#Book of virtues!

[transbookoftheday]

Hi, do you know of any trans m/f romances? I feel like the majority of them are m/m, which I enjoy, but I want some variety sometimes!

Yes! Here are some of my favorites:

Book Titles:

A Lady for a Duke by Alexis Hall

For the Love of April French by Penny Aimes

A Shore Thing by Joanna Lowell

A Shot in the Dark by Victoria Lee

Drag Me Up by R.M. Virtues

Chef's Kiss by TJ Alexander

[yourfavebooklrsfavebooklr]

Some books I’d recommend that feature disabled characters to read this July!

image IDs in alt text!

Note: I’m aware that not all everyone in every community represented on this list considers themself disabled. As an outsider, it’s not my place to say- they are included because some people in these communities do consider themselves disabled, especially with many being spectrums where different people will experience different severities.

Cosmoknights - Amputee side character (major character in book 2)

Nimona - Amputee main character

Before the Devil Knows You’re Here - Dyslexic love interest

The Spirit Bares its Teeth - Autistic main character, autistic side character

The Gentleman’s Guide to Vice and Virtue - Love interest with epilepsy, main character becomes deaf in one ear, MC with anxiety in the third book of the series

To Shape a Dragon’s Breath - Autistic major side character, wheelchair user minor side character

A Lady For a Duke - Love interest with PTSD

Cemetery Boys - Love interest with undiagnosed ADHD (confirmed by author)

Into the Drowning Deep - Autistic character, two Deaf characters

Don’t Be a Drag - MC with depression and anxiety

Iron Widow - Wheelchair user MC with chronic pain

The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet - Little person character

[cuties-in-codices]

medieval stores (& personified virtues)

from a copy of the encyclopedic "trésor" by brunetto latini, illuminated by the "master of the geneva latini", rouen, c. 1450-80

source: Genève, Bibliothèque de Genève, Ms. fr. 160, fol. 82r

[shy-sapphic-ace]

List of queer books I read, loved & recommend!

(There isn't any particular order, I wrote these as I remembered them)

Master Of One - Jaida Jones & Dani Bennett (mlm, fantasy, very cool worldbuilding and magic system, funny, cool characters)

Legends & Lattes - Travis Baldree (wlw, fantasy, very soft & chill vibes)

The Priory of the Orange Tree - Samantha Shannon (wlw, high fantasy, cool worldbuilding, kinda reminds me of LOTR but with more dragons and feminism and lesbians)

Even Though I Knew The End - C.L. Polk (wlw, supernatural noir, cool 1930s detective story with angels & demons, I loved this one!)

The Love Interest - Cale Dietrich (mlm, science fiction, very cool concept)

The Darkest Part Of The Forest - Holly Black (side mlm, fantasy, cool fae lore)

The Weight Of The Stars - K. Ancrum (wlw, not quite science fiction but space stuff is involved, lovely and complex characters)

Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe - Benjamin Alire Sáenz (mlm, fiction, very nice in general, there is also a sequel)

The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue - Mackenzi Lee (mlm, historical and vaguely fantasy, nice story but I preferred the sequel honestly)

The Lady's Guide to Petticoats and Piracy - Mackenzi Lee (wlw, the sequel to the one before, more fantasy elements than the first, asexual main character!!)

Gallant - V.E. Schwab (no romance, but in the background one of the characters(?) uses they/them pronouns, very cool dark fantasy vibe)

Stranger Than Fanfiction - Chris Colfer (gay main character, trans main character, coming-of-age, nice book)

Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda (yes it's the Love, Simon book, mlm, fiction, pretty nice)

They Both Die At The End - Adam Silvera (mlm, sci-fi ish but mostly fiction, cool ideas, but the ending is sad! Very amazing book though, I haven't read the prequel yet)

The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo - Taylor Jenkins Reid (wlw, bi main character, historical fiction, cool story, just a neat book in general)

This Is How You Lose The Time War - Amal El-Mohtar & Max Gladstone (wlw, sci-fi, very cool time travel stuff!! and very beautiful, it felt like reading poetry most of the time)

One Last Stop - Casey McQuinston (wlw, background trans & pan & queer characters, sci-fi or fantasy idk, but time travel, I loooved this book, great)

The House In The Cerulean Sea - TJ Klune (mlm, fantasy, THIS BOOK oh my gosh you should read it!!, just cute and lovely and good)

Under The Whispering Door - TJ Klune (mlm, fantasy, this book is also sooo amazing, great character development and awesome relationships and stuff, it's been a while since I read it but it was so good)

In the Lives of Puppets - TJ Klune (mlm, ace main character!!, sci-fi, now THIS is found family, oughh feelings. argh, tj klune you’ve done it again, a human and his family of funky robots… I love them)

And They Lived... - Steven Salvatore (nblm, fiction, about gender identity and learning to love yourself, read it a while ago but it was very nice)

I Wish You All The Best - Mason Deaver (nblm, fiction, about finding your identity and people who care about you, very cute and sweet)

The Song Of Achilles - Madeleine Miller (mlm, historical, very good in general)

Carry On - Rainbow Rowell (mlm, background wlw in the third book, fantasy, it's a trilogy, basically Harry Potter if it was gay and also better)

Silver In The Wood - Emily Tesh (mlm, fantasy, very pretty, lots of fae stuff and lovely descriptions, it has a really good sequel too)

Pretty much anything by Alice Oseman (all cute and lovely and great, though I've only read Radio Silence so far I hear only good things, Solitaire is on my to-read list)

I Kissed Shara Wheeler - Casey McQuinston (wlw, fiction, it's been a while but I liked this book)

The Falling In Love Montage - Ciara Smyth (wlw, fiction, this book was so cute and funny and deeply emotional it made me Feel way too many things, I'd definitely recommend it)

What Big Teeth - Rose Szabo (a bit of queerness all around, fantasy, werewolves and monsters, this one was pretty cool!, lots of original ideas for the world/character building)

His Quiet Agent - Ada Maria Soto (mlm, asexual, fiction, about like spies but this book was so gentle and sweet I wanted to cry in the best way possible)

Some By Virtue Fall - Alexandra Rowland (wlw, historical fiction(?), theatre drama!! rival romance!! duels!!, a very good read in general)

Don’t Want You Like a Best Friend - Emma R. Alban (wlw, historical fiction, I’m not usually one for regency romances, but I really liked this!!, very cute and lots of drama, and there’s a sequel coming out soon!)

[queer-book-character-tournament]

Characters, book, and author names under the cut

Jamshid e-Pramukh/Muntadhir al Qahtani - The Daevabad Trilogy by S. A. Chakraborty

Henry Montague (Monty)/Percy Newton - The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue by Mackenzi Lee

Tyrannus Basilton (“Baz”) Grimm-Pitch/Simon Snow - Carry On Series by Rainbow Rowell

Jace Boucher/Aaron Slaughter - House of Slaughter by James Tynion IV

[finelythreadedsky]

Ursula K. Le Guin, Voices (2006) & Lavinia (2008)

[whatkindofnameisella]

fyi im neeeeeeever not thinking about robin hobb's virtue naming system in the rote books. like imagine naming your kid august, or verity, or desire. or chivalry. or patience. or will. none of them defined by their name but always inevitably living up to it. like a prophecy. like a tragedy. OH MY GOD.

[selenophiliiaaa]

got a new book from a local witchy store and i am So Excited to read it - its “Secrets of Greek Mysticism; a modern guide to daily practice with the Greek gods and goddesses” by George Lizos,,, im only a couple chapters in but it seems like itll be a really good read !!

[medievalanchoress]

Hi, if you ever feel up to it, I'd love to see a books recs post from you! ✨️

without ruminating too much on it, off the top of my head, my top five authors are:

-Virginia Woolf (The Waves, Mrs. Dalloway, To the Lighthouse, Orlando). if you’re having trouble getting into her work, begin with A Room of One’s Own.

-Marcel Proust (Swann’s Way, In the Shadow of Young Girls in Flower, The Guermantes Way). an absolute must-read at some point in one’s life and i hope to one day reread the first four volumes of La Recherche and make it to the seventh!

-Elena Ferrante (The Neapolitan Quartet, The Days of Abandonment). if you enjoyed My Brilliant Friend (or even the tv series), i’d highly recommend reading her collection of essays, Frantumaglia, too.

-Vladimir Nabokov (Pnin, Pale Fire, Lolita, Invitation to a Beheading; Speak, Memory).

-Marilynne Robinson (Housekeeping, Home, Lila, Gilead). an American author who writes in spare, beautiful prose with a theological underpinning; the first book here broke my heart while the last three books listed form a trio of sorts, an expanded rumination on the Parable of the Prodigal Son. 

beyond the above list, many of my favorite books from high school still feel fresh: Sula by Toni Morrison, One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez, Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, Hemmingway’s A Moveable Feast, as well as the iconic sad girl books that i think are damn well-written: The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath & The Virgin Suicides by Jeffrey Eugenides. 

my favorite classics include Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert, Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë, Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra, Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë, My Ántonia by Willa Cather, Kafka's selected short stories, Aeschylus' Oresteia, and, of course, Homer's Iliad + Odyssey (trans. by Fagles). i’m not super up to date on contemporary novelists but i like include John Banville (The Sea), Michale Ondaatje (The English Patient, Cat's Table), and Donna Tart (for her fashion sense, reclusive lifestyle, and The Goldfinch & The Secret History obviously). Rachel Cusk's work is also dryly witty and good. finally, i have a soft spot for well-written memoir; it's a genre that gets put down sometimes but Lit by Mary Karr, Firebird by Mark Doty, and Why Be Happy When You Could Be Normal? by Jeanette Winterson (btw i highly recommend her fiction too) saved my life in small but meaningful ways. 

well, this answer is itself fast approaching a novel, so i will end by saying, if anyone would like a book rec, tell me a few books you like or what you’re in the mood for and i’ll try to come up with a reply. 😌

xxx Ana 💫

[quotessentially]

From Immanuel Kant’s Doctrine of Virtue

[bogkeep]

[now entering: the OPINION ZONE]

the way i feel about Booktok(tm), as a phenomenon, or maybe more as a weird miasma that is seeping through every bookstore i enter, is that we don't see eye to eye. i'm sure it's got a lot more variation and diversity than whatever weird takes bubble up to the surface for my tiktok-less self to stumble upon - mostly i just feel like my motivation for reading books is different than theirs. there is the occasional overlap in the Books I Enjoy / Big On Booktok venn diagram (which makes me feel very weird about those books but that's for me to sort out), but i cannot personally Trust a booktok recommendation, if that makes sense. either way, it's none of my business what other people like to read, and i think me and booktok can peacefully coexist in each our own spheres. (if all of this is completely incomprehensible to you i salute you and envy your peace of mind.)

anyway, a very fascinating discussion that keeps showing up recently is the phenomenon where popular booktok influencers admit to skipping paragraphs that are too long, or only reading the dialogue of a book, or performing shock at a printed book containing Too Many Words Per Page. what fascinates me is not so much that it is happening (though it DOES fascinate me), but how much people reacting to this struggle to explain exactly Why it's so aggravating.

like, i feel like the obvious takeaway is that these people are monetizing their alleged joy of reading, and then... don't? even like to read? that the consumerist aesthetic of Being A Reader is more profitable on a video platform than doing the due diligence of reviewing books properly? that the content machine marches on and if you're too slow you'll fall behind??

INSTEAD the discussion seems to center around the good old "oohh nooo people read BAD BOOKS instead of GOOD BOOKS and IT'S IMPORTANT TO CHALLENGE YOUR BRAINNN or else the MEDIA LITERACY....." and i'm sorry but i think this has been a moral panic for as long as we've had literature. media literacy has never had a golden age that i'm aware of. there's always been trashy romances that authors pump out on the monthly for easy consumption. capitalism is gonna value profit over quality for as long as it's in charge. people who read for fun are gonna read what they're gonna read, and they're gonna read it in the way they enjoy reading. i agree that reading Good Books is deeply fulfilling! but that is my personal and subjective experience that not everyone is going to share.

i think the reason i feel weird about the insistence that you Must, at least occasionally, Challenge Yourself while reading is that... i'm exhausted in my brain. too exhausted to challenge myself for fun. maybe it's a burnout thing. i really really get looking at a paragraph and finding it simply too much to absorb right now. my main method of getting through books these days is in audio format, even if i would personally prefer to read them visually (they'd stick to my brain better, i would see how names are spelled, sudden POV switches between paragraphs would be less confusing). but reading a book in text form is taking me weeks at best - unless it's a special kind of book that i can't help but devour immediately, sleep schedule be damned (which is another toll to pay). some books are just too complex and need too much focus for me to enjoy right now, so i keep having to goldilock my way to what feels Just Right. some books, i'm sure i'll get back to later. some i've made my peace with never picking up despite the fact that they feel Obligatory (my apologies to lord of the rings. i've Tried and i just can't do it). so like i GET IT. sometimes reading is too much.

what i Wish the discussion was more about, was instead finding ways to read that's enjoyable for you. there is literature and screen plays that are Only Dialogue. there's graphic novels. there's audiobooks and e-readers that let you change the font sizes. there's lots and lots and lots of fanfiction that's literally just banter and smut. there's no shame in reading what you enjoy! there's no shame in spending months on the same book! but i suppose it's not as ~Aesthetic~ as purchasing 10 editions of the same book series on amazon dot hell!!!!

[kenobihater]

of all the star wars movies, which of them do y'all 1) enjoy the most 2) consider the best quality and 3) think you've rewatched the most. add your answers in the reblogs or replies, i'm genuinely curious how much of an overlap there is within everyone's three answers. mine don't overlap at all! they're revenge of the sith, empire strikes back, and the force awakens :^)

[ottogatto]

I would like to submit two ideas because I think I'm poking something but not going in fully, so I would very much like your opinions and additions about it (of course, as long as they remain in good faith *side eyes possible antis viewing my post*).

Marauders and surface-level rebellion

I've finally put to words something that really bothered me with the Marauders, though I don't know the name for it.

It started when I read a reblog that said:

I remember Brennan saying “laws are just structured threats made by the ruling socioeconomic class” during an episode of D20 and we truly just had to stan immediately

This is something dear privileged white woman Rowling didn't realize/understand well, since she held a high socioeconomical status even during her """poverty""" stage. It's known that, despite seeming to be defending ideas of fighting against fascism and "pureblood" supremacy in favor of acceptance of the other, her books reek of colonialism/imperalism. The story of the Marauders, a gang of privileged boys like her, is an in-world replica of that problem where Rowling betrays yet again her actual mindset.

The Marauders adopt the "bad boys who break rules" to get style, while completely losing/staining the moral sense in it.

Let's take piracy.

Some people pirate stuff because they consider that the stuff they'd like to get comes from unethical companies that abuse their employees or use modern slavery, or people who spread harm against certain minorities (like Rowling against trans people and thus the LGBT+ community), so while they may want to access the content, they don't want to give them money and might even encourage pirating their stuff to make them lose money.

Some pirate stuff because otherwise it's lost due to unfortunate "terms of use" -- see video games companies like Ubisoft (deletes gaming account after a while), Nintendo (does not bring back old games), etc.

Others pirate stuff because they just don't have the money but they still want to try the stuff that might make them happy and forget that they're poor -- reasoning that the company isn't losing any money anyway, or not much, since they wouldn't have been able to pay for it in any case.

Others pirate stuff because they consider the price ridiculously high or they consider it shouldn't be something to pay for at all. (Like education stuff -- isn't education supposed to be free for all, so that it can actually uphold everyone's fundamental and unconditional ( = not conditioned by wealth...) right to have an education? Oh and before anyone asks: I've DEFINITELY bought the ~15 expensive books that's roughly worth 500€ in total and that my uni asked I buy to study and get my degree...)

Rowling's Marauders is a group that would pirate stuff just because they'd think it would give them an edge, because they'd think it would make them cool to be seen as "talented" hackers who "defy" companies. Companies... that their own friends and families would own, and as such, would find that kind of behavior funny and entertaining (while they would trash other people around for considering it).

Another example. In society, in history, it's been proven time and again that breaking rules -- going against the law -- is an eventuality that's important for everyone to consider, if they want to defend their rights. Anti-racism, feminism, LGBT Pride, etc, advanced because people broke rules. In USA states where abortion is currently being banned, women and minors (+ their close ones) must now consider breaking the rules to get an abortion. (Privileged people don't give a fuck about those people, and if they suddenly decide that (moral) rules don't apply to them and they will get an abortion, they will just take a plane ticket to a country where abortion is legal, fiddling with legal stuff if necessary thanks to the lawyers their fortunes can afford and the lobbies that they're instituting.)

Revolutions happened because people broke rules too. I particularly like the 1793 Constitution in France Because it asserts that the people have the right to break rules and riot if the power in place threatens their fundamental rights:

Article 35. - Quand le gouvernement viole les droits du peuple, l'insurrection est, pour le peuple et pour chaque portion du peuple, le plus sacré des droits et le plus indispensable des devoirs. Article 35. - When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of rights and the most essential of duties.

(Of course the power in place would state and enforce and make use of propaganda to say that it's completely illegal and illegetimate and that those who riot for legitimate rights are terrorists!)

Breaking rules is at the core of anti-fascism, anti-dictatorship, anti-totalitarianism. Breaking rules is essential when those rules are abusive. Too often, those who put those rules in place really are only setting their rules of the game to establish their power over the others. Or as the reblog says: "laws are just structured threats made by the ruling socioeconomic class".

Rowling's Marauders break rules because they are the socioeconomical class in power. As such, no one can do anything about it, no one will really tell them down for it. They get excused and justified and romanticized by their peers, just like billionaires & politicians are excused by their peers and notably mainstream media (which is owned... by other billionaires). They break rules -- not because they think it's necessary and the morally right thing to do despite the dangers it puts them in -- but because it makes them feel powerful, important, invincible, which for them is very fun. As Snape says: James and his cronies broke rules because they thought themselves above them:

“Your father didn’t set much store by rules either,” Snape went on, pressing his advantage, his thin face full of malice. “Rules were for lesser mortals, not Quidditch Cup-winners. [...]”

They break rules because they're allowed to.

Which is why, in reality, the Marauders aren't really breaking rules or defying anything or opposing an actual big threat. They're a bunch of jocks who are having fun in the playground that's been attributed to them thanks to their status and family heritage (others wouldn't get the same indulgence because they don't get that privilege).

They break rules because they want to look cool, to be the "bad boys". The message has been compleyely botched. Especially with Lily actually finding this hot.

Because Rowling finds this hot:

[...] I shook hands with a woman who leaned forward and whispered conspiratorially, 'Sirius Black is sexy, right?' And yes, of course she was right, as the Immeritus club know. The best-looking, most rebellious, most dangerous of the four marauders... and to answer one burning question on the discussion boards, his eyes are grey.

(Anyone has an eyes washing station?)

Another quote:

"Sirius was too busy being a big rebel to get married."

(Nevermind the eyes washing, anyone's got some bleach instead?)

Stanning James Potter for being the leader of a gang that prides itself on breaking rules and always getting away with it -- it feels like stanning Elon Musk for being "innovative" and "a daring entrepreneur" despite being a manchild who exploits workers and modern-world slavery to play with his billions while always getting away with it.

They're not being "rebels" -- they're being bullies and flexing the fact they can get away with it thanks to abundance of privilege. Those are the tastes of a posh British white woman. She wanted the facade -- not the substance (that is, if she ever understood it).

You might say that they did oppose a big threat, the Death Eaters, but again, it's botched because:

they target a lonely, unpopular boy who's best friends with a Muggleborn Gryffindor, rather than baby Death Eaters like Mulciber, Lucius, Rosier, Avery, Regulus, etc.

The leader sexually harasses the Muggleborn Gryffindor because he's sexually jealous of the unpopular boy who dared not take the insult about his chosen House and shut up. Lily is treated as an object, they don't listen to her, and they barely speak about her later. (Lots to say to show that, which I won't do here because this is not the main subject.)

When the Marauders do join the Order, they do it... because they primarily want to adopt a rock-n-roll style and play the "bad boys" again. Or at least that's the message that's given to the reader:

They seemed to be in their late teens. The one who had been driving had long black hair; his insolent good looks reminded Fisher unpleasantly of his daughter's guitar-playing, layabout boyfriend. The second boy also had black hair, though his was short and stuck up in all directions; he wore glasses and a broad grin. Both were dressed in T-shirts emblazoned with a large golden bird; the emblem, no doubt, of some deafening, tuneless rock band.

(God, the Prequel is so cringy.)

They don't choose Dumbledore as the Secret Keeper, they don't tell him they changed to Pettigrew -- even though he literally was their war leader -- James uses the Cape to fuck around even though he was supposed to be hiding with Lily and then Harry (until Dumbledore takes the Cape from him)... and eventually, their group exploded, with James killed off, Sirius thrown to Azkaban, Peter (the traitor) hiding as a rat and Lupin going off to find jobs to survive.

Why did that happen? Because they thought of playing their part in the Order like going on a teenage adventure rather than engaging in a resistance organization. It was, first and foremost, about playing "the bad boys" and having fun.

(Harry half-inherits this. While he doesn't break rules just to look cool, and actually has several moments where he does break rules because it's the right thing to do -- like under Umbridge or, of course, when Voldemort takes power -- he does often get pampered when he breaks them in his earlier years. By Dumbledore, but also McGonagall, however much Rowling tries to sell her as a "strict but fair" teacher. Or by Slughorn, now that I think about it. That's something that enraged Snape, as it brought up memories of Harry's father -- Snape's own bully -- getting the same treatment.)

It's not a coincidence that Rowling not only failed to properly convey through the Marauders the true value of breaking rules, but also lusted over them for adopting that "bad boys" trope. It speaks to her own privilege -- she who never had to put herself in danger and go against the law in a risky attempt to protect herself or other less privileged people.

(Here's a useful read to expand on those worldbuilding issues.)

2. Dark Magic, obscurantism and conservatism

For context: Opinion: The Dark Magic/Light Magic Dichotomy is Nonsense (by pet_genius).

The idea of "Dark Magic" as something that's repeatedly told to be "evil" magic and where you cross the line of the forbidden, while hardly putting in question that notion that was (for some reason) enforced by wizard society, is another blatant example of Rowling betraying her mindset of privileged British white woman.

Rowling couldn't put herself in the minds of a society of "outcasts (witches & wizards) deeply enough to consider they would not see any magic as "Dark" at all (being a ""Muggle"" concept), or that Dark magic is only magic that requires something unvaluable to be traded off -- like one's soul or health or life or sanity. Instead, she has Dark Magic defined as "evil" magic, even though her own books show that you can do evil stuff with normal magic, and that you can do morally good stuff with Dark magic. This thing happened because Rowling could not think past her own little world and instead she poured a conservatist mentality (+ typical "Muggle", anti-witch prejudice) into the HP (wizard society) worldbuilding without considering that there could, in fact, be fundamental differences between the two worlds that include thinking of magic differently. (This has a lot to do with Rowling's wizard world being a pro-imperalism fest.)

"Dark Magic" feels like a lazy, badly-executed plot device to tell the reader who's a good guy and who is not. Because of course, that's how things work in real-life, huh… (Did she ever hear of "don't tell, show"?) It's used as an excuse to define who's evil (teen Severus) or not (James), who's worthy or not -- not how their magic was used. Which is a BIG problem:

“I’m just trying to show you they’re not as wonderful as everyone seems to think they are.” The intensity of his gaze made her blush. “They don’t use Dark Magic, though.” / “Scourgify!” Pink soap bubbles streamed from Snape’s mouth at once; the froth was covering his lips, making him gag, choking him —

Even worse, Rowling doesn't follow her own in-world moral framework. Dark magic is acceptable for some people (Rowling's partial self-inserts: Dumbledore, Harry, Hermione to Marietta...) but not for those that Rowling hates (Snape, who ironically represents the closest thing to rebelling by unapologetically obsessing over the Dark Arts). Again, this is at best unadressed in-world hypocrisy, at worst an expression of in-world and out-universe privilege (I get to do this and stay a good guy, but you don't).

There could have easily been rightful criticism of whatever could be defined as "Dark Magic". What if Dark magic was just something defined as "Dark" usually because the power in place doesn't want the people to touch it? Is abortion or contraception or a sex-altering or a goverment-threatening spell, Dark Magic? Is foreign or ethnicity-specific or female-centered or queer-centered magic, "Dark"? How about showing why (Muggle-raised but also neurodivergent) Severus thought Dark magic was so great, showing his point of view, while also establishing where the true limits are? If Lily can't be the one who sees past the "fear-mongering anti-intellectualism/propaganda", how about Harry being the one who does, thanks to him relating to Snape on a personal level? How about making Hermione go from someone who condems Dark Magic, to someone who entirely changes her point of view and understands that this is all bullshit -- effectively showing the dangers of only following what the books say, without putting them into question or thinking by yourself? How about a nuanced view of Dark magic as something that requires a significant sacrifice, which is conceivable for something they see as equally or even more important [Lily's life for Harry; Snape's soul integrity for Dumbledore]? How about making the Death Eaters, people who deviate that legitimate interest, rather than just evil guys who thrive in Dark magic for its supposed added evilness? How about showing that Dark magic was just a notion invented by Muggles to throw "witches" (real or not) to the burning stakes -- later taken by the witches and wizards in power to define, in the magical community, what was okay or definitely forbidden because it's the trademark of those who represent a threat to the magical community (understand: people who riot or strike or protest against the ruling socioeconomical class' politics)?

But there was none of that.

"Dark" magic in HP merely seems to be a weird concept that at best accidentally takes the form of an in-world obscurantism, at worst is just the trademark of someone who cannot imagine a "hunted, ostracized" community with a different culture and mindset than her own. Aggravating is the fact that she used "Dark magic" as a plot device to magically cast some people as good and others as never bad – again, probably reflecting her own questionable mentality.

The fact Rowlnig invented the notion of Dark Magic and had her world consider it seriously as an evil thing instead of being open-minded seems to be less telling of her wishes to show a wizard society that can be as prejudiced as the muggle one, and more of her own bizarre world where you must be evil if you are knowledgeable in or interested in certain "taboo" things (RIP neurodivergents).

Rowling glorifies the Trio and the Marauders for breaking rules. Yet when it comes to actually breaking expectations and norms, notably in the wizarding society -- like the use of another magical species as slaves, or the blatant anti-Muggle prejudice held by everyone including "good guys" (or anti-centaur while we're at it), or stupid anti-knowledge prejudice like "Dark magic is evil" -- there is none of that. At best, it's surface-level opposition that comes out as white savior syndrome. At worst, the protagonists make it their noble code to enforce those norms, and "sinful" characters (Snape, for one) are punished for not conforming. Too often, those sinful characters are punished by the "good guys" with the very thing that they apparently oppose so fervently.

Without ever adressing the fact that those characters were ("morally") allowed to do that because it was just, in the end, a matter of who gets the privilege to do that, and who does not.

There.

Do you have anything to say to develop on those ideas? I feel like I'm reaching my knowledge limit and I'd like to see if those ideas can be expanded.

[helloiamacashier]

Amma: You healed that kitten because it was the right thing to do.

Damien: No, i didn't! There's... a rat problem in this city. It was merely prudent.

Amma: Ah, so you did it to help your city!

Damien:

[art-allegory]

Allegory of Virtue Triumphing over Vice

Artist: Filippo Pedrini (Italian, 1763-1856)

Date: 1794

Medium: Oil on Canvas

Collection: Private Collection

[greensaplinggrace]

"You can say 'all are welcome' but if wolves and sheep are both welcome you're only going to get wolves" is a quote that I think maybe end of season two alina needs to hear at some point tbh