*Oozy thoughts*

[Ripheus23]

Quote

Questioner [PENDING REVIEW]

We're doing a piece of art for a friend that's a crossover between Stormlight Archives and Harry Potter. How would you sort Dalinar, Kaladin, Jasnah, and Shallan?

Brandon Sanderson [PENDING REVIEW]

Jasnah's a Slytherin. Hands down, very easy.

Dalinar's would depend on which Dalinar you're talking about. Dalinar is probably going to be Gryffindor either way, would be my guess.

Shallan's a Ravenclaw, straight up.

Kaladin's tough. You could Hufflepuff Kaladin. You could totally Hufflepuff Kaladin. I think that works.

source

My favorite image now, is of Hufflepuffing Kaladin, if you know what I mean  

Edited December 12, 2018 by Ripheus23

[Yezrien]

No comment on the imagery, but the Sorting Hat is obviously of Nalthian origin.

[+Ark1002]

What's with the name of the thread?

And good, Jasnah and Shallan are my favorite SA characters, and those are the two houses I've been sorted in. Slytherin with one online test, Ravenclaw with all the other times.

[Naurock]

Look, Brandon created these characters... But I disagree. Do we have to use all the houses, BTW?

Here's my two outcomes if we do or don't have to use all the houses

Don't: Jasnah is first ballot Ravenclaw. Shallan is Hufflepuff. Dalinar and Kaladin in Griffindor.

Do: Jasnah -> Ravenclaw; Shallan -> Hufflepuff; Dalinar -> Slytherin; Kaladin -> Griffindor.

[Ripheus23]

1 hour ago, Kidpen said:

What's with the name of the thread?

It is unlikely that you would wish to know, if you knew.

[Steel Inquisitive he/him]

@Ripheus23 I will never think of you the same way.......

[Harbour he/him]

I really cant see why Brandon think Kaladin fits Hufflepuff. I mean, based on how Kaladin was written he is deinitely not a somewhat clumsy, not very bright and "just a kind lazy guy" or who typical Hufflepuff student is.

He is straight Gryffindor material. Like in every aspect. Brave, brilliant, good friend. Typical Gryffindor dude.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Harbour

[Winds Alight she/her]

5 minutes ago, Harbour said:

I really cant see why Brandon think Kaladin fits Hufflepuff. I mean, based on how Kaladin was written he is deinitely not a somewhat clumsy, not very bright and "just a kind lazy guy" or who typical Hufflepuff student is.

As a proud Hufflepuff I have to say I am offend.

Hufflepuffs are neither stupid nor lazy nor clumsy, they just want to live in peace and can't stand the drama.
So I believe Kaladin would be a great fit. I mean. He'd give anything to have a little bit of peace and lack of drama once in a while.

(Let's ignore that I am stupid, lazy and clumsy for the moment, shall we?)

Edited December 11, 2018 by Winds Alight

[Agent34]

10 minutes ago, Harbour said:

I really cant see why Brandon think Kaladin fits Hufflepuff. I mean, based on how Kaladin was written he is deinitely not a somewhat clumsy, not very bright and "just a kind lazy guy" or who typical Hufflepuff student is.

He is straight Gryffindor material. Like in every aspect. Brave, brilliant, good friend. Typical Gryffindor dude.

I echo @Winds Alight's words, particularly regarding laziness. Dedicated and hardworking are Hufflepuff traits.

[Winds Alight she/her]

You might say Kaladin's forced to be a Gryffindor while in truth he just wants to go to Hufflepuff with the common rooms close to the kitchens.
(On the other hand, he'd probably like it better to live high up in one of the towers. If we ask Lirin, he maybe even should be in Ravenclaw. You know, studying hard and such.)

[+ILuvHats he/him]

4 hours ago, Harbour said:

I really cant see why Brandon think Kaladin fits Hufflepuff. I mean, based on how Kaladin was written he is deinitely not a somewhat clumsy, not very bright and "just a kind lazy guy" or who typical Hufflepuff student is.

He is straight Gryffindor material. Like in every aspect. Brave, brilliant, good friend. Typical Gryffindor dude.

Sorry, but I need to go on a rant about Rowling.  Prepare thyselves!

This was one of my main problems with Harry Potter.  The way Rowling portrayed the houses, some of them seem to readers to be inherently better than others (cough cough Gryffindor).  For example, it’s hard for people to think of Hufflepuff as a house of exceptional people.  Sure, there are exceptions like Cedric Diggory, but the way the characters in the books thought about the house led to the perception that people were put in Hufflepuff because they weren’t good enough to be in the other houses.  After all, where did the idea that Neville should have been sorted into Hufflepuff come from? And this perception is despite the fact that there is a list of exceptional attributes for Hufflepuff, like Agent34 mentioned.

And don’t get me started on Slytherins.  My god, Rowling, could you have portrayed them in a more one dimensional light?  Sure, we have a few “good” Slytherins (spoilers ahead).  We Have Slughorn, Regulus Black, Draco Malfoy, and Snape.  But even though the last 3 got redemption arcs, they still did some messed up stuff, especially Black and Snape considering how long they were Death Eaters for.  So they’re still pretty bad people.  Literally almost every Death Eater was a Slytherin, and (spoilers again) when Voldemort offered the ultimatum to hand Harry over in the final battle of book 7, almost all of house Slytherin was ready to do it, but every other house was against it.  The valued attributes of Slytherin are ambition, cunning, leadership, and resourcefulness, which to me don’t scream “Evil!”  Sure, you could say people who value these attributes tend to lean towards “the ends justify the means” and that they are willing value their own well-being over that of others.  But these do not equate to pure evil, which is pretty much what Rowling portrayed them as!  These are the attributes of good businessmen!  (Ok, lets not get into the argument that businessmen are evil ).  Besides, just because somebody values these attributes, doesn’t mean they dont also value kindness, or loyalty, or bravery.  It’s not mutually exclusive!  

It just annoys me that Rowling presented such one-sided views of the houses in her books, and a lot of people are still stuck with biased views of the houses as a result.  She could have shown us more nuanced houses.  There could have been a bunch of Slytherins who spoke against Voldemort, there could have been Death Eaters from Gryfindor or Hufflepuff.  But no.  Instead we get a story that, in spite of attempts to show otherwise, still generally emphasizes the philosophy that people can be described and placed into little boxes.

 

[RShara she/her]

3 minutes ago, ILuvHats said:

Sorry, but I need to go on a rant about Rowling.  Prepare thyselves!

This was one of my main problems with Harry Potter.  The way Rowling portrayed the houses, some of them seem to readers to be inherently better than others (cough cough Gryffindor).  For example, it’s hard for people to think of Hufflepuff as a house of exceptional people.  Sure, there are exceptions like Cedric Diggory, but the way the characters in the books thought about the house led to the perception that people were put in Hufflepuff because they weren’t good enough to be in the other houses.  After all, where did the idea that Neville should have been sorted into Hufflepuff come from? And this perception is despite the fact that there is a list of exceptional attributes for Hufflepuff, like Agent34 mentioned.

And don’t get me started on Slytherins.  My god, Rowling, could you have portrayed them in a more one dimensional light?  Sure, we have a few “good” Slytherins (spoilers ahead).  We Have Slughorn, Regulus Black, Draco Malfoy, and Snape.  But even though the last 3 got redemption arcs, they still did some messed up stuff, especially Black and Snape considering how long they were Death Eaters for.  So they’re still pretty bad people.  Literally almost every Death Eater was a Slytherin, and (spoilers again) when Voldemort offered the ultimatum to hand Harry over in the final battle of book 7, almost all of house Slytherin was ready to do it, but every other house was against it.  The valued attributes of Slytherin are ambition, cunning, leadership, and resourcefulness, which to me don’t scream “Evil!”  Sure, you could say people who value these attributes tend to lean towards “the ends justify the means” and that they are willing value their own well-being over that of others.  But these do not equate to pure evil, which is pretty much what Rowling portrayed them as!  These are the attributes of good businessmen!  (Ok, lets not get into the argument that businessmen are evil ).  Besides, just because somebody values these attributes, doesn’t mean they dont also value kindness, or loyalty, or bravery.  It’s not mutually exclusive!  

It just annoys me that Rowling presented such one-sided views of the houses in her books, and a lot of people are still stuck with biased views of the houses as a result.  She could have shown us more nuanced houses.  There could have been a bunch of Slytherins who spoke against Voldemort, there could have been Death Eaters from Gryfindor or Hufflepuff.  But no.  Instead we get a story that, in spite of attempts to show otherwise, still generally emphasizes the philosophy that people can be described and placed into little boxes.

 

I agree with all of this, and I feel like the rivalry between the Houses, the allowed blatant favoritism and a number of other things made the setting seriously toxic in a lot of ways.

[+ILuvHats he/him]

Yeah, Hogwarts is a messed up school system.  Who in their right minds would pit grade school age children against each other in a year long competition that just serves to create rivalries and form school disunity?  And the bias is astonishing.  Gryffindor wins 5, 6 years in a row?  Give me a break.    

[Ripheus23]

It was all part of the secret plan to defeat Voldemort when he Returned. Cultivation set it all up. But Harmony Potter took up the Shard of Wisdom (all Shards are Horcruxes of Adonalsium btw!) so he Ascended, and will become the Greater Scope Villain of Fantastic Meats and Where to Eat Them. Ssshh!!!

*I've said too much! The secret project revealed!*

*dissolves into a puddle of hufflepuff*

[Kon-Tiki he/him]

So... if the Villain of Fantastic Meats and Where to Eat Them is Harmony Potter, does that make the hero Lift?

[sonoskay]

15 hours ago, ILuvHats said:

Sorry, but I need to go on a rant about Rowling.  Prepare thyselves!

This was one of my main problems with Harry Potter.  The way Rowling portrayed the houses, some of them seem to readers to be inherently better than others (cough cough Gryffindor).  For example, it’s hard for people to think of Hufflepuff as a house of exceptional people.  Sure, there are exceptions like Cedric Diggory, but the way the characters in the books thought about the house led to the perception that people were put in Hufflepuff because they weren’t good enough to be in the other houses.  After all, where did the idea that Neville should have been sorted into Hufflepuff come from? And this perception is despite the fact that there is a list of exceptional attributes for Hufflepuff, like Agent34 mentioned.

And don’t get me started on Slytherins.  My god, Rowling, could you have portrayed them in a more one dimensional light?  Sure, we have a few “good” Slytherins (spoilers ahead).  We Have Slughorn, Regulus Black, Draco Malfoy, and Snape.  But even though the last 3 got redemption arcs, they still did some messed up stuff, especially Black and Snape considering how long they were Death Eaters for.  So they’re still pretty bad people.  Literally almost every Death Eater was a Slytherin, and (spoilers again) when Voldemort offered the ultimatum to hand Harry over in the final battle of book 7, almost all of house Slytherin was ready to do it, but every other house was against it.  The valued attributes of Slytherin are ambition, cunning, leadership, and resourcefulness, which to me don’t scream “Evil!”  Sure, you could say people who value these attributes tend to lean towards “the ends justify the means” and that they are willing value their own well-being over that of others.  But these do not equate to pure evil, which is pretty much what Rowling portrayed them as!  These are the attributes of good businessmen!  (Ok, lets not get into the argument that businessmen are evil ).  Besides, just because somebody values these attributes, doesn’t mean they dont also value kindness, or loyalty, or bravery.  It’s not mutually exclusive!  

It just annoys me that Rowling presented such one-sided views of the houses in her books, and a lot of people are still stuck with biased views of the houses as a result.  She could have shown us more nuanced houses.  There could have been a bunch of Slytherins who spoke against Voldemort, there could have been Death Eaters from Gryfindor or Hufflepuff.  But no.  Instead we get a story that, in spite of attempts to show otherwise, still generally emphasizes the philosophy that people can be described and placed into little boxes.

 

I think its pretty  easy  to  know why rowling did this.

The first   3 books are straight up directed at children  around the age of 10.

    They are fairly simple plots whith fairly straightforward  characters.

 And i dont think she anticipated  the rabid fan base  she would eventually  stumble  upon.

 

She made a beautiful  world. But if we are going to seriously  look at her books. They were intentionally  simplistic.

 

But i do agree with sandersons opinion of all of his characters in harry potter houses.

 

 

[+ILuvHats he/him]

First of all, a disclaimer:  I loved Harry Potter for a long time.  I think I read the series 11 times before I was so familiar with the story that it got a bit boring.  And even though I’m no longer a fanatic about the books, I definitely agree that they were fantastically written and the series as a whole is a masterpiece.  

However, the fact that Rowling might have intentionally made the first few books simple and portrayed characters in a black and white way doesn’t excuse its simplicity.  It would be more understandable if the series was targeting younger audiences, which I can see in the first 3 books.  But based on the length and narrative complexity of the latter four books, she transitioned to targeting an older audience, yet the same mistakes remained.  Especially in the last 2 novels, I think Rowling succeeded in making readers feel like the universe and the characters were more nuanced.  But she was never able to fully cover up the stereotyping she established in the first few books.  So there ends up being this dissonance between the maturity of the readers and the maturity of the universe.  And that’s what bothers me.

[Harbour he/him]

On 11 декабря 2018 г. at 4:41 PM, Winds Alight said:

As a proud Hufflepuff I have to say I am offend.

Hufflepuffs are neither stupid nor lazy nor clumsy, they just want to live in peace and can't stand the drama.
So I believe Kaladin would be a great fit. I mean. He'd give anything to have a little bit of peace and lack of drama once in a while.

(Let's ignore that I am stupid, lazy and clumsy for the moment, shall we?)

Im sorry. I didnt mean to offend anyone.

Reading HP and SA i feel Kaladin belongs more to Gryffindor. Yes, he has some qualities like "i dont want get involved into some bad stuff" or desire to leave in peace, but they are not dominant in him in the context of the Roshar. Constant struggle, strife, desire to lead, to protect, brilliance and bravery always prevail in Kaladin. And Gryffindor makes the bigger emphasis on all these traits than Hufflepuff in HP books. Thats why i was surprised by how Brandon put Kaladin into Hufflepuff category without even a doubt. Id say there is 65% Gryffindor, 20% of Ravenclaw and 15% of Hufflepuff in him.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Harbour

[Winds Alight she/her]

22 minutes ago, Harbour said:

Im sorry. I didnt mean to offend anyone.

Reading HP and SA i feel Kaladin belongs more to Gryffindor. Yes, he has some qualities like "i dont want get involved into some bad stuff" or desire to leave in peace, but they are not dominant in him in the context of the Roshar. Constant struggle, strife, desire to lead, to protect, brilliance and bravery always prevail in Kaladin. And Gryffindor makes the bigger emphasis on all these traits than Hufflepuff in HP books. Thats why i was surprised by how Brandon put Kaladin into Hufflepuff category without even a doubt. Id say there is 65% Gryffindor, 20% of Ravenclaw and 15% of Hufflepuff in him.

No worries

I guess both fit, though as I said before, I believe Kaladin to be more of a Hufflepuff by default, but society and other circumstances forced him to become more Gryffindor-ish.

[sonoskay]

2 hours ago, ILuvHats said:

First of all, a disclaimer:  I loved Harry Potter for a long time.  I think I read the series 11 times before I was so familiar with the story that it got a bit boring.  And even though I’m no longer a fanatic about the books, I definitely agree that they were fantastically written and the series as a whole is a masterpiece.  

However, the fact that Rowling might have intentionally made the first few books simple and portrayed characters in a black and white way doesn’t excuse its simplicity.  It would be more understandable if the series was targeting younger audiences, which I can see in the first 3 books.  But based on the length and narrative complexity of the latter four books, she transitioned to targeting an older audience, yet the same mistakes remained.  Especially in the last 2 novels, I think Rowling succeeded in making readers feel like the universe and the characters were more nuanced.  But she was never able to fully cover up the stereotyping she established in the first few books.  So there ends up being this dissonance between the maturity of the readers and the maturity of the universe.  And that’s what bothers me.

   Its the nature of writing i think.

 

 Some authors use a method  known as discovery  writing.

 Meaning they  have plot points they want to hit,  but may not know how they get their or even how the story ends.until they sit down and write that part of the book.

 Your criticisms are valid,  however i believe  that  it is a symptom of  her starting by writing childrens books,   becoming  wildly popular, then having to change to a more mature theme  to keep up the momentum.

 

 I would bet   the redemption  archs she wrote were never originally  planned . But  she clearly established   all this black and white morality  stuff. And couldnt  figure out a way to cleanly  transition to  a more complex  method of story telling.

 Draco and snape were vindictive  asses up to that point. You couldnt suddenly  make them different  or you would ruin what you already  established.

 

   Maybe this will make me look mean, but i dont think  rowling  is that good of a writer.

 She is a very good world builder however.

 

 Anyway i suppose this is way off topic. So ill let it  drop hah.

[+ILuvHats he/him]

Hear hear.  Exactly my thoughts.  

[Bitsphere he/him]

Boy do I ever hate the name of this thread, haha. Creamy is my "moist".  

Wouldn't have pegged figured Kaladin for a Hufflepuff. Interesting.

[Bitsphere he/him]

2 minutes ago, Bitsphere said:

Creamy is my "moist".  

To clarify - in the sense that I hate the word. 

[Ripheus23]

I shall spare thee, then.

[Bitsphere he/him]

4 minutes ago, Ripheus23 said:

I shall spare thee, then.

LOL you are terrible