Is there an inherent and perpetual flaw in Gryffindor House? As someone pointed out in one of the chatrooms, some people have been questioning the sorting hat's decisions when it comes to Gryffindor:
- First there were those who questioned Peter Pettigrew
- And soon after came the Neville Longbottom wonderers
- There was Hermione Granger, even questioned within the books by Terry Boot
- Many doubted Percy Weasley (although spoiler he came back when it mattered)
I, myself, have dared to question Fred and George Weasley
And although these haven't been questioned, Remus Lupin could have been a Ravenclaw (brilliant), Lily Potter could have been a Ravenclaw (brilliant), Rubeus Hagrid could have been a Hufflepuff (kind and caring for all creatures), Oliver Wood could have been a slytherin (incredibly ambitious), and so on.
The larger problem, however, is with those who weren't in Gryffindor but where just as brave:
Tonks was a Hufflepuff, Luna Lovegood was a Ravenclaw, Snape was a Slytherin, Narcissa Malfoy was a Slytherin (yet she risked her life protecting her son, like Lily Potter), and other members of the order who are unknown, but statistically, not all of them would have been in Gryffindor.
While the Slytherins were more cunning than the other houses, the Hufflepuffs were more tolerate and understanding, and the Ravenclaws were more clever, were the Gryffindors really more brave? What about those in the other houses who fought in the Battle of Hogwarts? What about those from the other houses risking expulsion by joining Dumbledore's Army?
My question is, why is Gryffindor a house? Anyone can be brave!