Gryffindor House: Group Character Analysis

[Andraste]

Is there a predominant quality that a Gryffindor must have in order to be a Gryffindor?

Bravery seems to be the predominant characteristic, but you have students like Neville, Percy, and Peter Pettigrew in Gryffindor...What might be the quality of Bravery in its relation to choices that Godric is looking for?

Well, I definitely think that bravery is important. Bravery is true pretty much across the board for Gryffindors. There's a reason they're the house that has the most people who stay and fight at the battle of Hogwarts, and it isn't just loyalty to Harry. Neville certainly has courage, even early on. He has a go at Crabbe and Goyle, who can easily beat him into a pulp, quite early on in the series, and continues to do so. While Percy isn't always loyal, I don't think there's anything to suggest that he doesn't have courage; he walks out on his family, all of whom he loves very much, because he thinks that they're wrong.

However, I think that nerve is often overlooked, and I don't think it should be. As far as Pettigrew goes... I think he's one of the Gryffindors who had potential that ultimately didn't really develop, but even Pettigrew had nerve. He sought out Voldemort and betrayed his closest friends, and then framed one of them while blowing up a street. I mean, that took nerve.

Harry has serious nerve. So do most Gryffindors. And I'd say that that's also a defining trait.

Does this predominant quality for Gryffindor trump other qualities that might place someone in one of the other houses?

I think that it depends on how much they value those traits.

Cedric easily had a lot of bravery and nerve, but I think that he valued loyalty and hard work more, and made that more part of his personality. Hermione, on the other hand, while she was clearly very intelligent, showed a lot of nerve early on, and I think that she probably valued it more than intelligence. She was drawn to Gryffindor the most, and that was for a reason.

What are the significance of Fire and the Lion to Gryffindor?

Well, they're both symbols of ferocity and strength, aren't they? I think that Gryffindors, for good or bad, tend to have significant strength of character, and tend to be that same power.

[GryffindorGirl5]

Personally, I think it's not really all about bravery because well look at ron,imo he's not that brave (movies or books), I think that it's not about "traits" but personality, I really look up to Harry (as my hero....) because he's a brave and courageous person, something I wish I could be. But i think that it's just about having the nerve and courage to do what's right and say or help others such as DA, they were fighting for a cause, they succeeded in doing so. But they don't let obstacles get in their way of fighting. I absolutley love the gryffindor house and it's something i try to strive to be...so imo it's the best house! (but please do not get offended by my comments..)

[AlDumblydorr]

Is there a predominant quality that a Gryffindor must have in order to be a Gryffindor?

Well, bravery was always the stereotype of the gryffindor house, but seeing as some of them never particularly exhibited bravery in their younger years, i.e. hermione, ron, neville, i think the ability to stand by your friends or watch out for your friends is another defining quality of a gryffindor.

Oh my god i didnt even see the question below before i made those exceptions...

Bravery seems to be the predominant characteristic, but you have students like Neville, Percy, and Peter Pettigrew in Gryffindor...What might be the quality of Bravery in its relation to choices that Godric is looking for?

i already kind of answered this because i didnt see this question. i have really no clue why pettigrew would be in gryffindor... perhaps he was another who chose his house as opposed to letting the sorting hat place him.

Does this predominant quality for Gryffindor trump other qualities that might place someone in one of the other houses?

slytherin is raw ambition, ravenclaw is brains, gryffindor is the ability to make friends and be brave, and whoever doesnt fit into those 3 goes into hufflepuff. although i think they scrounged a description for the inhabitants of hufflepuff as 'hardworking.'

What are some of the decisions that students from other houses have made that Gryffindors would decide differently?

well for example in HP and the CoS, other students would have definitely found a teacher to accompany them, whereas harry knew if he waited, ginny would certainly be dead. when in doubt, harry, (who is more or less a defining gryffindor when it comes to bravery) is somewhat reckless in the need to look after his loved ones and friends.

What are the significance of Fire and the Lion to Gryffindor?

the lion is pretty obvious, its almost a symbol for bravery.
the fire is significant because it provides warmth, it gives light, and it delivers a kind of everlasting feeling that is somewhat relevant to the gryffindor house.

What is the significance of JKR splitting the students into classes and why did she make Gryffindor House from a literary perspective?

oh... i am too sleepy to answer htis... lol

What new thoughts do you have on Gryffindor post DH?

"" "" "" ""

sorry if some of it is hard to understand, im very tired

[Slartibartfast]

s there a predominant quality that a Gryffindor must have in order to be a Gryffindor?
I believe there is. Mostly nerve and the ability to stand up for what one believes in. This is the case for the "non-brave" members of the house early on. Hermione was more lawful than the lot, but she stood by what she believed in. (SPEW is a good example of this.) Later on, she began to believe in more neutral good values, thus becoming braver. Neville is an odd case. I think its more dormant bravery than lack of bravery. We do see him standing up for himself in PS/SS, but it takes a few books for him to truly embrace the awesome within. Percy is similar to Hermione in that right. He believes in the Ministry very strongly and will stand up even against his own family to do it. (he too, comes around.)

Bravery seems to be the predominant characteristic, but you have students like Neville, Percy, and Peter Pettigrew in Gryffindor...What might be the quality of Bravery in its relation to choices that Godric is looking for?
See above. I dont know about Pettigrew actually. Hes so cowardly, its amazing he made it in to Gryffindor. I guess he did stand up for what he believed in but its a rather odd and twisted case. I guess he believed that people in power were stronger so he gravitated toward them. (The Marauders were a powerful clique with highly clever members. The DEs, for obvious reasons.) But really thats the best answer i can come up with in his case.

Does this predominant quality for Gryffindor trump other qualities that might place someone in one of the other houses?
I guess it could. Some say that Percy would be fit for Slytherin because of his ambitious nature, but since he could stand up for what he thought was right, he ended up in Gryffindor. Also it does often go in families. The Weasleys are brave by nature, and that did rub off on Percy regardless. In cases like Sirius, he was almost Hufflepuffish with his fierce loyalty (the Hufflepuff trait) but not really the hardest of workers. (the other Hufflepuff trait.) But since he had a great deal of nerve, he ended up in Gryffindor instead of Hufflepuff or Slytherin. (Which his whole family was in.)

What are some of the decisions that students from other houses have made that Gryffindors would decide differently?
Ohh thats a good question. One would be whether or not to run from danger. We see the entirety of Gryffindor house sticking around for battle in DH. (even those not of age.) While others like a number of Hufflepuffs (not all) fleeing when given the option. I cant necessarily speak for Ravenclaw and what they would have chosen in that situation. I guess they would have done what they felt was logical. (A number of them did stick around too.) Slytherins sought to save themselves so they fled.

The decision of three different houses joining Harry for the DA is another interesting example. When Harry meets the potential DA members in the Hogshead, he sees a mix of Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs along with his fellow Gryffindors. Most of the Ravenclaws were there because they felt shafted by Umbridge's teaching techniques and wanted to know more. Hufflepuffs felt similarly. I think it was Ernie who said "You wanna pass your OWLs too i see!" But also the Hufflepuffs were there because many of them (yeah even Zacherias Smith to some extent) believed Harry was right. When it came to the snitching, it was a Ravenclaw who did it. (I believe Marietta was one because of her closeness with Cho.) She seemed to do this out of logic and fear. The Hufflepuffs (even Smith) wouldnt dream of going to Umbridge because of their loyalty.

What are the significance of Fire and the Lion to Gryffindor?
The Lion symbolizes the bravery and raw nerve. The fire could symbolize the strength and how when lit, it can grow to a force of nature.

What is the significance of JKR splitting the students into classes and why did she make Gryffindor House from a literary perspective?
Im gonna assume to show us the differences in thought processes between students. Harry is the hero and a brave kid so putting the main character in the house that symbolizes that was logical.

What new thoughts do you have on Gryffindor post DH?
Due to the character development of various Gryffindors, my thoughts were that as long as you stand up for what you believe in, you are brave in your own way. Not every Gryffindor is a hero.

[sassygryffindor]

Is there a predominant quality that a Gryffindor must have in order to be a Gryffindor?

Bravery seems to be the quality that defines Gryffindors, though their "daring, nerve and chilvalry set Gryffindors apart" too.

Bravery seems to be the predominant characteristic, but you have students like Neville, Percy, and Peter Pettigrew in Gryffindor...What might be the quality of Bravery in its relation to choices that Godric is looking for?

Neville - He's just as brave as Harry, Ron and Hermione. He stands up to them in his first year (and as Dumbledore said "It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends." ), he attempts to fight both Crabbe and Goyle, he stands up for himself to Malfoy, which is better than Ron has done, he breaks into Snapes (and remember Nevilles worst fear is Snape) cupboard of ingredients to steal the Gillyweed for Harry, he's one of the 6 that go to fight off a pack of Death eaters - including Bellatrix, he reforms DA and attempts to keep it going even after Ginny and Luna can't, he stands up to the Carrows, gets hurt for it, but continues to do so, AND he kills Nagini with Voldemort not even a foot away. In my opinion, you'd have to be out of your mind to not consider him brave.

Percy - Some people seem to think that just because the action is not right by them that it renders it cowardly, but standing up and disowning your entire family is a very brave and courageous act. Wrong, yes, but very courageous. And then he comes back to them and admits he was wrong, and anyone who's done this knows how hard this is. And, in the end, he comes back to fight in the Battle at Hogwarts, and I think that anyone who did should be considered extremely brave.

Peter - I too am stumped by his placement, but only somewhat. It takes great courage to cut off your own hand - causing that much pain upon yourself is brave almost to the point of madness. But I assume that he was mostly put into Gryffindor because, like Harry, he asked to be. Perhaps he had made friends with James, Lupin and/or Sirious on the train and wanted to be with his friend, or he, at that point, was a good person and wanted to be in the "good" house (though I believe that they are all "good" in their own ways - just to stop any misunderstandings before they form).

So I feel that Godric was looking for anyone with the potential to be brave, someone who was already brave to some degree or who prioritized bravery like himself.

Does this predominant quality for Gryffindor trump other qualities that might place someone in one of the other houses?

It might, but notice that Luna was in ravenclaw, yet she was the only non-Gryffindor to go to the Department of Mysteries to fight. I think that the Sorting Hat might place you into a house based upon what you prioritize, what you already are and what it forsees you to be, so I don't think that these qualities neccesarily "trump" one another. They are just prioritized differently by different people. Remember "it is not our abilities that show who we really are, but our choices".

What are some of the decisions that students from other houses have made that Gryffindors would decide differently?

In PS, when they are in the Forbidden Forest looking for the unicorn, Malfoy runs away screaming, only looking to save his own tush. Yet I feel that had Hermione, Neville or Ron been there instead the would've stayed to help Harry. In COS, Lochhart was a Ravenclaw, yet instead of trying to save Ginny, he tried to leave (though this might not be a fair assesment, as he was quite the cowardly person in gerneral) and it was Harry and Ron that ended up doing the dirty work. In OOTP, it was Cho's friend that sold out the DA, and in my opinion, a Gryffindor wouldn't have done that. And in DH, all the Slytherins decided to leave instead of fight like the rest of the school did (So I believe that everyone who stayed displayed quite the Gryffindor-like qualities in that part).

What are the significance of Fire and the Lion to Gryffindor?

Fire I feel represents the Gryffindors leadership and firey personalities/quick thinking. Fire is an extremely - for lack of a better word - catchy substance. It grabs hold of anything it can, which I believe Gryffindors do. Notice how almost all the ringleaders in the book were Gryffindors, and I have always thought that courageousness and leadership go hand in hand. Also, fire is quick; fast. I think that it embodies the quick thinking, strong personalities that the Gryffindors posess.

Lions are generally protrayed as strong, capable animals so this could irepresent that the people in this house are also strong, capable people.

"As the lion was traditionally considered the king of the beasts and the eagle was the king of the birds, the griffin was thought to be an especially powerful and majestic creature." Based on this definition, I think I can say that the house of Gryffindor is perceived to be an extremely powerful house, and the "kings" of the school, having both the "kings" of the land and sky combined into their namesake animal. I know Snape percieved Gryffindors to be very self-righteous, but I feel that the Slytherins had this attitude more-so than the Gryffindors. At least in the books,anyways.

What is the significance of JKR splitting the students into classes and why did she make Gryffindor House from a literary perspective?

I think JKR split the houses up for classes so that it might seem like a more realistic. If you went to boarding school and where place dinto different dorms and only had classes with your dorm, that wouldn't seem real to me. At almost every school - boarding, private and public alike - you have your homeroom or dorm (house) but you would be split up depending on the courses you took.

As for looking at things from a literary perspective, I think that she really made this house for the brave. Ravenclaw was for the smart, clver and witty, Hufflepuff was for the true, patient and hard-wroking, Slytherin was for the cunning and ambitious, and Gryffindor was made for the daring, brave and chilvarous.

What new thoughts do you have on Gryffindor post DH?

No, actually not really. My opinions on all houses stayed the same. well, except for Slytherin. No offense to any Slytherin, but in the books, they all ended up running away with their tails between their legs.

[arithmancer]

Originally Posted by sassygryffindor

What are some of the decisions that students from other houses have made that Gryffindors would decide differently?

In OOTP, it was Cho's friend that sold out the DA, and in my opinion, a Gryffindor wouldn't have done that.

Peter did something rather similar (worse, if you ask me), so I don't see why some Gryffindor in Marietta's situation might not have.

My opinions on all houses stayed the same. well, except for Slytherin. No offense to any Slytherin, but in the books, they all ended up running away with their tails between their legs.

DH, "The Flaw in the Plan" And now there were more, even more people storming up the front steps, and Harry saw Charlie Weasley overtaking Horace Slughorn, who was still wearing his emerald pajamas. ~and a page later~ Voldemort was now duelliung McGonagall, Slughorn, and Kingsley all at once, and there was cold hatred in his face as they wove and ducked around him, unable to finish him-

[AurayaBlack]

Gryffindors have a one up in the Wizarding World. Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs all respect and like them, and Slytherins only don't because of the mutual dislike. Like James Potter for instance, he shouldn't have been allowed to take on Snape four against one, it's just not morally right to let someone do that, and all the things they did, and the pranks. As Gryffindors it's seen as funny, but if they were Slytherins then it would seem mean and obnoxious. I was sorted into Gryffindor, so I don't hate them, I just wish that things were fairer.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by AurayaBlack

Gryffindors have a one up in the Wizarding World.

Not sure about that. Gryffindor House is clearly the author's favourite. But I don't think she ever presents Gryffindors as having rights and privileges in the Wizarding World over the other Houses. In fact, many Gryffindors put themselves in the line of fire from Death Eaters because they were seen as 'blood traitors', i.e. they supported equal rights for Muggleborns.

(Same goes for 'Puffs and 'Ravens who supported the same, of course. )

Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs all respect and like them, and Slytherins only don't because of the mutual dislike. Like James Potter for instance, he shouldn't have been allowed to take on Snape four against one, it's just not morally right to let someone do that, and all the things they did, and the pranks. As Gryffindors it's seen as funny, but if they were Slytherins then it would seem mean and obnoxious.

Personally, I think that incident is presented in the text as 'mean and obnoxious' and I don't believe that the author is at all condoning Gryffindors bullying Slytherins. I'm a Gryffindor and I find the whole incident deeply unfunny. As do many other readers.

Gryffindors are not universally presented as nice people or squeaky-clean saints. The most obvious example would be Peter Pettigrew.

[AurayaBlack]

To me it has always been presented as if Gryffindors are always right and they're always the good guys, and a Slytherin would not have got away with the sort of things that both the Marauders and the Weasley Twins did.

[eliza101]

Originally Posted by AurayaBlack

To me it has always been presented as if Gryffindors are always right and they're always the good guys, and a Slytherin would not have got away with the sort of things that both the Marauders and the Weasley Twins did.

The Slytherin students got away with quite a bit. We see Harry serving quite a lot of detentions. I really love the one in HBP where he is going through the old records and he keeps coming across his Dad's name and Sirius', with the records of all their detentions. We don't hear a lot about the Weasley twin's detentions, but I'm sure they did some. The thing with the Twin's is that they don't really hurt a lot of people. The case with the Vanishing Cabinet is their most extreme escapade and I for one think they were very reckless there. I don't excuse them because the boy was bullying other children and generally being a nasty little dictator.
But to a large extent what you are saying is correct. These are YA books and they are written so that we have a hero and his antagonists. That's how the books work. Rowling's genius lies in the fact that she makes both side very real and very human. Niether one is wholly black or wholly white. Both cross the line between them a great deal. To paraphrase what Sirius says in the film, nobody is all evil or all angelic. We are human and we all have elements of both in our makeup.

[Kat_Suki]

Originally Posted by eliza101

We don't hear a lot about the Weasley twin's detentions, but I'm sure they did some.

In Chamber of Secrets, when Harry's pulled into Filch's office for 'befouling the castle' {which Nearly Headless Nick rescues him from}, Harry sees that Filch has an entire drawer of a file cabinet devoted to the antics of Gred & Forge - who at that time had just begun their 4th year, wasn't it?

I guess the Marauder's had an entire file cabinet to themselves. Which clearly shows, if anything, they weren't getting away with anything while Slytherins were continually caught out.

There were tons of things Slytherins did that they received no punishment for, I'm talking about things they were caught at doing. This isn't even addressing rule breaking they may have gotten up to without getting caught, much like the rule breaking that Harry, Ron, Hermione got up to without getting caught.

Originally Posted by sassygryffindor

No, actually not really. My opinions on all houses stayed the same. well, except for Slytherin. No offense to any Slytherin, but in the books, they all ended up running away with their tails between their legs.

Well, Slughorn returned, and in an interview post-DH, Rowling makes it clear that he didn't return alone but leading his students - Slytherins - and other people they managed to round up in Hogsmeade and then charged right back into the thick of battle on behalf of Harry and Hogwarts.

Rowling Interview post-DH JN: And how much is it that being sorted into Slytherin is sorted into good guys and bad guys... JKR: They're not all bad. I know I've said this before. I think I said it to Emerson - they are not all bad and-- well, far from it, as we know, at the end-- they may have a slightly more highly developed sense of preservation than other people, because-- A part of the final battle that made me smile was Slughorn galloping back with Slytherins. But they've gone off to get reinforcements first, you know what I'm saying? So yes, they came back, they came back to fight. But I'm sure many people would say, well that's common sense, isn't it? Isn't that smart, to get out, get more people and come back with them? It's the old saying, there is no truth, there are only points of view.

[eliza101]

Originally Posted by Kat_Suki

In Chamber of Secrets, when Harry's pulled into Filch's office for 'befouling the castle' {which Nearly Headless Nick rescues him from}, Harry sees that Filch has an entire drawer of a file cabinet devoted to the antics of Gred & Forge - who at that time had just begun their 4th year, wasn't it?

I guess the Marauder's had an entire file cabinet to themselves. Which clearly shows, if anything, they weren't getting away with anything while Slytherins were continually caught out.

There were tons of things Slytherins did that they received no punishment for, I'm talking about things they were caught at doing. This isn't even addressing rule breaking they may have gotten up to without getting caught, much like the rule breaking that Harry, Ron, Hermione got up to without getting caught.

Well, Slughorn returned, and in an interview post-DH, Rowling makes it clear that he didn't return alone but leading his students - Slytherins - and other people they managed to round up in Hogsmeade and then charged right back into the thick of battle on behalf of Harry and Hogwarts.

I agree. I really don't know why there are opinions out there that Gryffindors slide through life on a charmed escalator. The books show nothing of the kind. Gryffindor House like every other House, has it's fair share of undesirables. Well Peter was a Gryffindor. The Houses are made up of people. Some are nice and some are not. Some are brave and some or not. I think Rowling was trying to show to a certain extent that we all have different facets to us and it's foolish to lump them under a 'House Motto'.

[AldeberanBlack]

Is there a predominant quality that a Gryffindor must have in order to be a Gryffindor?

Arrogance, attention-seeking, impulsiveness.

Bravery seems to be the predominant characteristic, but you have students like Neville, Percy, and Peter Pettigrew in Gryffindor...What might be the quality of Bravery in its relation to choices that Godric is looking for?

Does this predominant quality for Gryffindor trump other qualities that might place someone in one of the other houses?

No Gryffindor strikes me as being exceptionally particularly brave.

In the cases mentioned, Longbottom was mediocre. Percy blindly followed those with power. Pettigrew was devoted to two bullies.

What are some of the decisions that students from other houses have made that Gryffindors would decide differently?

Slytherins, Hufflepuffs, and Ravenclaws would analyse a situation with more savvy, practicality and intelligence respectively, as opposed to the Gryffindor approach of jump in without thinking and hope deus ex machina bails you out.

What are the significance of Fire and the Lion to Gryffindor?

Fire: Something that destroys everything if not tempered and contained

Lion: A preening animal (Harry) that relies on females (Hermione) to do the hard work.

What new thoughts do you have on Gryffindor post DH?

My opinion of Gryffindor was low to begin with, and lower now.

[Bzhilanskaia]

Spoiler: show

Quote:
Is there a predominant quality that a Gryffindor must have in order to be a Gryffindor?
Arrogance, attention-seeking, impulsiveness.

Quote:
Bravery seems to be the predominant characteristic, but you have students like Neville, Percy, and Peter Pettigrew in Gryffindor...What might be the quality of Bravery in its relation to choices that Godric is looking for?
Quote:
Does this predominant quality for Gryffindor trump other qualities that might place someone in one of the other houses?
No Gryffindor strikes me as being exceptionally particularly brave.

In the cases mentioned, Longbottom was mediocre. Percy blindly followed those with power. Pettigrew was devoted to two bullies.

Quote:
What are some of the decisions that students from other houses have made that Gryffindors would decide differently?
Slytherins, Hufflepuffs, and Ravenclaws would analyse a situation with more savvy, practicality and intelligence respectively, as opposed to the Gryffindor approach of jump in without thinking and hope deus ex machina bails you out.

Quote:
What are the significance of Fire and the Lion to Gryffindor?
Fire: Something that destroys everything if not tempered and contained

Lion: A preening animal (Harry) that relies on females (Hermione) to do the hard work.

Quote:
What new thoughts do you have on Gryffindor post DH?
My opinion of Gryffindor was low to begin with, and lower now.

I agree with you that Gryffindors may be rather obtrusive, whimsical, and impulsive, but come on... courage is not necessarily about being smart, it's about acting regardless of how scared you are. People of other houses could never stand in the face of fear like Gryffindors do(except Hufflepuff, perhaps, because of their deep loyalty). And among all the shrewd, strategy-keen people in the world(not that there aren't people like that in Gryffindor) there have got to be the people of loyalty and boldness that do the work and execute the action! Yes, it's oftentimes work and action in the spotlight, but surely a spotlight of terror and controversy....

Besides, although Harry and Ron relied on Hermione very much so, Hermione relied on them just as much. The trio functions quite feebly without one of the three. Without Ron, Harry and Hermione move like a slug. Little spirit. Same with Hermione; a momentous shortage of brains. Less Harry, more Voldy. Harry's confidence and sanity prior to the first task in GoF was alarmingly lacking without Ron and even Hermione didn't help him much when she helped him master the Summoning Charm. It was really only the mindset of him being in another Quidditch match that had saved him during the task. In DH, everything is so much darker and gloomy and put down without Ron, his absence being a result of the flaw in character that he did, indeed, overcome(maybe it was not annihilated, but very much overcome). And you say Gryffindors aren't very savvy? Ron acted very well in the game of wizard chess and used his logic to win and get them past that level, while very exceptionally bravely sacrificing himself to help Harry get past. Even though much whim was involved in getting themselves in that situation in the first place, I'd just call impulsiveness a Gryffindor flaw. Then there's Hermione, who would be in Ravenclaw, except she is notably brave like the others and exercises more impulsive behavior. Harry, of course, was like Garibaldi the Sword except in defeating evil. He has made many noble decisions, like preventing Sirius and Lupin from becoming murderers. The trio is the definition of Gryffindors because they thrive on unity and demonstrated the upmost valiance.

Who cares about their showy behavior if their approach to situations can do so much good complementing the contributions of the other houses's? Keeping in mind the exceptions in all cases, I cannot forget mentioning that Gryffindors are profoundly selfless, an essential quality not to be overlooked. Maybe it is so, though, that Gryffindors are not quite as highly suited to goodness and integrity and nobility as Hufflepuffs. That's okay with me.

Neville was mediocre? Well, I would have thought him to be a Hufflepuff most of my read into the series. Also, he was certainly incredibly clumsy throughout the years. However, him taking a stand on Voldemort was so very brave of him, not to mention him killing Nagini, earning his spot in Gryffindor.

Bravery seems to be the predominant characteristic, but you have students like Neville, Percy, and Peter Pettigrew in Gryffindor...What might be the quality of Bravery in its relation to choices that Godric is looking for?

I really don't think Pettigrew was a Gryffindor when he was waiting on Voldemort, but I can provide one example of how he can be considered brave: Since courage is about acting despite fear, and he probably feared pain, cutting his hand off might have displayed some bravery. And it was for the good of others... but when that "other" is an evil lord, you've got a bit of a problem.

I'll have to make additions about Percy later.

Does this predominant quality for Gryffindor trump other qualities that might place someone in one of the other houses?

Yes, it does. That's why Hermione is in Gryffindor. That's why people in Gryffindor are personally capable of doing bad things and being rebellious and bullying. James Potter was horrible towards Snape. Harry also spazzes out a lot, though this is pretty purely a trait of his house, as Gryffindors are quite fiery and ardent, which can be greatly good or bad. However, I find Gryffindors generally and fairly good people. Great people, indeed.

The way I see it, Hufflepuff and Gryffindor are nearly the same house. The discrepancy is that Gryffindors can never match Hufflepuffs in integrity, and Hugglepuffs can never outstrip Gryffindor's courage. So:
Gryffindor = Integrity*1,000,000 < Courage*1,000,000
Hufflepuff = Courage*1,000,000 < Integrity*1,000,000

Besides, when you are a Gryffindor hero, you don't give these faintest heed what might save you. You worry about what you are saving. They don't "jump in without thinking and hope deus ex machina bails." Okay, maybe the part about jumping in without thinking is true to a certain extent...

[lucky charms]

Nice perspective, AldeberanBlack I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who sees Gryffindor that way.

In the first few books, the houses are portrayed in a very simplistic light: Gryffindor is pure good, Slytherin is pure evil, Ravenclaw is smart (though there are plenty of smart Gryffindors and smart Slytherins, so if you're a Ravenclaw it must mean you're smart but lack something in your personality to get into the other houses), and Hufflepuff are pure good minus the bravery (i.e. boring and unintelligent). As a young child reading these first few books, I really bought into this good vs. evil thing and couldn't help admiring and rooting for Gryffindor. It took a little growing up (with the help of the series) to realize that 'good' and 'evil' are not so black and white, and nobody is so two-dimensional that they can be reduced down to one characteristic and stick to it all the time. This realization came about when I noticed, for example, that certain characters (Neville, Wormtail) didn't seem to fit the characteristics of their houses at all; that Cedric and his friends were kind of a jerk to Harry despite being Hufflepuffs; that Draco was just an insecure child thirsting for his father's love and approval; and that sometimes Gryffindors did things that would be thought horrible if they came from another house, but that we overlook and even celebrate just because they're Gryffindors (Dumbledore shafting the Slytherins at the end of PS/SS, some Gryffindors unfairly bullying Slytherins, Harry constantly breaking the rules without considering the consequences for himself and others, etc.) For a few years, I was disappointed with the series for this biased and unfair treatment of the houses.

Then, as I grew older, I began to realize (with the help of these forums) that the narration of the series doesn't represent the objective reality of the Wizarding World, but Harry's personal perspective along with his individual biases. I like to think that this is the reason the Houses are portrayed the way they are, and why this portrayal subtly becomes more complete and sophisticated with regard to the other three Houses over time.

However, although our understanding of the other three Houses evolves throughout the series (to the point where we can even sympathize with some Slytherins), our understanding of Gryffindor remains positively biased throughout, and the uncritical reader following Harry's thoughts and observations would probably have nothing but positive things to say about Gryffindors by series' end: they're brave, they always try to do right, they're funny, they're good at sports, they're natural-born leaders, etc. It takes some reading between the lines to get past Harry's bias and see the negative qualities that AldreberanBlack describes above (and which I'm sure J.K. means for us to see as well). As someone naturally put off by arrogance, impulsiveness, and aggressiveness, but who admires passion and a strong moral compass, I feel that Gryffindor has the same amount of good and bad as any other house (and am perhaps more prone than others to see that the choices our dear Gryffindors make are not always in the direction of 'good'!)

As for the qualities that make a Gryffindor: I have a pet theory that it's not our inherent qualities that put us in a certain House, but which qualities we value the most. This is perhaps best illustrated by Hermione, who almost overwhelmingly displays the qualities associated with Ravenclaw, yet was not sorted into Ravenclaw because she values bravery and hotheadedness more than she does her own intelligence (she says as much to Harry before he goes off to meet Quirrell in PS/SS). Also, we have Neville and Wormtail, who at first are not particularly brave and self-asserting (fans often marvel that Neville wasn't placed in Hufflepuff, and Wormtail wasn't placed in Slytherin). The answer here, I think, is in the fact that they wanted to become brave and heroic when they were 11, that these were more important qualities that they valued more than cleverness, power, etc. So I think I depart here from the majority of fans who say 'They must have the potential for these qualities' or 'They must have possessed these qualities at one time' by speculating that it doesn't matter a whit what kind of qualities you have when you're sorted, and it 100% depends on what kind of qualities you admire the most (it just so happens that these two things overlap more often than not). This also, I believe, resonates very strongly with Dumbledore's "It's the choices we make" speech. So to answer the question more directly, I believe that those who enter Gryffindor are not necessarily the brave, loyal, passionate, and chivalrous, but those who believe those are the most admirable qualities a person can have.

[ItsOnlyMe]

Is there a predominant quality that a Gryffindor must have in order to be a Gryffindor?

Well bravery obviously, and fiercely loyal. I think that they are the kind of people who will run straight into danger just to be heroic, possibly without thinking through alternative - less dangerous ways to do things.

Bravery seems to be the predominant characteristic, but you have students like Neville, Percy, and Peter Pettigrew in Gryffindor...What might be the quality of Bravery in its relation to choices that Godric is looking for?

Well first off, I think Neville is quite brave. He's the one to stand up to Voldemort during the Battle of Hogwarts. Not to mention the fact that he wins the house cup for Gryffindor back in his first year for standing up to Harry Ron and Herminone XD I think Percy has the potential to be brave as well. We don't really see that side of him, but he does come to help fight in the battle of Hogwarts as well.

As for Pettigrew, I really can't say. Maybe he was more brave then JK Rowling let on? I'm trying to think of an example but not really coming up with anything... so i really can't tell you why he was there XD

Does this predominant quality for Gryffindor trump other qualities that might place someone in one of the other houses?

Not necessarily. IMO I think that the braveness that Gryffindor is known for is almost a reckless bravery. Hufflepuffs are brave too, but in a much more passive way. I think that the prominence of bravery within the person him/herself in what would place them in Gryffindor.

What are some of the decisions that students from other houses have made that Gryffindors would decide differently?

Again, with the Hufflepuffs (since I am one...). I think that there were quite a few moves that Gryffindors have pulled that a Hufflepuff would have looked at an gone, "Ok, what's the most logical way of dealing with this?" Like in OOtP when Harry rushes off to find Sirius in the Department of Mysteries. I think a Hufflepuff would have thought of using Sirius' mirror or contacting some other order member first.

Slytherins are obviously polar opposites of Gryffindors. A Gryffindor will go to any length to protect someone else, while that case is hardly ever true for a Slytherin. A Slytherin cares mostly about him/herself at the end of the day.

What are the significance of Fire and the Lion to Gryffindor?

I think this is quite obvious. A lion represents bravery. Being big and strong and tough. The fire is fierce like the Gryffindors. It all comes down to them being strong and brave.

What is the significance of JKR splitting the students into classes and why did she make Gryffindor House from a literary perspective?

I don't really understand this question...

What new thoughts do you have on Gryffindor post DH?

Gryffindor has been so developed through the entire series that I'm not sure anything new came out of DH really. We see them fight in the Battle of Hogwarts, but we all could have seen that coming from a mile away.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by lucky charms

As someone naturally put off by arrogance, impulsiveness, and aggressiveness, but who admires passion and a strong moral compass, I feel that Gryffindor has the same amount of good and bad as any other house (and am perhaps more prone than others to see that the choices our dear Gryffindors make are not always in the direction of 'good'!)

I agree, there. I think there are likeable and unlikeable characters in every house. I think people from every house made good and bad decisions. I think the characteristics of every house can become a negative if untempered by a measure of an opposite trait. Gryffindor courage with some common sense, Hufflepuff loyalty with some critical thinking, Slytherin ambition with respect for the rights of others, Ravenclaw logic with feeling. Using both head and heart, in other words.

However, I think that it is equally lacking in shades of grey to paint Gryffindor as unpleasant arrogant characters lacking any good traits, and Slytherin as "misunderstood" characters who don't really do anything wrong. This, IMO, is every bit as much a blunt black and white analysis as a "Gryffindors are good, Slytherins are bad" analysis.

[RemusLupinFan]

Originally Posted by lucky charms

Then, as I grew older, I began to realize (with the help of these forums) that the narration of the series doesn't represent the objective reality of the Wizarding World, but Harry's personal perspective along with his individual biases. I like to think that this is the reason the Houses are portrayed the way they are, and why this portrayal subtly becomes more complete and sophisticated with regard to the other three Houses over time.

This makes a lot of sense. Since Harry is our narrator and we see what he sees, it makes sense that as the series progresses and Harry gets older, we see more nuances between the Houses. In the case of Gryffindor, as Harry meets characters like Peter Pettigrew, sees the behavior of young James and Sirius, and learns of Percy's attitude toward his family, Gryffindor acquires an added dimension. The flaws are what makes Gryffindor (and the others) a House made up of individual people rather than clones. And at the end of the series I came out with a positive view of Gryffindor as a whole, though probably not as positive as when I started reading (actually I used to identify with Gryffindor most, but now I favor Ravenclaw more strongly).

I actually think having the Houses portrayed simplistically works fine for the first two books, which I consider to be geared toward children. You have the "hero House" where all the good guys (namely Harry) end up in, which beats the "bad House" where the bullies are. As a result of Harry's being Sorted into Gryffindor, I feel we know more about this House than any of the others, and we see many of the good things done by Harry's Gryffindor friends. I think that can bias readers positively toward Gryffindor. But in the later books, it's good to get a more complex perspective, and it's nice to learn more about the other Houses. Afer all, it's unrealistic to think that all Gryffindors are the most wonderful people and all Slytherins are evil.

Originally Posted by lucky charms

As for the qualities that make a Gryffindor: I have a pet theory that it's not our inherent qualities that put us in a certain House, but which qualities we value the most.

For the most part, I also subscribe to this theory. However, I do think there must be at least some inherent quality present for you to be put in a particular House. Otherwise there would be no need for a Sorting Hat. I theorize that it is a mixture of inherent quality plus value placed upon that quality that gets you sorted one way or the other.

One random comment - if I had to pick my favorite Gryffindor trait, I'd choose courage. I find this to be the most admirable quality that Gryffindors display, and it's a trait that is so important to the story. I especially admire the type of courage like Neville's that may be a bit quieter but no less valid.

If I had to choose one thing that can go wrong with Gryffindors, I'd say it is the tendency to be impulsive - to leap without looking when it's best to stop and think about things. There's totally situations where it's best to act quickly, but others require a more thoughtful approach, and it's those kind of situations that might trip Gryffindors up.

[LucyWeasley]

@ AldeberanBlack:
I have to admit that I was more than a bit offended when I read your post...

It struck me as a bit rude and stereotypical, but, maybe you just didn't proof-read after writing it or something. I do that sometimes

Luckily, Bzhilanskaia and lucky charm's posts helped me see the valid points you made.

Yes, Gryffindors can be arrogant and attention-seeking. But those aren't their main qualities. As it's been said before, courage, bravery, nerve and chivalry are. Not necessarily 'good', as Gryffindor was depicted in the earlier books before Harry started to realize the world wasn't black and white.

Also, not all Gryffindors jump right into a dangerous situation without thinking. For example, Hermione would probably think a bit too much before taking action. And, it's not always a bad thing. Unfortunatly, if someone was in a duel or any other fight, they'd have to make split second decisions, or risk being killed.

On another note:

I find that fire is passionate, though, like Gryffindors, sometimes overly so.

Lions are commonly depicted as brave and strong, and I would think that this is the image J.K. Rowling was going with when she chose it as Gryffindor's mascot. But, it is also dependant on the other houses to help it when times get tough, like in the story of the lion and the mouse (at least I think it's a mouse. It's when the lion has a thorn stuck in it's paw, and needs the mouse to get it out for him).

Well, that took awhile to write, but I think I've finally gotten to my point:
Gryffindor, like all the other houses, has it's good and bad qualities and students. You really can't say much beyond all Gryffindors can be brave and daring. You honestly can't judge them as a whole, but analyzing them, on the other hand, sure is fun!

[eliza101]

Originally Posted by LucyWeasley

@ AldeberanBlack:
I have to admit that I was more than a bit offended when I read your post...

It struck me as a bit rude and stereotypical, but, maybe you just didn't proof-read after writing it or something. I do that sometimes

Luckily, Bzhilanskaia and lucky charm's posts helped me see the valid points you made.

Yes, Gryffindors can be arrogant and attention-seeking. But those aren't their main qualities. As it's been said before, courage, bravery, nerve and chivalry are. Not necessarily 'good', as Gryffindor was depicted in the earlier books before Harry started to realize the world wasn't black and white.

Also, not all Gryffindors jump right into a dangerous situation without thinking. For example, Hermione would probably think a bit too much before taking action. And, it's not always a bad thing. Unfortunatly, if someone was in a duel or any other fight, they'd have to make split second decisions, or risk being killed.

On another note:

I find that fire is passionate, though, like Gryffindors, sometimes overly so.

Lions are commonly depicted as brave and strong, and I would think that this is the image J.K. Rowling was going with when she chose it as Gryffindor's mascot. But, it is also dependant on the other houses to help it when times get tough, like in the story of the lion and the mouse (at least I think it's a mouse. It's when the lion has a thorn stuck in it's paw, and needs the mouse to get it out for him).

Well, that took awhile to write, but I think I've finally gotten to my point:
Gryffindor, like all the other houses, has it's good and bad qualities and students. You really can't say much beyond all Gryffindors can be brave and daring. You honestly can't judge them as a whole, but analyzing them, on the other hand, sure is fun!

I agree with all your points. You have taken a much more reasoned approach to AlderbanBlack's post than I did. My post was quite rightly deleted. (Good lesson, there. I have to stop being impulsive.) All the Houses share one thing. The children in them are just that, children. They will all have good points and bad points. They will all disobey the rules at some point. Show me a child that does not break the rules at some point and I think I will see a child that needs therapy.

Interesting thing about fire, without fire we would not any civilisation. The discovery of how to make and control fire is the common point of Man's evolution beyond the animal kingdom. Animals do not make and control fire, humans do.