Hufflepuff House: Group Character Analysis

[FleurduJardin]

Originally Posted by Muggle_Magic

Don't forget that Dumbledore himself said "Remember Cedric Diggory!"

You may want to check out our TV ad/video clip (the first on the - currently - last page of the Prophet Debates.)

You may also want to check our Final Thread (stickied), our regular thread (not stickied), and most of all, you absolutely want to GO VOTE IN THE MINISTERIAL ELECTIONS!!

Pstt - the only Hufflepuff running needs every vote he and his co-runner can get.

[Mimosa]

Originally Posted by FleurduJardin

You may also want to check our Final Thread (stickied), our regular thread (not stickied), and most of all, you absolutely want to GO VOTE IN THE MINISTERIAL ELECTIONS!!

Pstt - the only Hufflepuff running needs every vote he and his co-runner can get.

They've got mine.

Your threads are very well made. I was impressed.

Come on, Hufflepuff supporters, rally on!

[Ronny]

Personally I think that the qualities of Hufflepuff are quite contradictory.
Sort of like, a gentle spirit with an undercurrent of toughness. People who will both be very fair but unflinching when it comes to defending what is theirs.
Very much like the Badger, they look cuddly enough but can apparently be quite ferocious when challenged.

[Muggle_Magic]

I'd like to quote something a Cedric supporter in the Ministerial Campaign posted some time ago More about Cedric than about Hufflepuff, though. However, in the same thread, someone pointed out how Cedric was the perfect example of Hufflepuff's fair-play and loyalty. Worth reading.

Originally Posted by MulanAtHogwarts

Cedric not only embodies Hufflepuff's sterling qualities, he also displays qualities from other Houses.

He's quick-witted. They may call him "Pretty-Boy Diggory" but no one ever calls him slow. He's bright enough for Ravenclaw - actually dated a Ravenclaw girl, who didn't seem to think he was too dense to be with.

He's pureblood and ambitious enough for Slytherin.

He's brave enough for Gryffindor. Once the Goblet of Fire spat out his name, he was Hogwarts Champion and proved up to the task. Got past the Dragon, past the Merpeople, gryndilows and other obstacles in the Lake, got through the Maze, almost beat Harry to the Cup - without any outside help that Harry got.

He was an outstanding Quidditch Captain and Seeker. He was a great Prefect. Everyone loved him, even those who were jealous of his good looks.

ETA: I posted the wrong quote earlier. This is the one, about Hufflepuff's qualities, that I meant:

Originally Posted by The5thChampion

Cedric on Campaign

A CHAMPION FOR A CHAMPION

By The Fifth Champion

I was only a 4th-Year Hogwarts student when the TriWizard Tournament took place. A Hufflepuff, I was for Cedric all the way. Oh, I admired Harry Potter’s punk, but Cedric had something about him, something that made you want to cheer him on, or to follow him to the gates of H*** if necessary.

Cedric was and is everything Hufflepuff stands for: fair-play, solidarity, loyalty, tenacity. A badger doesn’t let go. A badger never leaves his Sett-mates in the lurch. (A Sett, should you not know it, is a badgers’ den.)

He was the best Prefect ever. He was always fair with everyone, never pulled rank on us. I have no doubt he'd have made Head Boy if he'd lived.

Fair-play: Only the year before, during that Quidditch match played in a raging storm, when Harry fell off his broom because of a Dementor attack and Cedric caught the Golden Snitch, winning the game fair and square, he actually asked for a rematch when he realized what had happened. Do you know many 16-year-olds who’d do that? Can you imagine a Slytherin or even a Gryffindor doing that? Oliver Wood’d have done cartwheels on his broom if such a thing happened to the opposing team. Not Cedric.

A Hufflepuff also stands for solidarity. It doesn’t matter if we don’t get to wherever we’re going first, as long as we get there together. No mate left behind. We say it, we mean it.

Cedric could give lessons in loyalty to Gryffindors like Pettigrew. His selling out his friends is unthinkable. His letting us down when he’s Minister of Magic is equally unthinkable.

And remember just why Cedric died. He could have beaten Harry to the Cup, but out of a spirit of fair-play, he tried to walk away from a glory Hufflepuff hadn’t known for centuries. How many boys or grown men would have had the moral fiber to do that? It’s possible that, if he’d shown up at the graveyard alone, Voldemort would have sent him back just to get Harry. That, we’ll never know. What we do know is that they went together, and Cedric was there, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Just a “spare”.

Well, that spare will now show Voldemort who’s the better man, and the better wizard.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by Ronny

Personally I think that the qualities of Hufflepuff are quite contradictory.
Sort of like, a gentle spirit with an undercurrent of toughness. People who will both be very fair but unflinching when it comes to defending what is theirs.
Very much like the Badger, they look cuddly enough but can apparently be quite ferocious when challenged.

I wouldn't exactly say the qualities are contradictory - it just means they don't go looking for trouble but if it comes to them, they'll meet it head on.
I'm actually very fond of Hufflepuff House and I don't like it when they're stereotyped as the left-overs who blend into the background. There are outstanding Hufflepuffs- like Cedric and Tonks, Hufflepuffs who faced the fight head-on like the DA members, Hufflepuffs who are unpleasant without being evil, like Zacharias Smith and I've long thought that Crouch Jr. was a 'Puff - unwavering loyalty to Voldemort, anyone? His rants about disloyal Death Eaters? Imagining being like a son to Voldemort?

[FleurduJardin]

Originally Posted by Ronny

Personally I think that the qualities of Hufflepuff are quite contradictory.
Sort of like, a gentle spirit with an undercurrent of toughness. People who will both be very fair but unflinching when it comes to defending what is theirs.
Very much like the Badger, they look cuddly enough but can apparently be quite ferocious when challenged.

They're not all that contradictory. It's like "an iron hand in a velvet glove" - or "still waters run deep". The lesson to be learned from Hufflepuffs - in particular Cedric, Tonks, Susan and Amelia Bones or Prof. Sprout - is: don't be fooled by appearances. 'Puffs are usually easygoing. Until you cross the line, in which case they are, as you say, "ferocious when challenged".

There's a wonderful piece of fan fic where the whole of Hufflepuff House stands up to Umbridge and actually manage to take her down a couple of notches. To me, it's the perfect illustration of the steel hiding behind the "fluffy" exterior of Badgers. JKR herself in DH has 'Puffs and 'Claws stand their ground to help and protect Harry.

There are no "bad apples" in Hufflepuff, like, say, Pettigrew in Gryffindor, or Marietta in Ravenclaw. Ernie McMillan and Zacharias Smith may be overbearing and annoying, but when push comes to shove, they show themselves to be real Badgers.

[lilyrose]

Originally Posted by FleurduJardin

There's a wonderful piece of fan fic where the whole of Hufflepuff House stands up to Umbridge and actually manage to take her down a couple of notches. To me, it's the perfect illustration of the steel hiding behind the "fluffy" exterior of Badgers.

I've read that fan-fic by Minisinoo and yes, I love her depiction of Hufflepuff house

It is my favourite house, no doubt. Hufflepuffs aren't a bunch of push-overs as thought in general by people from other houses. Rather, they're as strong and tough as Gryffindors are, except they probably don't have the 'saving people' thing. They have a bit of all the groups in my opinion.

Cedric and Tonks were both brave, honest and clever. And they do embody the best of Hufflepuff-the best of all houses. And besides, I remember in GoF where all Hufflepuffs are so excited and happy while asking Cedric to take part in the Triwizard Tournament. They were very much united, protective and happy in the success of others. I didn't see too much of jealousy there. Whereas, other houses, despite the fact that they are united, always have a little ego involved, IMO. Not that Hufflepuffs don't, but just that it is in a lesser percentage.

[FleurduJardin]

Originally Posted by lilyrose

I've read that fan-fic by Minisinoo and yes, I love her depiction of Hufflepuff house
[...]
I remember in GoF where all Hufflepuffs are so excited and happy while asking Cedric to take part in the Triwizard Tournament. They were very much united, protective and happy in the success of others. I didn't see too much of jealousy there. Whereas, other houses, despite the fact that they are united, always have a little ego involved, IMO. Not that Hufflepuffs don't, but just that it is in a lesser percentage.

Exactly. For Gryffindor and Slytherin, and to a lesser extent for Ravenclaw, it's winning, getting there first that counts.

For Huffs, it doesn't matter if they don't get there first, as long as they get there together. No Hufflepuff left behind.

Or, in the case of Cedric being chosen by the GoF as Champion, the success of one is the success of all. There's no jealousy (the way Ron was jealous of Harry in GoF), no one-upmanship.

Hufflepuff is definitely the most likeable of the Four Houses. IMO.

[arithmancer]

Originally Posted by FleurduJardin

There are no "bad apples" in Hufflepuff, like, say, Pettigrew in Gryffindor, or Marietta in Ravenclaw. Ernie McMillan and Zacharias Smith may be overbearing and annoying, but when push comes to shove, they show themselves to be real Badgers.

Actually, Smith shows himself to be a coward who will push smaller children out of his way in his hurry to leave before the battle starts. I'd have to disagree on this point.

[OldMotherCrow]

Originally Posted by zgirnius

Actually, Smith shows himself to be a coward who will push smaller children out of his way in his hurry to leave before the battle starts. I'd have to disagree on this point.

Indeed. JK Rowling seems to have gone out of her way during the final battle to make a Hufflepuff the biggest coward in the school. It seemed pretty random to me, since Zacharias Smith wasn't depicted as a coward before that, and didn't figure into the plot at all, so I'm not sure what the point of the scene was. Maybe JK Rowling just doesn't like Smith, so she randomly made him into a coward. Or maybe she needed a Hufflepuff to flee, to keep that House in its Almost-As-Good-As-Gryffidor-But-Not-Quite position.

[Vita]

I personally dont think that Smith pushing younger kids out of the way at the Battle of Hogwarts make him a bad egg. The examples we have of his actions were mostly from Harry's perspective and I think Harry got a bad taste in his mouth from their initial meeting. He is a coward, most definitely but I just think about the panic that I'm sure ensued when the battle began. Not everyone is a Gryffindor hero. My opinion is that Smith was in the mind set of everyone is on their own and he had to save his own skin because no one was going to save it for him.

[FleurduJardin]

Originally Posted by zgirnius

Actually, Smith shows himself to be a coward who will push smaller children out of his way in his hurry to leave before the battle starts. I'd have to disagree on this point.

That particular scene had slipped my mind. But I agree with the two next posters, a coward is not necessarily evil, not as bad as a traitor like Pettigrew or a sneak like Marietta.

Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow

Indeed. JK Rowling seems to have gone out of her way during the final battle to make a Hufflepuff the biggest coward in the school. It seemed pretty random to me, since Zacharias Smith wasn't depicted as a coward before that, and didn't figure into the plot at all, so I'm not sure what the point of the scene was. Maybe JK Rowling just doesn't like Smith, so she randomly made him into a coward. Or maybe she needed a Hufflepuff to flee, to keep that House in its Almost-As-Good-As-Gryffidor-But-Not-Quite position.

Yes, I agree with your view and reasoning. This act of cowardice came out of the blue. I guess maybe JKR wanted to contrast a big guy running away against little Colin from Gryffindor who sneaked back in and gave his life.

Originally Posted by Vita

I personally dont think that Smith pushing younger kids out of the way at the Battle of Hogwarts make him a bad egg. The examples we have of his actions were mostly from Harry's perspective and I think Harry got a bad taste in his mouth from their initial meeting. He is a coward, most definitely but I just think about the panic that I'm sure ensued when the battle began. Not everyone is a Gryffindor hero. My opinion is that Smith was in the mind set of everyone is on their own and he had to save his own skin because no one was going to save it for him.

I agree with this too. It makes Smith a coward, but it doesn't make him so vile as selling his best friend to Voldemort like Wormtail did. No House can be made up of all-good and perfect members. Lacking courage is not laudable, but it's not a deadly sin either. At least Smith didn't go along with Pansy Parkinson to turn over Harry to Voldie to save his own skin.

And we do have Cedric to give all Hufflepuffs a good name.

[MrSleepyHead]

Originally Posted by FleurduJardin

That particular scene had slipped my mind. But I agree with the two next posters, a coward is not necessarily evil, not as bad as a traitor like Pettigrew or a sneak like Marietta.

I agree that Zacharias' cowardice is not as horrible as Pettigrew's betrayal, but I do not believe Marietta's act was any worse. Marietta betrayed the D.A. (among whom she was only loyal to Cho) because of her allegiance to the Ministry/her family (and for her own good, certainly, but for the other reason as well). Meanwhile, Zacharias pushed younger students out of his way, solely so he could "save his own neck." I do not condone Marietta's behavior, but I do not think it right to say her deed was worse than Zacharias'. In my opinion, they were equally disgraceful, and to say Marietta was the "bad apple" of Ravenclaw should warrant Zacharias that title for Hufflepuff.

[FleurduJardin]

Originally Posted by MrSleepyHead

I agree that Zacharias' cowardice is not as horrible as Pettigrew's betrayal, but I do not believe Marietta's act was any worse. Marietta betrayed the D.A. (among whom she was only loyal to Cho) because of her allegiance to the Ministry/her family (and for her own good, certainly, but for the other reason as well). Meanwhile, Zacharias pushed younger students out of his way, solely so he could "save his own neck." I do not condone Marietta's behavior, but I do not think it right to say her deed was worse than Zacharias'. In my opinion, they were equally disgraceful, and to say Marietta was the "bad apple" of Ravenclaw should warrant Zacharias that title for Hufflepuff.

I respectfully disagree here, I think Marietta's betrayal was worse than Zacharias' cowardice. Marietta was putting the whole DA, including her good friend Cho and her fellow students in grave jeopardy. If Dumbledore hadn't come out and taken the blame, the whole lot of them would have been expelled from Hogwarts or worse. (I'm not going into details here because it'd take us off-topic.)

Whereas Zacharias's act of cowardice - not that I condone it in any way, shape or form - didn't put the younger kids in any more danger, just slowed down their exits, but they all got away safely.

I also think, like OldMotherCrow, that his behaviour came out of nowhere, he didn't show any sign of cowardice before. Why JKR chose to depict him that way, only she knows, for it wasn't necessary (whereas Marietta's betrayal was necessary to the plot) - any more that I found Colin's death necessary, but there I'm going off-topic again.

Bottom line is, I don't think you can put Zacharias's behaviour and Marietta's on the same level. If that makes him Hufflepuff's "bad apple", it's a pretty mild bad apple (if you see what I mean), it's by no means darning.

[arithmancer]

Originally Posted by FleurduJardin

That particular scene had slipped my mind. But I agree with the two next posters, a coward is not necessarily evil, not as bad as a traitor like Pettigrew or a sneak like Marietta.

I would have to disagree, again, about someone who pushes younger kids out of the way in his hurry to leave. I don't see this as substantially different from Pansy. She did not care what might happen to Harry; Zack did not care what might happen to younger students. It seems to me this does not fit in with the Hufflepuff value of "fairness" either.

I think it is clear Rowling saw, and wrote, all Houses as having members with flaws, or members who in whatever way do not fit the House stereotypes, and Hufflepuff is no exception.

[Raelis]

Originally Posted by zgirnius

Actually, Smith shows himself to be a coward who will push smaller children out of his way in his hurry to leave before the battle starts. I'd have to disagree on this point.

I was upset when I read that, actually. I always liked Zacharias - he was annoying and in some ways rude, but he showed himself loyal to DA in book 5, which I took as one of the examples of how wrong it is to judge a book by its cover. His doubts about Harry and his questions to him were quite reasonable, even if he did come off as a bit rude. Why did JKR portray him in such a negative light? Because he did not appreciate Harry's awesomeness and therefore deserved to be punished? I just didn't get an impression of Zacharias being a potential "bad apple" of Hufflepuff in the previous books. His behaviour in DH really surprised me.

[wickedwickedboy]

Actually, Marietta was in the right. Harry and friends were breaking the rules so while she was a snitch from their point of view, she was merely doing her duty as an upstanding student having regretted breaking school rules and coming clean - from Umbridges point of view.

I didn't see Zach as cowardly, I saw him as simply exercising intelligence. While in terms of the overall storyline (defeat the dark lord) he could come across as cowardly, in as far as joining in with the DA and agreeing to break school rules, placing his faith in a scenario headed by Gryffindors and setting himself up for a good amount of trouble. I think he was just being wary and I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'm not sure why comparisons are made to Peter. He didn't betray anyone until he was 21 and well out of Hogwarts. He showed bravery while at Hogwarts and went on to be a hero prior to falling prey to Voldemort. And Pansy, Draco and gang could be expected to rat out their enemies, so I am unsure why they are highlighted as if they were behaving contrary to what might be expected.

In any case, despite the house description, I think Hufflepuff students were like everyone else and showed all types of characteristics.

[Raelis]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

Actually, Marietta was in the right. Harry and friends were breaking the rules so while she was a snitch from their point of view, she was merely doing her duty as an upstanding student having regretted breaking school rules and coming clean - from Umbridges point of view.

I don't think Marietta was in the right, and I think she felt it too. I doubt she was happy ratting out her friends. If I remember correctly, she had reasons to suspect that her involvement with the DA could get her mother into trouble. It doesn't excuse what she did, but it does help to understand her. She simply broke down under all that pressure. But even though the thing she did was not in any way right or good, I don't think it's enough to condemn her as a bad person. I don't see her actions as significantly worse than those of Zacharias.

I'm not sure why comparisons are made to Peter. He didn't betray anyone until he was 21 and well out of Hogwarts. He showed bravery while at Hogwarts and went on to be a hero prior to falling prey to Voldemort.

I don't recall any mentions of Peter's heroic acts in the books. And when exactly did he show bravery at Hogwarts?

In any case, despite the house description, I think Hufflepuff students were like everyone else and showed all types of characteristics.

I agree with this. Still, Hufflepuff's values are the closest to my heart (loyalty and fairness), even though these qualities were amply demonstrated by members of other Houses.

[Pearl_Took]

Re: Marietta, she was wrong to rat out DA but she was under great pressure. That is not to excuse her. I also find her punishment in canon shockingly vicious.

Originally Posted by zgirnius

I would have to disagree, again, about someone who pushes younger kids out of the way in his hurry to leave. I don't see this as substantially different from Pansy. She did not care what might happen to Harry; Zack did not care what might happen to younger students. It seems to me this does not fit in with the Hufflepuff value of "fairness" either.

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

I'm not sure why comparisons are made to Peter. He didn't betray anyone until he was 21 and well out of Hogwarts. He showed bravery while at Hogwarts and went on to be a hero prior to falling prey to Voldemort.

Er, when did Peter show bravery at Hogwarts? And we have absolutely zero evidence in canon that he was any kind of a hero. I don't hold with a Sudden Personality Transformation from Hero to Coward. That is not a convincing characterisation.

And to keep on topic, Zacharias seems to transform from being a bit of a prat in OotP and HBP to an outright self-serving coward in DH.

In any case, despite the house description, I think Hufflepuff students were like everyone else and showed all types of characteristics.

I agree. It would be astoundingly simplistic to suppose that all Hufflepuffs are really nice kids -- or Gryffindors, for that matter.

But I also agree with this:

Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow

Or maybe she needed a Hufflepuff to flee, to keep that House in its Almost-As-Good-As-Gryffidor-But-Not-Quite position.

I have to say that was my first thought when I read that bit.

[arithmancer]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

I have to say that was my first thought when I read that bit.

Eh. Slightly fewer of them stayed, so she'd have her gradation either way. My own feeling was that this was a way to show Ginny's soo amazing perceptiveness.

Wick, I don't understand your remarks about Zack. I do not consider anyone a coward for not staying to fight. Zack, however, shoved younger kids aside in his haste to get out.