The Sorting Hat

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 87332

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn Cawte" <kcawte at n...> wrote:
> *sigh* I could save myself a lot of effort you know if I just changed my sig
> to "Kneasy I disagree with everything you say" ;) Because I do seem to spend
> a lot of time doing that - and here we go again.

Kneasy:
Oh, goody. That's what I'm here for.

K:
> I guess I should for the
> sake of clarity start with the fact that I consider myself a Slytherin
> (although my ambition does have limits - I don't want to rule the world,
> people try and kill you if you do that, I want to be the power behind the
> throne, telling the target uh I mean leader what to do <eg>)
>

Kneasy:
Not  nearly as much fun as leading the sack, demolition and enslavement
of target communities. Still, if you want to settle for second best....
Maybe you've been taking lessons from Dumbledore.

 
> K
> Well I guess it depends how sentient it is as to whether or not it has the
> ability to lie (or I guess the ability to tell the truth since it could have
> been 'programmed' to lie through its metaphorical teeth).  I've always
> assumed that it has enough intelligence to try and interpret the original
> wishes of the founders as well as it can, but no more than that - however
> after OoP I'm beginning to wonder.

Kneasy:
Hmm. Programmed. Interesting word - it implies an inhibition or denial of
the existence of an unfettered intelligence. Presumably it is there to sort,
without fear or favour, according to the character of the child it sits on. 
And that is my point;  it seems to be ignoring it's own guidelines. 

> K
> You? Suspicious and cynical? Wow, I mean I'm stunned, I'd never have guessed
> ;)

Kneasy:
Do I detect a soupcon of irony? Can it be my cover is blown?
 
> K
> OK I have a problem with some of your definitions.
> 
> Gryffindor - brave, courageous. Yes I agree with this - although I wish some
> people would realise that you can be a risk-taking bad to the bone wizard
> and still qualify for Gryffindor under this definition.
> 
> Slytherin - Ambitios, cunning, and I'm not sure there shouldn't be some
> element of loyalty here, the hat does say. "perhaps in Slytherin you'll find
> your real frineds". Also let's not forget that Salazar wanted it to be a
> house of purebloods even if the hat doesn't *always* follow that.
> 
> Ravenclaw - intelligent and studious.
> 
> Hufflepuffs - loyal and hardworking. I dislike this assumption that
> Hufflepuffs are stupid. Neither of the qualities that Puffs are associated
> with imply a basic lack of intelligence. If the dumb kids ended up in
> Hufflepuff Draco would be missing a couple of bodyguards - actually if I
> were him I'd be hoping that my comments about loyalty do apply because I
> don't think they're bright enough to be cunning and if they're not loyal
> either he could be in trouble.
>

Kneasy:
The  definitions I listed were the short-hand version, of course. And also
I'm not so one-eyed that I believe that each of the characters isn't a blend
of differing attributes. By the same token the Hat must make it's choices
based on something and I believe that the choice is made according to the
dominant characteristic of the personality involved.

> K
> 
> Well I don't think you can set up four pigeonholes and expect all the kids
> to fit perfectly into any one of them. Hermione is certaily brave as well as
> intelligent and Neville is one of the most courageous characters in the
> books, whereas Harry never struck me as particularly brave (because he never
> seems scared of anything or to appreciate the danger he's in most of the
> time, if you don't recognize danger then it's difficult to actually be
> brave. Doing something you don't know is dangerous isn't brave - stupid
> possibly - but not brave). And remember the first time we really get to see
> Neville's bravery he is standing up to the Trio not loyally following them
> around. Harry on the other hand is *incredibly* loyal - possibly the hat
> felt he wasn't hardworking enough to qualify for Hufflepuff.
>

Kneasy:
So which is Hermione's dominant attribute? Intelligence or bravery?
No contest - intelligence. She shows no more bravery than other
Ravenclaws but is much more intelligent than the Gryffindors. Possibly
the academic star pupil of the year.

Neville has only shown bravery at the end of OoP. Forget that guff from
DD at the end of PS/SS - that was just to  fix the House championship.
And maybe also to bind the four of them closer together as a team. 
What did Neville think the Trio would do when he 'stood up to them', beat
him to a pulp? Of course not. No, he was scared of the consequences for 
*Gryffindor* if they got caught breaking the rules. Loyalty to his House. 
And his visits to St Mungo's aren't a sign of bravery, they're exercises in 
endurance and stoicism - a family duty. Another form of loyalty.
A top scholar he's not; we can agree on that. An aptitude towards Herbology
maybe; but everything else he tries is not all that outstanding. Hufflepuff.

Harry we agree on. This links back to a thread from a few months back on
the nature of bravery; he's more driven than brave. He is ambitious. He also
has some of Voldy's traits stuck in him from Godrics Hollow, or at least DD
implies as much. He uses an Unforgiveable curse. And in OoP he is not
growing up to  be a nice person at all. He could easily be Slytherin. In fact,
according to the Hat, that's where he'd do best.

But these three diverse personalities all end up in Gryffindor, over-riding
the directives that the Hat is supposed to enforce. Why? I don't believe
it's by accident or chance - it's a fix to bring them together. Probably
perpetrated by that ace fixer Dumbledore.

> K
> Sometimes I wonder if I'm reading different books to everyone else.
> 
> James - yeah I think you're spot on with him.
> 
> Sirius - why Slytherin? the Hat judges (or is supposed to) on the
> personality of the child not their family background. Sirius has never shown
> any sign of being cunning at all and doesn't seem terribly ambitious.
> Brave - yes without doubt. Also intelligent and loyal. Frankly if I had to
> put Sirius in a house other than Gryffindor I'd make him a Hufflepuff.
> Loyalty is one of his defining characteristics - he even stresses that he
> feels Peter should have died rather than betray his friends like he himself
> would have.
>

Kneasy:
I wouldn't trust Sirius as far as I could throw him.
He's weak. He makes excuses for his weaknesses to give a sort of spurious
logic to them. He opted out as Secret Keeper - why? Did it give more
protection to James and Lily? No. It was a meaningless gesture. Unless he
placed a notice in the Daily Prophet Voldy would have come for him anyway.
It saved his own skin because Peter betrayed his friends, though Sirius didn't
know that would be the result at the time. His behaviour in the Pensive
scenes was that of a shallow, sensation seeking, bored teenager who has
a tendency to bully when given the opportunity but is reluctant to fight fair.
Yes, he faced up to  Snape at Grimmauld Place, but you'll notice there was
no action, only bluster. Who seemed more confident and in control - Snape
or Sirius? The blood of the Black  family shines through. Don't forget, in OoP
the Hat quotes Slytherin as wanting to teach those of the purest blood. That's
one thing he does have.

 K:
> Remus - definitely intelligent, I see him sort of as the hermione of the
> original group, but I think his main characteristic would have to be his
> fight against the wolf and against people's prejudices. The strength and
> courage to survive as a werewolf, to survive the death and betrayal of his
> only close friends, to come back to a place which must be full of memories
> for him to teach and to protect Harry, to confront his former best friend
> *alone* when he thought he was a murderer etc.

Kneasy:
We agree about Remus, then. But I suspect that he knew Sirius wasn't
a murderer before they met in the Shrieking Shack, as I've argued before. 

K: 
> Peter - he's part Gryffindor, part Slytherin. Obviously cunning to have
> managed to spy on his friends for Voldemort for over a year, to not give
> himself away when James made him secret keeper and practically handed
> himself and his family over to Peter on a silver platter, to come up with an
> escape plan which turned Sirius into a traitor and himself into a hero, but
> equally brave in order to spy on them for a year, to take the risk that they
> could catch him or he could fail Voldemort (who seems not to like failure)
> needs nerves of steel. But Hufflepuff? The house associated with *loyalty*,
> Peter? The Traitor? Nope, no way on earth!

Kneasy:
No, he's not loyal, or not to his erstwhile friends, anyway.
Loyal to Voldy? Loyal to himself? Hmm, stretching it a bit. But Hufflepuff
(again in OoP) is quoted as saying she'll "take the lot" - presumably all
those who don't fit comfortably into the other Houses. So he could slot
in there.


> K
> 
> I think the hat tries to put children in the House they fit best but most
> children have aspects of two or more houses so he also tries to put them in
> the house where they will do best.... her inclination to turn to books for 
> everything she might have ended up as a bit of a loner without the boys 
> to drag her into the real world. 
> Given Harry's view of Slytherin, especially since one of them killed
> his parents, he would probably have resented being put in that house and
> might well not have made friends there either.

Kneasy:
Really? You think that  the bouncy, nosy, intrusive Hermione on the Hogwart's
Express in PS/SS would turn into a lonely, reclusive bookworm? That's not the
way I see her. Maybe we are reading different books.

So  Voldy was in Slytherin (or so we surmise). Why should that affect the 
placement of Harry all that much? The Hat is a social counsellor now?
It's supposed to  place students where they will do best and it believes
he would do best in Slytherin. But for some reason it doesn't follow through.
It doesn't follow it's own rules with Harry, Hermione or Neville. 

Why?


Kneasy