Callista wrote:
Well, it's the same in the books too. Most characters have strong traits that could put them in another House--come on, can't you just see Hermione as a Ravenclaw, or Ron in Hufflepuff? I sure can. They're complex characters, not cardboard stereotypes; if they were, I wouldn't like the books so much. It's more a matter of which traits are more central to who they are and what's more important to them. It's not just your basic personality, but the decisions you make and what you believe in.
And Harry could have just as easily ended up in Slytherin, and went to Gryffindor because of his refusal.
Quote:
I always thought Slytherin was a bit too one-dimensional, though. There are many possibilities there--sure, it's got its dark side, but ambition isn't intrinsically bad and I seriously doubt that sociopathic students made up the majority of that group. I bet some of the most badass Aurors came out of Slytherin--people who took a dangerous job because they wanted to prove just how good they were at it, for the challenge and the glory. Gryffindors, sure, but they're more protective than proactive. The world takes all types.
I think Rowling even tried to show this with Horace Slughorn who is ambitious but not evil, but he wasn't really a great example.
I don't think Slytherin as a house could survive if it was nothing more than the dumping ground for sociopathic students. There wouldn't be enough of them to fill a house, and such a bias would be damaging to the school.