Over the past few days, I've read a lot of feedback on how I portrayed Ravenclaw. After thinking it over, I do think I presented things in the wrong order.
Ravenclaw is certainly wise enough. I originally meant to use Helena's recollections to explain Ravenclaw's defining quality: openness.
An openness born of wisdom. Wisdom sees enough, and far enough, to make room for other views—not Hufflepuff's kind and united acceptance, but a willingness to accept different opinions and different paths.
That's why the Sorting Hat said that anyone with wisdom could find like-minded people in Ravenclaw.
This makes Ravenclaw a far more divided group than Hufflepuff. Differences gradually emerge until people go their separate ways. Yet everyone uses their own wisdom to find their own path. Because Ravenclaw is open, it has room for those on different paths; because its members are wise, those people will not be easily persuaded to change course.
While finishing the extras for my previous book, I thought about Luna and realized that Ravenclaw really ought to have bad people in it. If it accommodates a host of witches and wizards with strong ideas of their own, it shouldn't be a place where everyone gets along. It should be like the Hundred Schools of Thought contending during the Spring and Autumn period.
It should have just as many groups, good and bad, fighting for what they pursue and sending those they cannot get along with to Azkaban.
And that is precisely why Ravenclaw House brings people with ambitions together to clash and exchange ideas: to turn their wisdom into more brilliant knowledge. Inevitably, though, as in the Spring and Autumn period, some of what emerges will be far from the best.
So Ravenclaw is bound to have fame-seekers like Lockhart and authoritarians like Rita, because they really are using their intelligence to pursue what they consider important.
And it is just as inevitable that some Ravenclaws will think they are wrong and belong in Azkaban. Isn't that exactly how Ravenclaw should be?
Because of that openness, Ravenclaw has Lockhart and Rita. But it also has Millicent Bagnold, the Minister for Magic who stood against Voldemort until he was defeated.
Would every Ravenclaw be proud of Rita or Lockhart? Of course not. Ravenclaw's openness lets in people whose actions and views differ sharply, but there are bound to be plenty within the house who reject them.
That openness can even unite them when they all oppose the same thing—as with the Goblet of Fire's choice of Champion. But that won't stop them from wanting to send one another to Azkaban afterward.
And Professor Flitwick, as head of house, undoubtedly embodies that openness—though perhaps that's only because the original books say so little about him.
Still, I think that's what Ravenclaw should be: devoted to wisdom and the pursuit of knowledge, unafraid to strike hard at fellow housemates or challenge fellow students. I love my teacher, but I love truth more.
Chasing grades? Good marks? Unity and harmony? All very well, but far too small an ambition... Some of Ravenclaw may be like that, but it cannot be only that.
They should dare to discuss the future of the Wizarding world, consider the future of witches and wizards, seek reason amid chaos, say no, and, once firm in their convictions and goals, use every means to prove their case—including, but not limited to, sending other students, even Ravenclaws, to Azkaban.
Yes. That's Ravenclaw.