|
Post by En on Jul 24, 2003 17:12:31 GMT -5
Lumers, you're dead on. I kind of wrestled with Frodo and Pippin being the Gryff and the Slyth too, but the way you say it makes perfect sense.
Glint, yep, the Hat was singing about the union of parts and there seemed to be some strong hints -- like the fact that the DA was made up of three of the four houses -- that unity will become an issue. But will the kids come to see it as Howarts against Voldemort, or will they come to mentally equate Slytherin House with the Death Eaters? How will Slytherin become part of the whole?
...So I think your challenge to find the whole being more than the sum of the parts is a good one. And going back to the start of the thread -- Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Lion and the Tin Man wouldn't have gotten to the Emerald City, let alone taken care of the Wicked Witch, if they hadn't cooperated; think of all the times the Lion or Scarecrow had to oil the Tin Man, how the Scarecrow had to be carried when the monkeys pulled him apart, how fear for Dorothy made the Lion find his courage....
|
|
Glint
1st Year
'Ne te quaesiveris extra.'
Posts: 60
|
Post by Glint on Jul 26, 2003 0:14:42 GMT -5
I'm trying to puzzle out colors and would like some help. I think there is a four-part thing here *note to self: four part harmony? Has anyone suggested that? Research*
Here's the thing with color: Three primaries. Now add all the three together and you get a fourth - white, if your talking about light or black if you're talking about paint.
So, we have three of the four and the whole (which has an interesting anti-whole) but I'm stumped on the fourth element. Clear? No-Color?
Maybe atributes are the way to go: Hue, Tint, Saturation, Brightness?
Any fine artists want to help me out here? There has to be an answer (just has to be...)
g.
|
|
|
Post by En on Jul 26, 2003 11:51:30 GMT -5
I don't know about the colours on the wheel -- that's pretty three-ish. But I like your properties idea (hue, tint, saturation, brightness).
If I were going to sort four-part musical harmony (and bear in mind that I spent about fifteen years in one choir or another) -- it'd go like this:Soprano. It carries the melody, it's the part with the grace notes and trills; without it the music is not a story, just information, and yet, alone it can be very empty beauty. And traditionally, it's the part that has the highest proportion of people who know they're the single most important person in the choir. Alto. There is nothing more Huffly than being an alto. While the sopranos are off going over about an octave and a half of sixteenth-notes with trills, the altos are singing four quarter notes on exactly the same pitch. Boring? Yes. But crucial to setting the tone under the melody? Also yes.Tenore. This is the other part that gets solos, and if there's a countermelody or a separate lyrical line, the tenors get it. Actually, tenors get the most variety; sometimes they get the most active supporting role, and sometimes they get a lead of their own, and sometimes they counterpoint (as in those songs when sopranos sing one line and tenors sing the next). It means they need to be versatile, and that they need to be able to carry the mathematical challenge of being both leaders and supporters, and the lyrical challenge of sometimes leading and sometimes countering the lead.Bass. Sometimes the bass have to do an almost alto-like harmony line, but in general, they have the most complex harmonies. The bass are also the quiet leaders of the choir: when the bass go half a tone up, everybody else has to follow their key change, and when the bass resolve from four to one or five to one, the verse is over. They also get the last word in a lot of Romantic-era pieces (think how many songs you know that seem like they'll end with a big long aaaaa by the sopranos, but the bass get the final note... for some reason the only example I can think of at the moment is "Carol of the Bells" but you know what I mean). Also, in many respects, the bass are the masculine heartbeat of the choir, which is a very Gryffy thing to be.
|
|
|
Post by KoNeko on Sept 24, 2003 20:59:42 GMT -5
I've been thinking about this one for a while, and I know people are all going to disagree with me or get offended or whatnot, but here goes:
John Lennon: I'm tempted to put him in as a Gryff just because he was like, the protagonist of the group. He did a lot of policy changing in his lifetime, sometimes controversial, but he did a lot of standing up for what he believed in and the like.
Paul McCartney: Alright, I admit that I want to cast Paul as a Huff because he's my favourite Beatle, but yeah. He wrote a lot of the songs that made the Beatles famous, and yeah. He's like, the nice and quiet muppet kind. Heh.
Ringo and George: I guess these two get put in Ravenclaw and Slytherin by default, but I don't know who goes where. I'm inclined to make George the Slythie, but that's just a hunch. *ducks tomatoes*
|
|
|
Post by En on Oct 25, 2003 8:49:44 GMT -5
Calavera sorted the Indian caste system over in the Great Hall, guys, check it out
I have another one I've been screwing with for a while: the four groups scholars use for Shakespeare's plays.
Tragedies - Gryffindor Comedies - Ravenclaw Histories - Hufflepuff Romances - Slytherin
Any Shakespeare fans want to take this up? Because I'm not set in stone on this one ;D
|
|
Dare
1st Year
Posts: 59
|
Post by Dare on Nov 10, 2003 15:32:44 GMT -5
hmmm... i like Shakespeare, so I'll take a stab at it. I like your idea, but imho, i would not have sorted the houses to the particular groups you chose. i think i would have made Gryffs = Comedies (come on, Gred and Forge!) Ravens = Histories (studious...) Huffs = Romances Slyths = Tragedies ( only one left! ) I really like your ideas, and please dont think im saying youre wrong! this is just my take on your theory
|
|
|
Post by En on Nov 11, 2003 17:27:30 GMT -5
Weeelllll... agreed that Gred and Forge are funny, but you know how the whole value behind the house is supposed to be courage, and some people seem to think that means they have to be noble, or sacrifice for the greater good, but other people just have really strong beliefs (that sometimes get them into danger)? Well, that's why I thought tragedies would be Gryffindor, because that's usually what happens to Shakespeare's tragedy heroes. Romeo and Juliet decided that they would rather die than live without each other, and they acted on that decision. Hamlet was struggling to decide what was just and right to do in his situation, and it got him killed. Stuff like that.
I made the Romances Slytherin because... the characters all have really definite desires, or ambitions, or something they want anyway... especially in A Winter's Tale. But I'm not married to that one.
So why did you put the Romances in Hufflepuff? *is all ears*
|
|
Calantha
Gryffindor Alumni
My name is Luck, this is my song, I happened by when you were gone
Posts: 4,493
|
Post by Calantha on Nov 11, 2003 17:28:37 GMT -5
Okay, first off...and I know this is going to seem obvious once somebody tells me, but what does imho stand for? Granted, it took me a good long while to figure out what ttyl or lylas stood for...
Hmmm... I don't think I'd put Gryffindor with the Comedies...although I do think that they could be the comedies...I don't think it's the best choice...I thinking the Tragedies as well En...
And I do see the Comedies as Ravenclaw-y...
But why did you choose the histories for Hufflepuff and the Romances for Slytherin...although that's where I'd put them, it is more like a gut feeling, so I was wondering why you put them there?
|
|
|
Post by En on Nov 11, 2003 17:37:21 GMT -5
Great minds, same track
I put Ravenclaw for the Comedies because the comedies are all about clever plotting and double meanings and wit, and yet underneath, they're also about the values our culture has -- and when it's good to mess with them.
Huffs I put with Histories for a couple of reasons -- one, several of the History heroes strike me as Huffly (particularly Henry IV), and two, they're very much about Britain as a whole -- about the community -- about the question of what happens when one feels rejected (see Richard III) -- about what it takes to make a nation from odd parts. And that seems to me to be a very huffly question.
Cal, imho = In My Humble Opinion, but what's lylas?
|
|
Calantha
Gryffindor Alumni
My name is Luck, this is my song, I happened by when you were gone
Posts: 4,493
|
Post by Calantha on Nov 11, 2003 18:16:28 GMT -5
Hmmm... Yes yes...I agree with the slytherins and the ravenclaws both... Yeah, I've read both of those and while I do see Hufflepuff tendencies, I wonder if (well, for me at least) it was easier to just put Hufflepuff with them because the others fit the other houses so well...if that makes sense...because for me, Hufflepuff was the last house and the last group were the histories so I guess in my head I figured a comparison between the two...anyway...the other three just seemed to fall into place... (lylas is love ya (you) like a sis(ter)...ohhh and k.i.t. that really got me too...took me forever to figure out keep in touch...I was never a big note writer in middle school or elementary school and so when people would write me things I'd get all sorts of confused...when they used their secret language code like arrows and stuff :
|
|
|
Post by En on Nov 12, 2003 3:40:19 GMT -5
Man. I would never have guessed either lylas or kit... but then the only secret code I ever passed notes in was Futhark, so there you go
Ehh... yeah, and now that I'm thinking about it, my reasons on Huff are kind of TD-Huff more than canon-Huff. (Dare, this is a problem we keep running into -- the houses here are just a bit different from the ones in the book, so when we sort things, we usually have to specify whether we're sorting by the books (canon) or by Trap Door houses.) I'm not sure I can think of very many Shakespeare characters who are Huffs in the canon sense... *considers that a while*
We could sort some characters and see what happened with that, too. Let's see... Richard III=Slytherin, but maybe Clarence in Richard III would be a Huff? Oh... Prospero is such a Raven it isn't even funny....
*goes to get the book* Meanwhile, Dare, another question -- what are your favourite Shakespeare plays?
|
|
Dare
1st Year
Posts: 59
|
Post by Dare on Nov 12, 2003 22:08:45 GMT -5
Hmmm... favourite plays? *goes to big giant book o' shakespeare* Well, The Taming of the Shrew, and The Twelfth Night (or What You Will) are definitely way up there. The Tempest in interesting too. The tragedies kind of get me fustrated though... ooh and cant forget A Midsummer Nights Dream! Ok i missed a bunch of posts in the last 2 days so lets see if i got everything straight... First off, i did sort them by the Houses in the books. Sorry for not specifying ... im still kind of new (not yet house-worthy) Secondly, I wasnt dead set on either Hufflepuff, or Slytherin especially. Cannon 'puffs seem to me to be the most likely to enjoy a good romance (no offense meant) And Slytherin, since the most involved in all things dark and creepy, would be most likely to come to a dreary end. My choice as Historical for Ravenclaws is based on the fact that theyre the "Studious house." The reason i put comedies for the Gryffs was not only because of F&G (although they were my example) but because they seem to be the house most likely to put the best face on anything, and to appreciate humor (again, cannon not TD) Although in my opinion, the Puffs would have a shot at this one as well. I liked your theories with Slytherin-Romances though. I never even considered it, but the idea of tying ambition and desire in with romance... smoooth (i completely agee with your prospero and Rich III btw) and p.s. Futhark?!?!
|
|
|
Post by En on Nov 13, 2003 13:36:16 GMT -5
Yeah, Futhark is a runic alphabet. In case you haven't picked up on this yet, Dare, I am what is technically known as a "geek." ;D
Anyway, no problem about the sorting, you just didn't know. You're getting on just fine for someone who's made less than 60 posts
Hm, okay, let me back up a bit. The Shakespearean Romances aren't necessarily love stories, so that seems to be the source of some of the confusion. The definition might be more like "A long fictitious tale of heroes and extraordinary or mysterious events, usually set in a distant time or place."
Maybe we should clarify which plays go in which group. You seem to favour the Comedies -- Twelfth Night, Shrew, Midsummer -- and I believe Tempest is usually categorised as a Romance (since it takes place in the New World and is quite epic in its storytelling). Richard III is technically a History though it acts like a Tragedy. *is trying desperately not to pull a Polonius here*
|
|
Dare
1st Year
Posts: 59
|
Post by Dare on Nov 13, 2003 16:39:09 GMT -5
Why thank you! (hehe, im *almost* up to 60! ;D) About the Romance... You're right, I didnt know that about the romances... I knew they werent entirely about the fluffy and the lovey-dovey, but i never knew about the technical definition. , guess i wasnt as much as a shakespearean nut as i thought, huh? Hmm... I dont remember what i classified Tempest as, but it was well over two years ago that i read it, so at least i have an excuse for that one. That said, i think i appreciate the specifics of your original selections more (although i still stand by some of mine ) Thanks for setting me straight!
|
|
|
Post by En on Dec 27, 2003 8:01:15 GMT -5
Hey, anyone up for sorting the Boxcar Children?
Or how about Violet, Klaus and Sunny Baudelaire and Count Olaf?
|
|