On Ravenclaw's Characterization

Over the past few days, I read quite a bit of feedback about my characterization of Ravenclaw. After giving it some thought, I realized that I had indeed handled the order poorly.

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

Tolerance born of wisdom. Because wisdom sees far more and much farther, it is tolerant—not Hufflepuff's tolerant unity and kindness, but tolerance for differing opinions and different paths of development.

That was why the Sorting Hat said that all who possessed wisdom could find like-minded companions in Ravenclaw.

It was a group more opposed to Hufflepuff. Differences gradually emerged until they went their separate ways. Yet everyone used their own wisdom to seek their own path. Because of tolerance, Ravenclaw could accommodate those who walked different roads. Because of wisdom, those on different roads would never be easily persuaded.

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

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

And Ravenclaw House existed precisely to let those with ambitions clash and exchange ideas, producing more brilliant knowledge through their wisdom.

Therefore, it was bound to have fame-and-profit seekers like Lockhart and authoritarians like Rita, because they truly used their wisdom to pursue what they considered important—just as not every viewpoint produced during the Spring and Autumn period was an essence.

So it was 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 all Ravenclaws be proud because of Rita or Lockhart? How could that be?—Thus, Ravenclaw's tolerance could allow in people whose actions and opinions were obviously different, but it would also inevitably produce a great many people within 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 Champions—but that would not stop them from wanting to send one another to Azkaban afterward.

Professor Flitwick, as Head of House, undoubtedly embodied this tolerance—though that might also be because the original work described too little of him.

It was under this greatest principle of tolerance that I began creating all sorts of oddballs in Ravenclaw—it just seemed that I had overdone it for now, to the point where I 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 those in the same House, daring to properly take on those in the same school—I love my teacher, but I love truth more.

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

They should dare to discuss the Future of the Wizarding world, consider the Future of wizards, seek reason amid all kinds of chaos, dare to say no, and, once their beliefs and goals were firmly established, dare to use every means to prove them—including, but not limited to, sending other students, including Ravenclaws, to Azkaban.

Yes, Ravenclaw was like that.