Places to Chat
I know there
Chatterbox: Blab About Books
Unfair to Hufflepuff?
I know there...
I know there are a lot of Harry Potter related threads right now. But i just want to to bring up a topic that has been on my mind for the longest time. Is it just me or does anyone else think that the world is unfair to the Hufflepuff house? It seems to me that the world thinks of Hufflepuff as the house that gets all the kids without talent. To me Hufflepuff is the house that is hard-working, friendly and very loyal to their friends. Please let me know what your thoughts of Hufflepuff are, or any other hogworts house for that matter!
submitted by Kendra, age 14, The Woods betwe
(April 6, 2010 - 2:01 am)
(April 6, 2010 - 2:01 am)
Yeah, I mean she makes it seem like the only good Hufflepuff person is Cedric, and even he dies in the same book he is introduced. No other Hufflepuffs really have that big a part- in fact, the only ones I can think of are Ernie and Cedric...
(April 6, 2010 - 11:57 am)
exactly! It seems like the Hogwarts houses are this:
Gryffindor = brave
Ravenclaw = Smart
Slytherin = Mean
Hufflepuff = idiots who can't do anything.
When they should be this:
Gryffindor = Brave
Ravenclaw = Smart
Slytherin = Cunning/Ambitious
Hufflepuff = Hard-working/loyal
Sure Slytherin is portrayed as mean most of the time which is unfair also, but then again you need good villains. But for Hufflepuff I don't see why we can't think of them as hard-working folk!
(April 6, 2010 - 1:57 pm)
Godric: I want the brave.
Salazar: I want the cunning.
Rowena: I want the intelligent.
Helga: ...Drat.
...
Really, though, you're right, the Hufflepuffs are ridiculously underused and went from "loyal" to "miscellaneous" in the space of a book. And the only ff I've read that really portrays them in a really good light (equal to or better than the other houses) is Dumbledore's Army and the Year of Darkness (which is really quite good, and comes highly recommended), which is, well, sad.
Although, when you think about it, all the houses experienced Flanderization/Network Decay; Gryffindor went from "brave" to "reckless and brash", Slytherin went from "cunning and ambitious" to "pureblood brats", Hufflepuff went from "loyal and hard working" to "miscellaneous", though I suppose Ravenclaw more or less stayed the same.
Re: Hufflepuff characters: Don't forget Hannah Abbot or Susan Bones.
(April 6, 2010 - 4:23 pm)
Yeah, I get what you mean. Tonks was a Hufflepuff, wasn't she? I like her. But it is sort of like Hufflepuff gets the people who don't fit anywhere else. Doesn't the Sorting Hat say once, that Helga Hufflepuff said, when they were making the houses, that she would teach anyone and treat them all the same?
(April 6, 2010 - 4:26 pm)
Yeah, Tonks was a Hufflepuff too, I forgot.
I believe, originally, Hufflepuffs were predominately supposed to be hard-working and loyal; after the second book it started to become more and more just "everyone else", although right from the first book they were considered to be a "load of old duffers". Which is a shame.
Like I said in the other post, DAaYD converted me to a Hufflepuff fan (and comes highly recommended).
(April 6, 2010 - 5:11 pm)
In the beginning, there was a dispute over who would be let in to Hogwarts in the first place. R said only highly intelligent should gain a place, G said only the brave, S said only pure-bloods, & Helga said everyone deserved to be able to attend. Then, eventually, Hufflepuff won the argument, but only on 1 condition: R only had to teach the intelligent, G only had to teach the brave, S only had to teach the cunning pure-bloods (since a lot of pure-bloods would be smart or brave, it would cause further confusion about who taught whom if he didn't find a specific quality he wanted in his house, or at least that's what I think his reason for changing his requirements were; I'm just guessing), and H had to teach everyone else, no matter what. Everyone accepted these terms, no matter what. Thus were the 4 Houses created. This tradition is probably why Hufflepuff is often still considered lacking in talent.
But when the Founders died, and the Houses became more about honoring the Founders than the pickiness of the people running the said Houses, the Sorting Hat probably began picking the students that were most like the Founders. That's why Ss are not just pure-bloods, but 'brats' about it, too. That's why Gs are 'reckless and brash,' and that's why Hs are kind, loyal, trustworthy, hardworking, etc. The Founders were that way.
Keep in mind that the 2nd paragraph is just my opinion.
(April 6, 2010 - 5:13 pm)
I agree Hufflepuffs kinda get the raw end of the deal... but not because they're seen as less worthy. The necessary characteristics to be a Hufflepuff are loyal, hard-working, and "unafraid of toil." Those characteristics I think are ones that make up a good background person... they don't feel the NEED to be in the spotlight all the time and are quite content to remain unnoticed. i agree, they are under-appreciated, but I don't think we need to feel sorry for them, since I doubt they want the attention in the first place. And they clearly have talent... they got into Hogwarts, didn't they? (On this same note, I secretly always felt Ron would have made a good Hufflepuff. A better Gryffindor, clearly, but I bet the Sorting Hat considered him for Hufflepuff.)
(April 6, 2010 - 7:28 pm)
1. I'm not saying I feel sorry for them, necessarily, I just wish they hadn't been forgotten completely and (with the exception of Cedric) left entirely out of important events. They're severely underrepresented in the story, you see, which is a shame because they are supposed to be ferociously loyal and unafraid of working hard to achieve their goals, something I would take to mean that they wouldn't ever stop trying their very hardest to help the cause they devoted themselves to (stopping Voldy, in this case), which something that would have been extremely helpful to the heros, seeing as how they're outnumbered teenagers going up against highly trained and ruthless murderers.
2. Nah, Ron's too much of a slacker to meet the "hardworking" requirement.
(April 6, 2010 - 9:27 pm)
I think Bertha Jorkins was a Hufflepuff, wasn't she?
The Hufflepuffs definitely, as Tempest said, get the raw end of the deal, but then JKR does blatantly favour some Houses over others. I mean, she obviously like Gryffindor best (almost every. single. MC is in Gryffindor) and mostly hates Slytherin (I'm having trouble thinking of *one* nice Slytherin kid). Then she uses Ravenclaw for when she needs someone smart to either be smart or be hot (this means you, Cho) to come in and have a minor part.
And so Hufflepuff basically becomes the House of "nice people who die."
(April 7, 2010 - 9:21 am)
I agree. The ones that don't die have almost no major part. Except for Tonks, that is.
And the only nice Slytherin was Slughorn, and he was a teacher!
(April 7, 2010 - 8:14 pm)
And then Tonks died. XD
Poor Hufflepuffs.
(April 8, 2010 - 3:29 pm)
In reverse order,
2. Yep. Exactly why the Sorting Hat was right to put him in Gryffindor.
1. The thing is though, that half the reason there aren't many prominent Hufflepuffs in this story is because it is HARRY's story. Harry isn't a Hufflepuff, he doesn't interact with them on the same scale as he does the Gryffindors or the Slytherins (who antagonize HIM personally). If you think about it, there are WAY more Hufflepuff characters in the books than there are Ravenclaws... Flitwick, Luna, Cho, ... the rest aren't really important. If there's one house here that isn't getting fair representation, I think it's Ravenclaw to be honest.
And the Hufflepuffs did help out at the end. I don't want to write too much in case i spoil something for someone who hasn't read it, but if memory serves, the Hufflepuffs were definitely there for the climactic scenes in book 7, taking the same risks as everyone else. Actually... I'm looking at the book now... and it basically says that aside from Gryffindor, Hufflepuff had the most people who stayed behind and fought with Harry. So really, they're not left out of important events... they're not in all of Harry's personally important moments, true, but that's because it's HIS story and it just so happened that he wasn't really close friends with any of them.
(April 7, 2010 - 4:26 pm)
Ravenclaw characters who we meet in important enough roles that I can remember them: Professor Flitwick, Luna Lovegood, Cho Chang, Micheal Corner, Terry Boot, Marietta Edgecombe, Roger Davies, Padma Patil, Penelope Clearwater, Moaning Mrytle (as confirmed by JKR), Rowena Ravenclaw, Helena Ravenclaw/the Grey Lady...
Total: 12
Hufflepuff characters who we met in important enough roles that I can remember them: Professor Sprout, Cedric Diggory, Hannah Abbot, Ernie Macmillan, Susan Bones, Justin Finch-Fletchly, Zacharias Smith, Nymphandora Tonks, the Fat Friar, Hepzibah Smith...
Total: 10
Furthermore, look at the number of Ravenclaws who have a significant impact on events (excepting teachers): Luna, Cho, Marietta, Padma (was Harry's date), Moaning Myrtle, and Helena; that's 6.
Hufflepuffs who do the same (still excepting teachers): Cedric, Justin, and Tonks: 3. One could argue Hepzibah hugely influenced events, and up that to 4.
Also note that we see all of the Common Rooms except Hufflepuff's.
I maintain that, while both R and H are underrepresented, Hufflepuff gets the shortest end of the short stick.
(April 7, 2010 - 10:44 pm)
I see what you're saying TNO, but I have to disagree. In your list of Ravenclaw characters I DON'T think the Ravenclaws Micheal Corner, Terry Boot, Roger Davies, Padma Patil, and Penelope Clearwater are important enough to be merited as "in the thick of things." They're just names; people who could just have easily been someone else or didn't really have much of a personality to begin with (Davies). (And it was Parvati who was Harry's date, not Padma, though I really don't see that as a huge thing either. She really was just there to show how unhappy Harry was about not going with Cho.)
Good call on Myrtle's and the Grey Lady's importance, I forgot about ghosts entirely. *Very impressed*
Now, Marietta... yes, I'll have to concede on that. She was important in the larger scheme of things. Especially since she showed that it wasn't only Slytherins who could be selfish. But on that same note we have Zacharias Smith from Hufflepuff, who was clearly not the most likeable guy. I think it's important to remember that not ALL Hufflepuffs are represented by people like Tonks or Cedric. Hufflepuffs can be jerks too. Which is kind of what JKR was going for, I think, when she wrote the books. Remember Sirius saying it's not just good guys and bad guys in the real world? (It was something to that effect... I don't have the books available, but I think it was in book 5 somewhere.) Basically, everybody's got the potential for bad inside of them, but it's up to THEM alone to choose good.
Yes, maybe there are more Ravenclaws NAMED, but I don't think that makes them important. To me, my list of vital characters stands at:
Hufflepuff: Cedric Diggory, Nymphadora Tonks, Hepzibah Smith, Ernie Macmillan (for being the constantly recurring, stereotypical Hufflepuff and staying at the end of bk 7 to help out), Zacharias Smith, and maybe Bertha Jorkins (for aiding Harry out during Priori Incantatum). TOTAL: 6
Ravenclaw: Luna Lovegood, Cho Chang, Moaning Myrtle, Helena Ravenclaw, and I suppose Marietta Edgecomb. TOTAL: 5
Whew. Really long (sorry, Admins). So, in conclusion, I say that Hufflepuff was rather WELL represented, showing both its good and bad sides just like Gryffindor (good: take your pick; bad: Peter Pettigrew) and Slytherin (good: arguments could be made for Snape and Narcissa Malfoy; bad: Riddle/Voldy). Ravenclaw was shown in this good and bad way too, but we never really got to know the house like we did Hufflepuff--Ravenclaw was simply the house of really clever, intelligent kids. (Arguably, Luna doesn't truly represent it either--she's an outsider even there, thought of as odd. People in her own house take her things from her trunk and scatter it around the school at the end of every year, for crying out loud!)
Honestly, I think the fact that we're even debating this issue, about whether or not Hufflepuff got jipped by JKR, SHOWS that they didn't. We clearly all feel bad for them--they clearly got a raw deal--but they're also just as clearly appreciated by us readers.
(April 9, 2010 - 12:23 am)
And Slughorn was a reasonably good Slytherin. And Regulus had his Heel Face Turn in the end. Also, to add to your bad!Slytherin list: All the important (read: named) Death Eaters, with emphasis on the ones that get a first name too and not just a last name.
As to your Hufflepuff list, well, I personally would add Hannah to it, even if she didn't have much of a part- she ended up marrying Neville after all.
Re: Padma: Oh, yeah. Well, she was Ron's date, so I restate my case.
I suppose you do have a point. I'll admit my memories of the more minor and/or personality-less characters are skewed somewhat by DAYD, in which we get to know a lot of minor characters really well (especially Terry, Michael, Ernie, Susan, Hannah, Padma (and Pavarti), Lavender, and Romilda Vane). So that may have influenced the numbers in my lists.
Regardless.
I suppose it doesn't matter overmuch.
(April 9, 2010 - 10:47 am)