|
Hm, I am impressed by this fiction. I have no issues with stories being dark - it was, after all, an increasing trend in the Harry Potter novels as Harry grew older. Harry has grown, and so have I... Bring on the darkness!
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:10 |
|
|
VanSandman posted:It doesn't help that the author is apparently a psychopathic scammer. Allegedly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:It doesn't help that the author is apparently a psychopathic scammer. Allegedly. Is it bad my first though was Cassandra Clare? (please someone explain how she got published)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
njbeachbum posted:The problem is that Hufflepuff isn't defined at all except they are "loyal" and apparently where all the unsortable kids go. I feel like JK needed a fourth house, she had good, evil, and smart, and she needed the fourth house for the "other kids". That is one of the things I wish was different about the books it was the characterization (or lack of) of the people in slytherin and hufflepuff. It would have been nice to have some slytherin students in the DA or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 08:02
|
|
|
njbeachbum posted:Hadn't heard this before what's the buzz? Since it'd be a derail I PM'd you about it instead. I, too, did not like how all Slytherin students were evil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 10:09
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Since it'd be a derail I PM'd you about it instead. Slughorn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 10:13
|
|
|
Also Pettigrew was a gryffindor
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 11:04
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Slughorn. Slughorn and Snape are the only two morally ambiguous Slytherins. Slughorn really is the perfect characterization of what more Slytherin characters could have been: Not evil, but calculating and self-serving. Makes for a much more multidimensional character than someone who's just a bully. This is one of the reasons why Half-Blood Prince stands out for me, I think. Not only does it introduce Slughorn, but it makes this distinction really clear for Draco, too. Up until this point, it's been easy to identify Draco as just being the twisted kid, but in HPB, he's forced to confront the type of behavior that comes with a life in (for lack of a better phrase) organized crime. He's never been crazy about Dumbledore, but that doesn't mean he wants to murder an old man, either. He spends the entire book grappling with the task he's been given, making somewhat half-assed attempts to pull off the job because while he is primarily self-serving, he doesn't want to take that final step into being a total monster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Regulus and Tonks's mom were good Slytherins. Anyway, I find it kind of ridiculous how much importance the fans give to the Houses. Isn't it a point in the books that they shouldn't matter so much? They're basically just there to facilitate integration and scheduling. I got the impression that once you've left school, no one cares anymore. We don't learn about most adult characters' houses, and if most Death Eaters were Slytherins it's because they formed a clique in school and kept together after graduation. Another thing that baffles me is why Hufflepuff gets so much flak instead of Ravenclaw. Hufflepuff qualities are loyalty, hard work and fairness, don't know how you can complain about that. And look at the characters distribution: in Hufflepuff you've got Tonks, Cedric Diggory, a bunch of all right kids in Harry's year and the goddamn jolly Fat Friar. In Ravenclaw, you have Cho Chang, her SNEAK friend, Moaning Myrtle, Quirrell and a whinny ghost. There's also Luna, but the other Ravenclaw students were always bullying her so gently caress them, really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
Bone grass posted:Regulus and Tonks's mom were good Slytherins. Regulus' mother was the psycho portrait in Grimmauld Place - he was Sirius' brother. I don't think we know to which house Andromeda belonged.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
geeves posted:Regulus' mother was the psycho portrait in Grimmauld Place - he was Sirius' brother. I don't think we know to which house Andromeda belonged. I mean Regulus himself was arguably good. As for Andromeda, it's stated a few times that all the Blacks were in Slytherin except Sirius.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
Bone grass posted:Another thing that baffles me is why Hufflepuff gets so much flak instead of Ravenclaw. Hufflepuff qualities are loyalty, hard work and fairness, don't know how you can complain about that. And look at the characters distribution: in Hufflepuff you've got Tonks, Cedric Diggory, a bunch of all right kids in Harry's year and the goddamn jolly Fat Friar. In Ravenclaw, you have Cho Chang, her SNEAK friend, Moaning Myrtle, Quirrell and a whinny ghost. There's also Luna, but the other Ravenclaw students were always bullying her so gently caress them, really. People who self identify as nerds and geeks tend to believe that they are smarter than the average person and so most believe that they would have been in Ravenclaw. Since they have identify themselves as Ravenclaws, they are less likely to want to criticize the house in any way. Also, not very many people identify as Hufflepuffs simply because there are few major characters that are in school with Harry that are Hufflepuffs. They sort of exist as background characters until Tonks and Diggory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
The thing is, you have to identify what is less appealing about the house just as much as its strengths. For example, Gryffindors are brave, but they're also often reckless and unnecessarily put themselves in harms way -- just look at how many Gryffindors become martyrs, or come close to it. Ravenclaws can be just as bad. They're generally proud, and almost cutthroat and elitist in how much they prize cleverness over anything else. I think that Ravenclaws are closer to Slytherins than any other house, the biggest difference being that they don't use their intelligence to Machiavellian ends. They're crafty, calculating lateral thinkers, but they apply that to any situation, not just self-serving ones. Hufflepuff gets picked on for being the "leftovers" house, but I don't think that's really the case. Unlike any of the other three houses, Hufflepuffs care mostly about doing the right thing, being fair and helping society. It's easy to single them out as weak for that, but I get the sense that Hufflepuffs are generally just civil, egalitarian types.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
Hufflepuffs are, well, kinda boring. They don't seek out dramatic or interesting situations or strive for greatness; they're just content to keep doin' what they're doin'. Those kinds of people are fine - the world needs them - but they're not usually the stuff of stories.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
Bone grass posted:Another thing that baffles me is why Hufflepuff gets so much flak instead of Ravenclaw. Hufflepuff qualities are loyalty, hard work and fairness, don't know how you can complain about that. And look at the characters distribution: in Hufflepuff you've got Tonks, Cedric Diggory, a bunch of all right kids in Harry's year and the goddamn jolly Fat Friar. In Ravenclaw, you have Cho Chang, her SNEAK friend, Moaning Myrtle, Quirrell and a whinny ghost. There's also Luna, but the other Ravenclaw students were always bullying her so gently caress them, really. Ravenclaws are "Smart, but assholes", Slytherins are "cunning, and assholes", and Griffindors are "Brave, but assholes". Hufflepuff doesn't really have a gimmick other than "the average guy, and sometimes an rear end in a top hat".
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
I always thought that Huffs were the heart. Griffs are cocky. Also I miss these books. There just isn't any series that's as fun and inventive and atmospheric. Maybe Disc world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
Just to add my 0.02$ to the houses discussion, but isn't it the case that Hufflepuff is supposed to be the house for straight-and-narrow type of characters? The way I imagine it, Gryffindor's are supposed to be the good characters who are more likely to step up, or even put themselves into harm's way, to stand up for what they believe in whereas Hufflepuff's are those who are good at heart but more likely to be follower types. And while Hufflepuff and Gryffindor are for "good", compassionate people, both Ravenclaw and Slytherin are supposed to be more around the "neutral" point on the good-versus-evil axis if I were to put it in terms of D&D's alignment system, at least according to what I took away from it 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
I guess this is an easier way to show my feelings on this: Griff Pro: bravery, friendship, loyalty and strength Con: pride, reckless Raven Pro: cunning, intelligent Con: cocky, clique-ey Slytherin Pro: cunning, deception, manipulation, powerful Con: vicious, bullying, emotionally pessimistic and negative or just evil Huff Pro: loyalty, friendship, heart, emotionally optimistic Con: less intelligent, less brave
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Nohtenki posted:Is it bad my first though was Cassandra Clare? She's bffs with Holly Black. Which is a shame, because Black is a decent writer. PrBacterio posted:Just to add my 0.02$ to the houses discussion, but isn't it the case that Hufflepuff is supposed to be the house for straight-and-narrow type of characters? The way I imagine it, Gryffindor's are supposed to be the good characters who are more likely to step up, or even put themselves into harm's way, to stand up for what they believe in whereas Hufflepuff's are those who are good at heart but more likely to be follower types. And while Hufflepuff and Gryffindor are for "good", compassionate people, both Ravenclaw and Slytherin are supposed to be more around the "neutral" point on the good-versus-evil axis if I were to put it in terms of D&D's alignment system, at least according to what I took away from it
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
I don't think it's so much as about character traits (of course, it partly is), but about what you value. Harry got a choice, remember, to be in Slytherin, but he chose not to define himself by cunning and deception, despite the fact that he's pretty good at it. So I would say that Hufflepuffs can be just as brave/reckless, intellegent/cocky, cunning/vicious as the students in the other houses, but they choose not to value those traits, instead valuing loyalty and friendship above all else. So the students aren't grouped by what traits they possess (they're kids, "sometimes we sort too soon" and all that), but what traits they value. And then they accentuate those traits and sometimes don't get to be well-rounded people.  Although I thought it was really dumb that no Slytherins stayed behind at first at the Battle of Hogwarts.  It's like Slytherins were given all of this moral ambiguity behind them (maybe being cunning isn't so bad!) in Prince and then it only sort of got resolved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
Autumncomet posted:Although I thought it was really dumb that no Slytherins stayed behind at first at the Battle of Hogwarts. To be fair, most of the houses are judged based on the people in Harry's year. Apart from Quidditch matches, I don't think Slytherin students from other years are ever mentioned, and if they are it's certainly not in great detail. Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle were all sons of Death Eaters already, and it's sort of implied that Pansy Parkinson had a crush on Malfoy or something. so they were always more likely to be "evil". I think it was Parkinson that got the Slytherins kicked out during the Battle of Hogwarts, too. So, I think it's fair to say that the majority of Slytherin house could be quite normal and not evil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
Unless I'm just getting my fanon mixed in, Blaise and Greengrass always seemed to be... snippy, but not particularly aggressive or evil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
Daphne Greengrass is never seen and only mentioned once, in a list of names. Preceding Harry in an examination doesn't really strike me as a character trait.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Huh, weird. Way too much fanfic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
Are we allowed to talk about JK Rowling's newest book, Casual Vacancy? Or is it in another thread?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
bean_shadow posted:Are we allowed to talk about JK Rowling's newest book, Casual Vacancy? Or is it in another thread? I'm not sure if there is another thread for it (you could always create one if there isn't), but I think it would be best not to discuss it in this thread because there might be people who haven't read it and the spoilers, etc. would be a pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
I just caught up with this fan fiction that was linked earlier in the thread and I must say it's really, really good. The story and character development is going in a very interesting direction and I can't wait to see how it ends. Which will be in about 10 years given how sporadically the author updates the thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
Bone grass posted:Another thing that baffles me is why Hufflepuff gets so much flak instead of Ravenclaw. Hufflepuff qualities are loyalty, hard work and fairness, don't know how you can complain about that. And look at the characters distribution: in Hufflepuff you've got Tonks, Cedric Diggory, a bunch of all right kids in Harry's year and the goddamn jolly Fat Friar. In Ravenclaw, you have Cho Chang, her SNEAK friend, Moaning Myrtle, Quirrell and a whinny ghost. There's also Luna, but the other Ravenclaw students were always bullying her so gently caress them, really. Mind your tongue, I'm sure I'm not the only Ravenclaw here...  Are you a Hufflepuff yourself? It would be interesting to find that people of a certain house were quick to praise the positive qualities associated with their house above those of others, and also point out flaws in those of other "rival" houses. I acknowledge there are some Ravenclaws who use their cleverness in less-than-admirable ways - and some that don't seem to have much cleverness at all (I find Cho Chang somewhat pathetic). No offense to Hufflepuff but I must say I do find the characteristics of Hufflepuff to be the least interesting of the houses, and it seems that most fans agree with me. Ravenclaws also have to solve a riddle for dorm access.  Fake edit: And "whiny ghost" is a harsh way to describe The Grey Lady, who is quite a badass character. Real edit: bengraven posted:I guess this is an easier way to show my feelings on this: I approve of this. DarkUltim8Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 06:05
|
|
|
Thanfiction, who wrote Dumbledore's Army and the Year of Darkness, linked earlier in the thread, wrote his thoughts out on the Houses/Sorting here. http://andythanfiction.tumblr.com/post/32450592797/a-comprehensive-daydverse-guide-to-sorting It probably makes a bit more sense if you've read the fanfic in question (because a lot of it is all to do with the canon he sticks to for the story), but I think he made a few decent points. Like it was said before, he portrayed Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws quite well in the fanfiction. cptn_dr fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 12:17
|
|
|
DarkUltim8Hedgehog posted:Mind your tongue, I'm sure I'm not the only Ravenclaw here... I took the Pottermore test twice, got Slytherin the first time and (funnily enough) Ravenclaw the second. I do think Hufflepuff has the most admirable traits, however boring they might be. But anyway like I said earlier, I don't think the house you're sorted in matters much or that it really says something about you / your personality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Considering one of Slytherin's big things was ambition, I think it would have been interesting to have seen some Slytherins with ambitions beyond being the best henchman. Like none of them wanted to kill Voldemort to prove how badass they were or because they totally deserved to be King Evilguy with legions of monster followers or because they were gonna make a totally revolutionary new wizard society and he was in their way. They were all just like "Well he's clearly our new god, I say we get on his good side."
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
Luminous Obscurity posted:Considering one of Slytherin's big things was ambition, I think it would have been interesting to have seen some Slytherins with ambitions beyond being the best henchman. Like none of them wanted to kill Voldemort to prove how badass they were or because they totally deserved to be King Evilguy with legions of monster followers or because they were gonna make a totally revolutionary new wizard society and he was in their way. They were all just like "Well he's clearly our new god, I say we get on his good side." With how Durmstang was talked up it seems like Slytherin in Hogwarts is more of a safety school for rear end in a top hat wizards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
Methods of Rationality is some surreal bullshit. Wizard People Dear Readers is more realistic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
Sarkozymandias posted:Methods of Rationality is some surreal bullshit. Wizard People Dear Readers is more realistic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
PrBacterio posted:MOR is fairly typical of the kind of person that is its author, i.e., nerdy SF readers who take all that stuff far too seriously and fervently believe the singularity is just around the corner because they are so much more Rational (with a capital R) than everybody else, but for all that it's still a surprisingly entertaining read. ...Until you get to the part where Harry and Draco are casually discussing raping Luna Lovegood. At age 11. MoR goes to some loving insane places, and its version of Harry is probably the most insufferable author mouthpiece I've ever seen. No 11 year old talks or acts the way Harry does in that story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
Zore posted:...Until you get to the part where Harry and Draco casually discussing raping Luna Lovegood. At age 11.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
Zore posted:...Until you get to the part where Harry and Draco are casually discussing raping Luna Lovegood. At age 11.  Harry has the soul-shard of an immortal evil genius wizard lodged in his brain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
the only thing more disturbing than the MOR thing is how some people think it is unironically the best thing they've read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
Bone grass posted:Another thing that baffles me is why Hufflepuff gets so much flak instead of Ravenclaw. Hufflepuff qualities are loyalty, hard work and fairness, don't know how you can complain about that. And look at the characters distribution: in Hufflepuff you've got Tonks, Cedric Diggory, a bunch of all right kids in Harry's year and the goddamn jolly Fat Friar. In Ravenclaw, you have Cho Chang, her SNEAK friend, Moaning Myrtle, Quirrell and a whinny ghost. There's also Luna, but the other Ravenclaw students were always bullying her so gently caress them, really. Yeah, I mean, I get that the Hufflepuff hate thing comes from the fact that the house is for "all the rest" so people largely consider it the reject bin but with traits like loyalty, diligence, fairness, unity, and tolerance, I always thought Hufflepuff was pretty close to Gryffindor as far as moral alignments, more so than Ravenclaw at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:10 |
|
|
If you want to run with D&D alignments, I always saw Hufflepuff as the Lawful Good, almost to a fault. Remember McMillan? The one with a stick up his rear end about being polite and pompous? Gryffindor seemed to run from Neutral Good through Chaotic Good with a side helping of Lawful Neutral. Ravenclaw seems to be most of the neutral spectrum, and Slytherin (at least as written) is Lawful Evil through Neutral Evil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 23:05
|
|
