anjaliesque @ May 26 2003, 11:06:05 UTC

Man, do I want to be a Hufflepuff.

sistermagpie @ May 26 2003, 11:50:33 UTC

The Hufflepuffs cracked me up. You're a traitor! You're always traiting!!! Want to snog? I especially loved Ernie telling Hannah not to use the legs icon because of what it does to him. Bwahaha! Hufflepuffs rule!

I love the way all the different houses are starting to get a clear dynamic of the way they deal with each other. Hufflepuff and Gryffindor each have their own ways of demanding loyalty and consistent behavior from their members. Slytherin has its own bizarre codes nobody else can follow. Only Hufflepuff at this point isn't quite as uniform, but that fits Hufflepuff, imo.

I'm so glad somebody brought up Parvati's post because it just made me so sad. She really does want to have friends and just doesn't get what she's doing wrong. I felt so sorry for her spending her time going down to the dungeons to wave at Lilitou (and yes, I think Snape's got every right to keep her from touching his kitten). What made me feel worst, though, was her saying how she knows what season she is but nobody wants to talk to her about it. Poor Parvati!

I'm also surprised that Draco let Ron's comment about his being "tiny" pass without comment!

sistermagpie @ May 26 2003, 11:52:57 UTC

Only Hufflepuff at this point isn't quite as uniform, but that fits Hufflepuff, imo.


I've got Hufflepuff on the brain, I guess.

That line should read that only RAVENCLAW at this point isn't quite as uniform, but that fits RAVENCLAW, imo.

notapipe @ May 26 2003, 14:33:30 UTC

Ravenclaw should never BE uniform, I agree. I would also contend that Slytherin isn't uniform either. Only Hufflepuff and Gryffindor have formalized control mechanisms, and this is due to the fact that Hufflepuff and Gryffindor are houses which are based, in large part, on interpersonal relationships. We can see forced socialization best in Hufflepuff, in the raw censorship and exertations of power of their members, especially in this most recent case of Hannah. Gryffindor doesn't directly force it, like Hufflepuff, but uses more subtle methods of conditioning one to hold proper house socialization as a good onto itself.

Ravenclaw and (though to a slightly lesser extent) Slytherin reject mandatory socialization, and therefore they don't have formalized mechanisms of control. I think simply observing the Slytherins in action, especially marginal players like Crabbe, Goyle, a_slytherin and that Smith dude Draco or Crabbe mentioned, reveals the fact that every relationship is unique and there don't appear to be significant universal socialization methods. For example, Draco's censorship works on Goyle, but such methods never work on Draco (instead it is the gunny sack and spellotape). I'm completely unconvinced that Slytherin has any formalized control mechanisms.
The reason Slytherin and Ravenclaw are this way is the aforementioned individuality. Since they value things with individual payoffs (I understand that knowledge can be cooperative, but it's not nessecarily so. Also, while honor and courage OUGHT to be individual, the people who go in Gryffindor make it so that, operationally, they value community.), they don't populate with the type to formalize social control mechanisms, and the individualistic streak is the source of the lack of consistency.

sistermagpie @ May 26 2003, 15:28:08 UTC

I almost said something about all the houses enforcing loyalty and then realized of course that wasn't true for Slytherin. I do think Slytherin has some kind of understanding, though. They seem to understand the rules where nobody else can, and what rules apply depend on what relationship you're talking about. There's a way of behaving in Slytherin it's just not a uniform way, exactly.

slinkhard @ May 27 2003, 03:05:50 UTC

I think in canon, Slytherin are loyal.
Like Hufflepuff, they tend to be loyal to their House alone, whereas Ravenclaws and Gryffindors seem to prioritise the Schools unity.
When Draco loses points from Slytherin for the Fake!Dementor incident, there's no mention of Slytherin being angry with him, unlike Gryffindor's attitude to the Trio in PS for example.
Flint goes so far as to shield him in COS.
Anyway, this is all OT for nraged.

notapipe @ May 27 2003, 11:49:53 UTC Lets label this response OT and proceed then

Gryffs are very much loyal in their affiliations to their house first. Look, in CoS or GoF, at the way they set themselves up against the school in regards to Harry. Or look at the whole "Slytherin sux" and "Hufflepuff drools" mentalities. I would contend that the house system has set every house up as loyal to themselves first (Ravenclaw house loyality being a less concrete concept, but I simply don't see Ravenclaws as prioritizing the school's unity over something like school or books).

But the difference is between loyalty of affiliations, and loyality that is conformity to a social standard and a system of checks IN-HOUSE against their own members. So you're talking at cross purposes.

slinkhard @ May 28 2003, 02:04:12 UTC Re: Lets label this response OT and proceed then

Ravenclaws are really an unknown factor at this point, although Cho did wish Harry luck against Slytherin, suggesting they (disappointingly for those who are supposed to be intelligent) follow the Gryffindor's lead of 'Slytherin sux'.
I was struck in GoF by Crabbe's picking up of Ferret!Draco. If he and Goyle are just 'henchman' as described, surely they would laugh along with the rest of the school, or even welcome the loss of his oppressive, bossy presence. But he immediately moves to protect. Or in PoA, when Gryffindors blame Draco for getting bit. Or even in the films, when they sit at his bedside post Quidditch Match.
I'm not saying Gryffindors aren't loyal, just that they aren't the moral paragons they tend to represent themselves to be. Encouraging discord is a form of disloyalty to the school and to Dumbledore as it's head, is it not?
I'd like to address your point about talking at cross purposes, but I didn't really understand it. Sorry.

notapipe @ May 28 2003, 02:23:42 UTC Re: Lets label this response OT and proceed then

Cho: First, I think that there is a general anti-slytherin sentiment in the school, but I (at least would like to) beleive it's probably least pronounced in Ravenclaw. Second, you wish someone luck when they play. It's the way of things. I've wished people luck when I would prefer they lose. This shouldn't scare you. Besides, I'm pretty confident that Ravenclaw would at least spell it "Slytherin sucks" for the non-gamer Ravenclaws (and there are no gamers (well, some muggle-born or half-blood might be) in canon. I would like to see a gamer in N_A though)

Slytherin support: I think Slytherin is very loyal to their house, mainly as a form of self defense. But I don't think that henchmen would do was you suggest they would. They CERTIANLY would support the Ferret!Draco....

Gryffs: Exactly, they're not loyal to the school.

Cross Purposes: Okay. I think there are two types of loyalty adressed. One is loyalty in regards to supporting a group. This is what you've been talking about. The other might be better termed conformity. That is an adherence to a social standard. This is what I had been discussing before you posted.

slinkhard @ May 28 2003, 03:39:49 UTC Re: Lets label this response OT and proceed then

It doesn't scare me that Cho wishes Harry good luck! It'd be nice if you saw her wish Malfoy good luck, but then he does tend to be antagonistic, and there's so much we don't see in canon, it's possible that she did.
A gamer in N_A'd be funny, if a little meta. Maybe D&D ;)
I meant re: henchmen, that it's suggested in canon, and often fanon that Crabbe, Goyle and Draco mean nothing to each other, that the first two are idiots, and the latter would step over them for a bit of power, but the rare appearances they make in canon suggests much loyalty to each other. Draco is impatient with them in CoS, true, but then I might be if a friend who'd just eaten approx 249598353484208 cakes complained of a stomach ache. He describes Crabbe as his friend in GoF.
Gryfs: Glad we agree!

sistermagpie @ May 28 2003, 07:19:12 UTC Re: Lets label this response OT and proceed then

Just wanted to say--that's the way I see C,G and D too. There have been plenty of moments where we could have seen C&G acting like henchman and instead I've been struck by how genuinely attached to their little ferret they seem to be. I tend to think that as ridiculous as Draco's schemes are in the book, with his imagination and energy there has got to be more of them than we see. Who knows what kind of adventures he leads those two on in Slytherin? His impatience with them in CoS sounds to me pretty much like the way the group of guys who are friends in my office talk to each other. Yes, you really can tell someone "if you were any slower you'd be going backwards" and still be affectionate.

I think within Slytherin there's probably a lot of pressure to do well for the house but they wouldn't let that show to outsiders. Marcus has no trouble yelling at Draco after he loses the Quidditch match--something the Gryffindor captain wouldn't do to Harry in the same situation. But the Gryffs would have their own style of showing house-loyalty/disloyalty. They'd probably say, "You did your best," in front of the Slytherin team and then mutter and glance at Harry reproachfully in private.

What creeps me out about the "Gryffindor way" (as exemplified by the more dominant people--not everybody in Gryffindor is like this or anything) is that it's so much a mirror of Slytherin bias. They show loyalty to the school by hating Slytherin, essentially--the Weasleys are just far to close to the Ministry and its raids on private houses for my taste. Hufflepuff adn Ravenclaw seem pretty much forgotten about when they're not needed by the Gryffs, imo. Sometimes I get the feeling Gryffindor has a rather skewed impression of how they're viewed by the rest of the school, thinking everyone sort of looks up to them as the heroes when they probably don't.

In some ways Hufflepuff and Gryffindor seem like natural allies while Ravenclaw would be more likely to be open to Slytherin--it just seems natural to me. Maybe because Gryffindor is all about being righteous and Hufflepuff would immediately go along with that, while Ravenclaw's pursuit of knowledge would encourage them not to dismiss Slytherin out of hand because they're "bad."

notapipe @ May 28 2003, 16:22:38 UTC Re: Lets label this response OT and proceed then

His impatience with them in CoS sounds to me pretty much like the way the group of guys who are friends in my office talk to each other. Yes, you really can tell someone "if you were any slower you'd be going backwards" and still be affectionate.

Hmm, had not considered that angle, though it's certianly legitimate. You know what this means, don't you? Crabbe and Goyle could be total friggin geniuses.

But I have a question: it sounds like this is an etic observation on your part (and yay for etic perspectives). Is it really that foreign?

I like the deluded!Gryff idea. It seems rather reflective of large high school dynamics, wherein certian groups perceive themselves as "popular" but other groups don't even notice they exist. Maybe I like it because I certianly don't find the (canon) Gryffindors worthy of the type of respect they think they have. I'd also agree with the sort of allies thing, but only to an extent. I think Gryffinpuff makes sense (though you'll notice that in both CoS and GoF, events (read, Harry) conspire to make them on opposite sides), but Slytherin/Ravenclaw not so much. Ravenclaw is probably much more tolerant of Slytherin, and maybe even more tolerant of Slytherin than Gryffindor, but I see them as generally aloof from the infighting.

sistermagpie @ May 28 2003, 18:12:55 UTC Re: Lets label this response OT and proceed then

Hmm, had not considered that angle, though it's certianly legitimate. You know what this means, don't you? Crabbe and Goyle could be total friggin geniuses.


Heh. It's always nice to think so! (I think they're kind of romantics at heart myself--I think it's because of the way whichever one it is bends to pick up the trembling ferret; it's very sweet.) The one guy in my office who gets teased that way actually is very smart, only has no common sense. But even if they were really slow Draco could probably joke about it without being cruel, being their friend and leader. I really must write that post on my lj comparing the two trios I keep meaning to write...

I have been to dictionary.com and looked up the word "etic." Feel very accomplished, but still am not sure exactly what you mean by saying mine is an etic observation. If I were any slower I would, indeed, be going backwards...'splain please?:-)

notapipe @ May 29 2003, 02:45:35 UTC Re: Lets label this response OT and proceed then

I suppose my etic comment arises from a tendancy among myself and my friends to overuse and misuse the terms "emic" and "etic". I mean that it sounds like you're on the outside, and you're looking in (you can see through them, see their true colors, cuz inside they're ugly, ugly like you, you can see through them, see to the real them (excuse my delving into that old Staind song that doesn't really apply)) rather than having any experience with this yourself. As if you don't call your friends stupid and so on. I was wondering if this is some sort of gender issue (or as I like to alliterate it "Women are Weird" issue).

sistermagpie @ May 29 2003, 18:17:38 UTC Re: Lets label this response OT and proceed then

Hmmmm...interesting question. I mean, it's not like I would never jokingly insult my friends but in general I probably wouldn't say something like that...but maybe it's just not my style. Some women and girls probably would. That kind of comment just sounds more like something lots of friends of mine who are guys would say to their other friends who are guys (they wouldn't say it quite that way to me, even if they were teasing me). So I guess it's not that I wouldn't ever say something like that, I just don't normally say things like that as part of normal conversation with my friends but I know a lot of guys who do.

slinkhard @ May 29 2003, 01:23:24 UTC Re: Lets label this response OT and proceed then

What really creeped me out about Gryffindor was Lee Jordan, a fairly prominent Gryffindor, friend of the Weasleys, Quidditch commentator suggesting 'Why don't they just chuck out all the Slytherins?' with all the Gryffs roaring 'Yeah!'
Mmhm. Super noble and courageous. Why don't they just throw them in the gas chambers while they're at it? Slytherins really strike me as having parallels not with Nazis as is the rather over-used analogy but with people of Germanic descent; who even now can be judged for what their ancestors did. I mean, Salazaar Slytherin has this bad rep for not letting in Muggleborns, but I can't suspend my disbelief far enough to accept that Saintly Godric Gryffindor and his best buddies would have let people of different ethnic origins for example, or women for another, enter the school. It was a thousand years ago, after all, no matter how PC right on faux liberal they are now.
And of course the three quarters of the school supporting them at matches, everyone cheering when they enter the Hall before the Cup match, and yes, the raids on houses, which was rather chilling.
Yes, Lucius Malfoy is an evil shit, and I could happily see him die before the series end, because I don't think the narrative could support his redemption.
However, he's a person like everyone else, and at that point in time had presumably been living peacefully for the last twelve years, which doesn't warrant raids on his property, especially since we have to assume the Ministry has no proof he wasn't under Imperius.
And of course, his family have not been shown to have done anything untoward at all - Narcissa clearly isn't a Deatheater, or else she would have been in the circle in GoF (and women can enter, as Mrs LeStrange shows); Draco was a baby when Voldemort was vanquished, but still we get Bravely Brave Hagrid saying 'All the Malfoys are rotten to the core.' Yeah, like people haven't been saying that about giants for years, you hypocritical idiot!
Why is he even in Gryffindor anyway? Physical courage? Isn't it easy to be physically courageous when you're the size of a tree? He hasn't exhibited much emotional courage yet, drowning his sorrows every time there's a problem and refusing to see the hypocrisies in his own behaviour.
Although he'll probably die, and die a hero's death now that I say that.

notapipe @ May 29 2003, 02:36:56 UTC Re: Lets label this response OT and proceed then

Boy, bitter much? Not that I'm disagreeing with you. (and not just because you'll tear me to shreds with your bare hands)

Lets start with a few minor corrections. The school was founded by two women. Just sos you know. Hagrid went to freaking Azkaban, k? Don't knock his courage. His accuracy, impartiality (though the fact that a slytherin got him expelled probably helped with that), and ethics... well, those aren't so solid.

Okay, now that the minor corrections are out of the way, let's get to the tofu of the issue. As Sluggy Freelance points out the anti-slytherin hostility has an important purpose. Not JUST to alienate a fourth of the Hogwarts population and provide Death Eaters with large groups of disaffected wizards and witches, but to solidify the whole of the Hogwarts population behind a hypocrital rule that demonizes that one fourth. Enemies are great for insuring loyalty. I don't think it's exactly SMART or effective leadership, but then again, I don't support murdering suspected terrorists (and then bragging about it in a State of the Union adress) and attacking every random dictator we don't like in the name of the War on Terror, so what the hell do I know?

slinkhard @ May 29 2003, 03:37:01 UTC Re: Lets label this response OT and proceed then

Bitter much? You got that from the huge length of that post? Yup, you're right. (You seem to be right very often. An annoying habit. I myself don't suffer from that one.)
I know the school was founded by two women. I just can't imagine women being allowed to learn the same magic as the blokes. It's so unrealistic, and is a major problem in canon, because it's whitewashing. Like in PoA, when it's stated that witches and wizards weren't burnt because they could cast a charm on themselves, and it just tickled. Doesn't negate the fact that Muggles, that Arthur Weasley and his lovely, non prejudiced children support, would have been burned. Does it say anywhere in the text that the magical community did anything to prevent that?
I notice Gryffindor has problems with the only other male and vice versa for Slytherin, whereas Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw seemed to have put their heads down and got on with it, much as the present day counterparts. If I were in Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw, I think I'd get sick of the endless rivalry and posturing between Gryf and Slyth.
Is it so brave to survive Azkaban? We've never seen any other survivors aside from Sirius. (And don't even get me started on him and his hilarious joke, which almost killed himself, his best friend and his enemy, and would have made his best friend, whose place in Hogwarts was already precarious, a murderer.)
I thought Azkaban was worser in relation to how much one has suffered. So presumably Sirius and Hagrid didn't have very tough lives up until that point. (Hagrid states his worst memories and let's be frank, they're not all that bad - expulsion and parental death are the worst.) Although I'm sure canon represents that it was their strength that kept them going, they weren't particularly emotionally strong before. Their loyalty is much more apparent.
Did Hagrid even know Riddle got him expelled? Seriously?
I agree with you, it's not smart or effective leadership, and I hope the hero worship of Gryffindors, Dumbledore in particular, is an issue that gets addressed in further books. (God, I could write whole journalfuls of hate for him....don't worry, I won't!)

notapipe @ May 29 2003, 04:01:34 UTC Re: Lets label this response OT and proceed then

My correctness is news to me.

D00d, chill. You start kids on the whole "The American Civil War was fought to free the slaves" vibe and then give them a copy of Howard Zinn later, and you can see this in the books. There is a gradual move to a world of grays, one I think will be much more pronounced in OotP. That notwithstanding, let's move on. Wizards and witches COULD be more equitable. Why not? Do they have to be the same as muggles? No. Then why demand that they make all the same mistakes we did?

Burning. Well, given that the muggles were trying to burn them, I doubt they gave two shakes of a rat's ass. Also, let's remember that Harry is kind of a moron in canon, and also 14 in GoF when he writes this. 14 year olds can write worth shit. So the fact that he has stupid obvious conclusions that were probably not very investigative or critically thought out is probably not so much from the fact that no wizards or witches have recorded a history of the problems of the wizarding world, but because Harry is a retarded little kid.

I think Ravenclaws probably think Hufflepuffs are morons and don't really interact or get along in large part. They tolerate, but not work together.

In regards to specific people you mention: Yes, Sirius is an ass and Snape has good reason to hate his guts (though a Dementor's Kiss is too far). Hagrid knew Riddle got him expelled. In CoS, Riddle freaking tells Hagrid he'll get expelled and that he's turning him in. Also, Dumbledore might be VERY smart. If he's EVIL. Also, he may only APPEAR to hero worship Gryffs. Because it is told by Harry. We don't have any evidence that Dumbledore hates on Ravenclaws or anything.

slinkhard @ May 29 2003, 05:35:11 UTC Re: Lets label this response OT and proceed then

Yes, Harry is rather retarded. He has a complete lack of curiousity about anything not directly involving him, and about most things which do involve him. He's also stupidly accepting of almost everyone and everything, thinks he's always right and is arrogant. Not that I don't loff him.
Dumbledore is EVIL. Nothing will ever convince me otherwise. Not even if he dies a heroic death, then flies up to heaven on fluffy white wings, and Harry names his daughter 'Albusella' after him.
I have such a huge death list for HP it's untrue (it'd be quicker just to say who I like - Draco, Harry, the Slytherins, sometimes the Dursleys, sometimes Ron, Percy)
When I was into Buffy (*blushes*), it was the same - hatehatehatehate.
Doesn't say much for me, I suppose, but it makes for interesting debates and occasional catfights

sistermagpie @ May 29 2003, 18:37:35 UTC Re: Lets label this response OT and proceed then

LOL! Testify!

Slytherin reminds me personally of sort of pre-Christian religious types in a rapidly-becoming-Christian society. Disclaimer: The following thoughts are not meant as critiques on actual Christianity, just some parallels I can't help but see in the history.

The Gryffs are so sure they're on the side of the righteous and they seem to want to wipe out all this old-fashioned thinking to which the Slytherins cling. They want to move closer to Muggle society while the Slyths want to base things on wizarding history. Slyth is also associated with the Dark Arts and the other side's insistance on banning this type of magic also seems based more on a Christian view of the universe than the more Pagan Slytherin one. The Malfoys have a secret Chamber full of Dark Arts stuff that I assumed were family heirlooms. I'm sure once upon a time the Dark Arts were just a normal part of magic but now the good guys separate things into good and evil and try to eradicate the evil (as opposed to a nature based outlook which just balances light and dark).

Slytherin also has a vaguely feminine feeling to it that reminds me of sort of Pagan ideas. Gryffs have a sword (very phallic--Christianity being very patriarchal), Slytherin has a Secret Chamber (feminine enough for ya?). Gryffindor has the sort of Crusade-type symbol of the masculine lion, Slytherin is a snake. Snake represents evil in Christianity, but stands for knowledge in a lot of pre-Christian belief systems. Slytherin is still part of the school but for some reason they're the part of wizarding history that's now been labelled evil--Christianity took a lot of Pagan gods etc. and cast them as demons. (I agree they make a handy enemy to unite the rest of the school--oooh, I would so rebel against that if I were at Hogwarts!)

And lastly, of course, Slytherin is in the dungeons (hell) while Gryffindor is in a Tower (heaven). That's also a bit like a cave in the earth (feminine) and Tower (phallic symbol piercing the sky).

Just a few associations I've always made with those houses. Oh, and...erm...I went on a Hagrid rant myself once on my lj on my lj. This isn't a reading assignment or anything, just figured it was almost relevant to the OT-ness.:-)

slinkhard @ May 30 2003, 02:37:30 UTC Re: Lets label this response OT and proceed then

Wow, good points.
I actually read your rant (you're on my friends list.)
I didn't reply there, though (kinda shy :), but I agreed with all the points. Especially that Hagrid is prized for his 'honesty', but that his generalizations are more sweeping than anything I've heard out of Malfoy's mouth.
Hagrid can find it in his oh so huge heart to care for vicious animals (Aragog, for example - if that spider killed anyone over the last fifty years, that burden can rest on Hagrid's oh so huge shoulders!); but he can't for a prickly child, who has, just by being more human, much more potential for love and loyalty, which is what he seems to prize from his animals.
It fits in with my statement about Hagrid's bravery. He, like most people, likes an easy life. If a problem comes along he can't physically fight/tame, he buries his head in the tankard and hopes it all goes away. It's easy to love Harry - despite his bad points I brought up earlier, he's an adorable kid, plus a hero and an orphan besides. What's not to love?
It's not easy to reach out to Draco, or even Ron or Hermione, who are a little more reserved with Hagrid, not being so needy as Harry; so Hagrid doesn't really try. He doesn't even make that much effort for Harry, compared to some. Hagrid always comes through in the end, but that's not always enough, and one of my strongest wishes for book 5 and beyond is that Harry is forced to examine his blind loyalties and blind hatreds, and realise it's not all black and white.

hobaggins @ May 26 2003, 12:41:48 UTC

I really really love Ron and Draco's "relationship". It is possibly the most entertaining thing, EVER.

hezzabeth @ May 27 2003, 02:45:04 UTC

I really hate it how people are so down on charectors like Parvati and Lavender. Unlike P_S who inflicts malice for sheer amusement Lavender and Parvati really seem to have no clue that what their saying is wrong.
They are just two silly girls ,and I can sympathise with them.
It's hard having a decent conversationg with anyone when they assume your a stupid girl.

notapipe @ May 27 2003, 12:06:33 UTC

I'm down on Lavender because of the animated gifs and overuse of non-alphanumeric characters. Also because she's a moron and calls Lilitou "Bunny". I'm down on Parvarti for reasons similar.

Maybe I'm a bad person for this, but I think that willful choice to do what you KNOW is bad, especially in the case of homophobia, is less distressing than doing the same (bad) thing only in ignorance of the fact that it's bad; at least when people try to educate, but the ignorant case refuses to listen. One can later make the CORRECT choice if one KNOWS what's right and wrong. If they're ignorant, they will continue to make the wrong choice. Also, in terms of the heterosexism and homophobia, it's not the Dracos of the world that are the problem. It's the Lavenders. People don't cower in their closets in fear of Draco, but Ernie and Lavender.

Hey notapipe, resentful much?