OnlineBookClub.org

It came to my attention that Harry Potter houses may be less forceful, but the idea is still similar to Factions. If you think about it Hufflepuff is similar to Amity, Gryffindor to Dauntless and Abnegation, Slytherin to Erudite and the opposite of Candor, and Ravenclaw to Erudite and Abnegation.

Opinions?

Harry Potter houses are less forceful after the fact but at least you get to choose your faction. There's a certain freedom in that. However, houses are only really relevant during your childhood while factions are something you live with for the rest of your life. I did think of Hogwarts when I started reading about the factions though so I'm with you there. My thoughts:

Gryffindor - Dauntless and Candor
Hufflepuff - Amity and Abnegation
Ravenclaw - Erudite
Slytherin - Dauntless, Candor and Erudite

Dauntless: Gryffindors and Slytherins both exhibit bravery. A lot of people think Slytherins are cowards because they're cunning but I think it shows they're willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done and I think that takes a certain amount of bravery. Is it the best kind? Probably not. But there are all different kinds of bravery, as the book touches on. Gryffindors would probably fall more under the original idea of Dauntless that Four talks about while Slytherin could follow under Eric's lead.

Candor: Gryffindors seem to be very upfront and honest, so there's that. Slytherins, not so much, but they also don't seem to fear speaking their minds. However, their sense of self-preservation keeps them from being an open book. The reason I put Candor for both Gryffindors and Slytherins is because they see things in black and white. Things are either good or bad, there's little in between.

Amity: Pretty self-explanatory, I think.

Erudite - Obvious reasons for Ravenclaw. For Slytherin, they seem to value education and knowledge, but more importantly power. Knowledge is power (and so is the ability to make serums that control other people, just a more corrupt version).

Abnegation: I think Abnegation is better for Hufflepuffs than Gryffindors. Gryffindors have a lot of flair and a lot suffer from hero-complexes and large egos. That wouldn't fly in Abnegation, in my opinion.

I think it is very interesting that they both separate people based on their personalities. I wonder if maybe Veronica Roth got the idea from Harry Potter? I think there is a very clear similarity.

I get how you see a similarity, but to me I think it is just a coincidence. I mean those ideas are not original in creating ideas around them (intelligence, bravery, selfless, etc.) But that is just my opinion there could be more behind it.

When I read the Divergent series, I also thought about the houses in Harry Potter. I definitely agree that the idea is similar and there are ways to connect the two. However, this idea of splitting people by their personalities and/or skills is something, I think, some authors do. For instance, I'm thinking about The Giver and how the characters are assigned to different roles in their society based on personalities and abilities by a certain age; there are probably other books out there that are similar as well. So I'm thinking that Veronica Roth might not have taken the idea from J.K. Rowling, but that it's something more common than maybe we think it is.

I think there is a distinct difference between the houses of Hogwarts and the factions from the Divergent series. First, each of the school houses are defined by a range of characteristics for that house. For example, Gryffindors are noted for being brave, determined, and chivalrous. A Dauntless member is characterized by being brave, tough, fearless, courageous etc. The range of these characteristics is much more narrow than the school houses. It is possible for someone in Hufflepuff, for example, to be chivalrous as well. It is less acceptable for someone in Amity, for example, to be fearless.

Second, I think there is further difference in the characteristics of even similar groupings. Continuing with Gryffindor versus Dauntless. The Dauntless must be fearless as fear is seen as weakness. Gryffindors, however, are BRAVE, which is entirely different. This means that they are aware of their fears and they face them. Take Neville for example. He is not the definition of fearless by any means with his shy and timid personality. However, in the first novel he is brave enough to stand up to his friends to try to keep them from getting into more trouble. In later books he even joins Harry and his friends in their fight against Voldemort; finally becoming someone that makes his grandmother proud.

One previous poster mentioned that "at least you get to choose your faction." However, if you recall Harry also chose his house. According to Albus, "It is our choices...that show us who we truly are, far more than our abilities." Harry even encourages his own son to remain confident in his ability to choose which house he wants to be in. You may not be stuck in one house for the rest of your life, but you are not free to change houses once you are placed in one. Whether faction or house, you remain with that choice forever.

There was definitely a similar vibe, though I originally thought of the factions as similar to the districts in the Hunger Games. That is, until the sorting hat-type scene that's being talked about here. Going off of rachel_jack's ending commentary about Harry's advice to his son, in Divergent everyone grew up in a faction and have parents in a particular faction. But in the Harry Potter world you don't go into a house until you're of age and your parents may not have ever been in one of the houses to influence you (thinking Hermoine's muggle parentage). It's an interesting difference in approaches.

hannahbm13 wrote:I think it is very interesting that they both separate people based on their personalities. I wonder if maybe Veronica Roth got the idea from Harry Potter? I think there is a very clear similarity.

I think I read somewhere that Veronica Roth read the HP books as a teenager. Like what someone else stated earlier, the traits aren't new, but the likeness in becoming part of a 'faction' or 'house' are really similar.

On another note, one thing that doesn't make any sense to me though is why she brought Harry Potter as an example for what she thought was right in the ending of Allegiant...

I can see similarities because I've read Harry Potter, but I think they are common traits that are commonly used for stories, and that Veronica Roth had no intention of relating the Harry Potter houses to the factions.

I think that the Harry Potter houses can be compared to the factions in Divergent, though they are not the same. Ravenclaw is similar to Erudite, Gryffindor to Dauntless, and Hufflepuff to Amity, however I think that Slytherin doesn't really fit into one of these, and traits from abnegation and candor can be found in any house.

I think in YA there is always a tendency to break teenagers up into groups, in order to create a little 'them and us' friction.

Maze Runner does it to - with all inhabitants of The Glade having their defined roles, and Thomas' breaking out of this ideal causing tension which makes events move towards the finale. Hunger Games has the Districts - a way to segregate people by confining them to pre-set roles.

It is a tool which is massively commonly used, but I think you're right - the Houses embodying certain emotional / social traits is certainly reflected and amplified in the Factions.

I do see some of the similarities, but with Harry Potter the houses are only for while you are at Hogwarts and in Divergent you are stuck with your faction for life (unless you want to become factionless, I guess). So Divergent factions are a lot stricter than the houses are.

I don't think there's a very strong link. Many individuals within harry potter houses buck the trend of their house. Nevil was not as loud or strong as the others to begin with, some ravenclaws are fearless in the face of danger, or very kind, in their own way (Luna). I think the harry potter houses are more open to interpretation and variation than the sharp boundaries of the Divergent series, quite possibly as there is no penalty for being slightly different from others in the same house, so there is no enforcement toward certain behaviours.

I think that the Hogwarts Houses and the Factions are similar. The Factions are more based on personality while the Houses are based on actions that define that person. This make the Factions more restricted. You are less likely to stray from the original personality trait that define that Fraction. Meanwhile, the Hogwarts House's can be interpreted in many different ways.

I think that factions cover a lot more of the personality spectrum while Harry Potter Houses look at the broad picture.