#We see a bit of a maybe-reaction with Krum but like. that's not permanent. Hermione even tells him to “ask first next time” or w/e

[hmsmiracles]

The naming of the magic schools is one thing but there's also: the one irish kid being known for blowing things up (also remembering that during the time the story takes place, the Troubles were ongoing, and at the time of publication they were only just winding down -- actually, the 1997 riots happened two weeks after Philosopher's Stone was released in late June, and the Omagh bombing would happen in just over a year, in August of 1998), the black man named Shacklebolt, the jewish boy having the name Goldstein, etc. Like it's bad naming and bad worldbuilding and there's a negligible amount of character development; again: the only two characters with a significant hero's journey are Draco and Dudley.

Ron's jealousy, as you mentioned, is yes, inflated sometimes in fan works to act as a motive for being "evil" -- but again, it's not resolved! Like every time I thought that maybe these kids would get some goddamn character development it's turned into a non-starter.

In DH: Ron is jealous of Harry and Hermione (the locket affecting him makes this character flaw more pronounced), Ron leaves. (time skip.) Ron returns, Harry asks him to destroy the locket. Ron sees an image of Harry and Hermione (his greatest insecurity), but destroys the locket, and Harry just says that it's not like that between him and Hermione and Ron just ???? doesn't show any trace of that jealousy about it ever again ??? his greatest insecurity is just. gone. and Ron is exactly the same as before he left. In the epilogue, he has his own fame and no longer needs to be jealous because he just??? "acquired" what he wanted?? He has: fame, fortune, the girl. Like his character flaw is never fully explored because in the end he's not denied whatever it is he's jealous of.

I think maybe if the author had like... got around to giving her characters problems that dealt with their character flaws so they could grow and change and develop I'd be a bit kinder but literally like. It doesn't happen. The kids who fought that troll in the girl's lav are the same kids who fought the rest of the war. They don't change. They're static, or cardboard, or some other metaphor for an unchanging, flimsy, thing.

Maybe it's that one can kind of extrapolate a character arc in them from canon? childish jokesters --> professional jokesters (own a shop now) --> helped run a rebel radio programme --> (Fred's death affecting George, in post-war canon-compliant fics)

I just can't hold it anymore, I am so curious!!! Like why?

So I've been consuming Harry Potter fanworks and not posting anything about them but there are some very good ones. But due to how one author conducts herself, I am discouraged with even posting anything relating to the said franchise.

But I am just too curious for my own good.

Like I've got a lot of Whys for the fanworks of this franchise. I even saw it in TV tropes.

Why are there a lot of stories that make it seem like the Weasley Family are fool of gold digging people?

In relation to that, it seems like when the Weasleys are portrayed to be bad, and traitors to Harry, the Weasley twins are always exempted from that particular treatment, like why? Why make the entire family, sans the twins, be traitors?

I can understand why Dumbledore gets this treatment, he did raise Harry like a pig for slaughter, one of the many major flaws of his "For the Greater Good" edict but what I don't understand is why make the Weasley family be bootlickers to Dumbledore's rhetoric?

On the other side of the spectrum, there's the Draco Malfoy thing. Good Draco Malfoy, he was a nasty piece of work, there's another TV tropes entry with regards to that, making him be good just trapped in a family that worships a noseless wizard, but he was still raised with pureblood rhetoric, so why?

These are just the four that I can think of right now.,. Just why?