Circles aren't hopeless

If you were forced to communicate only with one of the following symbols which would it be? Draw a rectangle, a Z, a triangle, and a circle. Which would you choose? In the end this is a personality test, that our SS teacher showed us. Did you choose the rectangle? Then you're really intelligent. The Z? you're creative. The triangle is a leader. Well, what about the circles? Circles are apparently 'hopeless'.

I chose the circle this time round. Last time I easily eliminated the triangle and Z, and in the end I chose the rectangle. This time the same happened and I went with the circle. I'd forgotten that she'd done this to my old class before. I think she wasn't fair. Sure, that day my friend broke down in frustration with her situation with a project, not much earlier before we were given the 'test', and sure that other guy is prone to loud, frustrated arguments with the teacher, but we are NOT hopeless.

Sure, I am a procrastinator, and in a bit of a way I am 'hopeless', but isn't everyone? Doesn't everyone have their flaws? Aren't we all still great in our own means?

I looked as objectively as I could and found some similarities between us three circles. First we don't give up; we fight for what we believe in. We are all excellent writers (well, I've never read anything of the guy's but he does well in English.) And finally we are compassionate. and caring when it comes to others. We're the people who give the Z's inspiration to keep going. We're the ones who the triangles lead. We are there when the intelligent people come to a dead end. We're the ones who care for everyone else, and isn't that a personality trait?

I'm scraping that personality test's view on circles. Compassionate people are not 'hopeless'! Just because we put others before ourselves does not mean that we are somehow not proper people!

To many of you this little blogging blimp will mean nothing, but you're wrong. I want to prove that we circles are not hopeless and are instead compassionate. If you are a compassionate circle, I would love it if you left an online name (I will delete the real, or real looking ones) and said 'I am a compassionate circle!' it would make me a lot happier.

Also not to get too off topic, but while writing this I came up with something that the Hogwarts sorting hat might be interested in. You see, I believe that rectangles are Ravenclaws, Z's are Hufflepuffs, triangles are Gryffindors, and we circles are Slytherins.

Many of you would say that that makes it worse to be a circle, but there is something I like to call a Slytherin complex that you should be made aware about.

The Slytherin complex basically states some things you might have overlooked. First of all Rowling only introduces us to the worse Slytherins. This creates the illusion that all Slytherins are bad, and I will admit that most are. But Slytherins go into things with compassion for what they are doing, with the cunningness and other things to do it all. Most Slytherins goals aren't that good because households that seem to be ones for compasionate people are usually either really nice or really mean. In the wizarding world I think it is understandable that with power like that many do not do well with compassion for things. Look at Dumbledore! He was compassionate about gaining the Hallows but eventually realized that power and compassion for glorious yet bad things doesn't equal anything good.

Hmm you know I could probably write a book on this...

Anyway, I'm tired and have stuff to do tomorrow so...

From your circle/slytherin friend w/ a hint of ravenclaw,

Oceansurferg

Update: I remembered this fanfic that proves the Slytherin complex rather well. On HPFF it's called 'there once was a darkness' which follows an unknown slytherin in the same year as Harry.

Update 2: It's 'once there was a darkness' not 'there once was a darkness' sorry if you tried to read it, but didn't get it.