garran | July novel-reading

Current Mood: Okay
Current Music: The Decemberists - The Crane Wife 3

Entry tags:

books,
harry potter

July novel-reading

A fairly predictable pattern, this month.

J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (reread)
Lois McMaster Bujold, The Sharing Knife: Legacy
Steven Brust, Dzur
J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (reread)
J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (reread)
J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (reread)
J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (reread)
J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Gene Wolfe, The Shadow of the Torturer

On a nearby subject, I wanted to ask: which, if any, of the Hogwarts houses do the people reading this who have also read the books feel kinship with? Actually, what I wanted to ask was, "Do I have any friends who don't self-identify as Ravenclaw?" but before I got around to it I found somewhere* where a Windsor House acquaintance had described themselves as a Gryffindor. I'm still interested in whether Ravenclaw is as popular as it seems to be, though, based on its disproportionate favour among people I know who have told me that they think they'd be in a particular of the houses, so I'm especially interested in folks who feel inclined toward one of the other three. (Don't worry, we can still hang out!)

(* Okay, so it was their facebook page. I feel embarrassed to publicly admit that I'm using facebook now, but I guess it means that I can muse about it in public later.)

If any spoilers for the final book appear in my comments I will edit the post to mention them. Since I know that there is at least one person reading this who hasn't got to it yet and cares if they're spoiled, it would be cool if commenters could also clearly mark that spoilers are coming up if there are any, in case I don't get there in time. Edit: Some moderate spoilers have appeared, so far only in comments that are marked with warnings in the subject line. The earlier books, of course, are spoiled with impunity.

I finally duct taped the armrests to my computer chair. That's going to be so much better.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Gryffindor all the way, dude.

Honestly, I consider Ravenclaw and Gryffindor to be fundamentally interchangeable. Hufflepuff is okay, but boring. Slytherins could probably be okay, but they're all irrevocably pigeon-holed into the "All Slytherins are evil dark wizards" stereotype. (There's a specific incident I'm thinking of, but since you seem to be trying for relatively spoiler-free, I won't mention it.)

Speaking geographically, there's no way I'd even end up at Hogwarts. It's in England, and there are at least two other schools in Europe. North America would probably have at least five, and none of them would be quite the same.

Honestly, I consider Ravenclaw and Gryffindor to be fundamentally interchangeable.

I think you're wrong about that; the Gryffindors seem to share a sort of stubbornness, and a tendency to make their choices, moral and otherwise, on the basis of passions or emotional connections: dislike, indignation, loyalty, or feelings akin to patriotism. Harry shows this consistantly, identifying as his moral centre his personal loyalty to Dumbledore, asking the sorting hat not to put him in Slytherin because he associates Slytherin with Malfoy, who reminds him of Dudley, and so on. I used to think that Hermione's characterization was bizarrely inconsistant -- how could she seem so clever and thoughtful and yet so often behave as irrationally as she does, for example, when she refuses to admit she might be wrong about Gilderoy Lockhart? -- but I now think that this is what's going on here, too, that if she were more dispassionate and prone to the styles of decision-making that I'd feel more in sympathy with (i.e. careful rationality), the sorting hat would have put her in Ravenclaw. (And, of course, these tendencies can only have been exacerbated since it didn't, and the example provided by all the people she generally spends time with is of similarly passion-driven thinking.)

I think I know the specific incident you're thinking of, and yeah. I thought that the introduction of Horace Slughorn was at least partially intended to show the existence of sympathetic Slytherin, but a single exception doesn't accomplish much in the face of characters and narration that continue to assume the house is universally nasty. A reader who sympathised with Slytherin generally would need to be to some degree reading against the text, which of course there is probably room for.

-Garran

Well, if you take the line that Slughorn is a rare exception to what is otherwise the hard and fast rule of what Slytherins turn out to be, then approximately 25% of all British wizards are evil bastards with no qualms about killing or using the dark arts if it'll get them what they want.

I don't think the actual number is quite that high. Even if the majority of Slytherins are like that, or think they're like that, I think "sounds a lot cooler than it actually is" applies just as much to the other side as it does to the good guys. Depending on how you want to interpret certain characters' actions in Deathly Hallows, I'd say that applies to at least 2 or 3 confirmed Slytherins.

As for this dispassionate reason angle you have on Ravenclaw, I'm inclined to disagree. Obviously, just being brilliant isn't enough to land a person in Ravenclaw. Dumbledore, Hermione, Snape, and Voldemort are among the most brilliant wizards in the series, and none of them are Ravenclaws. And those few noticeable characters that are in Ravenclaw have shown themselves to be perfectly capable of being stubborn and emotional, or courageous, or passionate. Whatever differences the houses may have in their espoused philosophies, the only practical difference, so far as I've been able to tell, is that Harry and his friends got sorted into one house and not the other.

It's not my contention that Ravenclaws are more intelligent than other characters, nor that they're less emotional; I do think, though, that they're more intellectual, and privelege the intellect more, than those who belong to other houses. (This is certainly true culturally, even if you disagree that the sorting hat picks up on real differences of personality; Hermione's academic prowess, which was treated as kind of a curiosity among the Gryffindors, would have brought her a lot of respect in Ravenclaw.) When making moral decisions, they will try to let clear and careful reason guide them, whereas (as I have argued) a Gryffindor will be more likely to turn to their visceral sense of fairness, or the behaviours of the people involved. The Gryffindors don't always come off the worse for this, of course; as

masamage has pointed out to me, a Ravenclaw doing the underwater trial in Goblet of Fire probably wouldn't have decided it was necessary to save anyone's hostage but their own (since they'd assume that the contest organizers would have planned for the contingency that someone wasn't saved).

There seems to be a similar sort of mismatch in how they approach interpersonal relationships. When Gryffindors have an argument, they seem to tend to shout at one another and storm off in a huff and then reconcile tearfully or awkwardly later without ever having either side argue a point or admit that the other has convinced them (indeed, they tend to adopt the pretense afterward that there wasn't a fight at all). We don't get many equivalent scenes involving Ravenclaws in the book, but my assumption would be that they would be much more inclined to try to talk through their thoughts and feelings about the issue and, where applicable, to convince each other by reasoned debate -- holding the discussion afterward if they were too upset at the time. This seems to be borne out in the brief romantic relationship between Harry and Cho; Cho keeps trying to get them both talking about how they feel about Cedric's death, while Harry takes it as understood that they both feel awful and shouldn't talk about it because it will make them miserable and uncomfortable, and tries to avoid the issue while instead channeling his own grief into taking action against Voldemort. (Cho really was probably better off when she was dating a Hufflepuff.)

That's one of the significant Ravenclaw characters; how many others are there? I can think of Professor Flitwick, who is excitable in what I take to be a very mad scientist sort of way, the joy in knowledge and its application; and Luna Lovegood, who, although the believes in a number of things she has no rational justification for, seems to be of a disposition to consider new ideas calmly on their merits.

-Garran

Luna is also disinclined to freak out at people who are less than polite to her.

And yeah, people aren't sorted based on having one and only one character trait; there are intelligent Gryffindors (Hermione), and brave Hufflepuffs (Cedric), and so on. The hat picks whichever traits seems to be most dominant, and as we know, what the individual values most has a significant effect on that.

The hat is not indifferent to a person's choice, that is true. But just because a person values different things doesn't make them fundamentally different, and just because a person values a character trait doesn't mean they have it.

Wisdom is prized by Ravenclaw, but Cho doesn't seem very wise to me, nor does her friend with the boils on her face. And considering the Grey Lady's story, Ravenclaw has a long history of producing wizards that didn't really live up to what they believed in. I'm sure there are people like that from the other houses as well.

I think I've drifted off topic, however. Judging a house by its failures would be as unfair as, say, writing off the entirety of one house as irredeemably evil.

Well, that's the thing. Being a Ravenclaw isn't about actually BEING wise. It's about accumulating knowledge for its own sake, instead of to actually USE it for something. Now, the end result of that is often wisdom, simply because you've accumulated so much damn knowledge, but it isn't actually about wisdom, in and of itself. It's kind of the same way that Slytherin isn't actually about being evil, but that evil just has a nasty tendency to arise from the Slytherin mindset of being sneaky and abmitious.

I suppose there's a point to that. And using the Dark Arts doesn't make one a dark wizard. After all, Harry himself has used two out of three Unforgiveable Curses.

The longer this conversation goes on, the more I figure I'd have been a Ravenclaw. Most of my life has been about accumulating knowledge without thinking what it would be good for, and honestly quite a lot of my knowledge doesn't seem to be all that useful.

That said, I'm still not British. Inasmuch as our American schools of wizardry would certainly be unplottable, the Washingtonian in me is telling me that there would have to be a school of magic around here somewhere. Either in the Olympic mountains, on an island in Puget Sound, or somewhere in the northern Cascades. Being as the Sorting appears to be unique to Hogwarts, well... there you have it.

I recall there being a mention of an American school for witches and wizards in Salem. There may have been others mentioned, but that's the only one I can remember off the top of my head. Other than that, though, for some reason I imagine that magic in the Americas would be dominated by the natives. That might just be the old Shadowrunner in me talking, though...

Yeah, Salem, Massachusetts. One school isn't enough for a continent.

I think magic in the Americas may have more native influence in the south, but it seems to me that wizards in Rowling hold to roughly the same nationalist tendencies as muggles despite being mostly separate societies. I would expect the Salem academy to be entirely European style magic, and I would expect that the Unforgiveable Curses accompanied gunpowder and horses in wiping out most native magical traditions.

Woah... Gryffindor and Ravenclaw interchangeable? That's crazy talk. If you oversimplify it, the Gryffindors are the jocks and the Ravenclaws are the geeks, and anybody who's gone to school in America, at least (and I'd imagine anywhere else in the world) would tell you there couldn't be two more diametrically opposite groups.

The ONLY link the two houses share, that I can think of, is a SINGLE character who could go either way, but I think its safe to say that Hermione's activism outweighs her intellectualism, no matter how smart she may be.

That is indeed oversimplifying it. Gryffindor and Ravenclaw don't face off at all along those lines. Both houses have competitive quiddich teams, and there is at least one person in Gryffindor who doesn't understand sports at all. And if you weigh it by people getting stuffed in trash cans (or perhaps empty suits of armor) it would seem that the real animosity here is Slytherin vs everyone else, which once again has nothing to do with nerd vs jock dynamics. Ravenclaw, Gryffindor, and even Hufflepuff are all on the same side.

Having stuff in common isn't the same as being interchangeable, of course. I like Andy's explanation best; the Gryffindors really are driven by raw emotion--even Professor McGonnagal--whereas the Ravenclaws are more analysis driven.

Also, Ravenclaws have to really, really like learning. Otherwise, that tower-entrance mechanism alone would drive a kid straight home to their parents.

I'll agree that having things in common doesn't make people or philosophies interchangeable. However, I can't help feeling that Ravenclaw and Gryffindor ultimately produce people of a similar calibur. Ravenclaws are not robots; we see time and time again that they do act on their emotional drives, even if they may be more inclined to try and rationalize it after the fact.

Once again, I'm thinking of Cho and her sneaky friend, but the Grey Lady also has a part in this analysis. Might I submit Xenophilius Lovegood as well? I don't recall it ever being confirmed, but he seems like a Ravenclaw to me.

Well, yeah, Ravenclaws act out on their emotional drives sometimes. They're only human. But every now and then Gryffindors take the time to think things out before they do them, too. Nobody is completely dominated by ANY one character trait, but everyone has a few that are more dominant than others.

Also, I think Garran described how Cho fit into the Ravenclaw mindset despite being extremely emotional very well earlier. She was broken up about Cedric, but the way she wanted to deal with it was to discuss, analyze, and dwell on those emotions. We're seeing the whole "knowledge for its own sake" theme again there, when compared to Harry's method of dealing with it, which was to try to avenge his death.

And Xenophilius Lovegood? Seriously, being analytical is one thing, but NOBODY is going to be ruled by anything other than their emotions when their freaking daughter's life is on the line. But most of what we've seen of him paints him as a very, very good Ravenclaw. The Quibbler is all about reporting what he believes is the truth. He might not always be RIGHT about that, but he always wholeheartedly believes he is reporting complete truth. He doesn't care if nobody believes him. He doesn't care if the things he reports ever enact any kind of change in Wizarding Society. But it's the truth, dammit, and he's going to report it!

To compare him to another character who's house was never specifically revealed, there is almost no doubt in my mind that Rita Skeeter was a Gryffindor while going through school. She doesn't report the news to inform the public, she does it to further whatever cause she supports. And make money, of course, but I do believe that she probably thinks that the things she sensationalizes are actually HELPING her readers, much like Dumbledore thought that a wizard-dominated society would help the muggles, and if she embellishes it a bit, it's all for their own good, right? It's a pity she didn't kill HER sister to teach her some restraint...

That Skeeter woman is no Gryffindor. Sure, she's got the guts for it, but she also has absolutely no sense of ethics or fair play. Her career is built on smearing others for personal gain, and that says Slytherin to me. The only things that separate her from Umbridge is that she doesn't appear to be out for pureblood superiority and has never been known to use the dark arts.

I'd vote Slytherin for her, too. X)

Well, I did say I was oversimplifying it, didn't I? But either way, athletic ability has nothing to do with why I picked that description. Hell, the Gryffindor team lost for several years in a row before Harry showed up. What I was talking about was the role they play in the school's miniature model of society. They're the charismatic, popular kids who pretty much "run" things.

Also, one thing I've definitely learned since I joined the Marine Corps is that the "dumb jock" stereotype is really quite overplayed. It's not that there isn't SOME truth to it, but for the most part we geeks have taken a few bad experiences and attributed them to an entire class of people, many of whom do not deserve it. Also, can you really say that if the geeks had the "power," they'd treat anyone any better? No matter who they are, high school students are the vilest, most wretched scum humanity has ever produced. If you do associate the jock mentality with bullying however, well, who in Hogwarts were ever worse than the Marauders? They were all Gryffindors.

Besides, even if athletic ability were a factor, quidditch is a special case, since it also relies on magical ability. It would be like going to your average high school and setting up a jocks vs. geeks swordfighting match. The jocks might have some advantage, simply because they're stronger and more aggressive, but many of the geeks are so enamored with swordplay, and jave probably done a few LARPS here and there, so they'd match the jocks' usual advantage in skill and ability. Kinda' like that. But that's irrelevant, because like I said, quidditch isn't why I gave the Gryffindors the "jock" label in the first place.

But either way, whether you like my analogy or not, my main point remains. Comparing the Gryffindors to the Ravenclaws is just... O_o I had several arguments I wanted to make on that front, but Garran already either made, or at least touched upon all of them, so I didn't want to waste my time repeating him. But really, what similarities do you see between the two houses, other than the fact that Hermione could be either? I can't think of any.

It's not just Hermione that could have been either, she's just the most frequently mentioned. Nearly any of the Weasley children could have done well in Ravenclaw if not for the fact that a Weasley getting sorted into any house other than Gryffindor would be like a Black or a Malfoy not being in Slytherin. Not impossible, but why would they want to? If a child has their heart set on or against a certain house before they even step through the door, I think it's pretty clear where they're going to end up.

As for Ravenclaw students that could have been Gryffindors, I don't think anyone will deny that Luna fits that description. In my mind, she is still the consumate Ravenclaw, while still being a person who could have gone either way.

Okay, I'll agree with you that Luna could go either way, but the Weasley kids? No way! MAYBE Percy. Maybe. But Ron has to be the single least intellectual wizard I've ever seen, Bill strikes me as a little too adventuresome to sit around in an ivory tower studying all day, and Ginny would probably get fed up with the all-talk-no-action girls spending all their time gossiping. And the twins? Damn. Not only would they be bored out of their minds, but they pretty much epitomize the Gryffindor ideal of using your magic to accomplish something, rather than for its own sake. I mean, I can't imagine a Ravenclaw actually dropping out of Hogwarts to go into business for themselves, can you?

Well, the thing that catches me about Ron is that he actually starts showing some intelligence near the end of the book there. Maybe a lot of it is Hermione rubbing off on him at last, but I think he could have made it there. Ginny strikes me as being nearly as clever as Hermione in her own way, and the twins' natural talent at magic would earn them respect in Ravenclaw even if their propensity for making trouble would do the opposite.

I never saw the Gryffindor way as "using magic for practical purposes" so much as "standing up for what's right", which is a field where intentions seem to matter as much as results. Way back in the first book, Dumbledore gave Neville 50 points for standing up to his friends and getting knocked aside.

I should also point out that seeking knowledge for its own sake doesn't make the Ravenclaws at all reluctant to use that knowledge. They stood with the Gryffindors when it came down to it, after all.

Ron's closer to being a Hufflepuff.

Also?

I'd be willing to bet that if Rowling ever does give into the allure of more money and continue the series, Albus Severus will end up in Slytherin. And if not, I'm pretty sure that any fanfic that doesn't put him there won't be worth reading.

And no, that's not JUST so the crazy Yaoi chicks can write about the AS/S pairing.

No, I don't see that happening. A.S. may have traits that would make a good Slytherin, but he has already made his choice: he's set dead against it. He may not end up in Gryffindor, but there's no way he'll be a Slytherin.

His sister on the other hand... who knows?

I, as you know, am pretty solidly Ravenclaw.

Heath thinks he'd be either Gryffindor or Hufflepuff; I think he'd be either Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff.

Of course, none of us can get into Slytherin because we're Muggle-born.

(The more I think about it, the more I think Heath really is in Hufflepuff. Trouble is he's also brave and smart and very sneaky, but I think working hard and being nice to everybody are seriously his dominant traits.)

Well, if I looked at it objectively, I'd probably have to put myself in Hufflepuff. That sucks, because really, nobody respects a Hufflepuff, (unless they die tragically, of course, which is something I don't plan on doing anytime soon) but that is most likely where I'd be. I have SOME Ravenclaw and Gryffindorish traits, in that I like to think I'll stand up for what I believe in and I consider myself more objective than most people I talk to, but I am mostly defined by loyalty and a sort of lasseiz faire (excuse me, I'm typing this on my phone and have no spellchecker) go-with-the-flow sort of attitude.

If I think about what I would WANT to be, I'd probably pick Ravenclaw. That only stands to reason, really. Anyone who fancies themselves a geek and enjoys intellectual pursuits would WANT to be a Ravenclaw. That's probably why you see such a preponderence of them among folks who spend their time hanging out online and engaging in debates. But you'd have to ask yourself, are they really interested in the pursuit of knowledge simply for its own sake, or do they just happen to like intellectualism? Most people who fancy themselves intellectuals will want to be in Ravenclaw, regardless of what they actually are.

I'm not sure if you recall Ian/C-Kun's ex, Liz/Sangochan from way back in the tC days, but she's a huge Harry Potter fan, and identifies very strongly with Slytherin. She's the only person I can think of who I know personally that sorts themselves into that house, but that just goes to show they're out there. That's another house, much like Hufflepuff, that nobody ever wants to admit they're actually in. Except for Vampire LARPers, of course, but they don't count. Everybody wants to be Gryffindor or Ravenclaw. Once I get back to an actual computer, I'll link you to an interesting discussion we had in her journal recently, which should shed some light on how a Slytherin enthusiast thinks.

So yeah, the other houses are pretty well represented. I've lost my train of thought so I'll just end there

Here's that entry I was talking about.

There's some spoilers in there, by the way.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

July novel-reading

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Thar be spoilers ahead! Yaaaaar!

Re: Thar be spoilers ahead! Yaaaaar!

Re: Thar be spoilers ahead! Yaaaaar!

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: More Spoilerish

no subject

More Spoilerish

Re: More Spoilerish

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject