The only other examples I can find are on chocolate frog cards and the like. The invention of floo powder and the lunascope is attributed to women (I think), as is the discovery of the properties of gillyweed, a cure for dragon pox and the relevance of lunar phases to potions. There may be more, I'm not sure about the gender of some names.
I had the impression that Rowena was smarter than the other Founders. Even if that was with the bauble, (a) she had to have smarts to create it in the first place, and then (b) there's nothing to say she was dumber than the lads without it.
But if you already are the smartest around, why put your energy in a trinket that will make you even smarter?
Because smart people know that brains - and hence, being smarter - is the only/best thing to make you even better.
I'm reminded of a short story by Robert Heinlein, which told the tale of evolved humans with super I.Q.s. When asked 'what facet of yourselves would you want to improve, if you could?', their answer - the only answer - was to be smarter still. It's man's brain which makes him better than the animals, even though they have superior sight, smell, strength, etc. Therefore it's man's superior brain which will set him above normal men.
This might even hold true for wizards.
Anyway, if intellect is the best characteristic to improve, and Rowena is already smart, then she's going to be even more certain that her brainpower is what should be amplified even more.
We get lots of stuff about Gryffindor and SlytherinMost of that being bad stuff. Slytherin is the bad guy, Gryffindor his opponent. Meanwhile the two
( ... )
Because smart people know that brains - and hence, being smarter - is the only/best thing to make you even better.
Is there any factual basis to that statement? Because it sounds like a generalization to me. I've met a lot of smart people in my life, and I don't think any of them had this attitude. Most of these people work to improve in a variety of areas, be it physical strength, emotional fortitude, concentration, leadership, empathy, work ethic, etc.. I'd think a truly smart person would realize that there are a huge number number of skills, attributes, and experiences out there. Valuing one trait so highly over all the others could lead to a seriously imbalanced life, or at least, that's my zen-influenced view of it.
I'm not going to take a side on the rest of the post. This just jumped out at me.
I don't know of any. I was just impressed by the reasoning established in that science fiction short story. I read it in a Robert Heinlein anthology Assignment in Eternity; the story Gulf impressed me with its logic. If man was superior to the beasts only because of our brains, what would then be the next step of evolution to make a 'super man'? Greater strength? Keener sight? But gorillas and elephants are stronger than us. Eagles have better eyesight. Yet mankind is the dominant species. So the answer seemed clear. The next step of human evolution would be men ... who think better
( ... )
If the sword can only benefit those who are already brave and act with their hands to fight, then it seems the crown can only be worn by those who are already intelligent and act with their heads to think. It is possible that neither object seeks to increase what is already there, but rather assist in its use, perhaps focus the traits the bearer possesses
( ... )
"Rowling gives us four Founders. We get lots of stuff about Gryffindor and Slytherin, but she hardly tells us anything about the girl Founders (we get nothing about Helga but that she "took the students that were left over" which sounds like what one of those classic Stepford Wives Fifties moms would do: serve others first and take for herself the scrapings of the bin, claiming she "was not hungry
( ... )
If I were going to invent a magical intelligence enhancer it would work like a very sophisticated search engine. Sure, you may know it all, but can you think of it all at once?
Hey! Memory access: Here is the problem, what can you find me that might be related to it? And how do these potential components relate to each other.
Won't put any information there that you haven't got already, so you need to keep adding data, but it will organize it for you. Consequently, for some people it will work very well indeed. For others, not so much.
Actually, if I learned anything from my reference class this semester, it's that while search engines are very readily available, very few people know how to use them to their full advantage. So perhaps the diadem really DID require a person to have a certain amount of intelligence, if just to make sense of the information it presented?
Makes much more sense when you look at it as a tool, rather than a plot token (which is all Rowling used it for). And Helena doesn't sound like she was well-enough informed to get much use of it at all.
Salazar and Helga are both stated as having descendants who survived into the 20th century, but despite all kinds of 3-year summer (and earlier) theories we never really got any information to suggest that Godric did. Frankly, It sounds like he left his Sword to the school as a legacy because he *didn't* have any descendants. Not that under normal circumstances a sword is likely to be much *use* to a school. Probably just a bloody-minded refusal to let the Goblins have it back.
Yeah, the Locket=Basilisk goggles was a really fun theory. And, again, it was a *tool*. So whatever Helga's Cup's purpose was it is much more interesting to assume that it was intended as a tool of some sort. Whether to measure with, or to test for poison (or any kind of unknown magical component), or whatever. It sounds like it was too small for scrying in.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
If you're already knowledgeable, why learn more? Rowena wanted more, it seems, and perhaps a desire to benefit her heirs.
It seems that Rowling is unable to give anyone who is not self-insert-Harry his or her due, stretches even to the Founders
Let's not forget who's credited with the idea for the Sorting Hat, or whose relic was the only one that wasn't Horcruxified.
Reply
Because smart people know that brains - and hence, being smarter - is the only/best thing to make you even better.
I'm reminded of a short story by Robert Heinlein, which told the tale of evolved humans with super I.Q.s. When asked 'what facet of yourselves would you want to improve, if you could?', their answer - the only answer - was to be smarter still. It's man's brain which makes him better than the animals, even though they have superior sight, smell, strength, etc. Therefore it's man's superior brain which will set him above normal men.
This might even hold true for wizards.
Anyway, if intellect is the best characteristic to improve, and Rowena is already smart, then she's going to be even more certain that her brainpower is what should be amplified even more.
We get lots of stuff about Gryffindor and SlytherinMost of that being bad stuff. Slytherin is the bad guy, Gryffindor his opponent. Meanwhile the two ( ... )
Reply
Is there any factual basis to that statement? Because it sounds like a generalization to me. I've met a lot of smart people in my life, and I don't think any of them had this attitude. Most of these people work to improve in a variety of areas, be it physical strength, emotional fortitude, concentration, leadership, empathy, work ethic, etc.. I'd think a truly smart person would realize that there are a huge number number of skills, attributes, and experiences out there. Valuing one trait so highly over all the others could lead to a seriously imbalanced life, or at least, that's my zen-influenced view of it.
I'm not going to take a side on the rest of the post. This just jumped out at me.
Reply
I don't know of any. I was just impressed by the reasoning established in that science fiction short story. I read it in a Robert Heinlein anthology Assignment in Eternity; the story Gulf impressed me with its logic. If man was superior to the beasts only because of our brains, what would then be the next step of evolution to make a 'super man'? Greater strength? Keener sight? But gorillas and elephants are stronger than us. Eagles have better eyesight. Yet mankind is the dominant species. So the answer seemed clear. The next step of human evolution would be men ... who think better ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Hey! Memory access: Here is the problem, what can you find me that might be related to it? And how do these potential components relate to each other.
Won't put any information there that you haven't got already, so you need to keep adding data, but it will organize it for you. Consequently, for some people it will work very well indeed. For others, not so much.
Reply
Reply
Salazar and Helga are both stated as having descendants who survived into the 20th century, but despite all kinds of 3-year summer (and earlier) theories we never really got any information to suggest that Godric did. Frankly, It sounds like he left his Sword to the school as a legacy because he *didn't* have any descendants. Not that under normal circumstances a sword is likely to be much *use* to a school. Probably just a bloody-minded refusal to let the Goblins have it back.
Yeah, the Locket=Basilisk goggles was a really fun theory. And, again, it was a *tool*. So whatever Helga's Cup's purpose was it is much more interesting to assume that it was intended as a tool of some sort. Whether to measure with, or to test for poison (or any kind of unknown magical component), or whatever. It sounds like it was too small for scrying in.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment