Mugglenet.com's Harry Potter Should Have Died - Emerson Spartz [69]
These Hufflepuff characters don’t come across just as weaklings or cowards. The story is much more complex than that. Hannah Abbot’s problems and fears about exams are shared by many other students, including Harry. It’s true that Zacharias is not brave, but he is not much more unlikeable than Gryffindor’s Seamus Finnigan, who badgers Harry in OotP about his relationship with Voldemort.
Hufflepuffs are hard-working students and loyal friends. They are equal to the other houses in every way. None of them should be dismissed as weak or lame just because they have human flaws, like every other character in the series.
Verdict
Hufflepuffs don’t have to be cream puffs, and in many ways they are just as brave as the Gryffindors. So how did they get the reputation as a “lot o’ duffers,” as Hagrid describes them in SS [p. 80]? While being a coward or victim of evil is not limited to their house, these Hufflepuff characters seem to lack grit, and they could be labeled as the underachievers of the school. The verdict is: Yes, the Hufflepuffs are definitely dismissed as lame.
Are the Gryffindors too glorified?
No!
Harry is the main character so his house is always going to be the most important, and that’s why we learn more about Gryffindor than any other house. And obviously J.K.R. wants us to understand the traits of Gryffindor—boldness and courage—since those are what she values most. If Gryffindors sometimes seem full of themselves, it is only because most of them have high self-esteem and a joy for life—that’s why they’re in Gryffindor. Yet, they are not all brave in the same way—compare the Weasley twins to their brother Percy. Or Dumbledore to Hagrid. Or Hermione to Lavender Brown. Obviously, Percy, Hagrid, and Lavender are never glorified. They are imperfect and sometimes ridiculous characters, and yet they still belong in Gryffindor. For most of the series, Neville Longbottom is a borderline Hufflepuff with a green thumb, and nothing about him is glorified. He has to work hard to learn magic, and struggle to overcome his fears before he finds his inner worth.
It’s true that there are a few Gryffindor students who have glory days in the sense of being young, brilliant, and fun-loving. Those are the Marauders and Lily Evans when they are teenagers. James, Sirius, and Remus are often praised by other characters because they were witty, and because they became Harry’s heroes. The same could be said for Harry’s mom, Lily, who is praised by Slughorn in HBP for her beauty, wit, and skills. But no one would say that Peter Pettigrew, also a Gryffindor, was anything except a traitor and rat supreme as portrayed in PoA. He’s the best example of the complexity of Gryffindor because although his own friends see him as weak and cowardly, he actually gets cozy with the dangerous Voldemort and plots to destroy his own friends. He may have sought glory, but he dies in DH by strangling himself with a silver hand that Voldemort gives him as a gift, and that’s not too great.
As for the Gryffindors we know best—Hermione, Ron, and Harry—we get to know all their faults. Hermione is a bossy know-it-all, Ron can be thoughtless to the point of cruelty, and Harry has a hot temper. That’s hardly the glorification of Gryffindor. Molly and Arthur Weasley are usually taken for granted by most of society in spite of their courage. Ginny Weasley is a powerful witch, but only Professor Slughorn makes a big deal over her in HBP, probably just because she resembles Lily Evans. Finally, there is Dumbledore who is nearly the ideal wizard, yet by the end of the series, we see his flaws as a one-time racist and hero-worshipper himself. So, he loses some of his charisma. The more we understand the Gryffindors, the more real they become, and the less glorious.
Yes!
Who are we kidding here—of course Gryffindor is glorified. In the books, courage is the answer to every problem, even when characters are rushing around in a foolhardy way without an escape plan.