House Love
Mar. 28th, 2006 04:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tabular_rasaIn my Lumos Harry Potter community, we were talking about the Houses in context of love-- and I actually came up with a pretty good four-category system of how people behave in love.
I'm going to use the four Houses even though it's really based on a graph of two continuums: Speed (Quick vs. Slow) and Depth (Deep vs. Shallow).
Speed is the rate at which things progress in relationships. This includes falling in love, moving the relationship along, and falling out of love or getting over it. Physicality may play a role in this, as well; as quick relationships progress faster in general, they are often more physical, faster. This has nothing to do with intensity; it is pure, objective speed. This is pretty self-explanatory.
Depth is the intensity of the relation-- basically, the emotional extent to which one becomes attached to a relationship. It is not connected to speed at all; one can have a quick relationship that is very intense. Depth, in this case, refers mostly to the comfort zone of depth, however; those who are recommended as "shallow" are still quite capable of loving deeply. However, it is in their discomfort with it where they differ from the deep lovers. Shallow lovers are concerned for their own person more than deep lovers in the relationship; they focus on the individuals more than the relationship of the two as an entity of focus. Therefore, shallow lovers may panic when they find themselves acting on the interest of love, rather than rationale or personal ambition-- whereas deep lovers would relish it and feel quite unfulfilled if they do not find themselves swept away by this.
Romeo Montague was decidedly a Gryffindor in love. Harry Potter also fits the bill; he was crazy about Cho, but he jumped passionately from Cho to Ginny quite quickly.
IN: They fall deeply in love fast, and hard. Then, to act on it, they dive in and take risks. They don't take the time to analyze the situation or weigh the possible outcomes and compatibility factors. They find immense passion and reward in their successes, but they will be hurt deeply by failures. Yet they move on quickly, like a fallen toddler who bursts into tears and then carries on seconds later.
OUT: They will be full of bitter passion immediately following. Loyal souls, they will tend to lean towards the "why did it have to end?" rather than the accusatory "I didn't need you, anyway!" However, there may be some denial, or some irremovable scars. Yet, for the most part, they move on relatively quickly and gracefully; there just has to be some angst at the very end to get the passion out.
UNREQUITED: Gryffindors are seldom unrequited lovers for long. They're not too terribly afraid to act on their interests. They'll take risks; they're the type to leave "secret admirer" notes or flirt with someone who's clearly already taken. In fact, they'll sometimes even overstep the boundaries of "decency" and respect in other people's relationships. However, they are offended when openly rejected, and may take it very strongly to heart. Yet, once again, they'll get over it healthily soon enough, and the unrequited interest will end almost immediately after a session of the release of passion.
Jay Gatsby and Eponine Thenardier would decidedly be Hufflepuffs in (albeit unrequited) love. (Obscure reference, but what the heck . . . ) the description of Garcin's wife in "No Exit" also sounds decidedly Hufflepuff.
IN: They tend to linger on the sidelines before jumping right in, to avoid getting hurt (which is a great risk for them). Though they fall in love quickly and passionately, they are more likely to befriend their potential partners to get to know them before making a draining commitment that could fail and hurt them very easily-- and deeply. They don't tend to take risks; therefore, rather than failing at pursuing love, they simply never pursue it openly at all, and remain (oddly somewhat satisfied) in unrequited love.
OUT: They grow very attached to their partners, and have a hard time letting go. They will seldom initiate a breakup (which can be very bad, in the case of abusive/manipulative situations). After the breakup, it takes them a long time to recover emotionally, and they tend to internalize the problems in themselves, rather than their partners. However, having usually established a past of friendship with their partners, in the end they can recover with grace and continue to love unbound, just not in the exclusive romantic sense.
UNREQUITED: They seem oddly comfortable as unrequited lovers. They are willing (at least more than others) to wait "forever" for their right person, once they've decided on them. If rejection is at all suspected, they typically won't initiate any action that can result in it, leaving them stuck in a quandary of their own self-imposed waiting. Even if clearly rejected, they feel a binding of loyalty to their feelings and the relationship that never was. Most tragically famous unrequited lovers are Hufflepuffs.
James Bond (or, really, any "playboy") would be an example of a Slytherin in love.
IN: They tend to "dabble," trying to get a "taste" of everything. Therefore, they act on their every crush and with high ambition; it is oftentimes a personal feat, to them, to "win" at the game of love. Their relationships are often predominantly physical before they are emotional because they have a hard time opening up and "sacrificing" their individual person to the entity of the relationship.
OUT: They fall out of love fast. They're the type to leave a relationship most for the pursuit of another, or simply out of pure "boredom." Their partners may also have trouble with their lack of commitment. However necessary their breakup may be, however, they may regard it as a "failure," and internalize the blame as a fault of their own, a personal character flaw. Yet they move on quickly as the challenge of the pursuit of another takes over.
UNREQUITED: They regard unrequited love as a failure. They pursue every crush until they've had a chance at them, and rejection is taken as a personal offense. As soon as they find success in another, however, the disappointment and disgust with themselves passes. However, they may, in fact, regard their former unrequited crushes with more hatred than their failed relationships.
IN: They are slow to admit to love, and, therefore, may seem like very "picky" lovers; this is because they want to ensure (as near to as possible) perfection before committing to anything. Those that they do pursue, they take on systematically and efficiently, with distinct steps and expectations.
OUT: They know quite clearly (if not even in advance before the relationship even begins) when a relationship is not working out, and are quick and effective in its cease. They make a clean break, though it may take them a while to recover from the energy they put into it. After all, they are goal-setters and achievers, and anything that wastes their time and energy like that is devastating.
UNREQUITED: They are very rare as unrequited lovers. They weigh out their potential partners before committing to them, and if someone is taken or uninterested, he or she is scratched quite satisfactorily off the list. On the occasions where they are absolutely smitten, however, they can wait and will, oftentimes planning out ways to prove the worthiness of the relationship (ie: befriending them) without overstepping the boundaries of good taste.
PS: "Depth" and "Speed" are not meant in that way!!! Lol . . .
PPS: Please comment with what you think you are.
PPPS: I designed this myself, you know. Lol, thank you, Patricia, you flatter me, for thinking this was someone else's design ^_^
I'm going to use the four Houses even though it's really based on a graph of two continuums: Speed (Quick vs. Slow) and Depth (Deep vs. Shallow).
Speed is the rate at which things progress in relationships. This includes falling in love, moving the relationship along, and falling out of love or getting over it. Physicality may play a role in this, as well; as quick relationships progress faster in general, they are often more physical, faster. This has nothing to do with intensity; it is pure, objective speed. This is pretty self-explanatory.
Depth is the intensity of the relation-- basically, the emotional extent to which one becomes attached to a relationship. It is not connected to speed at all; one can have a quick relationship that is very intense. Depth, in this case, refers mostly to the comfort zone of depth, however; those who are recommended as "shallow" are still quite capable of loving deeply. However, it is in their discomfort with it where they differ from the deep lovers. Shallow lovers are concerned for their own person more than deep lovers in the relationship; they focus on the individuals more than the relationship of the two as an entity of focus. Therefore, shallow lovers may panic when they find themselves acting on the interest of love, rather than rationale or personal ambition-- whereas deep lovers would relish it and feel quite unfulfilled if they do not find themselves swept away by this.
Gryffindor
Deep and Quick. Gryffindors are creatures of passion. It comes on fast, and it hits hard. They're going to be the believers in true love at first sight. When a relationship is satisfactory, they are immensely loyal, deeply passionate, and highly romantic. However, they also can move on quickly (only when the relationship was unsuccessful, of course!), leaving many accusing them of being fickle. They seem to possess boundless energy to love and love again.Romeo Montague was decidedly a Gryffindor in love. Harry Potter also fits the bill; he was crazy about Cho, but he jumped passionately from Cho to Ginny quite quickly.
IN: They fall deeply in love fast, and hard. Then, to act on it, they dive in and take risks. They don't take the time to analyze the situation or weigh the possible outcomes and compatibility factors. They find immense passion and reward in their successes, but they will be hurt deeply by failures. Yet they move on quickly, like a fallen toddler who bursts into tears and then carries on seconds later.
OUT: They will be full of bitter passion immediately following. Loyal souls, they will tend to lean towards the "why did it have to end?" rather than the accusatory "I didn't need you, anyway!" However, there may be some denial, or some irremovable scars. Yet, for the most part, they move on relatively quickly and gracefully; there just has to be some angst at the very end to get the passion out.
UNREQUITED: Gryffindors are seldom unrequited lovers for long. They're not too terribly afraid to act on their interests. They'll take risks; they're the type to leave "secret admirer" notes or flirt with someone who's clearly already taken. In fact, they'll sometimes even overstep the boundaries of "decency" and respect in other people's relationships. However, they are offended when openly rejected, and may take it very strongly to heart. Yet, once again, they'll get over it healthily soon enough, and the unrequited interest will end almost immediately after a session of the release of passion.
Hufflepuff
Deep and Slow. Hufflepuffs are the slow, steady lovers. They are cautious when falling in love. They are very affectionate and not particularly demanding; they can be accused of being both clingy and stagnant, not interested particularly in "moving the relationship along" but stuck to their partner like superglue. Hufflepuffs are in for the long haul; they tend to value long-term, serious relationships, and are drained by too much change-- either within or between relationships-- because they put so much effort in.Jay Gatsby and Eponine Thenardier would decidedly be Hufflepuffs in (albeit unrequited) love. (Obscure reference, but what the heck . . . ) the description of Garcin's wife in "No Exit" also sounds decidedly Hufflepuff.
IN: They tend to linger on the sidelines before jumping right in, to avoid getting hurt (which is a great risk for them). Though they fall in love quickly and passionately, they are more likely to befriend their potential partners to get to know them before making a draining commitment that could fail and hurt them very easily-- and deeply. They don't tend to take risks; therefore, rather than failing at pursuing love, they simply never pursue it openly at all, and remain (oddly somewhat satisfied) in unrequited love.
OUT: They grow very attached to their partners, and have a hard time letting go. They will seldom initiate a breakup (which can be very bad, in the case of abusive/manipulative situations). After the breakup, it takes them a long time to recover emotionally, and they tend to internalize the problems in themselves, rather than their partners. However, having usually established a past of friendship with their partners, in the end they can recover with grace and continue to love unbound, just not in the exclusive romantic sense.
UNREQUITED: They seem oddly comfortable as unrequited lovers. They are willing (at least more than others) to wait "forever" for their right person, once they've decided on them. If rejection is at all suspected, they typically won't initiate any action that can result in it, leaving them stuck in a quandary of their own self-imposed waiting. Even if clearly rejected, they feel a binding of loyalty to their feelings and the relationship that never was. Most tragically famous unrequited lovers are Hufflepuffs.
Slytherin
Shallow and Quick. Slytherins are experimentative with their love. They need to try before they commit (and often have a hard time committing). They come into every relationship with certain expectations they expect to be met, and if it's quickly established that this is not the case, they quickly leave. They are sometimes accused of as being "whores" or "players," prone to "running around." In relationships, they may be accused as distant, or having trouble "feeling."James Bond (or, really, any "playboy") would be an example of a Slytherin in love.
IN: They tend to "dabble," trying to get a "taste" of everything. Therefore, they act on their every crush and with high ambition; it is oftentimes a personal feat, to them, to "win" at the game of love. Their relationships are often predominantly physical before they are emotional because they have a hard time opening up and "sacrificing" their individual person to the entity of the relationship.
OUT: They fall out of love fast. They're the type to leave a relationship most for the pursuit of another, or simply out of pure "boredom." Their partners may also have trouble with their lack of commitment. However necessary their breakup may be, however, they may regard it as a "failure," and internalize the blame as a fault of their own, a personal character flaw. Yet they move on quickly as the challenge of the pursuit of another takes over.
UNREQUITED: They regard unrequited love as a failure. They pursue every crush until they've had a chance at them, and rejection is taken as a personal offense. As soon as they find success in another, however, the disappointment and disgust with themselves passes. However, they may, in fact, regard their former unrequited crushes with more hatred than their failed relationships.
Ravenclaw
Shallow and Slow. Ravenclaws seem almost an oxymoron to love. They are rational about it-- as rational as one can get with love. They rationalize about their potential partners internally before even considering pursuing them, and, if they don't measure up, they just don't pursue them. They enjoy organization and boundaries, and "steps" and progressions leading up to and throughout the course of their relationships. They behave like "a married couple" even in first-time relationships, and might be considered "boring" to some-- but this is their comfort level.IN: They are slow to admit to love, and, therefore, may seem like very "picky" lovers; this is because they want to ensure (as near to as possible) perfection before committing to anything. Those that they do pursue, they take on systematically and efficiently, with distinct steps and expectations.
OUT: They know quite clearly (if not even in advance before the relationship even begins) when a relationship is not working out, and are quick and effective in its cease. They make a clean break, though it may take them a while to recover from the energy they put into it. After all, they are goal-setters and achievers, and anything that wastes their time and energy like that is devastating.
UNREQUITED: They are very rare as unrequited lovers. They weigh out their potential partners before committing to them, and if someone is taken or uninterested, he or she is scratched quite satisfactorily off the list. On the occasions where they are absolutely smitten, however, they can wait and will, oftentimes planning out ways to prove the worthiness of the relationship (ie: befriending them) without overstepping the boundaries of good taste.
PS: "Depth" and "Speed" are not meant in that way!!! Lol . . .
PPS: Please comment with what you think you are.
PPPS: I designed this myself, you know. Lol, thank you, Patricia, you flatter me, for thinking this was someone else's design ^_^
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 03:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 03:20 pm (UTC)Carol: Gryffindor (for the most part, but a little bit of Hufflepuff, too).
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 03:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 03:46 pm (UTC)It is written well and it is very well worded like an intellectual online quiz or something. Well done :D
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 04:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 04:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 04:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 04:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 07:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 07:26 pm (UTC)Yeah, I see me in Ravenclaw too: may seem like very "picky" lovers; this is because they want to ensure (as near to as possible) perfection before committing to anything, a bit.
I guess my hear is as I said before, but my mind is Ravenclaw . . .
Love is very complicated, confusing, and illogical.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 09:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-29 03:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-30 10:41 pm (UTC)