Gryffindor's dark side

[charlot7542]

No: HPFGUIDX 125128




After following the discussion about Molly and the Weasleys on this 
forum I went over to Redhen's website and there read a very 
interesting article about the differences between the Hogwarts 
houses. 

http://www.redhen-publications.com/Hufflepuff.html

While Redhen focuses particularly in this discussion on Hufflepuff 
and Ravenclaw, there are a few comments about Gryffindor versus 
Slytherin, which ring true with some things I've been thinking about 
over the past few months. 

There's been a lot of discussion on the appearance so far of 
Slytherin as the "bad" or "dark" house and the necessity for Rowling 
to show pretty soon a "good slytherin" or risk dooming all Slytherin 
kids as "irredeemably evil" simply by virtue of their house at the 
tender age of 11. This I absolutely agree with. 

What I contend, however, is that if you show both good and bad 
aspects of Slytherin, there must be both positive and negative 
aspects of the perceived attributes of all the houses. And I think, 
that while Slytherin and Gryffindor seem on the face of it, 
absolutely opposed, in practice there are a number of worrying 
similarities. 

It is said that Gryffindor values most bravery above all other 
attributes. The flip side of this is of course a tendency for 
recklessness and hotheadedness (see Harry's ill-advised trip to the 
Ministry in OotP and practically all of Sirius behaviour). This in 
itself is quite different to the calculating perception of those 
snide Slytherins. 

But the other attitude connected to bravery is arrogance. 

I would argue, that although Harry with his "saving people thing" 
rushes to the aid of others with the best of intentions, often 
without reference to those in authority, there is an underlying 
arrogance, which accompanies his attitude - the idea that it is not 
necessary for him to consult others because he IS the best person 
for the job. Of course we saw this attitude coming to the fore in 
OotP in his rants to Ron and Hermione about everything he had 
accomplished in the past (sorry, don't have the exact quote). And 
then there was the very blatant arrogance displayed by Harry's own 
father and his buddies in the penseive scene.

So far, so good - certainly its been commented on that the arrogance 
displayed by the 15 year old James and his penchant for bullying is 
in itself very Slytherin-esque. But what's more interesting is 
Redhen's contention that the driving force behind Gryffindor is not 
so much a magnanimous bravery, but rather a desire to be "admired". 
It is this wish to be looked up to or praised, which is the root 
cause of the broad stroked and generally admirable actions of the 
Gryffindors (not the other way round). For the most part, because 
Gryffs want admiration, their actions are by their very nature 
admirable. 

But the desire to be admired can also be perverted.

Case in point is James and his bullies again, who walked around the 
school as if they owned it and in order to preserve this image might 
resort to tactics, which were less than kind, even downright cruel 
(Lily's comment about James cursing people in the halls). Peter 
Pettigrew fits very well too in this pattern - his desire to be 
admired by association with the "popular" kids. So does Lupin - his 
inability to reprimand James and Sirius for their actions because of 
his desire according to Rowling to be liked. 

Then there's Percy Weasley, who has never seemed to fit the 
Gryffindor mould particularly well, but with this criteria is 
perfectly understandable - the continued reference to his prefect 
status and indeed the rift with his family because his perception of 
what is admirable within the wizarding world diverges with that of 
Arthur and Molly. 

Think Hermione with her constant need to be academically brilliant 
and praised by students and teachers alike. 

And of course there's Ron, who desires above all (at least in his 
first year) to be head boy and quidditch captain - these things are 
widely perceived and easily recognisable labels of success. 

Harry himself could be said to be put in Gryffindor because he 
wished to live up to that admirable memory of his parents as painted 
by Hagrid. 

The darker aspect of the Gryff's wish for respect and esteem can be 
seen in figures like Ludo Bagman, Gilderoy Lockhart, even Cornelius 
Fudge - in such cases the need for praise and to be thought well of 
overrides the original wish to perform fully admirable deeds in 
order to achieve admiration. Instead we get the appearance of such 
with highly ambiguous moral implications. 

Probably the major difference between Gryffindor and Slytherin then 
is that Slytherins don't care so much about what others think as 
long as they achieve their ends. Others are beneath them anyway. 

On the other hand Gryffs, while subconsciously believing like the 
arrogant Slytherins that others are beneath them, still want the 
admiration and love of those around them - which in its worst form 
is like the simpering awe of Pettigrew.  

The only person who doesn't fit this mould is Neville, but then as 
Redhen says, he really doesn't fit in any house (including 
Hufflepuff), but that's a whole other argument....

Anyway, just some thoughts....

Charlotte, who fully expects to be shot down in flames for this 
post :-)