Sorting and House System

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 172861

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "fitzchivalryhk"
<fitzchivalryhk at ...> wrote:
>
> One of the most unsatisfying point in Deathly Hallows for many
> HPfGUers is the continual/approval of the Sorting system after the
> Voldemort war. In DH, by showing that none of the current Slytherin
> students was good enough to join the other Houses to fight against
> Voldemort, and discounting other Slytherins as "Griffindor at heart"
> (i.e. Snape), the book seems to send a message to people that as long
> as you are categorized as one type of people (namely, Slytherin) at
> the age of 11, you are a coward or villain for life.

<SNIP>

> For those who share the point of view that the Sorting and House
> System of Hogwarts is not beneficial for the wizarding society and its
> children, what do you think can be done to change it?

<SNIP>

> fitz


Prep0strus:

I think we have to accept that we're working with a flawed, childish
system.  I think this was something JKR came up with when she was
writing a children's book, and as the series became more complicated,
more interesting, and more adult, there simply was no good way for
this framework to be integrated properly.

It's so easy at first: a good house, a bad house, a secondary good
house if you're smart but not that awesome, and then a random
throwaway house.  The problem is when she wants to start having real
characters, layered characters.

Slytherins are bad people.  I know many of us try very hard to force
what is there into something else... even JKR.  But it can't be done.
 Virtually all of Voldy's followers.  The original house creator...
maybe at some point Godric and Salazar really were good friends, but
an anti-muggleborn bigot who placed a basilisk in the school for the
purposes of killing children... and our examples of 'good' slytherins.
 Please.  Just because they are not evil, doesn't mean they are
admirable.  Snape is a bitter, nasty man saved from complete evil by
his love of Lily.  Slughorn is a sycophantic, weak little man who
treats children based on what he thinks they can do for him later on.
 Regalus, like Snape, turns towards evil, and manages to redeem
himself only after being pushed too far.  And these are the very BEST
of the world that JKR shows us.

The hat tells us it's about being pureblood or being ambitious. I
dunno. Percy is both.  Does 'bravery' and 'honor' override those? Or
is it simply 'goodness'.  Plenty of non-pureblood Slytherins, no
matter what Salazar wanted.  I guess they're all ambitious... though
could Goyle be said to be ambitious?

The other houses get to split some good traits. I guess we have to
assume Hermione's courage was stronger than her smarts, and Cedric's
loyalty stronger than his courage. Of course, we're told Hufflepuff
takes 'the rest', which has got to feel really good as a child.

Personally, I don't mind if the sorting had would simply choose those
who are evil.  Cull them from the school and wizarding society right
away.  Maybe that's a little too 'minority report'.

But overall... the houses are a childish delineation, which can only
be viewed through a child's eyes of good vs bad.  Complexity doesn't
play a part.  Harry tells little Albus that good people can be
Slytherin.  But good people don't want to be.  I say, eliminate the
houses, or have them but have them based on nothing, or heck, keep
them how they are.  They're fun.  But I think we're just going to have
to forgive JKR for developing a very flawed system, where some are
golden, some are at best unpleasant and at worst evil, and where some
are the dregs.  And then there's Ravenclaw.  :-/  I think we're
expecting too much to expect more.

~Adam(prep0strus)