Twilight under the Sorting Hat

[Esme echo]

By predestination, do you mean some things will happen regardless of individual choice?

Any conditions could exist in fictional worlds like Twilight and HP; but I give it as my opinion that fiction is most powerful when it mirrors our own human experience (which is why we relate to some fiction so well!). In our mortal experience, I think we have internal characteristics that trump "predestination," particularly as regards to our own destiny. It is our reactions to the world and conditions around us that drive character and world events, not the other way around.

To bring this back to Twilight, Edward's choices -- all the character's choices -- were freely made, even though conditions in their lives changed drastically -- and usually without their consent (like becoming a vampire) -- it is their reaction to those stresses that made them who they were.

[Jazz Girl]

To bring this back to Twilight, Edward's choices -- all the character's choices -- were freely made, even though conditions in their lives changed drastically -- and usually without their consent (like becoming a vampire) -- it is their reaction to those stresses that made them who they were.

Or, to quote Dumbledore (by proxy), "It is not our abilites that show who we truly are, it is our choices." This is always the reason I agreed with him when he told Snape that they sort too soon at Hogwarts. Edward's choices, all the Cullens' really, demonstrate one quality that runs rampant amongst Gryffindors; sacrifice. It's been pointed out but I just had to echo it because I think it is so important. Edward continually chooses to engage humans, to surround himself with them, despite his own personal suffering, to protect his family, to protect their secret. He also chooses to stand between his family and a fragile human young woman, to sacrifice his relationship with them, if need be, before he even realized what she is to him. He chooses to sacrifice himself, rather than see Bella hurt at Jane's... hands. He sacrifices his heart, his piece of mind, to allow Bella to try to salvage her relationship with her friend. Edward's sacrifices continue to build up.

[Esme echo]

Well said, Jazz Girl. It looks like I should read the HP series again . . . I've only read most of them once.

I think one of Edward's biggest sacrifices came at the beginning of Breaking Dawn, when he tried so hard to support Bella while Renesme was steadily killing her.

[ringswraith]

As a counterpoint to Jazz Girl's post (and referencing that same quote of Dumbledore's, to Snape)- when exactly in this series are we sorting the characters?

Most (if not all) of Edward's sacrifices occur after he meets Bella. Are we sorting him after considering everything that happens in the four books, or are we sorting them prior to the events of Twilight?

[December]

Before. (*grin*).

Honestly, I don't see why you discount the sacrifices the Cullens make in choosing not to red-eyed vamps. Sure, they make light of it. But that's what it is to be a Gryffindor. Grace under pressure: ignoring the stabbing pain in your forehead, or your particular vulnerability to Dementors and just getting on with everything life at Hogwarts has to offer. Doesn't make it negligible though.

[ringswraith]

Because we never really see the big deal.

Sure, we have a coven that, for all intents and purposes, flies in the face of what it (supposedly) means to be a vampire (i.e., eating- or more properly, feeding off- humans). "Special diet" jokes aside, that's exactly what it is- a diet. Would we call what a vegan does everyday, a sacrifice? Maybe, maybe not- but again, this little detail is so down-played that it's usually relegated to the sidelines or (/gasp!) forgotten.

Enter Vamp!Bella, who struggles for all of a few minutes chasing after a scent she didn't recognize at first, and for a few hours being with Charlie, and... poof. That's it.

Going with your suggestions...

Harry's scar. You could say the same of a student with recurrent migraines. Or anyone who's endured some kind of physical/mental pain.

Vulnerability to dementors. I chalk that up to lack of experience- or simply a plain lack of experience. Harry was orphaned at a very early age. He's never known real happiness- the key ingredient to defeating a dementor- while living with the Dursleys. Put anyone in that spot and I reckon they'd have just a hard a time conjuring their patronus, too.

As for everything Hogwarts has to offer, well- by that reasoning, everyone should be a Gryffindor.

But going back to Edward- aside from the very minor diet issue, what strikes me greatly in his pre-Bella life is that he's stagnant. He doesn't like his existence, but he makes no move himself to change that. He lives life as if it were a broken record. Harry on the other hand, tries his best to get out of life what he wants. He lived in a closet under the stairs, endured what some people might call an abusive situation, but he never let it break his spirit. He didn't want to just get by.

[Jazz Girl]

Ahh, but Rings, we know that it is so much more of a sacrifice than that. Yes, Edward downplays it to Bella and likely asks the family to do so as well. But, we (the reader) see and hear slightly different. We know the burning pain they endure, the struggle to fight their feral instinct, the raging thirst that takes years, if not decades to overcome. Bella's abnormality not withstanding, it doesn't lessen at all the suffering they endure or the sacrifice they all make to protect human life and live as a family.

Yes, before Bella, Edward really saw no spark to life. But he did live it. For 7 decades, he perfected the discipline it took to live the Cullen lifestyle, he studied all manner of academic subjects, immersed himself in music and other activities to at least continue to engage himself. What else was he to do? His role, all of the Cullen's roles in fact, was to be unremarkable, to stay unnoticed. As has been pointed out, Edward's struggle, and therefore the demonstrations of his courage and sacrifice that we see, are internal. There was no Voldemort for him to fight, no force against which to struggle before Bella entered his life. It was only after he found her that the forces against which he had to fight showed themselves in his life. It's rather a circular argument, a chicken and egg kind of scenario. But, just becuase one doesn't have a foe against which to fight doesn't mean they don't have the courage to fight them.

[December]

Because we never really see the big deal.

Ah, well now. You've put your finger on the heart of the question. Does this side of Stephenie's story loom large in the pages of her novels? Absolutely not -- and it's a really interesting question why not, because it's clear from things she's said that it loomed large in her own mind. This is after all why she started work on MS: because she realized that most readers couldn't tell from the text she'd written just how horrifically hard it is for Edward to resist the temptation of Bella's blood. She has said this explicitly: she wanted to correct the impression readers had got from Twilight that resisting the bloodlust is just a casual lifestyle choice for her vampires. She wanted us to know that it's a real sacrifice. That it hurts. And yet...it's damn easy not to notice in the books as she's written them.

Here's the thing: we can look at Twilight with (at least) two different hats on. As textual critics, we can reasonably say: yes but the story we actually read in the books barely puts any weight on this aspect of the story. The pain and temptation are glossed over to the point that we really have to discount it in any analysis of the novels -- whatever the author herself may declare in Q&A's and FAQs and private correspondence and discussions on internet message boards. Now, you don't have to take this view of the critic's mandate -- and Lord knows there's been, hem, lively debate about whether or not it's legitimate to factor an author's personal remarks into how you read their work! -- but you can. I'm not taking a position here, just observing that it's certainly a possible view: if it's not in the book, it doesn't belong in critical discussion of the book.

But that's the critic's business. Most of us here are wearing a second hat, at least some of the time. We're fans. And we do what fans do: peer behind the curtain, delve imaginatively into every aspect of the characters' lives, try and fill out our picture of them as real people. We're not really content with confining ourselves to visiting and revisiting that limited repertoire of scenes we've been given by the text. We want to build up as full and rounded a sense of those characters as we can. And for this, hints and glimpses and throw-away remarks become as important as the facts which the author has chosen to put centre stage. The storyteller's job is all about selection and omission, highlighting some aspects of her story and leaving others in the shadows. As pure readers -- critics -- we need to respect that. But as fans....well, we're a little bit more like private detectives, rummaging in the bins and following up clues, looking beyond the storyteller's narrative arc to get the most intimate possible sense of who the characters are.

For better or worse, we're looking at these characters as people, not just literary constructs. When we talk about "Edward" we speak of him as if he were a person, with an existence beyond the score or so of episodes we meet him in. Sure, he is brought into being by the text, and who "he" is determined by what Stephenie wrote (and perhaps, more debatably, by what she has said). But just because aspects of his life are barely mentioned (or indeed recognized) by the books' narrator, doesn't make them less "true" of that imagined real person. And there's certainly evidence enough in the canonical novels -- still more in MS -- that being a vegetarian vampire is a life that calls for unremitting courage and fortitude.

Now personally, I think this aspect of Stephenie's story is as important to the critic as the fan. For me, the vampire's life of gruelling self-denial is the thematic backbone of the entire series, however understated it may be. But that's a separate matter. What I'm trying to get at here is that when it comes to playing around with the jolly question of assigning characters to Hogwarts Houses, we're basically looking at them as fans do: as if they were real people. And for that, it seems to me, it doesn't matter whether Stephenie is negligent in getting us to "see the big deal" or not, so long as it is true.

Having said that....I can see there is another side to this. People are many-faceted. Even real people we know well will have conflicting sides to their personality: they will be morose AND valourous, self-involved AND selfless. Which traits are uppermost in our sense of them depends partly on which sides they show most around us (as well as our own feelings about them). And when you say "we don't see the big deal", I take it one of the things you're saying is: that's just not how Edward Cullen strikes me -- I've spent a lot of time with this guy, and this side of his personality doesn't exactly loom large. To which I can only say...fair enough!

Jazzgirl: yes, exactly. Beautifully put, as ever.

[corona]

I can see Edward in Gryffindor as a human, and Ravenclaw as a vampire pre-Bella. The human side is definitely difficult to fix on, because we know so little about him then, only that he wanted to be a soldier. Post-Bella is difficult to, although I would be inclined to stick him back in Gryffindor. Definitely not Slytherin, where the arrogant jerks are sorted. Edward may have issues with arrogance himself, but he knows he shouldn’t be that way, he just can’t help it being able to read minds. Slytherin would have been torture for him.

But if Edward had any say in his choice and was able to spend a week at each of the houses first, I think he would probably want Hufflepuff, if only for his own personal peace of mind.

Regardless, if he had met Bella at Hogwarts, I don’t think sharing the same house would have worked; they probably would have slept in the common room together and ended up getting kicked out.

[Jazz Girl]

December~ And you.

Now, I think there is another factor here that plays into the sorting. It's been broached upon, but I feel the need to flesh it out as I think it might at least shed light on some new aspects. Rings raised the question of whether we were sorting before or after Bella enters Edward's life. As we've argued, the lack of opportunity for a character to demonstrate or act upon certain qualities doesn't mean that they do not posesse them. But, I think we need to look at a larger question. And this goes back (in a way) to the origins of the thread. Dumbledore told Snape that he believes that they sort too early at Hogwarts. The assumption can be made that he is referring to the fact that people change and the things that mean so much to them or the traits that are so dominant in them at 11 or 12 are (usually) completely different than when they are 17 or 18, or 29 or 30. So, what exactly are the factors the Sorting Hat bases his decisions on. We know that choice definitely plays into it. Harry is the perfect example of that. But, primarily, is Hat looking at the heart and mind of the individual, or basing it on actions?

Perhaps you can see why this is a question for me. I happen to agree with the logical progression of December's & Rings' comments. If we read as pure critics, taking into account only what we know (ie can directly link to the text) about Edward and his actions and beliefs to the point we meet him, than certainly it's likely he would never be sorted into Gryffindor. I wouldn't go so far and agree with the description of him as morose (a term I think is primarily based upon Rose's descriptions of him and she's not the most impartial or understanding of judges). But, certainly, he was lacking interest in his life, continuing as he always had. Sacrificing and suffering to be sure, pursuing his own enjoyments, but without any true purpose or reason. So, given his academic and artistic pursuits, it is likely he might be in Ravenclaw.

However, we also know that, as a human, he wanted nothing more than to distinguish himself in battle, count himself amongst those who answered the call to defend home, family and country. We also know that he was a loving and concerned son, staying with his family until he was old enough to enlist on his own when his mother would grudgingly give her blessing. He could have just as easily followed Jasper's footsteps and ran away to enlist while underage. Those characteristics; courage, sacrifice and honor, scream much more of Gryffindor.

But, we cannot ignore the intervening 90 years, particularly Edward's dark years, the years he spent hunting humans. Looking purely at actions, he killed often and he benefitted from it. For the lives that he took, he was not concerned nor did he grieve them. Frankly, the actions of a true Slytherin. But, if we look deeper, we see his motives. We know that he hunted those who hunted others, those who we might declare the true evil ones. He tried to save the victims of the other monsters. And, we know that, eventually, he did see his error and repent, rededicating and redoubling his efforts to follow in the footsteps of his father. Again, he demonstrates sacrifice, courage and honor.

So which is it? If Hat was placed upon the head of "young" Edward when we first meet him, which of those things pull more weight in Hat's decision? At the point young Harry (and the rest) are sorted, they have yet to even utter the name Voldemort or take one action that would eventually lead to his downfall. Draco, Crabbe, Goyle and the rest have yet to choose sides, to declare their undying support for the Dark Lord. And yet, they are all sorted as they end up. Even Neville, most timid and clumsy seeming of the lot, is placed with those he leads into battle. It has always been my thought that Hat truly has a peek into a person's soul, sees the light or the dark there. And, if that is the case, than Hat would have no choice but to look into Edward's soul and see the truth of who he actually is, not who he pretends to be, has resigned himself to being or fears he is.