← Critical Magic Theory: An Analytical Harry Potter Podcast
Critical Magic Theory: An Analytical Harry Potter Podcast
Can curiosity k*** the Ravenclaw
01:08:31
Is curiosity always noble? In this episode of Critical Magic Theory, Professor Julian Wamble dives into Ravenclaw House and the complicated legacy of curiosity. With survey responses pouring in—especially from Ravenclaws themselves—we explore how this...
Loading summary
Transcript18 lines
- [00:00]
Professor Julian Womble
Mmm.
- [00:02]
Co-host or Guest
Ooh, whatcha eating? The new banana split cookie from AM pm. All freshly baked with real butter with banana, chocolate and strawberry flavors. Ah, that sounds amazing. Can I have a bite? I'm sorry but no. But you can't split the banana split.
- [00:15]
Professor Julian Womble
Not even a little.
- [00:15]
Co-host or Guest
Not even a crumb. What if. No, please. Mine when it's too legit to split. That's cravenience. Get a 3 pack for 99 cents with our app ampm. Too much good stuff plus tax where applicable. Prices and participation may vary. Terms and conditions apply. Welcome to Critical Magic Theory, where we deconstruct the wizarding world of Harry Potter. Because loving something doesn't mean we can't be critical of it. I'm Professor Julian Womble and today we are continuing our Hogwarts House journey with our next House. We had two episodes on Hufflepuff and now we're moving into Ravenclaw territory. Y', all, I've been so happy to read your comments, your DMs, and all the things that you all have been sharing with me about these episodes about the House episodes. About how they've invited you to reflect more deeply about your own affiliation with the House, what it means to be in these houses. The good, the bad, the ugly, the in between. It has been so gratifying to hear. It's also invited me to think about a couple of things and I just have to say that this episode will be no different. As per usual, you all brought it in your survey responses and there was actually more unanimity in the responses by House than there was for Hufflepuff. But there were some little things that I'm excited for us to dive into. Also, I'm so excited because I basically recruited the chronic overthinkers to do my job for me in our July virtual hangout. And so you'll be hearing from some of them and their thoughts on Ravenclaw's what does it mean to be in Ravenclaw? How do we understand it? Have you ever wondered why is it so easy for very intelligent people to be so corrupted? Or whether or not Arthur Weasley should based on y' all's definition of what it means to be in Ravenclaw actually be a Ravenclaw? And what do what dole? Good Lord. What role does intention play in one's intellectual pursuits, y'? All, we are getting into every single bit of it today and I couldn't be more excited. But you know what doesn't require intellectual pursuits? It doesn't require deep thinking. All it requires is a shoulder movement, maybe a little hip moment. Maybe for those of us who have stretched and are ready, it's the bop. And the bop is coming in three, in two, in one. Let's bop. We need to talk about Harry Potter. I hope you dance, y'. All. Welcome back. Welcome back to our exploration of the houses. Thank you to every single one of you who spent the time in both the original Hufflepuff episode as well as a Prof. Response episode and bringing your thoughts. I don't know about you, but I learned a lot about what it is to be a Hufflepuff. And I'm not even a Hufflepuff. And I still learned a lot. And I've been getting a lot of feedback from people who feel like these episodes have affirmed their Hufflepuffness in more ways than one. Right. Like more than just the belief that they are a Hufflepuff because of their loyalty in the good ways. But maybe there are some things that, you know, we're getting up to that are not necessarily the most positive or healthy, but also are attached to what it means to be in Hufflepuff. And I love that because I feel like that's why this is fun, is that we get to explore what it means to be a part of these houses in ways that we haven't before and across the spectrum of positive and negative and really just really getting down into the nitty gritty of what it means to be in these spaces and places. And we're going to do more of that today. So thanks to everyone who participated in the post episode chat. If you have not joined us on Patreon patreon.com criticalmagictheory y', all, it's a good time and you can join for free and join our post episode chats. You can also join with a paid subscription. As an outstanding owl, you get ad Free episodes. As a Deep Diver, you get ad free episodes as well as bonus episodes. And as a chronic overthinker, you get ad free episodes, bonus episodes as well as the opportunity to join me once a month for a conversation and and be kind of featured in the episode. So that's a lot of fun as far as the bonus episodes go. Right now I'm in the midst of doing a really cool exploration into some of the lessons and those courses and the subjects that are taught at Hogwarts and thinking about kind of what it means for us and for students, what the goal of these courses actually are. And so I did one that kind of asked a broader question about what is Hogwarts up to. And then I did one on Divination that matched with our conversation surrounding Trelawney.
- [05:49]
Professor Julian Womble
And.
- [05:49]
Co-host or Guest
And the next one I'm thinking is going to be on History of Magic, y'. All. I can't wait for that one because I have a lot to say. Speaking of Patreon, though, I want to shout out those chronic overthinkers who have joined our ranks. Haley, Moss, Lola, Kimberly, Samantha, and Leslie, thank you all so much for your support. Thank you for taking the time to join us. I hope that you can join us for our August virtual meetup. The doodle is in the Patreon. I think I have a date. I'm gonna wait to announce it until tomorrow, just in case. Or tomorrow for you, which would be anyways. You get what I'm saying? I'll wait till the end of the week, but I am so excited. As always. Please feel free to join us there. Please feel free to get some merch. I'm on vacation right now. One of my friends has one of the T shirts, and he's basically been a walking billboard for the podcast. And I have to say that the shirt looks great. It's just a T shirt looks amazing. The invitation to be critical and stay magical is always important, especially in these perilous times. And so please feel free to check all of that out. If you go to criticalmagictheory.com and hit merch, it'll take you to our merch store, y'. All. The next house that we're gonna be talking about is Slytherin. In two weeks, we're gonna be talking about Slytherin. I will have the survey up for you all in a couple of days. Get ready. Because I'm a Slytherin. I know we have many Slytherins who are listeners, and so it's gonna be a time, and I actually have to think about how I'm gonna do it. But anyways, that's not the point. We're not talking about Slytherins right now. Right now we're talking about Ravenclaws. And so let's get into our conversation about Ravenclaws.
- [07:38]
Professor Julian Womble
Mm.
- [07:38]
Co-host or Guest
Mm. Ooh, whatcha eating? The new banana split cookie from AM pm. All freshly baked with real butter with ban of chocolate and strawberry flavors. Wow, that sounds amazing. Can I have a bite? I'm sorry, but no, but you can't split the banana split.
- [07:52]
Professor Julian Womble
Not even a little.
- [07:53]
Co-host or Guest
Not even a crumb. What if. No, please. Mine. When it's too legit to split. That's cravin Get a 3 pack for 99 cents with our app AM PM Too much good stuff plus tax where applicable. Prices and participation may vary. Terms and conditions apply. When I had to think about my favorite moment that involves ravenclaws, I kind of struggled a little bit because I was like, we don't really get a lot of moments, but one of the moments that really stands out to me that I think is emblematic of a lot of things that pertain to ravenclaws. And part of the conversation that you all were bringing to bear in your comments on the survey is this moment in Deathly Hallows where they have just re returned to Hogwarts and they're looking for the diadem. But no one knows what the heck a diadem is and no one obviously knows where it is. And I'm pretty sure that this is also in the book. But there's a moment where everyone's like, what is this? Like, what is a diadem?
- [09:04]
Professor Julian Womble
And.
- [09:04]
Co-host or Guest
And where is it? And no one knows, but everyone's like, it's a crown. And it's a moment that I think also encapsulates something about Luna that I love and also speaks to kind of what you all are talking about, as well as it pertains to her, but also as it pertains to kind of Ravenclaw's broadly construed right, is that there is a spectrum of ways that we can understand what it means to be in Ravenclaw. And in that moment, right? There are people who are like, yeah, but the diadem is lost. Like, we don't know where it is. And Luna is like, go talk to a ghost. Go talk to someone who was there who will know where it is. And I think there's something so fascinating about that. And again, I know that I'm probably conflating canonical text with the movie. I know that it is Luna who invites Harry to go do this. I know that there's a bit more involved because they have to go into the Ravenclaw common room and they have to do all of these things. But I know that in the text, right, there is this kind of discrepancy about how it is that one goes about finding the diadem. And what I enjoy about this is that there is a much more kind of grounded notion of like, it's lost and there's a reason why. And then there's a much more creative solution of like, why don't you just go talk to the daughter of the person and see what she has to say. And I think that what I like about that is that there's a creativity to the idea of, like, oh, there's actually someone who knows, like, who may have some sense of this. And it would never have occurred to me. And it doesn't even occur to Harry. And I don't think it occurred to a lot of people to go and actually just go and speak to a ghost about this. And there are moments where we do get to see ghosts used as resources of information, but this one is one that, you know, I think it carries a level of weight that I don't think we are. We're used to singing. I think the only other time that we get something similar to that is when Harry goes and asks Neely Headless Nick about talking to ghosts. And like, when does a person come back as a ghost? And I believe that that's after Sirius dies and he tries to figure out, you know, what does that mean? How does ghost nest work? And the idea that Luna invites Harry to go and talk to a ghost to me encapsulates a lot of the creativity and the intellectual kind of understanding and the quick thinking. Right. Of Ravenclaws. And so I love this moment because I think it is one where we get to see a Ravenclaw really shine, but maybe not. But in ways that are both kind of stereotypically understood. Right. Very intellectual. Right. You have to be smart to even let your brain go to that place. But also creative nonetheless, because everyone's brain doesn't work that way. And I think that that moment encapsulates that in a really cool and interesting. For this episode's arithmancy lesson, we had 337 respondents. And in the house breakdown, we had 50% of the responses came from Ravenclaws, 15% came from Slytherin, 23% came from Hufflepuff, and about 12% came from Gryffindor. And that is important when we think about the first question of what is the top word or the number one word that you think about when you think about Ravenclaws? And the top three words were curious, clever and intelligent. And when we disaggregate that out by houses, what we see is that curious is the top word for Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs, Ravenclaws and Slytherin. So everybody says curiosity is the thing that makes Ravenclaws, Ravenclaws. And listen, I like this. And we're gonna spend a considerable amount of time in this episode really breaking out the notion of what it means to be curious and what curiosity looks like and means. And so in order to kind of think about this, I want us to listen to some thoughts from chronic overthinkers Cassie and Jasmine, who break down a little bit in their own thinking about some of the words that we tend to associate with Ravenclaws. So let's listen in.
- [13:44]
Professor Julian Womble
The Ravenclaw motto is like, wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure. And like, I personally view the word wit as more of like a charismatic intelligence that I don't think gets brought up a lot when speaking about Ravenclaws. But like, I think that lends itself very well to like, a lot of these Ravenclaws coming off as schemers and scammers is that they're more of like, using their intelligence in a charismatic way. They're willing to commit to the bit, they're willing to put on that show. They're willing to like, you know, recognize that people might not see their smarts as a good thing unless they portray it in a specific way. And like, not to get too into like D and D type terms, but like, you know, charisma, intelligence and wisdom are like three separate things in D and D. And like, I feel like they're almost more like intelligence, charisma based versus like wisdom based characters in that regard. But wisdom to me is more about kind of having good judgment and good discernment. And wisdom often comes with experience and then with wit. To me, that's more about like quick thinking, but also creative thinking, like out of the box kind of thinking. And often, like, if I say that if I describe someone as witty, I often mean that they're kind of funny as well. So I guess that kind of ties into what we're talking about. Charisma and like that element of it. But yeah, I was thinking about this earlier with like the diadem and the motto of Ravenclaw, and then also with the Ravenclaw common room. You have to answer a riddle to get in, which requires that kind of more creative, out of the box thinking. Like, if it was all about being smart, it would just like ask you a trivia question, right? It would just like something out of a textbook knowledge that you could regurgitate. But so I was thinking about that as well. And as we've said, there are like, there are smart people in every house. So what is it about like Ravenclaw that like, separates them from, like, they're not just smart, but there's this like, other Aspect.
- [15:43]
Co-host or Guest
When we look online and ask or and we look on, like, the artist formerly known as Pottermore. The description that we get from Ravenclaws is that they are renowned for their sharp minds and love of learning. They are dedicated to their studies and strive for academic excellence. Right. They're also known for their wit and creativity, individuality and eccentricity. They have a very strong academic focus and they tend to be quite competitive. And I think that, you know, when we think about Ravenclaws, because we don't get to know a lot of them, and the ones that we do get to know kind of stand out. Like, when we think about Cho Chang, we really only get to know her as a very pretty girl who is also sporty, who cries after the death of her, like, boyfriend. But we don't get to know her in the capacity of, like, a Ravenclaw. Right. And we get Luna Lovegood, who also is someone who is, like, going against the grain, marching to the beat of her own drum. And so we don't really get to see kind of a quintessential Ravenclaw. Maybe Luna is a quintessential Ravenclaw, but given the fact that she's bullied by other Ravenclaws, I would care to wager that she's kind of outside the norm of what it means to be a Ravenclaw. And at least as many of these individuals have kind of conceptualized it. And so I like this investigation of what does it actually mean to be in this house, based on the usage of the motto of the house and understanding that wit, intelligence, curiosity, creativity, that all these things are different and they mean different things. And so that there's a way for us to think about kind of, you know, when we talk about what does it mean to be a Ravenclaw, I think the fact that somehow curiosity is not part of this in any meaningful way. Like, I'm looking at the layout and curious is not a thing. And yet it's a word that you all use to describe this group of people tells us a story. And I'm wondering how we kind of reconcile that and try to think through what that actually means for this group and also if maybe the reason why they tend to be so constrained in terms of how we view them and what we expect from them is because we focus so much on the intellectualism and the academic piece of it and not so much on the other parts of it, the creativity, the basically the way that their brains operate to be able to arrive at certain conclusions. And also, and I know, we've talked a lot about them, you know, the schemers and scammers of Ravenclaw, that's what we'll call them. Your Trelawney's, Although some of us say she's not a scammer, but she does put on a show. Okay, maybe we want to include Trelawney. Well, maybe we will just leave Trelawney out of this. The schemers and scammers, there are other ones. Barty Crouch Jr. Gilderoy Lockhart, Corinne Squirrel. Like, those people are people who use their intelligence and then creatively, like come up with ways to manipulate people. And so we can see, like when we expand our understanding of what it means to be in Ravenclaw, we can find a way to make it becomes more inclusive of more than just being able to get good grades and more than just being able to know things, but also to understand that there are variation in the kinds of things that you know what you want to know and how you use what you know. And so I love the kind of invocation and the invitation that we get from Cassie and Jazz to kind of expand our understanding of what it means to be witty, clever and all of these things that we tend to associate with this house because I think it offers us a meaningful insight into kind of the way that we understand intellectualism as a concept and what does it mean to be smart. And I think that the way that we are meant to understand it is very different than the way that we've come to understand it. Based on these books. I think that we're meant to see Hermione as Sebastian of intellectualism and see Luna as the kind of blonde haired stepchild of it. But I think that as we've gotten older, what we found is that the Luna brand of intellectualism and curiosity and creativity actually resonates more and that Hermione is not devoid of those things, but where she places the emphasis is in a different place. And neither of these things are wrong. The next question is whether or not curiousness, curiosity is seen as a strength, a flaw, or you don't know. So in the aggregate, altogether we had 81% of us say that it's a strength. About 14% of us say don't know, and about 4% of us say it was a flaw. Now, when we break it out by house, the vast majority of everyone said that it was a strength, but we do see a meaningful decrease amongst Hufflepuffs and Slytherins, both of whom are much less likely or much more likely rather to say that it is a. Curiosity is a flaw when you compare them to Ravenclaws, who obviously are biased because it's their house and thus a trait that they tend to possess. Right? And this is fascinating because what we noticed in our last episode in our exploration of Hufflepuffs is that Hufflepuff and Ravenclaws tend to be very kind of aligned with one another. And what we also recognize is that there are a lot of similarities between Slytherins and Ravenclaws. And I mean that outside of, like, the propensity to scheme, scam, and manipulate in order to get what one wants, right? Like, there is. There is an understanding the pursuit of knowledge is, in and of itself an ambitious pursuit. There is a way that you can want to know things. And the reason why you want to know them is either because you need the information to disseminate it to people and or because you want to be superior to those people because you know more than them. And when we think about instances where people like, I'm a problem solver, and when I see a problem, I'm ready to fix it. However, like, my desire to fix it does not mean that I want people to come to me with their problems. I don't want your problems. You can keep them. There are people who want your problems because it makes them feel better about themselves when they know more than you. There are also people who, in some circumstances and instances that are not even high stakes, want you to know that they are better than you and that they know more than you. And I think that there is a way that we can understand how curiosity is not always just, like, faultless, that there are ways in which curiosity can be the byproduct of one's desire to simply be better than other people. And I think this is an important piece of this, because when we think about the notion of curiosity, and we're gonna talk about it a lot throughout this episode, I think intention really matters here. And I think that what happens in the same way that when we talked about loyalty for Hufflepu Puffs is that we tend to keep these words untethered to, like, some sort of normative valence of good or bad. And I think that there's a way that that's important, but also that curiosity can sometimes be a problem. And especially when your curiosity leads you to get information. And the reason why you do it is because you're trying to be superior. Now. And I want to be very clear about this. I am a very curious person. If someone asks me a question I absolutely am gonna go look it up. And sometimes I keep it to myself. Sometimes I just like knowing for knowing sake. But sometimes, sometimes somebody will say something slick and I am on that Google fast because I want to prove them wrong because I love being right. And I've already told you that I have a Ravenclaw moon, okay? And I think that there is a way that sometimes knowing things is not simply for the sake of knowing. And I feel like that's a really important distinction for us to make, that intellectual pursuits are not pursuits that are simply just cuz sometimes they are, but sometimes they're not. And sometimes we learn information because we want to be better. We want to show people. And in the conversation that we had with chronic overthinkers, there was a lot of conversation surrounding, you know, in the early aughts and the late 90s, for those of us who are millennials, there was this entire kind of like gifted child movement where they would kind of do all kinds of things for children who were flagged as gifted. And what does that then mean for the way that you go about living your life and what your pursuits look like? And Eric had a really interesting point. So let's listen to that. Like, Ravenclaws are exceptionally intelligent, right? And clever. But they also spend their whole, all of their developmental years, when they're becoming an adult being told that they're the.
- [25:19]
Professor Julian Womble
Smartest person in the room, right?
- [25:21]
Co-host or Guest
And then, Lord. And then of course, someone that you've told that their entire life, speaking as a former gifted kid, like, you will believe you're the smartest person. They will. You will always believe you're the smartest person in the room until someone breaks that illusion. And this, I think is the piece of it that is really important is that when you begin to tell kids your calling card, everything about you is tied to your intellect, it really creates a mentality that I think can be very problematic and dangerous because it also means that you're much more likely to believe that you are not wrong a lot of the time and that everyone around you, everyone else around you is just kind of stupid. And if they don't see the world the way that you see it, it's not your fault. It's their faul because you're so intellectually superior. And we see that with a couple characters, right? Like we do see it with Hermione, we see it with Dumbledore, we see it with Luna. And I think that there are ways that sometimes that can, like that belief about your intellect being the thing that makes you you has a lot of downsides. And what is also true is that when we think about why it is that in this survey, Hufflepuffs and Slytherins were much more likely than Ravenclaws and Gryffindors to see curiosity as a flaw. I think that part of it is because, like, both of these houses are more concerned with who you are and not necessarily what you can do now. And I think I say that not to say that it's an inherently better perspective to take, but rather that notions of loyalty and, you know, ambition for Slytherins is a piece of it. But it's also for a house that's really centered on, like, status and familiar familial ties, it's much less about, like, your acumen and much more about, like, who you know, who you are, where you came from. And so that, you know, being smart is not always necessarily seen as, like, a strength if the thing that you prize is not what you can do, but rather who you are as a person. The next question is, do you think that Ravenclaw House is misunderstood? About 62% of us said yes, about 27% of us said no, and about 12% of us said don't. No. When we disaggregate this out by houses, we see that the vast majority of people say yes, but there's a meaningful decrease in the yes, with Hufflepuffs being much more likely to believe that Ravenclaws are not as misunderstood as others. We see this again with Slytherins as well. And so I think it's interesting because these houses are so connected and like one another. But what else is interesting here is when we think about kind of what I wonder, and I hope we have this conversation, is what is it that we think Ravenclaw's like? What's the big misunderstanding? Is it that this is simply about intellectualism in a traditionally understood way, so that this is not necessarily about the myriad of ways that we can understand what it means to be smart and what it means to be part of Ravenclaw House. And that because we tend to associate this solely with kind of intellectual academic pursuits, that we miss out on a lot of other things that make this house and people in it much more multifaceted, much more kind of nuanced and interesting. Is that what we're talking about? You all need to let me know, because I can understand why we misunderstood Hufflepuffs only because, you know, we don't get a lot of them and that there is a lot of kind of in the canonical text lore about kind of how it is that we arrive at, you know, being in Hufflepuff House. But what we know about Ravenclaws is that it's always about smarts, and everyone kind of knows that. So I guess my question to all of us, and I know that we have many Ravenclaws here. What is it that we're missing about Ravenclaws that leads you to believe that it is understood? And obviously Ravenclaws aren't the only people who have to answer this question. But I'm intrigued. I also do want to have us listen, though, to a point that was made by our chronic overthinker Laura, about what it means to be in Ravenclaw and how Ravenclaws exist in a space that is seemingly very bifurcated in the. The Gryffindor Slytherin paradigm. Let's listen up.
- [30:20]
Professor Julian Womble
I don't believe that the society was built for Ravenclaws or Hufflepuffs at all. It's a very Gryffindor and Slytherin world. And imagine being like the smartest group of people in a world where knowledge and facts do not matter at all. Like, you have a broken education system, you have a broken justice system, you have fake news everywhere, all the time, right? And so what do you do if you're the smart person, but your smarts isn't really counted for in the society that you live in? So kind of where do you go from there? Right. And we have this saying in German. I don't know if it's an English thing, but it says a smart horse only jumps as high as it has to. So, like, if you're really smart, you just, you do what you got to do. And why bother if you can get away with, like, a lot of stuff very easily if you really understand the society around you?
- [31:19]
Co-host or Guest
And maybe this is where we have a big misunderstanding about who Ravenclaws actually are, not only just in terms of the way that we understand what it means to be in the house, but also the way that they navigate the world, broadly construed. And I think that, you know, Laura brings up a really good point in that I think the world is very bifurcated. And so we're looking for people who are either, like, outrageously ambitious no matter the cost, or super brave no matter the cost, and everyone else just kind of falls in between. And when you fall through the cracks that way and are extremely intelligent, it's easy for us to then see how we end up with our Gilderoy Lockharts, our Quirrells, our Barty Crouch Juniors. Because no one is really checking for intelligence. No one's really checking for your brain. Everyone's checking for your brawn or your kind of manipulation. And Ravenclaws are like, yeah, okay, can do, but you're never gonna know it. And in the conversation that we had with the chronic overthinkers, we came to a very amazing revelation about the difference between Ravenclaws and Slytherins in particular, which is that they can both be very smart and very manipulative. The difference is, is that Slytherins want you to know it was them, right? Like they wanna let you know, like, I did it. And Ravenclaws are like, I don't necessarily need the credit. Like, yeah, if I can get. And that is where Gilderoy Lockhart falls apart, right? Because he's like, I did all of these other things and I don't need to get the credit for what I pulled off in terms of the manipulation, but I do want to get the credit for the things that I stole from these people. And I think that that is a meaningful distinction and also shines a really important light on the way that we understand the relationship between intention, the relationship between intellect and the way that we understand morals. And the beautiful thing about kind of the deep dive that we've been doing is this kind of the way that we've romanticized some of these houses and some of the traits they're in is that we don't think about the way that they can kind of be warped. And Ravenclaw, even more so than I think Hufflepuff offers us the ability in the canonical text with canonical characters to see see the spectrum of the ways in which we can see curiosity, wit, intellect, wisdom, all used in meaningful and varied ways. Our next question is my favorite question because it is messy, which is if the sorting hat put you into Ravenclaw, would you accept it? 89% of us said yes. 61% of us said don't. No. No. Geez, math much? 89% of us said yes. 6.1% of us said no. And about 5% of us said don't know. When we disaggregate this out by house, 99% of Ravenclaw said yes. I know you're surprised. 80% of Gryffindors said yes. They would accept. 76% of Hufflepuffs said yes, they would. Success would accept. And 86% of Slytherin, Hufflepuffs what is going on? I thought Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs were sister houses and now something is amiss. Hufflepuffs, you need to sound off. It could be that, like you all just love Hufflepuffs so much. But I think there's more to it than that and I want to hear about it. We're going to hear about it in the post episode chat because what is going on here? And then when I had the statistical significance test done, what we can see is that basically every single house except for Ravenclaw, there is a meaningful difference and meaningful decrease in the yes response and a meaningful increase in the no response. But I think that that's partially due to the fact that, that it's what we call a ceiling effect, where because the baseline is so high, anything that dips below a certain threshold is going to like make everything light up and make it very statistically significant. And these are substantive findings, right? We're talking 19, 19% less Gryffindors. Oh God. And then Hufflepuffs. I'm not doing that math. It's your fault. I'm not doing that. But like the number, the decrease in percentage is not inconsequential. And I really do think that this is fascinating and I'm wondering, like, is it because I want to know what it is, right? Like, in the same way that I'm interested in kind of the notion of being misunderstood as Ravenclaws, I'm interested in understanding what it is about this that feels like you wouldn't say yes. And it could be that like Hufflepuffs, every house has smart people in it, right? Like everyone does. Well, you know, Hermione is obviously the top student in the class and I think we're made to understand that Draco is like second best. He's certainly in the top three. So we've got a Gryffindor and a Slytherin, right? And so that intellect and curiosity is. Intellect in terms of academic success is something that is distributed across all the houses. And so. But maybe curiosity is seen in a very different way. This is fascinating. I'm. Okay, y', all, I need everyone to sign into the post episode chat because I have questions and you are the only ones with answers because I actually, I don't know, like, would I say yes to being accepted into Ravenclaw? Yeah, I would. But like I said, I have a Ravenclaw Moon. I'm an academic for like my career, right? Like, I have a podcast where I literally sit here and talk to you all deep diving into like brainy things, creative things, like that stuff is my bread and butter. And so I would absolutely say yes to this. And I think that there's a reason why right after Ravenclaws, right, who have the 99%, 86% of Slytherins said yes, that they would take being in Ravenclaw. And there's something about that, because we do like that is the next house that is willing to say yes to being in Ravenclaw. And I think that because there's a lot of overlap in a lot of different ways. And again, I think that the fine line between the two is credit and intention. But again, we do see like messy Ravenclaws. So anyways, I'm interested. Other houses, particularly Hufflepuffs, we're signing off. Y' all were big and bad and loud in the last couple episodes. I want that same energy here. Okay? There's a couple of you that I'm thinking out. I'm not going to call you out by name because I'm not going to shame you. But you know who you are and if I, if I don't see you in there explaining yourselves, I will call you on the post episode chat. And so if you like that kind of drama, join us on Patreon. The next question is which character, regardless of House, best embodies Ravenclaw traits? Luna Lovegood was the first. Hermione Granger, Albus Dumbledore, y', all, you all are not going to bait me into talking about Dumbledore before his episodes. You all are dastardly, you're messy. And the thing is, is that I can call out Ravenclaws for the most because you all make up 50% of the people who took this survey, huh? Over 150 of you sat there and said, we're gonna bait him. I know it. I know you did. When we disaggregate out by House, Luna is the best character that embodies Ravenclaw qualities for every single house. Again, we have unanimity. And I think that this is really fascinating because I think that what, like all three of these characters bring up very different things, right? Because Luna brings up the creativity, the kind of curiosity, Hermione brings up the very intellectual scholarly space. And Dumbledore is kind of a combination of both of those things, right? He's very curious. He's also outrageously kind of intellectually intelligent, right? But what he brings to bear in a way that I think is due in part to his age, but also just his Manner is ego, right? Like, he is the person who's like, I am the smartest person in the room. But y', all, he still put on that ring. Like, dude, you know what? Y' all are not about to get me started. Y' all are not about to get me started on this, okay? No, I'm not gonna. I'm not doing it. I'm not gonna do it. I think these are really great choices. I think there's really great choices. And I do think that there is something to be said about what Luna offers us. But at the. I do think that this is one of those instances where we've kind of like, we've made Luna our quintessential Ravenclaw. And I think in defiance of the way that we are meant to take her in based on the text, I don't think we're supposed to walk away after reading her character and say, she is the pinnacle of Ravenclaw Nest. Because if we go back and we look at what it means to be a Ravenclaw, we're talking about individuals who are known for their sharp minds and love of learning and dedicated to their studies and strive for academic excellence. Luna literally believes, like, so many of the things that don't necessarily are not necessarily true in the, like curriculum that's set forth. They're known for their cleverness and quick thinking. She check displaying sharp sense of humor. Her sense of humor is so sharp that people can't even recognize it. They are also encouraged to think out of the box and embrace their creativity. This is what's fascinating, because I'm like, are they really? Because Luna is literally maligned by so many people in the school because of the way that she thinks about things. And I'm wondering how we reconcile that particular idea, because I'm like, is it thinking outside the box? If only within, like, the broader box of the Wizarding world? Right? Like, are there still constraints on what these expectations are? Right. The expectations that Laura talks about and the way that this exists within that kind of Gryffindor Slytherin paradigm. And I feel it's so fascinating, too, because, like, so much of, like, Pottermore and all these things were created after the books were out. And I feel like we got the part of it that was, like, a much more liberal interpretation of some of these things. Because I'm like, in no world are we invited to think of Luna as anything other than the very, very, very weird friend who says weird stuff and, like, is fighting alongside our faves. Right. And so the idea, then, that Somehow, like, we are meant to walk away with her, like from the text as children, upon reading it the first time, some of us may have walked away and said, I see a lot of Luna in myself. But does that mean then that you were like, yeah, and I'm a quintessential Ravenclaw. I don't, I don't think so. Like that, I don't think that that is what JKR wanted us to walk away with. I, you know, I welcome disagreement. If you disagree with that totally fine. But I, I, I think that we are meant to see that Hermione is meant to be a Ravenclaw that we prize and that she just made a choice to not be. When we think about other hats, dolls, like, like Minerva McGonagall, right? And we think about kind of so many of us love and prize her, but we love and prize her because many of us said, like, she's a badass and in a very particular way. And then we look at Phileas and Professor Flitwick, for those of you who are not on a first name basis with him, but I think from the little that we get of him, he is very much about the pursuit of knowledge in a very specific textbook way. And that could be because he's a teacher. But we also get a sense that this is kind of just who he is and he kind of goes by the book. And I think, like, Luna is not the invitation to see. I think she's the invitation to recognize that Ravenclaws can be on a spectrum. But I don't think that she's the one that we're supposed to be trying to emulate. And I don't think she's supposed to be the one that we believe embodies it. But I also think that we are devoid of a lot of other Ravenclaws in the text. So we don't necessarily get a lot. Cause even is it Padma Patil is a Ravenclaw, but we don't get a lot of her. And when we do, it's not in the context of her doing anything particularly like Ravenclaw esque, if you will. And so like, I love Luna and I love what she represents. I don't think, though, that we as readers were meant to walk away thinking of her the way that this, these survey results do. And I think it's the byproduct of us kind of growing up and realizing, oh, what it means to be smart and creative is very different. I think growing up in a time where we have really begun to understand and learn about the beauty that can exist in a space that is not neurotypical also invites us to see Luna in a very particular way. I think that a lot of us discovering our own neurodivergence, in whatever ways they may or may not manifest in our own lives, also invites us. And so some of this, I think, is the byproduct of the space that we are currently in. Which isn't to say that I'm mad about it, but it is to say that I don't think that J.K. rowling was like, this is who I want you all to want to be like. And this is who I want you all to see as the bastion of intellectualism. She's not progressive enough for that. She certainly wasn't then and she certainly isn't now. The next question is, what makes someone a good Ravenclaw? Someone wrote, a good Ravenclaw is always wanting to uncover the mysteries of both the wizarding and Muggle world. Arthur Weasley and his childlike curiosity, even when he has a huge family to take care of, screams Ravenclaw to me. Someone else wrote, good Ravenclaws are driven by curiosity and passion. Even Arthur Weasley is another good example. A good Ravenclaw is always unapologetically themselves. Someone wrote, the willingness to learn and grow, not just intellectually, but as a whole. Another person wrote, what makes an admirable Ravenclaw is what they, is what they use their knowledge for and how open minded they are. So humility would be an essential element. And the last quote I'm going to draw on is Ravenclaws using their intellect to better the world. Not to be pedantic. Now this is interesting. And it was the same kind of thing that we ran into before, right? In that the question persists as to whether or not we're asking too much of these individuals. And there is a tension here because for people who keep invoking Arthur Weasley and his kind of childlike wonder, his knowledge of Muggles and his kind of interrogation of like, Muggle customs and things of that nature were not meant for betterment. That's not what they were for. And he wasn't trying to grow as a whole person like he. That wasn't his intention. Right. I think he operates with a level of humility. But I think that some of this is a really tall order for Ravenclaws, like the notion of using your knowledge only for good, being open minded and being humble like, I don't. Humility is a very hard thing. To come by when, as Eric said in his piece earlier on, like, you're constantly reminded of how smart you are. I will never forget one of my favorite moments. One of my favorite Hermione moments is in Sorcerer Philosopher's Stone where she's like, they're not kicking me out because I got a 112% on my charms essay. And so, like, I don't know what's gonna happen to you, Harry and Ron, but as for me, I'm here. I'm good. I think that there is a way that, like, the constant reification of being the brightest witch of your class. Like, when we listen to the way that people talked about Barty Crouch Jr, Tom Riddle, Albus Dumbledore, Hermione Granger. Right? Like, those things become your calling card. Like, Hermione Granger was always the brightest witch of her age. I don't know how you establish humility there. And Hermione's never like, oh, no. Like, I'm not. And Dumbledore certainly was never, like, not me. Right. Like Tom Riddle. No, Barty Crouch Junior. Absolutely not. Like, how do we reconcile the notion of humility? And also, how do we reconcile the notion of, like, looking outside of oneself? Like, I got in a lot of trouble for highlighting the notion of individualism amongst Ravenclaws, and people were very not pleased with me about that because they're like, what about book clubs? And what about, you know, all these other things? Fine, they're social people. You got it, Ravenclaws. But I do think that there is something about. There is an individualism in the way that you come to understand your intelligence. You may enjoy being around other people who share your intelligence, but, like, it's not like, oh, Hermione, you're part of a cohort of intelligent people. No, you are the brightest witch of your age. And I think that, like, it is interesting to try to think about how do we reconcile that with this kind of broader worldview that we're wanting Ravenclaws to have and using their intellect for good. And I think it's not lost on me, and I don't think it's a mistake that what we ultimately see from a lot of our Ravenclaws that we spend a considerable amount of time with is that they don't use it for good, that they're manipulating the world that they live in. And I think if we go back to what Laura brought to us from the conversation that we had, what we see is that, like, they're operating in a system that does Nothing but use them. And when they use it back, they use it back in ways that are problematic. And that, I think, stands in the face of how we understand Arthur Weasley. To me, it strikes me that Arthur Weasley and his childlike wonder and all those things that people said are again, us, you know, romanticizing and idealizing what it means to be an ideal. Ravenclaw and not necessarily navigating the realities of how difficult it would be to meet the bar for some of these things. Because we are not dealing with people who are taught or conditioned to be community minded. Right? Like the pursuit of knowledge is something that you do yourself. If you decide then to disseminate that knowledge, that's different. That's a different impulse. And even then, for a lot of people, the dissemination of knowledge is not void of ego, Right? Like, it is not. You want to be credited. You want people to know that it was you. You want to be seen as an intellectual. You wanted people to know that you are smart. You want people to know that you came up with that. Right. And I know that we talked a little bit about this as a distinction between Ravenclaws and Slytherins, but I guarantee you that in the real world, people are not out here trying to just create and disseminate information and just let people do with what they will. No, they want to be known as a luminary. I think that there's a way. One of my biggest pet peeves, and then I'll shut up about this, but one of my biggest pet peeves is when people write, particularly academics, we write books and they're completely illegible. Despite being very intellectual. Like, I don't know what you're talking about. You're using words, you're using all these things that are completely and utterly unapproachable. And it makes you come off as very smart and it creates a level of dependency because now people have to ask you all of these questions because they don't know what the heck you're talking about. But to me, that is an ego thing and not necessarily about you wanting to share your intellect. And I think that that's a really important thing for us to think about and really important thing for us to consider. When we think about what it means to be an ideal. Ravenclaw. I think we have to remember the externalities that these individuals were forged in and how it is that they then choose to navigate those things. We've now reached the point in the episode where I'm going to reflect on the Ravenclaws and all the things I want to begin with a fact. Across all four houses, dozens of responses and people who are and love Ravenclaws, One word came up more than any other to describe this house. You already know the word curious. It was the number one word chosen by all of the houses. Everybody. Everyone agreed that Ravenclaws are curious. And what's so fascinating about this invocation of this particular word is that that is not a word that is used in the canonical text to explain who Ravenclaws are. Which means that, like post canonically, we have decided that that is who these people are. Ravenclaw is the house of learning, of questioning, of seeing the world not just as it is, but as a puzzle to be solved or a mystery to be unraveled. It's the house of big questions and the small details, the why nots and what ifs. And have you considered of it? All right, but you know what people say about curiosity. You know what they say? Curiosity killed the cat. And people don't just say that because they hate cats, right? It's a warning. It's used to shut somebody up, to say, ah, ah, you're getting too close. You're asking too much. You're poking the bear and curiosity killed the cat. That is how discomfort maintains control. It's the idea that knowing something is dangerous and wanting to know makes you dangerous. And like, I think the person who best embodies this, and you all said it, everybody said this as well. The person who best embodies this idea is Luna. Because Luna doesn't just represent curiosity. She represents an unfiltered, unregulated, like, unpolished curiosity. The kind that makes people uncomfortable. Right? We see that so much in the text where she says things that people are kind of like, ooh, girl, or she asks questions and I'm like, the kind of curiosity that doesn't fit into a textbook or a standardized test. It asks questions that no one even thinks to ask and doesn't care whether you think it's ridiculous or not. Right? And that's how she's introduced to us, in order of the Phoenix, through the lens of lunacy. She's Looney Lovegood, barefoot, reading upside down, talking about Nargles, floating around in and out of scenes like she doesn't quite belong in the same reality as everyone else. But the thing is, is that Luna is not comedic relief. She is what a ravenclaw looks like when it's its kind of truest, most uncurated self. The unfiltered version that is filled with wonder without permission, that isn't tied to textbooks and chalkboards, but rather asking questions about the world that is outside of the walls of Hogwarts. And I think that that's why people are afraid of her, because her curiosity doesn't really know when to stop and it doesn't know boundaries. And what's more, it, like, doesn't care. And I think that that's why people look at her and that's why she and Hermione kind of butt heads a lot. And so people mock her. They call her loony, and they're not just mocking her. It seems like they're mocking a bit of parts of themselves that they want to do away with. Many of us brought up Arthur Weasley and talked a lot about his childlike wonder and curiosity. And there is something not necessarily juvenile about Luna, but there her questions, the way that she approaches curiosity is through the lens of someone who simply does not have to abide by socially constructed norms and expectations. And now that is childhood, right, where you don't know enough to say, like, let's talk about Nargles. Luna doesn't care. But I do think that there's something about that that makes her much more terrifying to people than I think we as readers find her. And so the thing about Luna's brand of curiosity is that it's not the questions, it's the distance that those questions take her from an accepted and shared truth. Because curiosity isn't always a staircase that takes us up. It's not always something that invites us to kind of learn and grow what is real and what is true. Sometimes it's a rabbit hole and you already know what I'm talking about. The thing about rabbit holes, though, is that you don't always know how deep they go. You don't always realize when you've left the surface or when to stop. It always starts out of curiosity. We begin to search, we begin to dig, we doom scroll, we consume. And sometimes we find ourselves in spaces that might radicalize us, give us more information, more fodder, more ammo for the things that we believe. And sometimes it leaves us untethered, more anxious, more afraid, more entrenched in stories that may not be true, but feel true based on the reality in which we find ourselves. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't be curious, but I do think that it's important for us to think about the fact that sometimes curiosity that is unanchored is dangerous. Because sometimes curiosity is tied to other Things, right, We have to be mindful because sometimes it's tied to prejudice and supremacy and conspiracy. And when curiosity is tethered to the wrong thing, it doesn't protect you, it drags you down. So the danger isn't just that curiosity exists without an anchor, but what if you're anchored to the wrong system? This is very much what we were talking about when we were talking about loyalty. And the question was, who are you loyal to? What are you loyal to? The same thing is said for curiosity. What are you curious about? And what and how are you approaching this curiosity? Because sometimes curiosity can mistake structure for truth, stability for justice, and familiarity for fact. So of course we want to be curious, but we have to ask ourselves, what are we tied to? What is keeping me grounded? And is the thing that I'm curious about worthy of my trust? And can I discern fact from fiction? Because if not, curiosity will not save you. It will lead you right over a cliff and straight into the chaos that is the Internet, the world. And maybe the best person to talk about this with is someone we've also talked about in this episode, and that's Arthur Weasley. Because we see Arthur as this kind of goofy dad who loves plugs and batteries and all things Muggle. But Arthur's curiosity, like all the others we've discussed, isn't neutral. It's shaped by his positionality in society as a pure blood person, his power, his prejudices. Even though Arthur is curious about Muggles, he still fundamentally views them from the lens of a magical person who sees them as less than. His questions are often patronizing. His assumptions are rooted in the magical worldview. And while he's not hostile, his curiosity sometimes slides into condescension, into exoticization, into the kind of enthusiasm that says more about you than the thing you're trying to learn. Arthur is such a good reminder that wanting to learn something doesn't always mean that we want to learn the truth. And we're living in this moment where, you know, truth is basically a subjective thing now. And it always has had a some level of subjectivity. But in the world of fake news and all these other things, right, what we're experiencing is the notion that people can go and try to find information and find the things that already validate what they believe. They can be curious about something and go to sources that will give them something that already matches their belief without necessarily offering them truth. And sometimes curiosity is institutionalized, right? It reaffirms existing prejudices, right? In the magical world, Arthur's curiosity about non magical people comes from the fact that he is part of an institution that his sole aim, it seems, is to kind of protect magical people from non magical people. Right? And so it reaffirms magical norms while appearing on harmless and eccentric. And this is where I think he and Luna's curiosity operates differently. Right? Because Luna's curiosity doesn't go outward, it comes inward towards the structure of the magical world itself. She doesn't ask about non magical people. She's asking about the lies that the Ministry is telling where creatures are being omitted why the truth is not being told to the people that it needs to be told to. Her father literally has another newspaper that while yes is sometimes offering us things that may not be true it's also giving us a subversive understanding of what's happening in the magical world. Her curiosity is intra magical. She's not collecting curiosity, she's questioning the government. And so this tension is really fascinating because curiosity, when directed inward is not safe. It's not charming, it's not tolerated. It's not revolutionary, right? It's how you can get people looking at Arthur and saying like you're just a weird person and looking at Luna and Xena Finlay's Lovegood and saying you guys are absolute kooks and we need to discredit you very quickly. And then there's the reality that sometimes curiosity brings out parts of us that we don't want to see. Think about Helena Ravenclaw. She is the literal ghost of Ravenclaw House. And she is what happens when the pursuit of knowledge becomes entangled with something else. Something quieter but more corrosive. Something like envy. Because Helena didn't steal the diadem out of pure intellectual hunger. She stole it because she wanted what her mother had. Her curiosity wasn't immune to her ego. It wasn't immune to resentment. It wasn't immune to her pain. And that's what we have to sit with. Curiosity is not separate from our basest instincts. In fact, it can shape them, it can fuel them and weaponize them. We've seen it. We see it with Quirrell, we see it with Lockhart. We see it with Barty Crouch Junior. Each of them reminds us that intellect alone curiosity alone is not a virtue. When curiosity is twisted by fear or ego or ambition it doesn't make you wise, it makes you dangerous. Because Dumbledore's early curiosity wasn't immune either. He was brilliant, yes, but also so hungry for power, for mastery, for all the things. And even late in life Listen, we're back. We're back to the ring. That. That damn ring. Knowing what it is, he was so curious, he felt like he had to touch it. And that is a cautionary tale that someone who is so intellectually driven and understanding can still allow their curiosity, that is driven by things that are not necessarily good, to lead them down a path that ultimately leads to his death. Hermione is another one, right? She's not untouched by this. She is also shaped by her desire to be right. Her desire to fit in, her desire to be accepted, her desire to be lauded. Right as a Muggle born person coming into a magical world that she knows nothing about. So much of her intellectual pursuit is informed by her desire to be seen and accepted by people in this world. Her curiosity is driven by the externalities in which she exists. And so while it makes her extraordinary, it also justifies the things that she should question. Obliviating her parents, taking control when others are silenced, equating correctness with morality. So like, like loyalty for Hufflepuffs. Curiosity is not devoid of negativity. So let's go back to the original question. Can curiosity kill a Ravenclaw? Yeah, it can. And it's not because curiosity is bad. And it's not because knowledge is dangerous, but because an unanchored, untethered curiosity, or even worse, a curiosity that's anchored in supremacy, resentment, ambition, ego, can take us far from the truth we set out to find. At the onset. It can isolate us, it can harden us. It can convince us that asking the question is more important than who gets harmed by getting the answer. And it's not inevitable. Curiosity doesn't have to kill the Ravenclaw. It can sharpen them, it can awaken them. It can be the beginning of wisdom. The difference is what we tie that curiosity to, what we do when we find what we're looking for and what we're willing to let go of in order to grow. Because the real test of Ravenclaw isn't how curious you are, it's how carefully you carry that curiosity through the world. This has been another episode of Critical Magic Theory. I'm Professor Julian Womble and if you liked today's episode, first of all, thank you. Please feel free to like, rate, subscribe, follow, do all the things that one does where pods are cast, y'. All. I cannot wait to hear your thoughts about Ravenclaws in our post episode chat, which will be up like it should be up right now. Please feel free to join us if you're not already there with us at patreon.com criticalmagictheory please feel free to join us on social media. By us, I mean me, roffw on TikTok and Prof. JW on Instagram. Check out our website, criticalmagic theory.com you can find our merch, you can find the surveys. You can find everything there y' all. Get the word out about this survey for all of your Ravenclaw friends and your Slytherin friends, because the Slytherin survey is coming up and I cannot wait to hear your thoughts. And remember, Hufflepuffs, I want to hear from you because you have some splaining to do. Until then, be critical and stay magical, my friends. Bye.