July novel-reading

[garran]

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.

Comments

[vorkon.livejournal.com]

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.

[opt513.livejournal.com]

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.

[masamage.livejournal.com]

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.

[opt513.livejournal.com]

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.

Thar be spoilers ahead! Yaaaaar!

[vorkon.livejournal.com]

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...

Re: Thar be spoilers ahead! Yaaaaar!

[opt513.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Thar be spoilers ahead! Yaaaaar!

[masamage.livejournal.com]

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

[vorkon.livejournal.com]

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.

[opt513.livejournal.com]

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.

[vorkon.livejournal.com]

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?

Re: More Spoilerish

[opt513.livejournal.com]

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.

[masamage.livejournal.com]

Ron's closer to being a Hufflepuff.

More Spoilerish

[vorkon.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: More Spoilerish

[opt513.livejournal.com]

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?