I'm sure there are benefits to Crabbe and Goyle hanging around Draco (like the mob).

House loyalty (and, on a lower scale, loyalty to smaller in-House circles), in the Slytherin case, may just be Hamiltonian patriotism. By assuming the state debt circa 1790, the federal government gave wealthy citizens a reason to want a federalist America to survive (if it collapsed, they lost their cash). Here, I can see Slytherins interested in preserving House reputations (since the reputation of the House reflects on their individual reputations). They have to present a united front to the masses.

My impression of Slytherins was sparked mostly by Voldemort. He’s just ever so loyal to his Death Eaters; doesn’t have any problem with Crucio-ing the whole gang. But that’s because he doesn’t have to show any devotion or feign anything at all; he’s at the top of the ladder and doesn’t need anyone else’s approval when he can command the legions by fear (and sheer power, of course. He’s the Dark Lord, after all). After that, the rest falls into place as a matter of human nature. Relationships and a sense of belonging aren’t as important as physiological safety and, in the end, all Slytherins are survivalists.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]saeva
2004-01-01 02:33 am UTC (link)
My impression of Slytherins was sparked mostly by Voldemort.

First, Voldemort is more than slightly insane at this point. Not only in the psychopathic sense of the word (as he was likely always that) but in the lacking the mental facilities to react in a sane manner sense of the word. He's literally laughing maniacally (manic: affected with, relating to, or resembling mania. Mania: from mainesthai “to be mad.”)

Taking Voldemort as a representation of the House as a whole is like taking Peter to represent all Gryffindors. It's a flawed construct.

Secondly, the primary definition of "true" when used as an adjective is "steadfast, loyal"; the primary definition of "friend" when used as a noun is "one attached to another by affection or esteem."

Therefore, by your logic, the Hufflepuffs loyalty is the same, because the primary interpretation of "true friends" *is* "loyalty" (which is how the Hufflepuffs are described -- as "loyal" and "true").

Are you making that argument then? That Hufflepuffs also attach themselves to others in the hopes of survival?

Because otherwise I don't see what else you have that leads you to believe that one of the defining traits of Slytherin is survivalists. With the *exception* of Lucius (who, even then, seems very loyal to his family and does support Voldemort by attempting to resurrect Tom Riddle through the diary), from what we know two Slytherins died for the cause, two went to Azkaban (with at least four others also going to Azkaban and quite possibly being Slytherin), and at least one died while trying to leave the cause and betray it.

In fact, Bellatrix, a confirmed Slytherin, stands up and announces her undying loyalty to Voldemort in the middle of a courtroom that's essentially pronouncing her sentence to insanity and eventually death for those loyalties.

So, again, would you like to tell me how Slytherins have a survivalist mentality in which the loyalty is a shallow construct based on mutually parasitic relationships? Really, I'd like to hear it so I can show yet more evidence that that's a ill-constructed view that makes essentially no sense given canon.

- Andrea.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]hapes
2004-01-01 05:49 am UTC (link)
Taking Voldemort as a representation of the House as a whole is like taking Peter to represent all Gryffindors. It's a flawed construct.

He’s the Heir of Slytherin, a Slytherin who climbed all the way to the top. The fact that he’s psycho doesn’t make him any less of a power-hungry, ambitious all-around Slytherin. (Claiming that Voldemort isn’t a Slytherin is like claiming bin Ladin isn’t an Islamic fundamentalist.)

Secondly, the primary definition of "true" when used as an adjective is "steadfast, loyal"; the primary definition of "friend" when used as a noun is "one attached to another by affection or esteem."

But true can also mean “real” and friend can also mean “ally” – particularly in the political sense. When we say Taiwan is a “friend,” we don’t mean we have any particular affection towards Taiwan as a government or people. The primary meaning isn’t always the meaning (particularly in poetry). It’s one of the things that standardized testing (the SAT particularly) tests on— context.

Are you making that argument then? That Hufflepuffs also attach themselves to others in the hopes of survival?

Again, context. Hufflepuffs, having fulfilled the physiological needs of Mazlow’s hierarchy (they’ve stopped being paranoid, gotten out of Hobbes’s state of war, aren’t in with the scheming, ambitious, pureblood-inbred students…), can move on to the next level: relationships. After all, they can kick back and relax in a happy (yellow!) common room where everyone is loyal and not scheming. They feel safe. Slytherins, on the other hand, come home to a common room where everyone else is ambitious. They’re the ones living in an intrigue novel, surrounded by the self-serving. Hufflepuffs feel secure. Slytherins do not. Hufflepuffs can move past the second stage of Mazlow’s hierarchy. Slytherins cannot.

Furthermore, your definition would place the Hufflepuffs with the same “loyalty” as that of the Slytherins. Can you see Draco Malfoy and Hannah Abbot being nice and loyal together?

Because otherwise I don't see what else you have that leads you to believe that one of the defining traits of Slytherin is survivalists.

Machiavelli. (Erm, it’s down towards the bottom.)

With the *exception* of Lucius (who, even then, seems very loyal to his family and does support Voldemort by attempting to resurrect Tom Riddle through the diary),

Loyalty to his family hasn’t been questioned. He seems devoted in that sense that being devoted makes him look good — do you think he’s devoted to the Ministry of Magic? He seems to be giving them lots of gold. I can see Lucius using his family as a PR stunt. As for Tom’s resurrection, it doesn’t seem like it was an excruciating test of his loyalty.

Thomas Nagel wrote in his “Moral Luck” that yes, we think fairly poorly of the German populace for not overthrowing the Nazi regime when they had a chance, but what would we have done under similar circumstances? Lucius’s circumstances are different, however, because had a chance to prove loyalty in a trial by fire when Voldemort disappeared. Did he? No, and Voldemort doesn’t seem to think he put a great amount of effort into it, either.

from what we know two Slytherins died for the cause, two went to Azkaban (with at least four others also going to Azkaban and quite possibly being Slytherin), and at least one died while trying to leave the cause and betray it.

Out of how many? Voldemort’s circle of Death Eaters seems fairly complete in GoF. If there is a rule, these were the exception.

In fact, Bellatrix, a confirmed Slytherin, stands up and announces her undying loyalty to Voldemort in the middle of a courtroom that's essentially pronouncing her sentence to insanity and eventually death for those loyalties.

How can you call Voldemort a “flawed construct” and not Bellatrix Lestrange? From what we’ve seen of her, she seems every bit as whacked up as he is.

(The rest is in the next post, because apparently LJ has a 4300 word post limit.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]hapes
2004-01-01 05:50 am UTC (link)

So, again, would you like to tell me how Slytherins have a survivalist mentality in which the loyalty is a shallow construct based on mutually parasitic relationships?

Slytherins are ambitious. If we know anything at all about this house, it’s that it has a) the most dark wizards and witches and b) its members are ambitious. The dark wizards lend the picture an air of unscrupulousness, the ambition, a nest of social climbers and courtly intrigue. We see in The Prince, Machiavelli’s manual for the ambitious, that Niccolo recommends a prince to appear virtuous but scrap virtue when needed, and preserve the cause/principality. Machiavelli cites the example of Cesare Borgia, who sent a lieutenant in to rule a conquered city-state with a heavy hand, then kills the lieutenant and appears to the city as a sort of savior. Borgia used the man and killed him easily. Voldemort would have done it, and it seems in line with the behavior of “dark” witches and wizards, who are pretty much mean and nasty by definition.

Alternatively, one could look at Hobbes. Slytherins live in a state of war. They’re the ones who jump the gun (Draco, dueling, CoS) and hide illegal potions in their basements (Lucius) and, well, team up with Dark Lords to take over Britain. They break the rules. And when the laws are broken, when the order of a community is lost, the people plunge into a state of war, where there can be no art, no order, no security, or any of that good stuff. It’s every man for himself, but one has to watch out for a knife in the back… which leads to Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs. If one is constantly worried about physiological safety, one cannot have relationships. Without relationships, there can be no society, and Slytherin can’t get back out of the state of war.

(Holy shit. Sorry about the dead white philosophers/political scientists meet Harry Potter. I was planning to stop with Madison, but… gah... why can't I just sit down and BS a case for the LD topic?)

Here a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved. . . . Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

This is going to require three posts unsurprisingly.
[info]saeva
2004-01-01 07:33 am UTC (link)
Honestly, I could bring in quotes from conflicting philosophers (Rousseau, Marx, even Locke) and we'd having this debate until the end of time. However I'm not going to for one very good reason: I agree with you.

The Slytherin *power* ambition is a Machiavellian-construct designed around the dichotomy of the fear/love psychological structure. But, if you note, it is *never* stated that *Slytherins* (versus Salazar Slytherins) are defined by being power-hungry. That, along with the pureblood, is a construct of Salazar in particular. It is something he possessed and looked for but does not defined the House et al. The definition of the House in the case of ambition is just that and only that. The ambition in particular is not stated.

Therefore the ambition of Slytherin *does not* preclude the existence of affection-based loyalty and *does not* necessarily create a "state of war" a la Hobbes.

Furthermore, we see that Regulus Black had great loyalty to his family, as does Draco Malfoy; Crabbe and Goyle have loyalty to Draco (you can hypothesise the reasoning behind this as much as you like, however, from their actions alone we have never seen anything but loyalty to Draco from them); Lucius's loyal to his own family; Bellatrix's loyal to Voldemort, as well as Evan Rosier's and Wilkes's being loyal to the cause; Rodolphus's loyalty to either the cause, Voldemort, or Bellatrix; and a number of other Death Eaters whom were placed in Azkaban (whom I did not use as evidence between it's never explicitly stated what House they were in.

You state: He’s the Heir of Slytherin, a Slytherin who climbed all the way to the top. The fact that he’s psycho doesn’t make him any less of a power-hungry, ambitious all-around Slytherin.

If you note I stated he was not psychotic but psychopathic *and* psychotic (or behaving in a psychotic manner at the time of his action); this might not effect his underlying ability to be ambitious but it does effect his ability to make rational decisions and judge the reasonability of his actions. To argue that he had no fear of doing it because he was on top of the food chain, so to speak, you must first prove that he did not *have* no fear of doing it because he was effectively out of his mind (per psychological standards of competence and culpability). Without doing so his actions fall under the standards of mental defect and motive cannot be wrought from that.

However, if you do state that he was merely psychopathic (not psychotic) and therefore his actions can be judged by the use of logical patterns his *motive* is and of itself was a felt betrayal at a lack of *loyalty.* One way his actions cannot be judged because they have no rational pattern, the other way his actions were motivated by the concern of loyalty. Both ways, my point stands.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Post #2
[info]saeva
2004-01-01 07:34 am UTC (link)
You also say: [Lucius] seems devoted in that sense that being devoted makes him look good...

This is purely conjecture as to his motives. The action brought does announce care, which is fact, while theory as to his motive is not fact. Therefore Lucius's actions are, at best, a non-issue for us because neither of us can prove motive. The assumption that the motive is selfish, however, given the nature of relationship between Lucius and Draco (Draco clearly loves his father and does not fear him at all, and Lucius has raised Draco) and Draco's overwhelming loyalty towards Lucius (and his mother) is stretching the bounds of logic. This does not mean that Lucius cannot be using Draco to look good (though given Draco's actions he would be failing), but that using Draco to look good neither precludes him from caring/having affection for or possessing loyalty towards Draco.

How can you call Voldemort a “flawed construct” and not Bellatrix Lestrange? From what we’ve seen of her, she seems every bit as whacked up as he is.

First of all, when I said that Voldemort was a "flawed construct" I was not referring to his insanity but to the fact that he is merely one person and that you cannot discern a pattern from a single object.

Secondly, going by your logic of Voldemort's insanity not excusing an action then the motive of the action in question (using the Cruciatus Curse on a member of his own group) is loyalty, therefore furthering my point (if you don't believe me, look at what he says directly preceding using the Curse on Avery). Therefore, again by your logic, he fits the pattern that I was attempting to illustrate with Bellatrix.

Thirdly, speaking of the pattern of Bellatrix's actions, see above for my examples of other Slytherins acting in a loyal manner. Bellatrix is not a flawed construct because she fits into the pattern of other Slytherins and loyalty therein. She is an example within a pattern, a complete construct. As well, she only became "psycho" after her years in Azkaban (which, of course, is designed to drive you insane). Just as Voldemort himself potentially picked up his 'psycho' behaviour while disembodied.

As well, you state: "Slytherins live in a state of war. They’re the ones who jump the gun (Draco, dueling, CoS) and hide illegal potions in their basements (Lucius) and, well, team up with Dark Lords to take over Britain. They break the rules."

Of course you can logically conclude that I'm going to point you to the fact that the primary rule-breakers within the Harry Potter universe are, in fact, Gryffindors. This includes Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, Ginny Weasley, Neville Longbottom, Fred and George Weasley, and Hermione Granger.

However, more to the point, let me edit your statement a little bit: "They’re the ones who jump the gun (Ron, dueling, actions in PoA, GoF; Ginny, Fred, George, pre-emptive teacher strikes; Hermione, in about everything) and hide illegal [objects/tools/automobiles; potions ingredients; magical diaries; dangerous animals; dangerous secrets/illegal activities] in their [shed/rooms] (Arthur; Hermione/Harry/Ron; Ginny; Hagrid; MWPP) and, well, team up with [a manipulative, Order-running Headmaster] to [change] Britain. They break the rules."

Frankly and in simple terms: Pot, kettle, black.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Post #2
[info]saeva
2004-01-01 07:35 am UTC (link)
"If one is constantly worried about physiological safety, one cannot have relationships. Without relationships, there can be no society, and Slytherin can’t get back out of the state of war.

Your argument is that the above actions denote a "state of war" mentality and that the Slytherins cannot get outside of that. However, as I pointed out, the Gryffindors have directly comparable actions, and so if it applies to Slytherin house it applies to Gryffindor house. Therefore, the argument becomes that the entire society has such a mentality or the half of the society (the Gryffindors/Slytherins) that appears to be loudest has such a mentality, in which case that mentality becomes the normative standards of action and cannot be used as an argument of particularly contrasting behaviour.

Which is to say that your logic and examples only prove that Slytherins portray the normative behaviour for the culture (which I would agree with) and that their trait of ambition has nothing to do with that particularly mentality (as the Gryffindors, who are defined by ambition, also possess the mentality in equal measure) and therefore however ambitious they are (regardless of how that ambition is directed) does not necessitate that the "real friends" as defined by the Sorting Hat has any political slant, especially as we are dealing with children. The fact that we are dealing with children of an age of 11 to 18 then argues in favour of the slant that "real friends" intends a concept of loyalty, not alliance (or rather, it possesses no more symbiotic traits than any mutually beneficial relationship does).

Added to the fact that we see and hear of Slytherins often showing loyalty towards other Slytherins (and by the way, loyalty, as well, in a personal sense does not have the condition of 'to those who are unlike self') and your case that all Slytherins loyalty is based on a selfish and survival-based motivation is brought firmly into the realm of pure conjecture *and* directly contradicts actions of canon. It also ignores the fact that ambition does not have to be selfish and, in fact, can be completely selflessly motivated and/or bring about selfless actions.

Therefore, it is a flawed construct and should be rejected not only on the basis of general logic but on the logic of Occam's Razor: the simpliest solution that fits all the facts is the best one.

QED.

- Andrea.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]hapes
2004-01-01 09:31 am UTC (link)
But, if you note, it is *never* stated that *Slytherins* (versus Salazar Slytherins) are defined by being power-hungry. That, along with the pureblood, is a construct of Salazar in particular. It is something he possessed and looked for but does not defined the House et al.

GoF: And power-hungry Slytherin/Loved those of great ambition. His chosen students were the ambitious ones. While still alive they did divide/Their favorites from the throng. Indicating that Slytherin took those he liked: those of great ambition. There’s no reason for the Sorting Hat to not to follow Slytherin’s wishes in who got into his house (particularly if “the founders put some brains” in the Hat so it could choose) when Hufflepuff “took the rest” and there was no danger of someone being kinda-sorta-not-really ambitious (OotP).

The ambition in particular is stated as something that Salazar used as a guide to who got into his house, and something that the Sorting Hat would likely have continued with over the ages. There’s also the Hat using Harry’s “nice thirst to prove [himself]” as one of the reasons to possibly put him in Slytherin. I acknowledge that there’s a shade of difference here; proving oneself is, conceivably, for the sake of proving oneself, whereas ambition is rather self-promoting, but the qualities are similar enough that it lends credibility to the idea that the Sorting Hat is, a millennium later, still looking for the ambitious.

As to the list of examples, I don’t deny that Slytherins can be loyal, but I believe there’s an ulterior motive behind it (ambition, self-promotion, advancement of a cause, saving one’s neck). What loyalty did Regulus Black show to his family other than carrying on their ideals? While Bellatrix’s loyalty to Voldemort seems utterly boundless, what got her started down that road? I don’t suppose she met Voldemort on the streets and gave him a friendly hiel. Given what we know of her family, she would have been rabidly anti-Mudblood, anti-Muggle. Mightn’t she have been drawn to Voldemort’s cause, as was Regulus? (Eh, my Regulus info may be iffy here.) Ambition, advancement of the cause? The same holds true for Rosier, etc. Given what we know of them, it seems likely that there were probably background factors swaying their decisions.

As to Lucius, I personally believe the man is trying to uphold an image, based off his history of Ministry donations and how he treats Draco in CoS. “Rar, you were beat out by a Mudblood! You aren’t my perfect, aristocratic, pureblood son and that harp note was flat! Rar!” I’m not a fan of child-beater!Lucius, but I don’t think he’s as solicitous as he seems. Draco, however, I do believe is strongly loyal to his family. Yes, simply because he’s proud of his family. He obviously has a dependency disorder! After all—how much higher in that particular arena can you go than being a rich, pureblood Malfoy?

If you note I stated he was not psychotic but psychopathic *and* psychotic (or behaving in a psychotic manner at the time of his action); this might not effect his underlying ability to be ambitious but it does effect his ability to make rational decisions and judge the reasonability of his actions.

An illustration of Voldemort’s mental processes can best be found by looking at his flashbacks in CoS. Here, he has a reasonable fear of being caught (interaction with Dumbledore and Dippet) coupled with ambition (he wants to be the greatest wizard in the world or something along those lines, he wants to complete Salazar Slytherin’s work, he’s obviously put some effort into becoming Prefect/Head Boy/finding the Chamber). He’s aware of the culpability issues (and pins the blame on Hagrid; if he was too crazy to be aware that he was doing a bad thing, would he have given a damn about being caught?). Through the book, he demonstrates a reasonable air of competence.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]hapes
2004-01-01 09:32 am UTC (link)
During the course of his time at Hogwarts, however, Tom did ambitious things/had ambition (head boy, prefect, opening chamber, the anagram deal, wanting people to be afraid to speak his name…). He also demonstrated the requisite deference to Dumbledore and Dippet. He was *not* at the top of the food chain (…meh…) and was *not* acting crazy and was still ambitious, but he had fear. Because he wasn’t at the top of the food chain. (And if I die before I wake, it’ll have something to do with going to bed at two with a bunch of books next to my head, and my subconscious self has decided to whack me over the head with a dictionary.)

However, if you do state that he was merely psychopathic (not psychotic) and therefore his actions can be judged by the use of logical patterns his *motive* is and of itself was a felt betrayal at a lack of *loyalty.*

If they were all being loyal for loyalty’s sake, why would Voldemort have to worry about a lack of loyalty? People are not loyal for loyalty’s sake.

And if Voldemort was loyal to them and wants to be their lovey friend, why should their disloyalty phase him? In this world of perfect people, of philosopher kings, can’t they all just get along?

However, more to the point, let me edit your statement a little bit… They break the rules."

Meh, bad presentation on my part. I should have said something along the lines of “they break the rules maliciously, with an intent to harm others.” Hagrid never tries to hurt anyone, even in OotP; the twins don’t turn Umbridge into jelly; Lee Jordan’s niffler’s don’t attack Umbridge and go for her throat (if you can get a niffler into her room, why not a crazed and hungry badger or some poisonous critter?) In the case of the Weasley’s Wizarding Wheezes, and handing out fainting candies and the like, never do Fred and George appear to really want to hurt anyone at all.

As to your third post, first paragraph, the Gryffindor/Slytherin connection is sent askelter by the tenets of criminal law. More or less, there are three things one needs to account for in the sentencing: action, intent, and, um, something else, but that doesn’t matter because intent is the differentiator here. “Intent” is what gives accidentally leaving a kid in the car and having them suffocate a different sentence than mowing down said kid with a gun at point-blank range. In the case of Gryffindors, the Slytherin intent in rule-breaking is missing.

The fact that we are dealing with children of an age of 11 to 18 then argues in favour of the slant that "real friends" intends a concept of loyalty, not alliance (or rather, it possesses no more symbiotic traits than any mutually beneficial relationship does).

I dunno, I’m flush in the middle of that range and my physics class is unionized. Works wonders with the homework load. =)

Therefore, it is a flawed construct and should be rejected not only on the basis of general logic but on the logic of Occam's Razor: the simpliest solution that fits all the facts is the best one.

Okay. I don’t even know what I’m arguing anymore. You win. G’night.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]_sophieg
2003-12-31 12:20 pm UTC (link)
Good idea, and what you've got is fairly clear.

I think you've missed out one thing though: the character's individual choice is important. A character might not display the defining qualities of his or her house, but be there because they chose to be.

We don't know exactly how much the person's preference comes in, but we know with characters like Harry and Hermione, it helps them be sorted.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]plasticsturgeon
2004-01-01 07:27 pm UTC (link)
This is getting so complicated that I can't stand to read it. Couldn't it just be that, like the dorms in my alma mater, each house has a "persona" composed of a number of different traits that vary according to the current population? And that the house system might just be a way for the Sorting Hat to put people with the people they are most likely to get along with, regardless of their exact traits or D&D stats or whatever? And to find out what's important to them from the outset?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]gehayi
2003-12-31 03:39 pm UTC (link)
I'm tempted to create a character for that game. A Hufflepuff. People always underestimate Hufflepuffs.

(Reply to this)


[info]mhari
2004-01-01 02:39 pm UTC (link)
A belated thought: crosspost this to [info]illeatmyself?

(Reply to this)


[info]theartema
2004-01-02 05:47 am UTC (link)
o_o'

Yeesh, Magda wasn't looking for a philosophical debate that entailed dragging Socrates and Plato and whomever else from their graves to discuss just why Crabbe and Goyle respond to Draco's beck and call and how Voldemort/James/Peter/Cedric/Cho/Mariette are(n't) good examples of their house.

This was just to be a guide for people who planned on joining the RP we attend, so that they'll have a better idea of where to place their character, instead of just going 'umm shes also qute smart n crafty so revencalw wud b good but tehn agin omg i tink PUT HER IN SLAYTHIRAN kthnxbye'.

Not to knock the All-Knowing Philosophy/Psychology-Luvers on here, but yeesh, it's not That Big a Deal. We'd be better off finding out just what the Sorting Hat wants by asking JKR herself, instead of quoting statements from stuff that probably less than half the people who read Deleterius have even known existed.

Though I enjoy all of you and delight in being reminded of the supreme intelligence that's floating around here, right now it's gotten a bit wanky. ;3

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…