Calvinism - SB & SS - 3rd task - Playwizard - What's scary - Halloween

[Milz]

No: HPFGUIDX 23804

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Marianna Lvovsky <mariannayus at y...> wrote:
> 
> But even assuming house characteristics are fixed in
> the popular conscious, if Sirius was a Gryffindor or
> Ravenclaw, or even Hufflepuff, his becoming LV's right
> hand man, and betraying Potters, PP, and blowing up a
> street are not signs that he isn't  true to his house.
> If only characterisitcs of bravery, cleverness,
> loyalty are imprinted, his actions are not
> inconsistent with any of those. I think we are making
> a mental leap assuming more (Gryff are good, Rave are
> good, Huff are good). 
> 

That's correct. We are making a mental leaps that certain houses 
are "good" and certain houses are "bad". There have been many 
discussions on this list concerning Sirius' House based upon Hagrid's 
SS/PS comment that all dark wizards were in Slytherin. So if members 
of this list categorize Houses as "good" and "bad", then what more 
can we expect of the fictional characters in the books?

Again, I think the wizarding community uses the House System as one 
way to size up a person's qualities. I don't think the general 
wizarding population would be surprized to learn of an ambitious 
Slytherin quickly ascending the corporate ladder ("Of course, he 
became the youngest CEO at Specter Corps. He was in Slytherin.")The 
closest example I can think of is the Kennedy family. William Kennedy 
Smith is running for some Congressional seat. I don't think anyone 
says "That's unusual. He's a physician. Why is he interested in 
politics?" Most people, I assume, think "He's a Kennedy. Whaddya 
expect?" I think the wizarding community follows a similar 
mindset: "Lucius Malfoy a Death Eater!? Well, no big surprize he was 
in Slytherin, don't ya know." 

That's why I think Sirius' "crime" was incredibly shocking to the 
wizarding community because it went against the stereotype and it 
knocked a giant hole in the Sorting Hat's credibility (to a degree).

> GRYFFINDOR: Brave does not mean noble. One can be a
> horrible person and still be brave. A suicide bomber,
> a storm trooper, a gangster are warped, horrible but
> are probably brave. Sirius' being a disloyal believer
> in evil would have nothing to do with his bravery.
> 
> RAVENCLAW: The same goes for cleverness/learning. It
> is a Ravenclaw characteristic, but it doesn't mean
> that a Ravenclaw has to be good. Once again, Sirius
> can be a perfect Ravenclaw and still murder 13 people
> and betray L&J. Sirius is percieved as a clever,
> bright wizard (killing 13 people with one curse is
> certainly a complicated trick). And LV would certainly
> want an intelligent, knowelegeable second in command.
> LV can easily bribe a Ravenclaw with promises of
> studies unknown in a legitimate wizard world. Tom
> Riddle himself is rather Ravenclaw-like in one
> respect: studied too much of the dark arts till they
> absorbed him. Now, TR did it because of
> domination/immortality, but I can see a purely
> intellectual mind going down the same slipperly slope
> (IMO Quirrell was in Ravenclaw). One can be clever,
> love learning and be horrible. 
> 
> HUFFLEPUFF: Hufflepuffs are loyal, but nowhere it is
> said that they have to be loyal toa  good ideal. Once
> again, SS were loyal to Hitler, but hopefully no one
> on this list would think that they were loyal to a
> good ideal. The Lestranges were undoubtedly loyal:
> they went to Azkaban for their master, tried to bring
> him back. The definition of loyalty. Yet, they are
> loyal to ultimate evil in wizard world, and tortured
> to achieve their master's ressurection. No one's
> loyalty necessarily stays with one person/group
> through their entire life. Sirius could have switched
> his loyalties (for whatever reasons) and became loyal
> to V. Loyalty does not mean openness: he did not have
> to be open to L&J. So he could switch loyalty and
> conceal it from L&J and do his utmost to destroy them
> out of loyalty to V, and thus be a good Hufflepuff.
> Assuming he really was LV's right hand man, his
> behavior to LV was very loyal. 
> 

Your examples are subjectively true. And that's the point. There's a 
saying that "one man's terrorist is another man's patriot". If there 
isn't support for various organizations or movements, then they 
wouldn't exist. If there wasn't Muggle and Muggle-born animosity in 
the wizarding community, Tom Riddle would have had to work twice as 
hard to recruit followers. As it was, he preyed upon the pre-existing 
hatred and fears of the wizarding community. This doesn't mean people 
join various organizations strictly out of philosophy (ex. Crouch Jr. 
and the Lestranges). I do think some join for personal gain (ex. 
Lucius Malfoy) and some join out of fear (Karkaroff). But I 
digress. :-)

> All four houses characterisitcs are neutral. we tend
> to assume that Gryffs are good because it's HP house,
> and so are Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff because HP and Co
> seem to like them. But as above shows, this is not
> necessarily true.
> 

Correct. However, the point is that we, the readers, are practicing a 
form of prejudice when we go along with these assumptions 
that 'Hufflepuffs are duffers' or "Slytherins are corrupt" just as 
the characters in the books are prejudiced by the House System. 
Here's a system that has categorized the personalities of countless 
generations of magical folk. Over those years, the Houses gained 
certain reputations: Hufflepuff = duffers, Slytherins = corrupt, etc.
Those stereotypes are deeply ingrained in the wizarding culture. 
Breaking set-stereotypes shakes a culture to its very core. For 
example, mothers in our culture are supposed to love and nurture 
their children. If a mother murders her children, it's very 
disturbing. NOt only because children were murdered, but also because 
the  murderer is their mother, who is supposed to love and nurture 
them. I think Sirius' "crime" shook the wizarding community to its 
core as it shattered some very set notions based upon the House 
System.

> As to why Sirius did not get a trial: that very well
> might have been the very first case after LV's fall
> (committed immediately after LV's fall) and the trial
> system not perfected yet. Later caught DVs were tried
> properly (and maybe that's why no one thought to check
> SB for black mark, since there were no other DE trials
> and so the MoM didn't know about it yet, but only
> learned during trials) (during the struggle the Aurors
> had shoot-to-kill permission).
> 

That could be, but I would assume in a culture with various 
bureaucratic offices throughout the centuries, I would think they 
would have some sort of trial system in place.

 ;-)Milz