Almost all Death-Eaters were Slytherin for the same reason why almost all Mussolini supporters were Italians. People from different houses just tend to stay together, especially when organizing a major conspiracy. If Dark Lord was a Hufflepuff, most Death Eaters would be Hufflepuffs. Dark Wizardry is no more inherent character of Slytherins than fascism is of Italians.
Seriously? But, but… Hufflepuffs would suck at being Dark Lords. There are important traits that Slytherins have that Hufflepuffs just tend not to have.
If one Hufflepuff happened to have them, imagine the loyal, hardworking, tight-knit followers, diligently working to acquire the traits deemed necessary...
Dark Marks would barely even be necessary! I wonder how difficult it would be to game or work around the house selection system somehow. Can the sorting hat see through mind control spells?
Or, and this is where the real threat of Hufflepuffs comes in, you really just want to help help people but are rather confused about how to go about doing so. (Unless the confusion is on the part of those who are using the label ‘Dark’ and you really are helping them.) Altruists are scary. Hard to control.
I could imagine a Hufflepuff developing some spell to merge or link minds so the group can be even more cohesive and cooperative. A Hufflepuff Borganism could be pretty freakin’ scary. “We are One. We are Together. We are Loyal. You should join Us. Yes, yes, you really, really should. What’s that? Oh. You just don’t know what’s best for you. Let Us help you.”
I wonder how much consideration the founders put in to the effects of non-magical chemical interventions.
On the day before the sorting I could conceive and then carry out the following plan:
Pack a lunch packed lunch which includes a beverage dosed with MDMA.
Ensure that I will eat this food in preference to purchasing off the trolley. Either by writing a note or by giving my parents instructions to remind me quite seriously.
Drug myself with an amnesiatic cocktail and so forget the plan.
MDMA would likely be sufficient to influence the sorting. Especially if combined with extensive psychotherapy over several months. Since you have allowed influence by the parents there is even more scope for influencing the sorting by non magical means. Chemical and psychological interventions can make a huge and somewhat reversible influence on psychological traits.
There may be similar non magical ways to enhance a polyjuice based plan. Legal name changes. Chemically enhanced hazing to convince the volunteer that their actual name is wedrifid, etc.
Wizards are notoriously narrow minded when considering non-magical loopholes, especially in the MoR!reality. Bypassing the hat as an eleven year old may be difficult without assistance but should definitely be possible with parental assistance. As an extreme measure:
At age 10 backup all your memories.
Have the parents introduce retrogade amnesia and solid brainwashing over months or a year.
Restore the memories at the Christmas holidays and work hard to reverse all changes. This should be possible because magical intervention can be used in the healing process without the hat interfering. Apart from healing spells things up to and including self cast imperius can be used.
But what would be the point? Has the Sorting Hat ever placed anyone in a House they very strongly didn’t want to be placed?
It assigned Harry to Gryffindor not Slytherin because Harry was strongly against the idea of joining Slytherin.
I’d guess with strict system like that, most people get pre-conceptions about which house they belong to long before sorting, so Hat’s job is usually very easy.
But what would be the point? Has the Sorting Hat ever placed anyone in a House they very strongly didn’t want to be placed?
It quite probably has, and would.
It assigned Harry to Gryffindor not Slytherin because Harry was strongly against the idea of joining Slytherin.
The hat isn’t complying here just noting that wanting desperately not to be Slytherin is evidence that you are not most suited to being a Slytherin. Me wanting desperately to be a Hufflepuff because it gives me access to a whole lot of Hufflepuffs to be my loyal minions might not be quite so persuasive.
Well, Hermione’s sorting is another example of Hat taking person’s preferences into account.
Is there any good counter-example?
Me wanting desperately to be a Hufflepuff because it gives me access to a whole lot of Hufflepuffs to be my loyal minions might not be quite so persuasive.
I’d expect people to develop serious plans of taking over the world at some age older than 11, but feel free to write fanfic to the contrary.
But if you believed strongly in value of loyalty, that might be enough. Hermione, Neville, and Peter Pettigrew all seem to have been sorted based on their value system more than on their actual traits—otherwise their sorting makes little sense.
I’d expect people to develop serious plans of taking over the world at some age older than 11
Erm, not taking over the world per se, but I was certainly thinking in long-range terms. If you look at my grade school graduation yearbook (age 12), my ambition is listed as building the first faster-than-light starship. Ah, the innocence of youth, before I got ambitious, and before I understood the local nature of causality.
Incidentally, that’s when I stopped talking about taking over the world, and also turned my attention to FTL. Public goal: Deduce the principles necessary for interstellar travel. Secret ambition: Control and drive all advanced research and current deployment of technology for transporting person, parcel and bit, then manipulate world leaders into disarmament. Ah the lonely megalomania of youth, back before I got ambitious, back when I thought I had to do everything myself.
But if you believed strongly in value of loyalty, that might be enough. Hermione, Neville, and Peter Pettigrew all seem to have been sorted based on their value system more than on their actual traits—otherwise their sorting makes little sense.
To be honest I’ve been running with the “their sorting makes little sense” theory. :)
All three were sorted into houses they new people in. This seems to have persuaded that hat a little in canon.
I would think it is likely that the hat would sort people into a house they want to be in.
Also, at age 11, many people haven’t fully developed, and putting them in a house is likely to cause them to be more like that house; there’s no reason for the hat to be overly picky about putting people where they belong. The actions of a ten-year-old aren’t great predictors of future personality.
Although thinking about it, the actions I remember taking as a ten-year-old seem pretty consistent with you I am today, but I would guess that I am an outlier in this regard.
Anyway I don’t see any reason to believe that the hat has EVER put someone in a house they didn’t want to be in, and I feel like taw is making stronger points despite the upvotes not agreeing with me.
Couldn’t a Slytherinny parent who wants their child to become powerful coach their child into wanting to be in some House other than Slytherin? Say, MoR!Lucius, coaching his son in all the ways of seizing power, but telling him awful, awful stories of what it was like to be a Slytherin. “No, no my boy, you do not want to be in that House, whatever you do!” Then, Draco under that Hat goes, “No! No! Not Slytherin! Anything but Slytherin!” And thus, ends up somewhere else.
Thus positioned, he does not automatically have to wear a suspicion-generating Slytherin badge, and he gets to be the wolf among the sheep (if he ends up in Hufflepuff or Gryffindor, where there’s no Harry and Hermione to match him). Being Slytherin is like being a Ferengi. People already expect you to scheme against them, so their guard is up. But a Hufflepuff or Gryffindor (especially Gryffindor!) MoR!Draco would start out with powerful advantages in his quest for world domination.
Since “rule the world” and “save the world” aren’t really that far apart, he probably would have ended up in Gryffindor. If you want to rule the world, presumably you think you’ve got a better way to run it than the way it’s being run. Some would-be rulers might just want the wealth and being able to boss other people around, but it’s easier to get that as a cult leader and not have to have responsibility for administering the global economy.
If you want to save the world, you could be defending the status quo (keeping that other guy from conquering the world), or you could see some threat (climate change, death) that isn’t being dealt with appropriately, and you have a better way. In either case, you are tacitly assuming that you have a pretty good idea what’s best for the world, and act to see that things go your way. Though I’m over-simplifying a bit here, I think there is an element of “who’s writing the history?” to whether one’s a “Gryffindor” or a “Slytherin.” Andrew Jackson: Gryffindor? Slytherin? What about Che Guevara?
My guess is it would be fairly common for partisans of Utopian movements (Communism, Nazism, religious fundamentalism, etc.) to fancy themselves as Gryffindor-type heroes out to save the world, while their opponents and victims would class them as Slytherins. Where would the Sorting Hat put them? :)
Although thinking about it, the actions I remember taking as a ten-year-old seem pretty consistent with you I am today, but I would guess that I am an outlier in this regard.
You aren’t. Most people overestimate the amount that people’s personalities are likely to or able to change.
Any chance we could get anecdotal evidence about this? Or better yet studies about it?
Without trying to be rude I would actually prefer you just didn’t believe me right now. It is a field of enquiry that I haven’t researched in a while and it would take me a long time to dig up the resources that I once found convincing. I seem to recall being surprised by identical-twins-raised-apart studies that focussed on the “big five” traits.
How much have you changed since you were 10?
I’m taller and my philosophy has changed (I was raised by religious believers). My interaction with that philosophy and personality is more or less the same (but matured and far more effectively applied.)
ETA: I google’d it and came up with this but neither I nor my university seems to have a subscription to peek inside.
It is not something I have read but my university seems to have access. If you are particularly curious you could message me with an email address.
It seems to me Hufflepuffs are most likely to turn Magical Britain into well-meant but ruthlessly-run authoritarian state, with disastrous consequences for all.
Slytherins would probably turn against each other before achieving anything if one of them wasn’t so much more powerful than anyone else.
Slytherins would probably turn against each other before achieving anything if one of them wasn’t so much more powerful than anyone else.
Ambition, Cunning and Resourcefulness certainly don’t rule out the possibility of solving cooperation problems. Even Draco with the lessons Harry has taught him would be sufficient for him to take over the world rather effectively if Harry was out of the way.
World used to be filled with revolutionary movements, and very few managed to grow past Dunbar’s number or so before falling apart by everyone trying to out-politic everyone else.
Most of the Trotskyist groups from the 1930s to the 1960s also adopted democratic centralism, but they infamously split all the time. Of course, Trotskyists are selected (amongst Leninists) as those willing to defect from the majority.
These are good points. Yet I also suggest that monarchies, any kind of feudalism and for that matter republics, religions and democracies are maintained by Slytherins. In the case of monarchies and feudalism in particular all changes in power are more or less the outcome of Slytherin machinations.
There’s also the power behind the throne. Cardinal Richelieu was definitely a Slytherin. (Well, the character in Dumas was; I don’t know so much about the real person.)
How about the Vedic castes of India? Brāhmaṇa = Ravenclaw, Kṣatriya = Gryffindor, Vaiśya (later Śūdra) = Hufflepuff. Nobody admits to being a Slytherin, which is suspicious, don’t you think?
How about the Vedic castes of India? Brāhmaṇa = Ravenclaw, Kṣatriya = Gryffindor, Vaiśya (later Śūdra) = Hufflepuff. Nobody admits to being a Slytherin, which is suspicious, don’t you think?
I would have said Śūdra = Hufflepuff, Vaiśya = Slytherin. Vaiśya are the “merchant” caste, which plays rather nicely into a number of negative stereotypes, including the fat-cat capitalist robber-baron and the Evil Corporation.
Yeah, I thought of that, but I didn’t think that it fit very well. So I went back to the original caste system, before Śūdra existed. I agree that when Śūdra came around, it replaced Vaiśya as Hufflepuff; I just don’t feel that the newer Vaiśya fits any house.
And still later, Dalit = House-Elf?
The pre-Śūdra caste system also corresponds the the Three Estates of pre-Revolutionary France: First = Brāhmaṇa, Second = Kṣatriya, Third = Vaiśya. But again, the Third Estate later consisted (and had for centuries by the time of the Revolution) of both merchants and laborers. If you want to split those, you get a very good correspondence between Hindu castes and the European classes that allegedly inspired the 14th-century playing card suits that we still use: Hearts = Brāhmaṇa, Spades = Kṣatriya, Diamonds = Vaiśya, Clubs = Śūdra.
So by composing these relationships, we get a correspondence between playing cards and Hogwarts houses! (if we accept Vaiśya = Slytherin). There exists a set of Harry Potter playing cards by Bicycle which almost agrees, but they swap Slytherin and Hufflepuff (pic).
There’s also the power behind the throne. Cardinal Richelieu was definitely a Slytherin.
Well yes he was. But he never organized a circle of Slytherins to permanently take over France.
And don’t forget how unsuccessful were Machiavelli—model of everything that is Slytherin.
How about the Vedic castes of India? Brāhmaṇa = Ravenclaw, Kṣatriya = Gryffindor, Vaiśya (later Śūdra) = Hufflepuff. Nobody admits to being a Slytherin, which is suspicious, don’t you think?
Brits were playing Indians against each other extremely successfully. They took over India before anybody even noticed.
Feudalism feels more like Gryffindor to me. It was more about personal authority than about cunning. Not to mention he was the one with the sword.
Personal authority is something that takes rather a lot of cunning to acquire and maintain. A Gryffindor may be claim a territory here or there but his children either adopt a Slytherin mindset their power dwindles or is usurped.
Slytherins by definition lack necessary bravery to keep getting into all fights that maintaining a position within feudal system requires.
As long as acquiring power requires personally charging into an enemy army, Gryffindors will hold most of it. Fellow Gryffindors will be easily impressed by someone who does so without a second thought. Slytherins won’t last long. To someone who actually values their life and comfort like all Slytherins do, this is very expensive kind of signaling.
I don’t agree on this one. Slytherins will do what they need to do to get power. There is also quite a difference between creating, maintaining and enforcing an image of personal bravery and being personally brave. Those who maintain the greatest image of personal bravery will be those that are best at choosing to personally engage in the elements of a battle that pose little risk to themselves and who proficient at arranging the demise of anyone who doubts their courage. It isn’t hard to choose the bravest rivals and ensure they are put in the most dangerous situations. As I understand it that was standard practice for dealing with rivals without damaging morale.
Gryffindors will be in the upper echelons in such a system but they will rarely if ever be at the top.
I don’t agree on this one. Slytherins will do what they need to do to get power.
To get power for themselves, not for other Slytherins, in practice leading to a lot of mutual undermining. A Slytherin has as much chance of out-braving a Gryffindor, out-smarting a Ravenclaw, or out-hardworking a Hufflepuff as any of them out-cunning a Slytherin. It might happen occasionally, but as easily either way.
I’d even say all this taking over the world business was very un-Slytherin. The First Wizarding War was an open Gryffindor style confrontation, and in spite of having the most powerful wizard on their side, Death Eaters were remarkably unsuccessful. As soon as Voldemort was gone, his decades of effort fell apart almost instantaneously. Death Eaters were just ridiculously unsuccessful.
Just compare Voldemort with Horace Slughorn (or MoR’s Lucius Malfoy, but I don’t think original Lucius Malfoy were as successful as in MoR). Slughorn was a good wizard, but nowhere near Voldemort’s level.
Voldemort treated people as disposable pawns, beating them into submission if they resisted, and had no qualms about disposing of even his loyal servants if it suited him. It was parasitic and abusive relationship, only made possible by Voldemort’s vast power.
On the other end there are all Hufflepuffs and Gryffindors willing to sacrifice their own good just to help whoever happens to be their friend or they feel obligation to help. This is a lot less destructive, but not a great recipe for success.
What Slytherins like Slughorn did was the middle ground. Slughorn built a network of people around himself, carefully selecting who was allowed into his inner circle with little prejudice. He was mostly loyal to people in his circle, but it was bounded loyalty, as shown by his abandonment of Malfoys and other Death Eaters. He definitely helped them succeed. Not jumping into action on first suggestion that friend is in trouble like all those silly Gryffindors—just providing crucial “leg-ups” to achieve maximum results without expending too much effort or influence.
And people who succeeded thanks to him willingly returned favors he asked—something he took advantage of but was sure not to overuse. It was highly mutually beneficial relationship—based primarily on everyone’s self-interest, but without short-signedness, without Voldemort’s coercion, or Gryffindor’s blind loyalty.
Slughorn didn’t get to “rule magical Britain”, either overtly or covertly, but why would he want to? Was here anything missing from his life? If he wanted something, all he needed was to ask. And it took no stupid risk, no decades of research, no horrible sacrifices at mere promise of eventual success—Slughorn achieved what he wanted while having fun, risking nothing, and not over-exerting himself.
The history remembers Voldemorts not Slughorns, but relative to their talents, their efforts, and their sacrifices people like Slughorn are ridiculously more successful than people like Voldemort. This should be the essence of House Slytherin. “ambition, cunning, and resourcefulness” do not usually lead to taking over the world, especially since it would strongly conflict with “self-preservation” which is also a major Slytherin value.
According to canon, once you gain an horcrux you turn into an easily recognisable monster. Depending on the exact effects (which aren’t detailed) it may be that you have no way to re-enter society and thus no third option between living as a total hermit or as a lord of terror.
So, if your three options are:
(A) achieve immortality, spend eternity hiding from the world;
(B) achieve immortality, try to take over the world;
(C) live in comfort and respect for less than 200 years;
you could argue that A is better than B, but C is pretty clearly worse than A and B. Although it may be pointed out that there’s little reason not to wait until you’re, say, 150 or so before trying that Horcrux thing.
Of course, there’s (D) get hold of a Philosopher’s Stone and pull a Flamel by achieving society-approved immortality, but that might just be the single greatest plot hole in canon HP. Speaking of which, the Stone was mentioned in passing during one of the early chapters of MoR, albeit only for its alchemical powers, so I’m curious to see if/how Eliezer handles its existence as a life-prolonger.
It isn’t clear from canon if a single horcrux turns one into an easily recognizable monster. We know that Voldemort looked like a monster after he had 1) made multiple horcruxes 2) was killed and then came back using dark magic.
In fact, we know that when he was Tom Riddle he had already made a horcrux when at Hogwarts and he still looked like a normal human until at least the end of his time at Hogwarts.
If the plot hole to which you’re referring is that canon!Voldemort could have used his extreme skill to get the Philosopher’s Stone, instead of going for Horcruxes, the idea that I always got was that the Philosopher’s Stone extended life, by preventing aging, but Horcruxes prevented death, by tethering the user’s soul after their body died. If someone had killed Nicolas Flamel while he was regularly using the Elixir of Life, I don’t believe it would have helped him. Canon never says how Horcruxes deal with death by old age, but if it worked the way Voldemort’s death worked, then a person who died of old age would get a ghost-form that could then in principle be reincarnated as Voldemort was. (Which is another highly evil piece of magic. What is it about life-extension that people think is evil?) It’s never mentioned whether Voldemort’s new body would ever die of old age.
Here’s my Slytherin theory.
Almost all Death-Eaters were Slytherin for the same reason why almost all Mussolini supporters were Italians. People from different houses just tend to stay together, especially when organizing a major conspiracy. If Dark Lord was a Hufflepuff, most Death Eaters would be Hufflepuffs. Dark Wizardry is no more inherent character of Slytherins than fascism is of Italians.
Seriously? But, but… Hufflepuffs would suck at being Dark Lords. There are important traits that Slytherins have that Hufflepuffs just tend not to have.
If one Hufflepuff happened to have them, imagine the loyal, hardworking, tight-knit followers, diligently working to acquire the traits deemed necessary...
Dark Marks would barely even be necessary! I wonder how difficult it would be to game or work around the house selection system somehow. Can the sorting hat see through mind control spells?
All you have to do is think really hard that you can’t stand any other house, will not find your fellows there, will not reach your full potential...
Or, and this is where the real threat of Hufflepuffs comes in, you really just want to help help people but are rather confused about how to go about doing so. (Unless the confusion is on the part of those who are using the label ‘Dark’ and you really are helping them.) Altruists are scary. Hard to control.
“For the greater good!”
I could imagine a Hufflepuff developing some spell to merge or link minds so the group can be even more cohesive and cooperative. A Hufflepuff Borganism could be pretty freakin’ scary. “We are One. We are Together. We are Loyal. You should join Us. Yes, yes, you really, really should. What’s that? Oh. You just don’t know what’s best for you. Let Us help you.”
Anyone who tries to manipulate Sorting Hat at age of 11 would automatically and deservingly be sent straight into Slytherin.
Do you think it is possible for the Sorting Hat to see through powerful mind control spells? Modified memories, obliviation, imperius, etc.
Better yet, polyjuice. Send some other kid in that looks like you and is willing to go along with your plan out of loyalty.
Just brainstorming here. It’s quite possible that the Hat would yell out “Well, this guy is going to Hufflepuff but wedrifid is going to Ravenclaw!”
Which reminds me, the hat works by piggybacking of the intelligence of the wearer. So I would pick the dumbest Hufflepuff friend that I could find!
It was made by founders of Hogwarts. Possibly Dark Lord or Dumbledore could cast a spell like that, but few 11 year olds or their parents.
I wonder how much consideration the founders put in to the effects of non-magical chemical interventions.
On the day before the sorting I could conceive and then carry out the following plan:
Pack a lunch packed lunch which includes a beverage dosed with MDMA.
Ensure that I will eat this food in preference to purchasing off the trolley. Either by writing a note or by giving my parents instructions to remind me quite seriously.
Drug myself with an amnesiatic cocktail and so forget the plan.
MDMA would likely be sufficient to influence the sorting. Especially if combined with extensive psychotherapy over several months. Since you have allowed influence by the parents there is even more scope for influencing the sorting by non magical means. Chemical and psychological interventions can make a huge and somewhat reversible influence on psychological traits.
There may be similar non magical ways to enhance a polyjuice based plan. Legal name changes. Chemically enhanced hazing to convince the volunteer that their actual name is wedrifid, etc.
Wizards are notoriously narrow minded when considering non-magical loopholes, especially in the MoR!reality. Bypassing the hat as an eleven year old may be difficult without assistance but should definitely be possible with parental assistance. As an extreme measure:
At age 10 backup all your memories.
Have the parents introduce retrogade amnesia and solid brainwashing over months or a year.
Restore the memories at the Christmas holidays and work hard to reverse all changes. This should be possible because magical intervention can be used in the healing process without the hat interfering. Apart from healing spells things up to and including self cast imperius can be used.
But what would be the point? Has the Sorting Hat ever placed anyone in a House they very strongly didn’t want to be placed?
It assigned Harry to Gryffindor not Slytherin because Harry was strongly against the idea of joining Slytherin.
I’d guess with strict system like that, most people get pre-conceptions about which house they belong to long before sorting, so Hat’s job is usually very easy.
It quite probably has, and would.
The hat isn’t complying here just noting that wanting desperately not to be Slytherin is evidence that you are not most suited to being a Slytherin. Me wanting desperately to be a Hufflepuff because it gives me access to a whole lot of Hufflepuffs to be my loyal minions might not be quite so persuasive.
Well, Hermione’s sorting is another example of Hat taking person’s preferences into account.
Is there any good counter-example?
I’d expect people to develop serious plans of taking over the world at some age older than 11, but feel free to write fanfic to the contrary.
But if you believed strongly in value of loyalty, that might be enough. Hermione, Neville, and Peter Pettigrew all seem to have been sorted based on their value system more than on their actual traits—otherwise their sorting makes little sense.
Erm, not taking over the world per se, but I was certainly thinking in long-range terms. If you look at my grade school graduation yearbook (age 12), my ambition is listed as building the first faster-than-light starship. Ah, the innocence of youth, before I got ambitious, and before I understood the local nature of causality.
Incidentally, that’s when I stopped talking about taking over the world, and also turned my attention to FTL. Public goal: Deduce the principles necessary for interstellar travel. Secret ambition: Control and drive all advanced research and current deployment of technology for transporting person, parcel and bit, then manipulate world leaders into disarmament. Ah the lonely megalomania of youth, back before I got ambitious, back when I thought I had to do everything myself.
To be honest I’ve been running with the “their sorting makes little sense” theory. :)
All three were sorted into houses they new people in. This seems to have persuaded that hat a little in canon.
I would think it is likely that the hat would sort people into a house they want to be in.
Also, at age 11, many people haven’t fully developed, and putting them in a house is likely to cause them to be more like that house; there’s no reason for the hat to be overly picky about putting people where they belong. The actions of a ten-year-old aren’t great predictors of future personality.
Although thinking about it, the actions I remember taking as a ten-year-old seem pretty consistent with you I am today, but I would guess that I am an outlier in this regard.
Anyway I don’t see any reason to believe that the hat has EVER put someone in a house they didn’t want to be in, and I feel like taw is making stronger points despite the upvotes not agreeing with me.
Couldn’t a Slytherinny parent who wants their child to become powerful coach their child into wanting to be in some House other than Slytherin? Say, MoR!Lucius, coaching his son in all the ways of seizing power, but telling him awful, awful stories of what it was like to be a Slytherin. “No, no my boy, you do not want to be in that House, whatever you do!” Then, Draco under that Hat goes, “No! No! Not Slytherin! Anything but Slytherin!” And thus, ends up somewhere else.
Thus positioned, he does not automatically have to wear a suspicion-generating Slytherin badge, and he gets to be the wolf among the sheep (if he ends up in Hufflepuff or Gryffindor, where there’s no Harry and Hermione to match him). Being Slytherin is like being a Ferengi. People already expect you to scheme against them, so their guard is up. But a Hufflepuff or Gryffindor (especially Gryffindor!) MoR!Draco would start out with powerful advantages in his quest for world domination.
Since “rule the world” and “save the world” aren’t really that far apart, he probably would have ended up in Gryffindor. If you want to rule the world, presumably you think you’ve got a better way to run it than the way it’s being run. Some would-be rulers might just want the wealth and being able to boss other people around, but it’s easier to get that as a cult leader and not have to have responsibility for administering the global economy.
If you want to save the world, you could be defending the status quo (keeping that other guy from conquering the world), or you could see some threat (climate change, death) that isn’t being dealt with appropriately, and you have a better way. In either case, you are tacitly assuming that you have a pretty good idea what’s best for the world, and act to see that things go your way. Though I’m over-simplifying a bit here, I think there is an element of “who’s writing the history?” to whether one’s a “Gryffindor” or a “Slytherin.” Andrew Jackson: Gryffindor? Slytherin? What about Che Guevara?
My guess is it would be fairly common for partisans of Utopian movements (Communism, Nazism, religious fundamentalism, etc.) to fancy themselves as Gryffindor-type heroes out to save the world, while their opponents and victims would class them as Slytherins. Where would the Sorting Hat put them? :)
You aren’t. Most people overestimate the amount that people’s personalities are likely to or able to change.
Any chance we could get anecdotal evidence about this? Or better yet studies about it?
How much have you changed since you were 10?
ETA: I google’d it and came up with this but neither I nor my university seems to have a subscription to peek inside.
Without trying to be rude I would actually prefer you just didn’t believe me right now. It is a field of enquiry that I haven’t researched in a while and it would take me a long time to dig up the resources that I once found convincing. I seem to recall being surprised by identical-twins-raised-apart studies that focussed on the “big five” traits.
I’m taller and my philosophy has changed (I was raised by religious believers). My interaction with that philosophy and personality is more or less the same (but matured and far more effectively applied.)
It is not something I have read but my university seems to have access. If you are particularly curious you could message me with an email address.
Official house traits:
Hufflepuff—Loyalty, Dedication and Hard Work
Gryffindor—Bravery and Chivalry
Ravenclaw—Intelligence and Wit
Slytherin—Ambition, Cunning and Resourcefulness
It seems to me Hufflepuffs are most likely to turn Magical Britain into well-meant but ruthlessly-run authoritarian state, with disastrous consequences for all.
Slytherins would probably turn against each other before achieving anything if one of them wasn’t so much more powerful than anyone else.
Ambition, Cunning and Resourcefulness certainly don’t rule out the possibility of solving cooperation problems. Even Draco with the lessons Harry has taught him would be sufficient for him to take over the world rather effectively if Harry was out of the way.
World used to be filled with revolutionary movements, and very few managed to grow past Dunbar’s number or so before falling apart by everyone trying to out-politic everyone else.
Only very few that were extraordinarily loyal like Bolsheviks won. The primary difference between Bolsheviks and everyone else was their strong belief in strict loyalty to the party, whose decisions were to be absolutely binding upon all members.
Even after they started killing each other, very few defected the Party to join some other group.
Compare it with far more typical Slytherining in Kyrgystan where people keep joining, defecting, and plotting everyone against everyone else.
Most of the Trotskyist groups from the 1930s to the 1960s also adopted democratic centralism, but they infamously split all the time. Of course, Trotskyists are selected (amongst Leninists) as those willing to defect from the majority.
Trotsky was a total Slytherin, just see how many times he switched sides even before the revolution.
These are good points. Yet I also suggest that monarchies, any kind of feudalism and for that matter republics, religions and democracies are maintained by Slytherins. In the case of monarchies and feudalism in particular all changes in power are more or less the outcome of Slytherin machinations.
Feudalism feels more like Gryffindor to me. It was more about personal authority than about cunning. Not to mention he was the one with the sword.
There’s also the power behind the throne. Cardinal Richelieu was definitely a Slytherin. (Well, the character in Dumas was; I don’t know so much about the real person.)
How about the Vedic castes of India? Brāhmaṇa = Ravenclaw, Kṣatriya = Gryffindor, Vaiśya (later Śūdra) = Hufflepuff. Nobody admits to being a Slytherin, which is suspicious, don’t you think?
I would have said Śūdra = Hufflepuff, Vaiśya = Slytherin. Vaiśya are the “merchant” caste, which plays rather nicely into a number of negative stereotypes, including the fat-cat capitalist robber-baron and the Evil Corporation.
Yeah, I thought of that, but I didn’t think that it fit very well. So I went back to the original caste system, before Śūdra existed. I agree that when Śūdra came around, it replaced Vaiśya as Hufflepuff; I just don’t feel that the newer Vaiśya fits any house.
And still later, Dalit = House-Elf?
The pre-Śūdra caste system also corresponds the the Three Estates of pre-Revolutionary France: First = Brāhmaṇa, Second = Kṣatriya, Third = Vaiśya. But again, the Third Estate later consisted (and had for centuries by the time of the Revolution) of both merchants and laborers. If you want to split those, you get a very good correspondence between Hindu castes and the European classes that allegedly inspired the 14th-century playing card suits that we still use: Hearts = Brāhmaṇa, Spades = Kṣatriya, Diamonds = Vaiśya, Clubs = Śūdra.
So by composing these relationships, we get a correspondence between playing cards and Hogwarts houses! (if we accept Vaiśya = Slytherin). There exists a set of Harry Potter playing cards by Bicycle which almost agrees, but they swap Slytherin and Hufflepuff (pic).
Interesting. I think that swap can be traced to Rowling, who upset the traditional progression from noble to base by putting Slytherin at the bottom.
Well yes he was. But he never organized a circle of Slytherins to permanently take over France.
And don’t forget how unsuccessful were Machiavelli—model of everything that is Slytherin.
Brits were playing Indians against each other extremely successfully. They took over India before anybody even noticed.
That’s a much later time period than Vedic society, but I like it all the same.
I didn’t realize we cared about such minor issues in a thread that involved analogies between Hogwarts houses and Communist revolutionary factions ;-)
Personal authority is something that takes rather a lot of cunning to acquire and maintain. A Gryffindor may be claim a territory here or there but his children either adopt a Slytherin mindset their power dwindles or is usurped.
Slytherins by definition lack necessary bravery to keep getting into all fights that maintaining a position within feudal system requires.
As long as acquiring power requires personally charging into an enemy army, Gryffindors will hold most of it. Fellow Gryffindors will be easily impressed by someone who does so without a second thought. Slytherins won’t last long. To someone who actually values their life and comfort like all Slytherins do, this is very expensive kind of signaling.
I don’t agree on this one. Slytherins will do what they need to do to get power. There is also quite a difference between creating, maintaining and enforcing an image of personal bravery and being personally brave. Those who maintain the greatest image of personal bravery will be those that are best at choosing to personally engage in the elements of a battle that pose little risk to themselves and who proficient at arranging the demise of anyone who doubts their courage. It isn’t hard to choose the bravest rivals and ensure they are put in the most dangerous situations. As I understand it that was standard practice for dealing with rivals without damaging morale.
Gryffindors will be in the upper echelons in such a system but they will rarely if ever be at the top.
To get power for themselves, not for other Slytherins, in practice leading to a lot of mutual undermining. A Slytherin has as much chance of out-braving a Gryffindor, out-smarting a Ravenclaw, or out-hardworking a Hufflepuff as any of them out-cunning a Slytherin. It might happen occasionally, but as easily either way.
I’d even say all this taking over the world business was very un-Slytherin. The First Wizarding War was an open Gryffindor style confrontation, and in spite of having the most powerful wizard on their side, Death Eaters were remarkably unsuccessful. As soon as Voldemort was gone, his decades of effort fell apart almost instantaneously. Death Eaters were just ridiculously unsuccessful.
Just compare Voldemort with Horace Slughorn (or MoR’s Lucius Malfoy, but I don’t think original Lucius Malfoy were as successful as in MoR). Slughorn was a good wizard, but nowhere near Voldemort’s level.
Voldemort treated people as disposable pawns, beating them into submission if they resisted, and had no qualms about disposing of even his loyal servants if it suited him. It was parasitic and abusive relationship, only made possible by Voldemort’s vast power.
On the other end there are all Hufflepuffs and Gryffindors willing to sacrifice their own good just to help whoever happens to be their friend or they feel obligation to help. This is a lot less destructive, but not a great recipe for success.
What Slytherins like Slughorn did was the middle ground. Slughorn built a network of people around himself, carefully selecting who was allowed into his inner circle with little prejudice. He was mostly loyal to people in his circle, but it was bounded loyalty, as shown by his abandonment of Malfoys and other Death Eaters. He definitely helped them succeed. Not jumping into action on first suggestion that friend is in trouble like all those silly Gryffindors—just providing crucial “leg-ups” to achieve maximum results without expending too much effort or influence.
And people who succeeded thanks to him willingly returned favors he asked—something he took advantage of but was sure not to overuse. It was highly mutually beneficial relationship—based primarily on everyone’s self-interest, but without short-signedness, without Voldemort’s coercion, or Gryffindor’s blind loyalty.
Slughorn didn’t get to “rule magical Britain”, either overtly or covertly, but why would he want to? Was here anything missing from his life? If he wanted something, all he needed was to ask. And it took no stupid risk, no decades of research, no horrible sacrifices at mere promise of eventual success—Slughorn achieved what he wanted while having fun, risking nothing, and not over-exerting himself.
The history remembers Voldemorts not Slughorns, but relative to their talents, their efforts, and their sacrifices people like Slughorn are ridiculously more successful than people like Voldemort. This should be the essence of House Slytherin. “ambition, cunning, and resourcefulness” do not usually lead to taking over the world, especially since it would strongly conflict with “self-preservation” which is also a major Slytherin value.
According to canon, once you gain an horcrux you turn into an easily recognisable monster. Depending on the exact effects (which aren’t detailed) it may be that you have no way to re-enter society and thus no third option between living as a total hermit or as a lord of terror.
So, if your three options are: (A) achieve immortality, spend eternity hiding from the world; (B) achieve immortality, try to take over the world; (C) live in comfort and respect for less than 200 years;
you could argue that A is better than B, but C is pretty clearly worse than A and B. Although it may be pointed out that there’s little reason not to wait until you’re, say, 150 or so before trying that Horcrux thing.
Of course, there’s (D) get hold of a Philosopher’s Stone and pull a Flamel by achieving society-approved immortality, but that might just be the single greatest plot hole in canon HP. Speaking of which, the Stone was mentioned in passing during one of the early chapters of MoR, albeit only for its alchemical powers, so I’m curious to see if/how Eliezer handles its existence as a life-prolonger.
It isn’t clear from canon if a single horcrux turns one into an easily recognizable monster. We know that Voldemort looked like a monster after he had 1) made multiple horcruxes 2) was killed and then came back using dark magic.
In fact, we know that when he was Tom Riddle he had already made a horcrux when at Hogwarts and he still looked like a normal human until at least the end of his time at Hogwarts.
Ok, then scratch everything, he’s an idiot.
Even if it resulted in severe disfiguration, very few people know anything about horcruxes, so you can make up some believable cover story.
If the plot hole to which you’re referring is that canon!Voldemort could have used his extreme skill to get the Philosopher’s Stone, instead of going for Horcruxes, the idea that I always got was that the Philosopher’s Stone extended life, by preventing aging, but Horcruxes prevented death, by tethering the user’s soul after their body died. If someone had killed Nicolas Flamel while he was regularly using the Elixir of Life, I don’t believe it would have helped him. Canon never says how Horcruxes deal with death by old age, but if it worked the way Voldemort’s death worked, then a person who died of old age would get a ghost-form that could then in principle be reincarnated as Voldemort was. (Which is another highly evil piece of magic. What is it about life-extension that people think is evil?) It’s never mentioned whether Voldemort’s new body would ever die of old age.
Strong in the force he is, but not that strong?
Extreme Lifeism is an unusual belief, most people don’t think tiny chance at immortality is worth big risk of throwing your life away.
I doubt anyone thinks so even here, regardless of what people say. If they did, they’d be donating at least half their income to SENS.