hmm...
LUMOS SORTING APPLICATION
Name: Shann
Age (13 or up; we stick to LJ rules): 20
Location: Boston, MA (or close enough to)
Where did you hear about this community? (Please tell us which
lj user recommended you for he/she shall be given a point.) I'd heard about it some time ago, but I was reminded of it by a comment left in a friend's journal by Chase of Ravenclaw.
How much time are you willing to invest in this community? As much as I can. Understand that during the summer I'll have a lot more time - when university starts up again in the fall, that will necessarily have to come first, so participation in contests and discussion might drop a bit. I'll keep my hand in, though - I won't disappear by any means, and I'll try to participate whenever I can. (I should also add that I don't join in a discussion if all I have to say is "yeah" or "right on" or the like - I'd rather have something of import to say, but I usually do. Or at least I think I do.)
PART 1 - Canon
1. Have you read all the books? Yes, multiple times - though I'm guilty of a tendency to simply flip to my favorite parts more often than I sit down and read all the way through the books. Or to my favorite characters, more accurately. But yes, I've read all of them; PS/SS remains my least favorite (too much exposition), whereas I'm not sure which one my favorite was.
2. Give us your personal interpretation of each Hogwarts house (in terms of atmosphere, mentality, intra-house relationships et cetera - these are just a few examples).
Well, without trying to be too trite... Gryffindor runs on emotion. I don't believe you can take what the books say entirely at face value when it comes to Houses, particularly Gryffindor - daring and nerve they may have, but some of the most prominent Gryffindor characters (Harry, Sirius, the Weasley twins) act in a way that's anything but chivalrous at times. I think Gryffindors, as a rule, are very likely not only to react to everything in an emotional, instinctive way, but that they are also likely to hold to that reaction even in the face of contrary evidence. Even those Gryffindors who are bookish and intellectual seem to react emotionally, and have to work to rein that in - something that they can't always manage (witness Hermione Granger's fervor for SPEW, even after seeing that most house-elves don't want to be freed; ditto Percy Weasley's devotion to the Ministry even after its actions have been proven demonstrably wrong). While I'm not saying that Gryffindors can't be intellectual, intelligent, &c. - far from it - it will always take a back seat to, or rather be used in service of, those original emotional reactions. Further, Gryffindors appear to be very social, group-oriented people; very few of the Gryffindors that we see in the books appear or act on their own (Harry, Ron, and Hermione; Fred and George; Dean and Seamus; Lavender and Parvati; in fact, the only ones that spring to mind as loners are Percy and Neville, both of whom are often discussed as being perhaps more 'qualified' for other Houses). While this loyalty and devotion to friendship is very much a positive trait, the flipside of it seems to be that the loyalty is almost blind, in a way; it seems to me that many Gryffindors are likely to leap to the defense of their friends and Housemates over a perceived or traditional rival, without questioning that perhaps someone they're loyal to may in fact have been in the wrong (note Harry's shock and angst upon seeing his father and Sirius's behaviour in Snape's Pensieve). But that's a highly emotional reaction, which brings me back to the beginning.
Ravenclaw, on the other hand, runs on logic. Again, it seems trite, and there seem to be plenty of examples that disprove it - Cho's tantrum in the teashop on Valentine's Day, Luna's faith in tabloid stories, &c. I think, though, that just as Gryffindor can have intellectuals who still run on emotion, Ravenclaw has emotional people who still function logically. Cho, for example, proceeded through an entire series of questions designed to bait Harry into a specific reaction before she lost her temper (and witness the way, in earlier books, that she uses Harry's crush on her to let her gain an advantage in Quidditch matches); Luna, despite believing in, well, everything, was still calm and able to note specifics en route to the Ministry (e.g. the scene in which she suggests that they use Thestrals to get off the school grounds). Even Ravenclaw madness has a method, and I think they tend to look further ahead and see more consequences to their actions than most other Houses do. Ravenclaw is, of course, tricky because we see so few of them in the books, and those we do see vary widely. Another Ravenclaw trait, I think, is ego - Penelope Clearwater is haughty about being a Ravenclaw rather than a Slytherin in CoS, Anthony Goldstein demands to know why Hermione isn't a Ravenclaw when he finds out her advanced abilities, and Luna's chant of "man's greatest treasure" all seem to imply that Ravenclaws just might have developed a sort of collective ego about being "the clever ones." I do think, though, that perhaps part of the reason why Ravenclaw doesn't much appear in the books is that (like Slytherin, and unlike Gryffindor and Hufflepuff) Ravenclaws tend to be independent, or at least less likely to always be in a group than the other Houses. I think, too, that most of the oddballs and eccentrics are likely to get put into Ravenclaw; I assume that this is the House where odd interests and pecadilloes are tolerated, because I don't think they have the tight-knit social structure that the other Houses do.
I think Hufflepuff's main motivation is... well, duty in one sense, and the group in another. I don't think that they're the sweetness-and-light peacekeepers that some people think they are; but I do think that a Hufflepuff will try to avoid outright confrontation, because they don't want to be disrupted. I think, too, that in Hufflepuff, the consciousness of being a group is stronger than that of any other House, and that they act accordingly (the reaction of the Hufflepuffs to Harry in CoS, and to Harry's being chosen after Cedric in GoF, seem to show an 'attack one, attack us all' attitude). While, as always, no one rule speaks for everybody in a House, I think you're more likely to find a traditionalist mindset here, and a healthy dose of skepticism - if you ask me, the 'Puffs are much more down-to-earth than the other Houses are. Much more grounded in the real world - and that does include the seeming paranoia, but I think a Hufflepuff will always defend a member of the group in public, regardless of the reaming they may dish out in private. As for duty, I think Hufflepuffs are much more likely than any of the Houses to work hard and do a good job for its own sake, rather than focusing only on what they really love or what they need to learn/do at the moment. In a very real way, I think they're the most mature of the Houses, though they do seem rather suspicious of anything that deviates from what they've accepted as normal (Hufflepuff gossip about Harry in CoS, Cedric's suspicion of Harry's goodwill in GoF).
And finally, I think Slytherin focuses on the self. I don't mean that to be derogatory - far from it. I think the average Slytherin can look around in any given situation and seek out some advantage (and, in the case that they can't find any advantage to be gained, the escape route) that others simply might not be able to spot. I don't buy into the view we get in the books (all Slytherins are evil!) nor the fanon view (all Slytherins are witty and cool!), but I do think that Slytherins are willing to do anything to claw themselves out of a bad situation and into a good one. I also equate loyalty with Slytherin, but unlike that of the other Houses, I think it's meted out selectively; a Slytherin has to decide you're worth the effort of being loyal and of defending you. The other trait I think goes with this House is the ability, conscious or not, to know how to get under someone's skin - for good or bad - and to be willing to do what it takes to do just that. Draco Malfoy can provoke a reaction from Harry, Ron, and Hermione; Snape can terrify his students; Lucius Malfoy can get Ministry officials under his control. I think most Slytherins, too, are not impulsive; I suspect that they like to know they've got a get-out-of-jail-free card, as it were, before they put any plans into place. (It may not always work, as the Malfoys' behaviour frequently shows, but even they at least think they've put themselves out of harm's way before they do anything). Certainly the House has attracted its share of brawn-over-brains in the books, but I think for the most part Slytherins know how to get what they want, and I think you'll find plenty of moral relativists in there when it comes to the ethics of getting what they want.
3. What would be your favourite flavour of Bertie Bott’s Every Flavour Beans and why (note: as the name implies, all possible flavours exist)? I'm going to go with a good cup of coffee. When it's not from Starbucks properly prepared, with good ingredients, coffee does not have the bitter chalky taste that so many people complain about; it's rich, it's smooth, it's dark. You can feel sophisticated with a good cup of coffee. (Incidentally, if the Bertie Bott's Beans are decaf, I'd send off a nasty letter or two.)
4. If you were on your House’s Quidditch Team, which position would you preferably play and why? Well, this really does not apply to me. Even in the books and films, Quidditch bores me. There's not a great deal of strategy involved - it's more of a who-can-fly-faster-and-throw-harder sport, to me. I can't even see myself being interested enough to be a spectator, quite honestly. And I've never done well on teams.
5. (Optional) What HP conspiracy theory do you hold true unless it is textually proven otherwise? (i.e. Snape is a vampire, Ron is Dumbledore, etc. -there are loads of these theories. Feel free to contribute
your own)?
6. (Optional. If you can't answer #5, make sure you answer this one.) What is your favorite book aside from HP and why? That's an enormously large question, but I think if I had to pick just one it'd be Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. The language of the book is absolutely stunning - Nabokov makes the English language jump through fiery hoops and then sit up and beg. It's a lot of things rolled into one: a mystery, a satire, a psychological study, an ode to language, and in many ways, an enormous joke. The humor in the book, in particular, pulled me in; I still find new plays on words and new edges of humor with every rereading. It's... well, it's sort of like a bag of Every Flavor Beans (and I can feel the breeze as Nabokov starts spinning with that comparison): every time you dip into it, you just don't know what you're going to find.
7. What would your Room of Requirement look like? Apart from it looking exactly like Hagrid's Hut... There would be books lining the walls, except for the window seat and extensive sound system. There'd be a nice selection of drinks. There would be blank paper and pens and pencils aplenty. Attractive art would line the walls (I like Renaissance art, myself). And the door would lock.
8. Describe your wand and tell us why you picked that design. Pine wood, to begin with; I've always been fond of pine trees. I love the smell, they're hardy, they grow everywhere, and they're evergreens (a cheerful thing, in a New England winter when everything else is dead). I think the core would also be dragon heartstring - dragons, like pine trees, simply appeal to me (unicorn hair, I'm sorry to say, is probably much too pacifistic for me, and I just... I don't know, something about phoenix feathers turns me off and I can't articulate it further, sorry). Beyond that, I don't think there's too much to actual design - length is based roughly on the owner's height, if I recall, so my wand would likely be relatively short. If I was going to take some silly non-canon wand core, I'd take some element of the hippocampus (half horse, half fish) - that appeals to me on the basis of my own moodiness and frequent indecisiveness, since the hippocampus is half-land and half-sea, but not entirely any one thing.
PART 2 - You
Please go here
and fill out the short Myers-Briggs test.
9. Paste the URL of your results (TOP 5) including its description
here.
Your #1 Match: INTP
The Thinker
You are analytical and logical - and on a quest to learn everything you can.
Smart and complex, you always love a new intellectual challenge.
Your biggest pet peeve is people who slow you down with trivial chit chat.
A quiet maverick, you tend to ignore rules and authority whenever you feel like it.
You would make an excellent mathematician, programmer, or professor.
Your #2 Match: ISTP
The Mechanic
You are calm and collected, even in the most difficult of situations.
A person of action and self-direction, you love being independent.
To outsiders yous eem impulsive, surprising, and unpredictable.
You are good at understanding how all things work, except for people.
You would make an excellent pilot, forensic pathologist, or athlete.
Your #3 Match: ENTP
The Visionary
You are charming, outgoing, friendly. You make a good first impression.
You possess good negotiating skills and can convince anyone of anything.
Happy to be the center of attention, you love to tell stories and show off.
You're very clever, but not disciplined enough to do well in structured environments.
You would make a great entrpreneur, marketing executive, or actor.
Your #4 Match: INTJ
The Scientist
You have a head for ideas - and you are good at improving systems.
Logical and strategic, you prefer for everything in your life to be organized.
You tend to be a bit skeptical. You're both critical of yourself and of others.
Independent and stubborn, you tend to only befriend those who are a lot like you.
You would make an excellent scientist, engineer, or programmer.
Your #5 Match: ESTP
The Doer
You are adventurous and risk taking. You act first, think second.
You love being the center of attention. Chances are you were the class clown.
Competitive, charming, and charasmatic - you have your own code of honor.
You live a flexible life, bouncing between a series of activies that interest you.
You would make a great salesperson, marketing director, or entrepreneur.
What's Your Personality Type?
10. Who is your role model and why? I don't have one, I'm afraid. I believe in my own motivations, strengths, and desires; I don't choose to look to others as models of my behaviour. I am interested in and admire many people, especially historical figures, but I don't take them as any sort of indicator of how I should behave.
11. What would you like to have accomplished at the end of your life? I can't think of any one concrete thing; at the moment there's a number of things I'd like to accomplish (graduate university, graduate law school, write a well-known if not best-selling book, learn any number of languages, extensive travel). All these things change, though, as my own interests and views change. So I guess you could say anything and everything; I don't limit myself with what I want to achieve.
12. Would you sooner commit a crime against your kin or your countrymen? My countrymen, if I had to. I have a strong bond with my family, and I trust them to be there for me just as I am there for them. (I include close friends with family here; in many ways that bond is just as real as that of blood relation.) I wouldn't relish having to commit a crime against my countrymen, but me and mine come first.
13. What would your animagus be and why? Let me preface this (incredibly typical, I'm sure) choice by saying I'm not particularly fond of cats, don't own one, and in fact am a dog person. That said, a cat. I usually like to be left to my own devices, and I'll actively seek out solitude and quiet when I want it. On the (semi-rare) occasions when I want attention, though, I am the most annoying thing in the world. I've also been known to curl up in a ball and stare blankly at the wall for a long period of time.
14. What would your patronus be and why? If I were to choose one animal to protect me, I'd choose a wolf. As was already stated, I love canines of all sorts. Further, the wolf's social structure to me is one of protection and loyalty, and I am intrigued and admiring of the way their hierarchy works. They also seem very powerful to me, both as actual animals and as a symbol (and an ambiguous one, at that).
15. What career would you consider if you were indeed part of the wizarding world and why? If I could choose anything, I'd want to work in the Department of Mysteries. The description of it in OotP fascinated me; I wanted to know what every single thing was and what it did and how it worked and how it was discovered. I've always loved puzzles and logic problems, and working in the Department of Mysteries seems like a chance to do them for a living - with the bonus of my research possibly having an effect on the world.