Some Thoughts on Ravenclaw

Over the past few days, I read quite a bit of feedback about my portrayal of Ravenclaw. Thinking it over, I did indeed get the order wrong.

Ravenclaw was wise enough. I had originally intended to use Helena's memories to illustrate Ravenclaw's greatest essence—tolerance.

The tolerance of wisdom. Because wisdom saw enough and far enough, it was tolerant—not the united, kind tolerance of Hufflepuff, but tolerance for differing opinions and different paths of development.

That was why the Sorting Hat said that all wise people could find kindred spirits in Ravenclaw.

It was a more oppositional group than Hufflepuff. Differences gradually arose until they parted ways. Yet everyone used their own wisdom to seek their own path. Because of tolerance, Ravenclaw could accommodate those who took different roads; because of wisdom, those on different roads would never be easily persuaded.

When I was working on the previous extra chapter, I thought about Luna, and then realized that Ravenclaw truly ought to have bad people—because Ravenclaw had to contain a group of wizards with more ideas, it should not be a peaceful, harmonious place. It should resemble the Hundred Schools of Thought during the Spring and Autumn period.

It should have countless groups like those of the Spring and Autumn period, some good and some bad, fighting for what they pursued and sending those who disagreed with them to Azkaban.

And Ravenclaw House existed precisely for this purpose: to let those with aspirations confront and exchange with one another, producing more brilliant knowledge through their wisdom—and just as in the Spring and Autumn period, this would inevitably give rise to some things that were not exactly the finest.

Therefore, it was inevitable that there would be fame-and-profit seekers like Lockhart and authoritarians like Rita, because they truly used their own wisdom to pursue what they considered important.

So it was equally inevitable that some Ravenclaws would think they were wrong and believe they ought to be sent to Azkaban—shouldn't Ravenclaw be like this?

Because of tolerance, Ravenclaw had Lockhart and Rita, but it also had Millicent Bagnold, the Minister for Magic who persisted in fighting Voldemort until victory.

Would every Ravenclaw feel proud because of Rita or Lockhart? How could that be? So Ravenclaw's tolerance allowed in people whose actions and views were clearly different, but internally, there would inevitably be a great many who rejected them.

This tolerance could even allow them to unite when collectively rejecting something—for example, in the selection of the Goblet of Fire's Champion—but that did not stop them from wanting to send the other party to Azkaban afterward.

Professor Flitwick, as Head of House, undoubtedly embodied this tolerance—though perhaps that was simply because the original work described him too little.

It was under this central principle of tolerance that I began writing all sorts of oddballs in Ravenclaw—though at present, it seemed I had pushed too hard and even needed to explain it separately, because I had no way to write out the concept at the very beginning.

But I think Ravenclaw should be like this: pursuing wisdom and knowledge, daring to strike hard at fellow House members, daring to strike normally at fellow schoolmates—I love my teacher, but I love truth even more.

Pursuing achievements? Good grades? Unity and harmony? Those were all very nice, but far too small... Part of Ravenclaw was like that, but it could not be only that.

Daring to discuss the Wizarding world's Future, considering the future of wizards, seeking reason amid all kinds of chaos, daring to say no, and daring, once their beliefs and goals were firm, to use every means to prove them—including, but not limited to, sending other students, even Ravenclaw students, to Azkaban.

Yes, Ravenclaw was like this.