Good and bad expression of house traits (Was Nice vs. Good)

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 153104

 
<some snippage>

houyhnhnm:
 The bad expression of a characteristic can be
an exaggeration of  the trait as in courageous/reckless or
fairminded/indiscriminant, but it can  also be the opposite as in
just/judgemental.  Or maybe being judgemental  is really an
exaggeration, too, of being just, one that goes so far, it ends  up as
an opposite.

Your example of the Hufflepuff's reaction to Harry  in CoS is a good
one of Hufflepuff judgementalism.   Maybe  Zacharius Smith is an
example of being "so open-minded that your brains fall  out", at the
Hog's Head meeting, when he insists on hearing both sides in  the
You-Know-Who-is-back-or-he-isn't debate even though the time  has
clearly come for action. He is also judgemental when he is  announcer
at the Quidditch match.
 
Julie:
I'm not sure I see the insisting on hearing both sides of the debate  as
judgmental so much as cautious. Hufflepuffs act with deliberation,  rather
than from their instincts (Gryffindors) or based on logical  determination
(Ravenclaws). At least it's not judgmental in the way the word is most 
frequently used. 
 
houyhnhnm:
When lack of discrimination combines with judgementalism you  get the
worst kind of Hufflepuff; you get Zacharias Smith. 
 
Julie:
I don't think he's the *worst* kind of Hufflepuff. I'm still assuming  that 
all
the houses have produced a Death Eater or two, just as Slytherin must
have produced many who *didn't* become Death Eaters. It does make
me wonder what would lead a person in each given house to become a 
Death Eater?
 
I think with the Hufflepuffs it could be their trait of loyalness that  would
be their downfall. For instance, if a Hufflepuff student had a parent  who
was a Death Eater, loyalty to family might induce the student to join
the Death Eaters. Or if Tom Riddle, manipulative charmer that he was,
engendered loyalty in some Hufflepuff students during his own student
years, those Hufflepuffs might have willingly followed him, remaining
loyal to *him* rather than having any real allegiance to his  cause.
 
With Ravenclaws, loyalty to Voldemort would most likely be  ascertained
by promises of intellectual freedom that some might feel is denied  them
by the WWs societal strictures. I agree with houyhnhnm that detachment 
and lack of involvement would be traits common to Ravenclaws, who 
would tend to make decisions based on rationality and logic rather  than
on emotional feelings like compassion or kindness. Take this  detachment
to an extreme, and a Ravenclaw could lose all concern for his or her 
fellow beings, becoming to all intents and purposes  amoral. 
 
Slytherins obviously would be most driven by their ambition, which  can
be a good motivator but taken to extreme can lead one to do whatever
it takes to get to the "top" including serving Voldemort's cause in  exchange
for whatever power he might promise. 
 
Gryffindor is perhaps the hardest one to peg, as our one  known "bad"
Gryffindor, Peter, seems so very non-Gryffndorish. To me, the  Gryffindor
trait of courage which can become recklessness, and the Gryffindor 
love of risk and excitement would seem to be the traits that could be
turned toward evil. A Gryffindor who is recklessly brave, who craves
risk, might well join Voldemort simply for the challenge of the fight, 
for the chance to take on the best of the WW, the Aurors. Oddly,  this
would fit for the risk-taking Sirius, if he'd had fewer principles. But  this 
obviously isn't Peter's motivation, and I have more trouble pegging 
Peter into his house than any other HP character (talk about a 
square peg in a round hole!). Of course, Snape would make a fine
Ravenclaw too, and Bellatrix with her insane brand of loyalty might 
have made a good Hufflepuff ;-) 
 
Obviously any turn to evil and/or Voldemort's side has to involve  more
than just a particular trait taken to an extreme. Prejudices learned
in childhood, ties to friends and family, perceived snubs and wounds
from those on the "good" side, those would all be likely motivations. 
Or there could be genetic brain dysfunctions like insanity  (Bellatrix)
or sociopathy (Voldemort). How about simply a weak character (Peter,
and to a much lesser extent, Lupin)?


<snip>
 
houyhnhnm:
So, while Luna is a very good human being, she is a "bad"  Ravenclaw,
and so, really, are Flitwick and Cho Chang.  What's missing  is a
"good" Ravenclaw.  Maybe we will see one in book 7.  I would  also like
to see a truly good Slytherin in book 7, not one who is merely not  on
Voldemort's side, but one who uses the qualities that  Slytherin
prized--ambition, will, resourcefulness, determination--for  the
betterment of the WW instead of just for personal gain at the cost  of
its destruction.
 
Julie:
Well, I'd like to see a bad Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff who is  actually
"bad" in the evil sense (Death Eaters, or such). Could be Umbridge
is a bad Hufflepuff ;-)
 
As for the good Slytherin who uses his ambition, will,  resourcefulness
and determination for the betterment of the WW rather than for his
own personal gain, I'm certain we'll see one in Book 7. His name  will
be Severus Snape. Or perhaps you meant two good Slytherins? ;-)
 
Julie 






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]