Gryffindor's dark side

[phoenixgod2000]

No: HPFGUIDX 125147


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "charlot7542" 
<charlot7542 at y...> wrote:

> 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. 

I agree with this. 
 
> But the other attitude connected to bravery is arrogance.

No more so than the intelligence of Ravenclaws can lead to 
arrogance. Or the ambition of Slytherins can lead to arrogance. I 
would say that Hufflepuff are probably the least prone to arrogance 
because the traits that house admire generally lead to self effacing 
people, although Zackarius Smith seems to be pretty arrogant in 
OOTP, so I guess even Hufflepuffs can be arrogant. 
 
> 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.

Actually, in all of the books Harry searches desperately for someone 
else to take the responsibility but in every one of them the adults 
are either not present or they let him down in some way. He never 
goes looking for trouble.

 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).

I read that scene totally differently. I thought Harry had quite a 
low self esteem and needed to say those things out loud to remind 
*himself* of all the things he had accomplished. The very opposite 
of arrogance.

 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".

Except for bravery isn't about being admired. Being brave is about 
making sacrifices.  Bravery is the reason why Harry stands up to 
Umbridge, why Hermione struggles to free the house elves in the face 
of predjuce, and why Ron walks in a spider filled woods.  Its also 
why James walks to his death at Voldemorts wand and Sirius Black 
struggles to maintain his sanity in the prison of the dammned. None 
of those actions are because the people doing them want to be 
admired.  They are either done despite other people saying they 
could not or should not be done, or they are done in the dark where 
no one would see. 


> 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.

Wouldn't Percy be more admired by people for sticking by his family. 
Isn't by taking the less popular choice of going with someone he 
believes is right, brave?  Percy is a true believer in Fudge and 
defying his parents takes a lot of courage. 
 
> Think Hermione with her constant need to be academically brilliant 
> and praised by students and teachers alike.

Except for her beliefs are unpopular and she doesn't seem to care 
about being admired by students. She is a teacher pleaser but that 
is countered by her strong social stances, which most teachers and 
indeed most people believe are wrong. 
 
> 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.

Ron's greatest triumpts and most Gryffindorish actions were the ones 
done when no one was watching. Ron doesn't brag about his Chess Game 
in PS and he doesn't brag about going into the chamber of secrets in 
CoS. Both would garner him far more attention than being headboy, 
but he still keeps his mouth shut. 
 
> 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.

Partly, but living up to someone elses image of admiration and doing 
something *for* admiration are very different. Harry goes out of his 
way to avoid attention in almost all cases. 
 
> 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.

No evidence that any of them were Gryffindors.


> 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. 

The exact opposite is true. Ambition requires the approval of others 
because you cannot gain social power without other people giving it 
up. Just because so one is beneath you doesn't mean you don't need 
them.

True bravery is standing up for the unpopular and paying the price 
for standing up. Every Gryffindor you mention has, in one way or 
another, paid a price for being brave <one can be evil and brave so 
I count Peter in this group as well>

In conclusion, while some Gryff's have demonstrate arrogance, it is 
neither more or less present that any other quality. And Gryffindor 
Bravery is not connected to social admiration in any way.
  

phoenixgod2000