mmmmalo:

Let’s make this more casual, ‘cause I’m going to alter my definition of some things and see if it pans out. See, I basically have Dumbledore  pinned as a Page of Void. Since BYB is my original source of essentially all my classpect definitions, I’ve been inclined to perceive a Page of Void as one who allows others to exploit the inherently imperceptible; this works quite directly simply by remembering that it was Dumbledore who passed down the Invisibility Cloak to Harry. But here’s the thing: this can still be more generalized. If the opposite of a Page is a Thief, then isn’t it straightforward to say the opposite of stealing is straight-up giving? Or as word drops in canon have begun to hint, “serving.” A simple use of mspa’s search feature will reveal numerous mentions of dave and karkat serving while Tavros and Jake get served. Let’s illustrate this a bit, first using Vriska, then others.

Void means, in the most broad terms, that which cannot be seen. If a visible person is shown because of Light, then ghosts are inherently shown by Void. This is why Vriska is served by a humongous ghost army in the Furthest Ring; dead persons and the great mystery below the oceans are both strong associations with Void. If Light displays the ever present facts, then Void is that which encompasses abstract ideas. Vague ideas and abstractions are what Vriska softly serves to others while sweeping the brutal facts of her past under the rug. This also ties into Rose’s apple speech; the apple, the idea, is Void. Thematically, Rose cannot create something so abstract because she is only a Witch of Void, who can expertly shuffle around ideas through alchemization but cannot produce what is not already there. To summon something that is not present would require either a Thief or Rogue of Void (Roxy’s going to give Dave his apple juice). To generate a completely new idea, ghost, secret, or other imperceptible object is the task of a Maid or Sylph of Void.

But hey, back to Dumbledore. My current position that in contrast to a Page of Light who amasses followers through the direct influence of facts and exposure that they give and are given in return, a Page of Void passively serves ideas and shrouded statements to others and result is often served in the same way. In book 1, Dumbledore anonymously gave Harry the Invisibility Cloak and served him the idea that love is all it took to halt Voldemort’s spell. In book 3, he provides Harry and Hermione with nothing more than a chance to leave and return to the hospital wing unseen. In book 5, he serves the Ministry the lie that he was responsible for forming Dumbledore’s army, and invites them to follow him on a wild goose chase. Even when he himself was dead, Dumbledore continued to dish out ideas and gave one final mystic peptalk to Harry when the Heir visited the “dream-like” King Crossing after his penultimate confrontation with Voldy (Light is to waking as Void is to dreaming). There are more points, but I’ll say this and move onto the subrole: yes, allowing others to exploit can describe those things, but in the case of the Page, that is not the action of the Page himself. If classpect is to describe the person action directly, then all a Page (and by extension, the Knight) is give. Anyhoo, Dumbledore’s subrole is right down there.

Theif of Light, yo! You are suddenly aware of the thematic value of Dumbledore’s light-snatcher in the first book. After his selfish bid for fame led to the death of his sister, Dumbledore violently resisted his subrole. He refused the position of Minister of Magic and other great offers, as he believed firmly that taking them would bring nothing but hardship. A brief act of selfishness cost him his life when he tried to use the Resurrection Stone to reclaim those who were important to him. Still, it was a part of who he was to actively seize important items and information. Putting aside the numerous followers that he milks for their talents and knowledge, Dumbledore literally pulled important memories out of his own head so that he might view them more easily. And of course, he claimed the all-important Elder Wand for himself.

That’s really all I’ve got right now. I’ll keep posting more Potter things as the week goes on, then compile them into a nice master post with a splash image and lots of tags. Till then.

you, a normal person who likes to have fun: vriska would not be a slytherin. she has all of the traits and flaws of a gryffindor
me, jacked up on 20 years of harry potter and 8 years of homestuck meta: you’re right 100%, but the thing about harry potter and the hogwarts houses is that they weren’t decided by personality traits alone. slytherin was a house made up mostly of purebloods and rich old world wizards, and being much like the other houses was a bit of a tradition carried on throughout generations. politics in harry potter weren’t very well thought out — if a character was evil they were almost always a slytherin, which also meant they were rich and racist like, collectively. with that being said — if you align the harry potter caste system with the trolls’ caste system and actually interpret the stories and backgrounds of each characters in terms of the potterverse, it only makes sense for eridan, gamzee, equius, and vriska to all be in slytherin, as it aligns with their social position and values. vriska would probably be a figure not unlike draco malfoy, whose unfortunate birthright and cruel family forced her hand into becoming a monster. by actual definition vriska isn’t a slytherin, because she’s not very cunning and what have you, but when interpreting her story into the potterverse it fits best to put her in slytherin. within the narrative of homestuck she was a victim of parental abuse and abuse caused by her placement in the caste system of her society that took away her agency and made her a child soldier — the only real way to transplant a character like hers without stripping away key parts of her personality is by putting her in a similar social setting