fugamalefica

[fugamalefica]

It's always frustrating to me when I see people's misunderstandings about the degree to which a writer's words and writing choices are intentional. There are many types of writing and some people may be writing for fun or whatever, but in a story that is complex and carefully put together, the writer's choices are not coincidences or things that just so happen to be that way, they are carefully and precisely made choices that are designed that way to communicate something to the reader.

Surprisingly often I will see people write these complex and meaningful HP analyses, and then end their post with 'but I'm sure Rowling didn't mean any of that, or even think about it, she just wrote it this way because she's stupid.' All of that was somehow magically in the text for you to find and analyze, and she didn't even mean to write it? EVERY word of these books was typed by a human hand and reread with human eyes.

Think of how for example people will say foolish things like 'Did JKR just forget that Bellatrix was married?' Bellatrix being married is a HUGE part of who she is, who Voldemort is, how the DEs function, how the traditional pureblood families and marriages and culture function... You're missing SO MUCH of the meaning in the text by denying the writer's intentionality.

Same with things like mistaking her world-building for being statements of her real-world beliefs. 'Here's an in-depth analysis of what the text implies about gender and sexism in pureblood culture... but JKR probably just wrote all this because she's sexist, and I magically put meaning into it that makes perfect sense' ??? The idea that a writer will only write sexism into their fictional world because they're communicating that they think sexism is good is insanity. Characters don't do things solely because their writer thinks that is proper behavior. Characters' behaviors or words, or elements of the fictional world the story exists in, are not straight-forward statements of what the writer thinks is good or ideal, and in fact are often the opposite. If you can't analyze things with such complexity, that's a problem with your reading comprehension, not with the text.

Or, when people will treat the text too much like it's a real life event that happened, rather than something that was carefully put together by hand to mean something. I love analyzing characters and the HP world like they're real, but when you find yourself denying meaning by using logic like 'well it probably just happened that way for no deeper reason' you're just misunderstanding what fiction is.

For example attempting to disprove the numerous hints at the Bellatrix/Voldemort relationship by saying things like 'but other people call her Bella so it could have meant anything' or 'there are other types of pleasure than sexual so it could have meant anything.' But why would Rowling choose that word? And put it right next to Bellatrix longing for his physical closeness? And why would she set up this exchange at all? Why 'lover'? Why 'lover' placed so directly with physical closeness and care? Why 'lover' and 'pleasure' and 'longing' and 'closeness' in the same book? Why have Harry point out that she's acting in an intimate way that invokes being lovers? Why do other characters later use 'Bella,' if not to communicate that it's used by people she considers/ed family?

When everything that 'could mean anything' all lead to the same answer, why is that? Why are you assuming Rowling's implications are for some reason unintentional? Unintentional over and over and over again? If many readers are catching it, why are you assuming she's not smart enough to catch it herself? The only person not catching it here is you. Word choices or words with clear connotations are not random or accidents or coincidences, particularly when several of them occur in quick succession or when it's associated repeatedly with the same two characters. Nor are characterizations or patterns in the text. If you read that way, that's a misunderstanding on your end (not with the author, not with other readers) so don't complain when you can't understand the text. 'I'm going to act like the person who wrote this is stupid, and therefore ignore everything that the text is saying, and then say the text sucks' is YOU being an idiot. Notice how other people don't have this issue when they analyze actual meaning and intentionality in the text

[fugamalefica]

Bellamort fest week 1: His most loyal, his most faithful, his most precious by @keepmycandleburning!

Prompts: Harry has a dream about Voldemort & Bellatrix having sex (OotP) & Dumbledore shows Harry a Pensieve memory of Voldemort & Bellatrix having sex (HBP)

[fugamalefica]

Victorian sapphire and diamond necklace, mid 19th century 

Lang Estate Jewelry  

[fugamalefica]

Nosferatu (2024) dir. Robert Eggers

Death and Life (1894) by Edvard Munch

[fugamalefica]

Emily Dickinson, from a letter to F.S. Cooper written c. February 1876

[fugamalefica]

Nosferatu (2024)

[fugamalefica]

Romy Schneider as Empress Elisabeth of Austria in SISSI - THE YOUNG EMPRESS (1956) dir. Ernst Marischka

[fugamalefica]

Tomorrow I shall be revealing the first fic in my Bellamort fest: a little two-shot by myself about Harry inadvertently (?) witnessing Bellatrix & Voldemort being intimate in a couple different scenarios.

I'll make a post with the link, and put it in my pinned post, or you can look in the collection. Every Saturday for the next few months we will have something for your Bellamort enjoyment so stay tuned... (you're welcome)

I have one more fic at the very end of the fest (which will be around mid-July) with the prompt 'Bella has spent so much time around the Dementors that they haunt her dreams. Yes, including the wet ones. How does LV react when he realizes this?' Have not started that one but looking forward to it I guess

[fugamalefica]

Why do you dedicate so much of your time to a ship that has no basis in canon? I’ll never understand people who ship Bellamort!

Does it have no canonical basis!? I'm sorry but whoever thinks like that in my opinion is an inattentive reader. Even if we wanted to exclude the Cursed Child in the books we have numerous signals. First of all Voldemort happy as he had never been after fourteen years when Bellatrix escaped from Azkaban, then the rescue at the Ministry that makes sure everyone sees Voldemort. The sexual allusions to the greatest pleasure at the meeting in Malfoy Manor, then Bellatrix who speaks with the voice of a lover in the forest and obviously Voldemort's cry at Bellatrix's death. Is it explicitly said that they were together? Why me, otherwise why write that Bellatrix spoke with the voice of a lover? But even if that were not the case the signals are many in the books, simply not everyone paid attention to them.

[fugamalefica]

Lucifer Descending

[fugamalefica]

It's always frustrating to me when I see people's misunderstandings about the degree to which a writer's words and writing choices are intentional. There are many types of writing and some people may be writing for fun or whatever, but in a story that is complex and carefully put together, the writer's choices are not coincidences or things that just so happen to be that way, they are carefully and precisely made choices that are designed that way to communicate something to the reader.

Surprisingly often I will see people write these complex and meaningful HP analyses, and then end their post with 'but I'm sure Rowling didn't mean any of that, or even think about it, she just wrote it this way because she's stupid.' All of that was somehow magically in the text for you to find and analyze, and she didn't even mean to write it? EVERY word of these books was typed by a human hand and reread with human eyes.

Think of how for example people will say foolish things like 'Did JKR just forget that Bellatrix was married?' Bellatrix being married is a HUGE part of who she is, who Voldemort is, how the DEs function, how the traditional pureblood families and marriages and culture function... You're missing SO MUCH of the meaning in the text by denying the writer's intentionality.

Same with things like mistaking her world-building for being statements of her real-world beliefs. 'Here's an in-depth analysis of what the text implies about gender and sexism in pureblood culture... but JKR probably just wrote all this because she's sexist, and I magically put meaning into it that makes perfect sense' ??? The idea that a writer will only write sexism into their fictional world because they're communicating that they think sexism is good is insanity. Characters don't do things solely because their writer thinks that is proper behavior. Characters' behaviors or words, or elements of the fictional world the story exists in, are not straight-forward statements of what the writer thinks is good or ideal, and in fact are often the opposite. If you can't analyze things with such complexity, that's a problem with your reading comprehension, not with the text.

Or, when people will treat the text too much like it's a real life event that happened, rather than something that was carefully put together by hand to mean something. I love analyzing characters and the HP world like they're real, but when you find yourself denying meaning by using logic like 'well it probably just happened that way for no deeper reason' you're just misunderstanding what fiction is.

For example attempting to disprove the numerous hints at the Bellatrix/Voldemort relationship by saying things like 'but other people call her Bella so it could have meant anything' or 'there are other types of pleasure than sexual so it could have meant anything.' But why would Rowling choose that word? And put it right next to Bellatrix longing for his physical closeness? And why would she set up this exchange at all? Why 'lover'? Why 'lover' placed so directly with physical closeness and care? Why 'lover' and 'pleasure' and 'longing' and 'closeness' in the same book? Why have Harry point out that she's acting in an intimate way that invokes being lovers? Why do other characters later use 'Bella,' if not to communicate that it's used by people she considers/ed family?

When everything that 'could mean anything' all lead to the same answer, why is that? Why are you assuming Rowling's implications are for some reason unintentional? Unintentional over and over and over again? If many readers are catching it, why are you assuming she's not smart enough to catch it herself? The only person not catching it here is you. Word choices or words with clear connotations are not random or accidents or coincidences, particularly when several of them occur in quick succession or when it's associated repeatedly with the same two characters. Nor are characterizations or patterns in the text. If you read that way, that's a misunderstanding on your end (not with the author, not with other readers) so don't complain when you can't understand the text. 'I'm going to act like the person who wrote this is stupid, and therefore ignore everything that the text is saying, and then say the text sucks' is YOU being an idiot. Notice how other people don't have this issue when they analyze actual meaning and intentionality in the text

[fugamalefica]

this emerged in my head when I was trying to drive

[fugamalefica]

"I can't exist by myself because I'm afraid of myself, because I'm the maker of my own evil." Horror Character Appreciation - Isabelle Adjani as Anna in Possession (1981) dir. Andrzej Zulawski

[fugamalefica]

LILY-ROSE DEPP as ELLEN HUTTER NOSFERATU (2024) dir. Robert Eggers

[fugamalefica]

I wish I could stay, my love. How should I have earned such a doting wife? (Greta meows, purrs) Ellen, I told you not to let her into bed. Everything I wear, absolutely covered in it. But Greta loves it here. She wishes you to stay, too.

NOSFERATU (2024) dir. Robert Eggers

[fugamalefica]

"Your passion is bound to me." — NOSFERATU (2024), dir. Robert Eggers

[fugamalefica]