Why is Percy in Gryffindor?

[hekatesheadband]

No: HPFGUIDX 144589

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" <c.john at i...> wrote:
>
> Shouldn't he be in Slytherin? Thirst for power? Abuse of power? Ability 
> to befriend those in power? Lack of family loyalty? Attempts to divide 
> family?
> 
> Brothergib (who is rereading the books due to 6 year old son's sudden 
> obsession!)
>

Ah, the ever-complex and fascinating House issue - one of my favourite
bits of Potterverse! As I see it, there are probably no "perfect"
sortings – every incoming student has at least some traits typical of
each house. Percy, as you note, has a LOT of Slytherin traits, and
would have done quite well in that House. But that, I think, is where
the ambiguities of the Hat come into play. The usual range of
individual strengths and weaknesses of character, and vagaries of
personality, exists in every group. The Hat bases its determination
upon a students inherent qualities (latent or expressed – these are
eleven-year-olds), their tendencies and preferences (which are
malleable and never become absolute), their choices to date (not to
come), and their values, goals, and self-perception. So a lot can change.

I would also say that every House has not only the entire range of
human strengths and faults, but also some "typical" or most common
examples and tendencies. For example, Slytherins, on the good side,
may most likely be willing to do what's necessary to accomplish
something important, even if the necessity is unpleasant. On the bad
side, that "something important" may be important only to one
individual and detrimental to others, or they may be willing to accept
too much in the way of unpleasantness.

With Gryffindor, as presented in the books, the good side is obvious.
Gryffindors tend to be conscious of doing what is right, of
considering foremost the ethical implications of their choices and
actions. That's when they do consider them, of course – people in
general, and adolescents in particular, can be impetuous, and the
"daring" streak can amplify this. (And they're as likely to harbour
basic human nastiness as anyone, most likely.) Nonetheless, they are
the most likely to do what is right rather than what is easy. They
will, if they must, risk the disapproval of peers (e.g., Neville),
family (Sirius), and society (Harry, Hermione) if necessary in order
to maintain ethical behaviour. They are independent, though not to the
point of being anti-social.

But there's a bad side to Gryffindor as well, as for all the other
Houses. Gryffindors may be genuinely brave, or they may abstractly
value bravery – fawn over brave heroes, convince themselves that they
are brave or upright, or want to be perceived as brave. McLaggen is a
classic example of the last flaw, Peter Pettigrew of the first, and
Percy Weasley of the second. We don't know Gilderoy Lockhart's House,
but he could also be one of the vainglorious Gryffindors, as could Sir
Cadogan. If "good" Gryffindors are genuinely humble about their
actions and ethics, "bad" ones want to be admired for their courage
and virtue, and are prone to histrionics, persecution complexes, and
flashy gestures of defiance in response to trivialities. The may tend
to moralise or be holier-than-thou. In another scenario, the desire to
do what is right may lead to paralysing angst over unpleasant
necessities – the most notable example being Dumbledore's
characteristic inaction in the face of real trouble, at least until
the problem has got out of control.

So, in a nutshell: in an ideal world, all Gryffindors will be brave
and noble. In the real world, some are, but some are just bent on
convincing themselves that they are.

Just my bit,
hekatesheadband

Because the Sorting Hat is really Bono.