The secret code revisited/Hufflepuff House/Hagrid's innocence

[Denise Jurski]

No: HPFGUIDX 44045

I have to say, I love these codes. However I have to quibble just a little
with the latest version.

Richelle said :

>There are, however, some exceptions.  Evil isn't always evil.
>It's sometimes a good person who inadvertantly aids evil.  Same thing for
good.
>Could be that a person who was really bad "messes up" and aids the good
side unintentionally

And also:

>Ginny Weasley (6) good


How does the code distinguish between one good person who inadvertantly aids
the side of evil and another? Ginny certainly helped Tom Riddle/Voldemort
with the opening of the Chamber of Secrets and all.

But I must say I am glad that Richelle's version of the code slaps Draco
into the evil catergory where, imo, he so deservedly belongs. ;-)

And now, on to the Hufflepuffs.

Gail asked:

>Could somebody please tell me where Hufflepuff got this bad rap?  And, in
>general, why are the qualities which Hufflepuffs are said to possess not
>valued like the others?

I haven't read the books in quite a while. I plan to soon, just so I can
keep up with you all! However, the only canon referances to Hufflepuffs that
I can think of that are negative are:

Draco :(Paraphrasing) "If I was sorted into Hufflepuff, I think I would just
get back on the train and go home."

Well. Considering the source, I don't take this derision very seriously.
Draco has nothing good to say of anyone not intimately associated with
himself, and his House. He doesn't think much of Gryffindor either, but that
doesn't seem to stop many fans from thinking Gryffindor is the end all and
be all of Hogwarts.

And on to the second example:

Hagrid: "Well, everyone says they're a lot of duffers..."

I'm more inclined to believe that this statement is a better reflection of a
general stereotype of Hufflepuff since in this statement he seems to be
commenting on general gossip. He goes on to say that Hufflepuff is something
like 1000s of times better than Slytherin, giving his own personal opinion
at the end.

Now is it really thought to be such a dumping ground in the WW? Or is Hagrid
hanging around the wrong sorts of gossipy people?

Isn't there something else in GoF where it says Hufflepuff turned against
Harry because the felt he was stealing the only glory their house had gotten
in forever by becoming the second champion besides Cedric?

And now this:

>But if he were simply their scapegoat why did
>they think the attacks came to an end? Bit of a coincidence, Hagrid being
>expelled and the attacks stopping. There was that piece of supporting
>evidence that he was involved, after all.

Except he was expelled, but not asked to leave Hogwarts. So his expulsion
coinciding with the ending of the attacks doesn't really support the thought
that Hagrid was the one responsible.

My explaination is that Hagrid really was the scapegoat only because the MoM
had no idea who really opened the Chamber. Only Dumbledore suspected Riddle.
It seems even then the MoM wasn't up to listening to Dumbledore's counsel.

Diary!Riddle is the one saying that Hagrid was thought to be the Heir.
However cunning he turns out to be as Voldemort, the Tom Riddle who wrote
the diary was a fifteen year old boy? Fifteen year olds are often filled
with hubris...it's common to the age to see everything through the focus of
how it relates to them. So that Tom Riddle couldn't understand how people
could believe a lad like Hagrid being the heir, he also couldn't see them
/not/ blaming Hagrid, as he, Tom, was the one to frame Hagrid in the first
place. So I think that while Tom believed he was 100% sucessful in his
little frame-up, he really wasn't. Hagrid was an easy target for the MoM to
explain the attacks...but never really thought to be the 'heir of
Slytherin'.

All right, I have to head off soon....no time to read the rest of the mails!

Denise