#hermione meta

[bluethepineapple]

Reconciling Kindness and Callousness: A Discussion on Hermione and Emotions

One of the aspects that people struggle a lot with when it comes to Hermione is how she deals with emotions. This is a struggle that I, personally, find to be fair because she is quite complex in this regard.

Hermione can analyze people's emotional states well and is often shown manipulating emotions to get what she wants. We can see this as early as Philosopher's Stone where she, for example, flatters Hagrid to get him to reveal more information about the Stone.

“Oh, come on, Hagrid, you might not want to tell us, but you do know, you know everything that goes on round here,” said Hermione in a warm, flattering voice. Hagrid’s beard twitched and they could tell he was smiling. “We only wondered who had done the guarding, really.” Hermione went on. “We wondered who Dumbledore had trusted enough to help him, apart from you.”

As the series goes on, we will find more and more examples of Hermione perceiving, analyzing, responding, and even using other people's emotions with great accuracy and sensitivity. Most notable perhaps is her explaining Cho's emotional state to Harry and Ron in OotP, but several smaller examples are littered all over the books like her being the first to notice Neville's distress in GoF, correctly reading Harry's feelings about the Goblet of Fire, and giving a similar analysis for Tonks in HBP among other.

For as many examples as we can give of her perceptiveness and sensitivity to emotions, it also cannot be denied that Hermione commits massive social blunders over the series, many of which are attributable to emotional stupidity or failing to read the room. Most notable perhaps is her reaction to the death of Lavender's bunny where she uses it as a jumping point to try and convince her of the bogusness of Divination. There are many other examples of course, ranging from her haranguing Harry and Ron early in PS, to her approach with the house-elves, to insisting Harry teach them DADA in OotP despite his obvious discomfort.

How does one then reconcile Hermione's great sensitivity to people's emotions with her just as great callousness, both being prominent and consistent aspects of her character all throughout the series.

To me the answer is three-fold.

First, Hermione is incredibly cerebral even when it comes to emotions.

It is worth noting that Hermione's assessments of people aren't actually instinctive or even very empathetic. Rather, they are often profiles she builds about people based on observation and inference.

Let us take a look at the way she dissects Cho's feelings for example:

“Well, obviously, she’s feeling very sad, because of Cedric dying. Then I expect she’s feeling confused because she liked Cedric and now she likes Harry, and she can’t work out who she likes best. Then she’ll be feeling guilty, thinking it’s an insult to Cedric’s memory to be kissing Harry at all, and she’ll be worrying about what everyone else might say about her if she starts going out with Harry. And she probably can’t work out what her feelings toward Harry are anyway, because he was the one who was with Cedric when Cedric died, so that’s all very mixed up and painful. Oh, and she’s afraid she’s going to be thrown off the Ravenclaw Quidditch team because she’s been flying so badly.”

Hermione says what Cho's feeling and then follows it up with the circumstances that might have created those feelings plus her evidence for them. She lays everything out in a clean and methodical manner very reminiscent to when she's lecturing the boys about some sort of fact in their missions.

While certainly not cold or emotionless, it does become readily apparent that Hermione processes the emotions of people around her the same way she processes most other forms of information. She "studies" people around her, and from there, builds a baseline of information against which she infers what they are feeling and decides how to respond accordingly. In many ways, people's emotions to her are information just like any other.

Secondly, as kind and as warm as Hermione is, she prioritizes problem-solving over caretaking and is amazing at compartmentalizing emotions away if that's what it takes to get things done.

The fact that she understands what someone else is going through does not always mean she prioritizes these feelings. As mentioned above, what she understands of other people's emotions is just another bit of information she holds - and how she uses these facts vary wildly depending on whichever problem she was trying to solve at the time. Whenever she makes a social blunder, it is almost always traceable to her needing to solve some problem first and insisting on solutions that require significant emotional costs from the people around her.

The most extreme version of this is probably her insisting that Ron focus on their mission right after Fred dies.

They seemed to be wrestling together, and for one mad second Harry thought that they were embracing again; then he saw that Hermione was trying to restrain Ron, to stop him running after Percy. “Listen to me—LISTEN RON!” “I wanna help—I wanna kill Death Eaters—” His face was contorted, smeared with dust and smoke, and he was shaking with rage and grief. “Ron, we’re the only ones who can end it! Please—Ron—we need the snake, we’ve got to kill the snake!” said Hermione. But Harry knew how Ron felt: Pursuing another Horcrux could not bring the satisfaction of revenge; he too wanted to fight, to punish them, the people who had killed Fred, and he wanted to find the other Weasleys, and above all make sure, make quite sure, that Ginny was not—but he could not permit that idea to form in his mind— “We will fight!” Hermione said. “We’ll have to, to reach the snake! But let’s not lose sight now of what we’re supposed to be d-doing! We’re the only ones who can end it!” She was crying too, and she wiped her face on her torn and singed sleeve as she spoke, but she took great heaving breaths to calm herself as, still keeping a tight hold on Ron, she turned to Harry. "You need to find out where Voldemort is, because he’ll have the snake with him, won’t he? Do it, Harry—look inside him!”

From the section I bolded, it is obvious that Hermione knows that Ron is grieving and that she too is feeling the horror of Fred's death as well. It is worth noting though that she doesn't actually spare any words to comfort Ron. She doesn't stop to talk him through his feelings - rather she is telling him over and over that their mission has to come first. They both watched Fred die, but her focus even now is seeing the mission through.

This leads us to the final aspect:

Hermione projects this ability to compartmentalize to the people around her, especially when she believes them to be working together.

It is noteworthy that not only did Hermione set her own emotions aside, she asked that Ron do so too. And when Ron finally calms down, she then asks Harry to go and look into Voldemort's head. Not only is she compartmentalizing her own emotions away, she expects both boys to do so too.

Once more, there are many smaller instances like the above that cropped up all over the series. The Lavender problem, her campaign with the house-elves, her insistence that Harry teaches them DADA, her many many arguments with Harry - all of these are traceable to her insistence on setting emotion aside to solve a problem.

Doing the right thing holds primacy over people's feelings - both her own and those of the people around her.

Conclusion:

Hermione is a sensitive individual who reads people's emotions well and has many times reacted with great kindness and empathy to distress. This ability to read emotions however happens in line with her very cerebral personality, and while she can be sweet and caring, when push comes to shove Hermione focuses on problem-solving. This oftens leads to a disregard for other people's feelings and a consistent streak of callousness.

All in all, I find Hermione's relationship with emotions to be utterly fascinating. It is complex and dynamic, something that we see grow with her over time. Her reactions and tendencies are not clear-cut nor easy to map. Not only does Hermione defy the false dichotomy of book intelligence versus emotional intelligence, both are integral in the way she processes and reacts to emotion.

[slitheringghost]

🤍 🖤

🤍 Which character is not as morally bad as everyone else seems to think?

While I hear there was an era where Hermione was praised and excused by fans, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore, because the answer to this is Hermione.

There’s the bad take that Hermione is a “white savior” for wanting to free house elves within a narrative that literally condones slavery, and other than that - Hermione was absolutely correct for jinxing the DA sheet lol.

Fandom will come up with all sorts of reasons and excuses for why characters like Snape, Tom, Barty, Regulus, etc became fascist murderers, but a Muggleborn targeted by the war in question (something fandom very often seems to forget) doing something remotely morally grey to keep someone from selling out their literal resistance organization for fighting that war to a woman who was torturing students, is unforgivable and something she needs to be punished for. If students had permanent scars from Umbridge’s blood quill, then Marietta can deal with some acne, an action resulting from a powerless teenager trying to protect others in a war.

Moreover, I’ve never seen fandom point out that Hermione’s not the only one who did permanent damage to Marietta in the name of protecting the DA - the adults do it too:

“Unfortunately, I had to hex Kingsley too, or it would have looked very suspicious,” said Dumbledore in a low voice. “He was remarkably quick on the uptake, modifying Miss Edgecombe’s memory like that while everyone was looking the other way — thank him for me, won’t you, Minerva?”

Memory modification is treated as not that serious in canon, and certainly you can make a case for desperate times calling for it, as with Hermione’s memory modification of her parents, but it’s still a violation and this was several adults doing it to a teenager, presumably permanently leaving her memory that way (?).

Then, there's the whole "Hermione got Umbridge raped by the centaurs" thing. To clarify, at least as far as I know this isn't something fandom criticizes Hermione for as much vs. just pointing out the weird allusions JKR made, but still, to address it here, that is... obviously not what actually happened in canon, lol, and additionally it's not often acknowledged that there are sexual violence connotations associated with Umbridge herself:

“Hand,” she said. He extended it. She took it in her own. Harry repressed a shudder as she touched him with her thick, stubby fingers on which she wore a number of ugly old rings.

Harry literally runs from the office after this. This is meant to echo Voldemort's violence to Harry/others - "You shudder when you touch me" "I could not touch the boy [...] I can touch him now", "he felt the cold white tip of his finger touch him", the latter quotes alluding to sexual violation. (Of course none of this is literal sexual violence, just allusions and symbolism, as with Umbridge being taken by the centaurs).

🖤 Which character is not as morally good as everyone else seems to think?

All the teen Death Eaters - Snape, Barty, Regulus, etc. - but particularly the ridiculous take that these guys never murdered and tortured anyone themselves while they were marked. Clearly no one in this fandom has any idea what the Death Eaters are or how they work, lol.

[dream-with-a-fever]

in defence of ginny weasley (ft fleur delacour)

never thought i would feel strongly enough about this topic to comment on it, but the ginny bashing in this fandom is just insane so i thought why the hell not. ginny seems to get hate for everything under the sun from being being a mary sue who can do no wrong in anyone’s eyes (meaning she’s boring and uninteresting as a character) to being a nasty bully responsible for hurting those around her (??? and they’re both completely contradictory statements btw). when the latter is brought up, ginny’s “terrible” mistreatment of fleur is always front and centre. ‘she’s nasty, she’s cruel, she is a jealous bully etc!’ and i just feel like we should put on our thinking caps and actually take a step back for a fucking second. people may disagree with me, but i think ginny’s reaction to fleur was totally understandable — and reminder, she is a TEENAGE girl, (not to mention both mrs weasley and hermione held fleur in the same regard but no one seems to focus on that side of things).

now in the books, we do see ginny mocking fleur, calling her ‘phlegm’ behind her back, imitating her gait and elegance, expressing her annoyance at her newfound presence in their lives.

let’s look at why she might have reacted that way. first of all, in general, we see that the w are a very humble and welcoming family; they don’t have much but what they do have, they are more than willing to share with others. their financial circumstance plays a massive role in how the characters in the wea clan react and interact with others (as seen with their refusal to accept money from harry etc). their sense of pride in that regard is also quite prevalent. we see that when harry first goes to the burrow, ron is slightly embarrassed by his home, painfully aware of the way many people in the wizarding community view/judge them. when harry goes on to say it’s best place he’s ever seen, we immediately see how touched ron is. ginny is the same in that sense — embarrassed that she has second hand robes & books etc, but at the same time she, like ron, is fiercely protective of what they do have, and what they as a family stand for. they are also very protective of people they love inside and outside of the family (see, ron with ginny, mrs weasleys with all of them etc).

this is relevant because one of the reasons ginny and in turn mrs weasley, have a problem with fleur is the way she talks to them. despite them inviting her into their home, fleur makes her distaste clear even if it is in small ways. she says it’s boring at their house as there’s nothing to do, she often talks disparagingly about how things are done in the weasley household, she loudly mocks celestina warbeck (who mrs weasley loves to play at christmas time) and insults her, she speaks badly about tonks several times etc. her words and mannerisms are also viewed by some (ginny etc) as very pretentious and arrogant — also rather posh, a sign of her family’s wealth (which might have been a sore spot for ginny also).

now don’t get me wrong. i love fleur as a character. i think she’s really cool, charming and brave, and i wish we got to see more of her honestly!! i think she makes a lovely contrast to the other younger characters, and i think she undergoes some nice character development in the books we do see her in. it’s also very clear to me, that when she acts the way she does, it is never out of malice or cruelty— it comes from a place of openness and honesty — which often comes across as quite blunt. it’s a cultural disconnect in many ways; when she inadvertently insults people throughout the books, i think it’s pretty obvious she isn’t trying to hurt anyone’s feelings. but i also think it’s obvious how this attitude might annoy those around her.

calling ginny is a big bad bully for disliking fleur (in the beginning), when her behaviour towards the weasley family would make anyone a bit frustrated, is a bit far. not to mention, her individual treatment of ginny is understandably annoying - ginny complains that fleur is very condescending when speaking to her (‘you’d think i were about three!’).

there’s also the fact that ginny is bill’s little sister. he is her favourite brother (as seen from the way she respects him and his opinions, looks up to him - she wanted to go to hogwarts ever since bill went!). ginny having a reaction to her brother’s new girlfriend is very normal - he’s her big brother! all his attention is now on his new girlfriend - who ginny finds to be full of herself, patronising & annoying. part of her may also be worried that fleur will end up breaking his heart in the end — because she’s protective of her brother.

add the fact that her brother and old crush and basically every man ever is drawn to her because of her godly beauty (as a part veela), her and bill’s wont to shower each other in public displays of affection (who wants to see their brother doing this!?) and the fact that ginny always gotten along with tonks (the person her and molly had in mind for bill’s future partner) has always treated her kindly and as an equal, and therefore would much prefer as a sister-in-law — it’s not that surprising that ginny feels the way she does towards fleur.

nevertheless, do i think this is something ginny would grow out of? yes, of course. we already see changes in their relationship in the final book. besides, a lot of this stuff is surface level, as ginny and fleur don’t know all that much about each other — i think fleur’s love for bill (especially shown in the hospital wing after he’s been attacked by greyback) definitely changes the way ginny regards her. i also like to think that they grew closer as they got older, as with age comes maturity, and with maturity comes understanding. i also feel that fleur was someone who really stepped up when it came to supporting the weasleys after fred’s death, something that ginny would have appreciated. i see them having a nice relationship later in life.

ANYWAY, this was an exceedingly long rant for which i apologise but i have often seen people talk about how nasty ginny is to fleur, and i think it’s so unfair to not look at the context which leads to her being a little frustrated at her future sister in law. plus, she is allowed to dislike someone who she does not get along with and who she finds unpleasant to be around. we all have people like that in our lives but god forbid ginny does…not to mention, ginny is never openly rude to her EVER, and she’s allowed to voice her frustrations to her friends/family. the fact people call her an outright bully for this is just insane.

people on here will defend so many other dubious characters but the second a teenage character with good intentions makes a mistake / doesn’t act perfectly (i.e ron, ginny), they are suddenly the epitome of evil in human form, i mean get a grip, honestly. also one last quick thing(!!!), i do note some people blame jkr for writing her female characters this way, as we’ve seen the way she seems to frown upon conventional/typical displays of femininity (lavender and parvati being seen as ‘silly’ girls with frivolous thoughts, cho chang as overly emotional - despite having a very rational reaction to the death of her boyfriend, fleur as overly feminine and therefore less serious/intelligent). her heroines are women who often conceal or discard these more feminine traits — and i will say that despite loving these characters very much, i do think some more nuance here, could have been very beneficial to the story, and to the message being sent to young female/female identifying readers. there is strength in femininity, and rejecting feminine traits does not make you more or less a person.

okay, rant over. if you actually got to the end, bless you, if not — well, that’s totally fair (lol). also please don’t kill me in the comment section if you disagree. this is just my two cents. ok that’s all.

[maxdibert]

Lily doesn’t seem to think she’s done anything wrong by insulting his poverty and aligning herself with his abusers - only Severus is remorseful, and the trauma that caused him to lash out was considerably worse than the trauma that caused her to lash out. She believes he deserves it, as apparently she believed his abuse was amusing. And I’d be totally fine with this from a character perspective because it’s the teenage condition to be self-centred and poor at self-reflection. But the *narrative* (and the author in interviews) doesn’t believe Lily was in the wrong here. And it believes Lily made the correct moral judgment on the two boys when she casts Severus off for his crime and falls in love with James despite his. But I just don’t buy into that framing, and I didn’t even when I was 10. The use of the word ‘mudblood’ while in considerable distress is not a greater sin than sexual assault.

Lily feels no remorse, nor does she think it's wrong to half-smile at the bully who’s targeting your so-called friend. She doesn’t even consider that this might be why your supposed best friend insulted you in the first place. But here’s the thing: this isn't Lily's fault. It's J.K. Rowling's fault, and the way she portrays ethical dilemmas throughout the series, blurring the lines between what's morally right and wrong. Now, if you’ll allow me, before diving into the dynamics between Lily and Severus, I’d like to provide some context as to why I believe the biggest issue with many of the characters’ attitudes in the series lies in Rowling’s constant attempt to project her own moral compass through her writing. In doing so, she falls into repeated inconsistencies and creates a narrative that’s all over the place when it comes to how certain characters are treated.

Rowling is never consistent. She portrays Draco Malfoy as an irredeemable, terrible character because he’s a rich kid spoiled by his parents, using his power and influence to bully those weaker than him. Yet, she gives James the benefit of the doubt, even though he behaved exactly the same way: a rich bully who used his status and his friends to gang up on the vulnerable. From early interviews, Rowling claimed Pansy Parkinson is practically the reincarnation of Satan, even though, of all the antagonists, Pansy is probably one of the least relevant and harmless. This is simply because Rowling projected onto her the stereotypical “mean girls” who mock those who read and study—something Rowling clearly couldn’t stand. On the other hand, she glorifies characters like Ginny, who has a pretty nasty attitude towards any girl she doesn’t consider cool or "not like the other girls." Ginny treats Fleur like a witch when Fleur has done nothing wrong—her only crime is being incredibly beautiful, knowing it, and not constantly apologizing for it. And this treatment of female characters throughout the series deserves a proper gendered critique, because they fall into every stereotype and archetype set by the traditional male gaze.

In Rowling's world, there are always two kinds of women. When it comes to younger, adolescent characters, there are the "good" women—those who don’t fit the typical feminine mold, the weird ones (like Luna), the tomboys who are “one of the guys” (like Ginny), or the overly studious ones who don’t have time for frivolous things like reading magazines or talking about boys (like Hermione). In other words, the cool girls, the ones who are supposed to be role models, are those who "aren’t like the other girls." But not because they’re deconstructing gender roles consciously—they just happen to embody the fantasy of the woman who can give you kids while still being one of your bros. It’s a common male fantasy, where women abandon the graceful, ethereal, delicate image to fit into a set of needs the modern man has. These are "manic pixie dream girls," hiding a deeply internalized misogyny as they are presented as individuals opposed to the “other” women—the “other” being less cool because they lack traditionally masculine traits, and thus are less than. We see this not only with how Fleur is treated but also with the disdain or prejudice Hermione shows towards girls like Lavender or the Patil sisters, just because they act like normal teenagers instead of validating themselves through academia to compensate for their inferiority complex (cough, cough).

Then we have the adult female characters, where Rowling’s toxic and incredibly conservative view of motherhood kicks in. Except for McGonagall, the rest of the adult women who are seen in a positive light are either already mothers or end up becoming mothers. And for them, motherhood is everything. They are mothers first and women second, in every case. Lily is Harry’s mother, who sacrifices herself for him. Molly is the Weasley matriarch, whose entire life revolves around her kids—she hasn’t even looked for a job (which wouldn’t be a bad idea, considering the family’s financial situation), nor does she have any aspirations beyond knitting sweaters and worrying about her children. Even Narcissa, a negative character throughout most of the saga, earns her redemption solely because she loves her son and is willing to risk everything for him. Nymphadora Tonks, a 25-year-old woman, ends up pregnant by a man 13 years older than her and goes from being an independent Auror with her own life to a passive housewife waiting for her man, who is off having an existential crisis. The adult women in the saga aren’t independent individuals—they’re extensions of their children. And any woman who isn’t a perfect, self-sacrificing mother (like Merope Gaunt) is either a psychopath or portrayed as a terrible person.

What I’m getting at is that Rowling is far from impartial in the moral narrative of the story. In fact, she’s absolutely inconsistent. She presents characters she sells as "good," whose attitudes are absolute trash, yet she continues to insist that they’re good and perfect. This is especially obvious with her female characters, because throughout the seven books, she constantly emphasizes her ideal of the "perfect woman" in terms of tastes, motivations, and behavior. Hermione is a self-insert, Ginny is probably a projection of who Rowling wishes she could’ve been, and Luna is the quirky girl who isn’t “threatening” to other women, and is treated with a condescending, paternalistic lens. They are either Rowling’s aspirational figures or archetypes that don’t bother her, or they’re reduced to filler characters who are mistreated by the narrative.

When it comes to Lily, the problem is that Rowling spends half the saga painting her as some kind of Mother Teresa. She’s the quintessence of motherhood—but not a conscious, modern motherhood, but one rooted in traditional Judeo-Christian ideals. This is the kind of motherhood that can do no wrong, the one that represents women because, in this view, a woman can’t be fulfilled unless she’s a mother. Lily dies for her son, and that love creates a divine, protective magic. She’s beautiful, popular, and one of the most popular guys at school is after her. Clearly, she must be a saint, because everyone describes her as such. And while the narrative does question James’s perfection, even if vaguely and unsuccessfully, it doesn’t do the same with Lily. Harry questions his father’s actions but never his mother’s. He never stops to think about how problematic it is that his mother almost laughed at Severus or refused to hear his apology, or that she couldn’t empathize with what he was going through, knowing full well the kind of situation Severus had at home. When a narrative tells you something but never shows it, and worse, never questions it, that’s a problem. Something doesn’t add up. Rowling is obsessed with showing her own moral line through her characters and doesn’t realize how incoherent it is to portray Lily as someone who always does the right thing when what we actually see of her suggests that, if she really liked James all along, not only is she a hypocrite, but she’s also quite superficial with questionable principles. But this is never addressed, never explored. It would be fascinating if it were, giving the character more depth and making her more relatable. But Rowling brushes all this aside, as she does with so many other things, because to her, Lily was a role model, despite the fact that anyone with common sense can see she was just a terrible friend who got tired of justifying why she hung out with a poor, scruffy kid and ultimately decided it made more sense to date the rich, handsome bully.

[indigo-scarf]

Did you know?

Hermione doesn't actually call Ron "Ronald" like he's an idiot and she's a nagging wife from a 2000s heteropessimism comedy.

She only calls him "You — complete — arse — Ronald — Weasley!" the one time when he comes back after leaving in DH.

[whinlatter]

What’s something about Ron Weasley as a character that you think is underrated?

That Ron is really, really funny, and that his sense of humour isn't a sign of immaturity or gratuitous comic relief for the reader's sake, but an absolutely essential part of what both Harry and Hermione value in Ron as a character as an antidote to their own tendencies (moodiness and seriousness/anxiousness, respectively). Ron makes bad days bearable to get through for the people around him. I think people mistake Ron making jokes for a lack of emotional awareness, but I actually think it’s the opposite. By the series end Ron is literally the most emotionally well-adjusted of the central canon characters. That line about Peeves’ poem right at the end of DH when the war is won (“Really gives a feeling for the scope and tragedy of the thing, doesn't it?”) is a) brilliant and b) such a great manifesto for how Ron’s outlook on the world — not humour as emotional avoidance, but humour that sits within all the grief and pain and suffering, and makes it that bit more bearable. So yeah Ron Weasley’s love for chuckles is Important and Overlooked and I will keep saying it til I am blue in the face

[blorger]

So, picture this:

Here I am, sat in an internet-less room, twiddling my thumbs and waiting for time to crawl ever so slowly by. For lack of a better alternative, I start flipping through the pages of Chamber of Secrets and I notice A Thing.

"My, how peculiar" I say to myself, fully intending to let The Thing be, but alas; time moves slowly, boredom persists and, not unlike the tell-tale heart, The Thing calls to me.

"Come," it beckons, "notice me further". "Compile some data" it begs, "that's surely the most productive way to pass the time"; like a moth to a flame, I am caught.

This, dear reader, is how I found myself tallying all the different ways the word "mudblood" is used in canon. So gird your loins and let me introduce you to

The Mudblood Chronicles, or what's in a name?

part 1: methodology

Since the purpose of this exercise is to analyse the use of the term "mudblood" as a slur, I'm not going to count the times in which the word is not being used with malicious intent. Throughout the books this happens on several occasions, those being:

during the course of the narration (it happens once in the context of "everyone present knew mudblood was a very offensive term")

when Harry uses the term, since it only happens when he either recalls someone else saying it (one time with Draco and once with Snape) or he's forbidding Kreacher from using it (twice).

when Ron uses it; it happens once to explain the slur's meaning and once (in conjunction with Ginny) to demand Kreacher stop using the term.

when someone is quoting themselves. Draco quotes himself to Dumbledore once ("you care about me saying mudblood when I'm about to kill you?"; incidentally, it's also the last time he ever utters the word)

I am counting instances in which a muggleborn character uses the term to refer to themselves, since it happens in the context of reclaiming the insult and I am interested in who the author chooses to highlight thusly.

part 2: the results/ WHEN

The word "mudblood" and its plural "mudbloods" are used as an insult a total of 62 times in the Harry Potter books. Here we can see the book by book breakdown:

Unsurprisingly, The book where "mudblood" is used the most ( a total of 34 times) is Deathly Hallows since it takes place during a war about muggleborns. Chamber of Secrets, where the term is introduced, follows with 10 mentions, after which is Order of the Phoenix (7 mentions), followed by Goblet of Fire (6 mentions) and Half-Blood prince (5 mentions). The term "mudblood" is not used in either Philosopher's Stone or Prisoner of Azkaban.

part 3: the results/ WHO

So who is our biggest culprit?

Draco Malfoy is our uncontested lead, having both the advantage of appearing in all books and of orbiting around our narrator. Both Bellatrix and Kreacher make a good showing, with Bellatrix's 6 times being especially notable since they all occur during the course of Deathly Hallows.

Let's break this down further, shall we?

Despite introducing us to the term, Draco appears to scale back his usage of the slur as he ages.

Before partaking in this experiment, I was under the vague impression that, in the wizarding world, "mudblood" is seen as a childish insult. I can now see why: in times of peace (i.e. before Voldemort's resurrection), Draco is the only person in Harry's day-to-day life saying it and he himself peters off in the usage of "mudblood" as things get more serious. To Draco, it appears, "mudblood" IS a childish insult, and we'll see further proof of this at a later date.

part 4: the results/ HOW

Let us now look at how the term is used:

Unsurprisingly, the person "mudblood" is hurled most often at is Hermione. As a main character, she is the most visible muggleborn in the narrative and, if that wasn't enough, she is more often than not the only muggleborn present, even when it doesn't make much sense (Hermione is the only known muggleborn member of the order of the phoenix, an organization whose supposed aim is the fight for muggleborn rights.)

There are no known instances of the word "mudblood" being used to refer to any other muggleborn student during Harry's time at Hogwarts. Lily Evans is the only other school-aged character who gets the dubious honor of being a "mudblood".

Let's break this down further and look at who people are referring to when they say "mudblood":

*= Walburga's portrait never directly addresses Hermione, she only alludes to the presence of various filth (muggleborns, blood traitors, werewolves..) in her home. That said, Hermione is the only muggleborn we ever see in Grimmauld Place so it must stand to reason that Walburga is referring to her, just like she's indirectly referring to Remus Lupin when she mentions werewolves.

**= Both Hermione and Lily use the term mudblood to refer to themselves in an attempt to reclaim the slur, they both do it twice.

***= Our only "other" is mr Ted Tonks, who Bellatrix only mentions in order to disavow when Voldemort talks about the birth of Teddy Lupin.

Interestingly, the only people who ever refer to Lily Evans as "mudblood" to her face are Severus Snape (one instance recounted three separate times) and Lily Evans herself. Voldemort uses the insult when talking about her with Harry long after her death.

Of further note, our only written "mudblood" comes by courtesy of a ministry pamphlet Harry finds in Diagon Alley, heavily implied to have been written by one ms Dolores Umbridge.

part 5: a brief interlude/ Draco's language

Draco refers to Hermione as “Granger” 13 times and, while their interactions often consist of him talking about her blood status, he uses "mudblood" instead of her name only 4 times. Furthemore, there are 4 additional times where he uses both mudblood and Granger (as in "that mudblood Granger").

The very first time Draco mentions Hermione in the books occurs during this exchange with Lucius:

I find this interesting because, even in private, his first instinct is to use her given name. It's only after he is scolded by Lucius* that we get our first "mudblood", in a scene where he is once again feeling threatened by her.

*= Guess who never utters the word "mudblood"? Lucius. Even Narcissa does once (in DH, when she recognises Hermione at the manor)

part 6: conclusion

I am not a linguistics expert, I cannot tell wether JKR uses the slur she made up in a way that mimics real world slurs. What I can do with the data I compiled is try to track various characters' attitudes towards muggleborns in the books by looking at what they call them.

People whose views remain unchanged (Voldemort, Kreacher, Walburga) remain consistent with their usage of "mudblood"; Draco, who grows up as the books progress, scales back. Snape only ever uses the word once, in the past, and the incident is retold multiple times to signify its importance.

As the situation in the wizarding world worsens, more people feel emboldened to use an otherwise taboo term, as seen by how most one-off utterances of "mudblood" take place in book 7, during wartime.

Finally, I would like to note that we only ever hear two muggleborns' (Lily and Hermione) opinions on "mudblood" as a slur, the rest of the time it's mostly purebloods (and the occasional half-blood) telling us how to feel about the insult; I find that very interesting.

There. Now all this useless information is out of my brain and into the aether, where other nerds can ponder on its significance while this nerd here sleeps the sleep of the truly righteous.

xoxo

[hollowed-theory-hall]

Hi, Im not sure if youve written anything about this before (I had a quick look but couldnt see anything), but I find Hermione's relationship with her parents kinda interesting. Obviously they're pretty chill with her being a witch — they go to diagon with her at least once and seem quite interested in that sort of thing, they're obviously very proud of her — but by about gof and ootf theyre completely absent from her life. Hermione doesnt seem to go home during that summer holiday and seems to spend the rest with the Weasleys which I find incredibly odd. Her parents were obviously not abusive, nor were they in any sort of danger until dh when Hermione goes on the run (and of course she oblivates them and moves them to Australia first). Voldemort doesnt even make any attacks until hbp because hes lying low. I just cant think why shes suddenly estranged from her parents to the point where they allow their only teenage daughter, who already spends majority of her time in Scotland, to spend her holidays with a family thats already financially struggling?? Surely no actual parent would do that. Of course it could be lazy writing by JK or the rising popularity of Hermione after directorial choices in the films which called for more page-time, but Id be very interested to hear your opinions on the topic because for the life of me I can't figure this out.

(sorry for the long ask)

Hi, no problem about the long ask.

I think Hermione's parents are probably one of the things JKR didn't think through, but I like looking at things like that froma an in universe prespective. And in universe the relationship between Hermione and her parents, while not abusive, has been estranged from day 0.

What I mean by it, is that I don't think Hermione was ever very close to her parents. We see how a muggleborn who is close to his parents acts with Colin Creevey:

“So I can prove I’ve met you,” said Colin Creevey eagerly, edging further forward. “I know all about you. Everyone’s told me. About how you survived when You-Know-Who tried to kill you and how he disappeared and everything and how you’ve still got a lightning scar on your forehead” (his eyes raked Harry’s hairline) “and a boy in my dormitory said if I develop the film in the right potion, the pictures’ll move.” Colin drew a great shuddering breath of excitement and said, “It’s amazing here, isn’t it? I never knew all the odd stuff I could do was magic till I got the letter from Hogwarts. My dad’s a milkman, he couldn’t believe it either. So I’m taking loads of pictures to send home to him. And it’d be really good if I had one of you” — he looked imploringly at Harry

(CoS)

He tries to keep his muggle parents up to date with his life in the wizarding world. He brought a camera explicitly for that purpose. Hermione, on the other hand, never really included her parents in her life. They try to be supportive, they go with her to Diagon, but I'm convinced they know very little of what's going on at Hogwarts with their daughter.

I mean, she probably tells them about her high grades and about Harry and Ron, but she probably never told them about Voldemort, or at least, not much. Or about the bigotry she has to deal with as a muggleborn. I'm also pretty sure she didn't tell them how dangerous Hogwarts is or that she got petrified in 2nd year. I mean, I don't know about you, but if my daughter told me everything that happened to Hermione, I would start asking about alternative magical education that isn't Hogwarts.

I think Hermione was always a lonely child, her parents were likely at work or conventions more often than with her and she is used to hiding things from them. Hermione 100% used to be bullied in her muggle primary school, you see it in how she acts, and I think she didn't tell her parents about that either. So Hermione and her parents were never close in my opinion.

And then, you take this girl who is used to hiding the less pleasant aspects of her life from her parents and send her to the wizarding world. And she's smart, she quickly realizes no one wants to hear about dentists and that she doesn't belong. So she shuts up, she stops bringing her parents up since everyone thinks surgeons are just maniacs who cut into people. So she reads up, she studies everything she can so she would belong, because she never found herself in the muggle world and she loves magic. She loves the wizarding world and chooses to be part of it, even at the price of cutting her parents out of her life.

In first year, Hermione goes back home for Christmas, but from year 2 and onwards she stays at Hogwarts becouse she doesn't want to miss out in that year's mystery, or time with Ron and Harry. She, like Harry, doesn't want to leave the wizarding world for a world they consider worse.

And the fact she does her best to spend more and more time in the wizarding world is an extension of that. It's not that she hates her parents, she loves them, but she loves them less than she loves the wizarding world.

I think, the moment in book 4 in which she took the chance to fix her teeth magically against what her dentist parents would think is right, is a moment that shows that clear choice. Mr. and Mrs. Granger clearly care about Hermione and want what's best for her, but Hermione thinks she is better than them because she is a witch. She treats her parents like children who don't know what's good for them. She knows because she's a witch, so she can send them away for their safety. They might think using magic on her teeth is dangerous, but they're muggles they don't know better. Even Hermione falls into this prevalent mindset among wizards that they know better than muggles.

The Creevy brothers wanted to keep both the wizarding world and their parents. Hermione chose the wizarding world. She figured that if she truly wanted to belong and be up to date with everything, months in the muggle world would make this assimilation harder, so she stayed in the wizarding world. And when the time comes to make a hard decision to Obliviate her parents and send them away, it is easier to rationalize. She hasn't been part of their life for so long anyway, they would hardly notice the difference, besides, she's the witch, she's the one in the know, not them.

It's quite sad, but it's a result of Hermione's decision to assimilate into the wizarding world as if she was always there which is, I think, influenced by the bigotry that is everywhere. I mean, even the Weasleys look down on muggles:

“Are they doctors?” he [Harry] asked Ron quietly. “Doctors?” said Ron, looking startled. “Those Muggle nutters that cut people up? Nah, they’re Healers.”

(OotP)

So, yeah, Hermione chose to be a witch, and to her, that means cutting her parents she was never too close to out of her life.

[vivithefolle]

Hi Vivi! I'd like to ask something as a Ron fan. How abusive is Ron really in book six? He gave Hermione the silent treatment, and when I decided to research about the silent treatment I found it's a form of psychological abuse???? WHAT??? I love him so much but he literally disgusts me in this book, making girls cry, and what he did to Hermione isn't exactly forgivable. The more I think about it the less I like him which is a shame, because I would defend him with my life but the hbp makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to feel sympathy for him. And it kinda icks me how hermione keeps crying over a boy who might not even be worthy her tears. Jkr clearly wants to villainize him in some way and make us hate him and think he's gross and unworthy. And unfortunately, that bitch succeeds by ruining his arc

Okay okay, valid. Somewhat.

Because. Really. Remember.

Who's the one who later *extends* the silent treatment?

I'm sure you've read some asshole basher's take on HBP!Ron and yeah it's certainly not his proudest book. But know who else is an absolute dickface who's not worthy of Ron's tears in that book?

Hermione.

Hermione and her "spared Ron one look of disdain". Hermione and her treating Ron coldly when he reacts to Lavender being nice to him (while Hermione withholds attention from him deliberately, WHICH IS ABUSIVE BEHAVIOUR but Rowling justifies with "oh but that's how girls are like tee hee"). Hermione and her "golden bullets", Harry and his "yeah Ron you may have just gotten assaulted but shouldn't YOU apologize to Hermione cause yknow it's basically your fault if she's an unhinged violent asshole who thinks she's allowed to hurt you as a form of retribution?". Hermione and her "I like really good Quidditch players". Hermione and, when Ron *immediately* tries to talk to her once he sees her upon returning from Christmas, her blatantly ignoring Ron and keeping the silent treatment going UNTIL RON'S BIRTHDAY IN MARCH. RON KEPT THE SILENT TREATMENT GOING FOR LIKE ~3 WEEKS, HERMIONE KEPT IT UP FOR MONTHS.

You see, the book keeps crowing that Ron is immature and stupid and isn't Hermione just so out of his league and so much better than him, isn't it such a tragedy that such a good girl cries over such an unworthy boy?

But then you remember the actual events, you remember the stuff that Hermione actually did and that Rowling treats as though it's just desserts for Ron or "girl stuff", you remember that Rowling talks at length about all that Ron fucks up and how he's sooo mean and horrible for making girls cry waaah... but then remember. Remember Hermione's actions, remember how Hermione treats Ron as though he belongs to her, how she consciously withholds affection from him to control him and once he subverts that control? She consciously, deliberately, physically attacks him. Then starts months of silent treatment that only end when Ron ALMOST FUCKING DIES.

At every turn, she proves worse than Ron ever is - Ron accidentally harmed Demelza, Hermione deliberately harmed Ron; Ron did the silent treatment a bit, Hermione prolonged it even as Ron tried to reconnect; only thing she didn't do is make Ron cry and that's because Ron isn't allowed to express hurt by crying because he's a boy, but she definitely hurt him just like he hurt her, and perhaps even worse because she deliberately targeted his insecurities.

And remember, Hermione is supposed to be "the mature one". "She who is out of Ron's league". The sacred all-knowing brilliant girl who is so nice and loving and only the worthy may wield, or something.

This is the behaviour of our "mature above all" goddess? Ron's behaviour, except worse because she does it for longer and with full intent? If Ron's behaviour in HBP makes him unworthy of Hermione, then what does Hermione's behaviour in HBP make her? I think, perhaps, it makes her unworthy of being considered someone Ron should "prove" worthy of.

In short: whatever Ron does in HBP, Hermione does, and worse. It's just that Rowling deliberately puts more emphasis on Ron's behaviour so you will think he's bad, and "softens" Hermione's bullshit with "oh but she's a girl, she's emotional, and it's really just Ron's fault she acted like an abusive dick :/" which in my language we call victim blaming and sexist double-standards.

Ron gets ruined by Rowling. And Hermione? Hermione is Rowling's idea of a perfect girl. A bossy, controlling nightmare who can make your "best friend" think it's YOUR fault she hit you. A dickhead who weaponizes her tears as a shield to deflect any form of criticism, an actual child who can't reflect on her behaviour for shit and will always make it everyone else's problem, a tantrum-throwing brat who for all her supposed "intelligence" has nothing to show for it but grades that don't mean shit in an actual job.

If Ron isn't "worthy" of this, then I'm happy for him. Indeed it feels more like Hermione, despite Rowling's intent, is less of a prize and more of a curse.

[thecarnivorousmuffinmeta]

How similar in temperament are your versions of Molly and Hermione? I can't help but wonder if they would be thick as thieves or Dire Enemies if they were contemporaries

Thoughts on Hermione

Thoughts on Molly

Oh, Hermione's a thousand times worse than Molly. Molly's the normal amount of judgement and spite you expect from a person. Yeah, she's not as nice as Harry thinks she is, but she's relatively normal. Hermione will cut your face.

As for whether they'd get along or not...

It depends.

In canon they get along fairly well but do have their moments of friction. Namely, in fourth year, Molly believes that Hermione's a gold digger because of the Rita Skeeter articles and that she's after Harry and Viktor and who knows who else. Now, they got over it, we discover Rita's a fraud, Hermione shuts Rita up, and Molly moves on to hating Fleur instead and thinks Hermione's just wonderful for Ron.

But they're both extremely judgemental and it's not so much about who the other is as a person but their veneer.

Hermione hates Lavendar and Parvati, and true part of it is their treatment of her, but a large part of it is that she views them as silly girls obsessed with makeup and boys. Hermione despises the very idea of them.

Molly, for her own part, likes girls next door who are pretty enough but not bombshells (e.g. Fleur) who know their place and have the humble virtues that she approves of.

It works out because they're at the ages they're at. Molly is so "mother" that Hermione doesn't think about the fact that she's raising these seven children, has no career, and has a very affectionate relationship with Arthur and is interested in things like household charms. She's Hermiones surrogate mother, not her peer. Hermione, in turn, is a bright young woman, Ron's close friend, and easily becomes a sort of Percy-like (but without all the betrayal) daughter for Molly.

I think they'd hate each other if they were the same age.

Hermione would think Molly is dumb, unambitious, too focused on boys and her future as a house wife while Molly would think Hermione's snobby, uppity, and weirdly focused on employment.

[bluethepineapple]

Harry and Hermione: Balancing Acts, Effort, and Compromise

One of my favorite aspects of Harry and Hermione's dynamic is the way it is marked by conflict. @ashesandhackles' meta over here expands on the way Harry's relationship with conflict evolve over time. For my own piece however, I wish to focus on the nature of Harry and Hermione's conflict, especially, and the way they add nuance and complexity of their relationship.

Given that the height of their tension appears in Order of the Phoenix, I will focus my exploration on their dynamic in this book.

Hermione has Harry's number. She gets how he thinks, how he feels, and knows full well how he will react in any situation they come across. We see this in how she greeted him when they first meet in OotP.

"HARRY! Ron, he’s here, Harry’s here! We didn’t hear you arrive! Oh, how are you? Are you all right? Have you been furious with us? I bet you have, I know our letters were useless — but we couldn’t tell you anything, Dumbledore made us swear we wouldn’t, oh, we’ve got so much to tell you, and you’ve got to tell us..."

She knows full well that the silence will bother him. She understands that he would feel angry at the isolation and opens up their conversation with an apology and explanation.

This is an ongoing theme in OotP. The problem with Hermione is that as much as she understands how Harry's head is going, her position in whatever argument they are having is often diametrically opposite to his. And she doesn't know how to get him to see her side of the bargain.

Harry is itching to join the Order and fight, but Hermione understands (and agrees) with the need to keep them out of the loop. Harry doesn't feel qualified to teach DADA, but Hermione believes he can succeed. Harry doesn't want to share his experiences in the graveyard with anyone, feeling that what he had given should have been enough, but Hermione understands the curiosity and skepticism of everyone else and so pushes him to share anyway.

In OotP, Hermione is dealing with two separate and often conflicting agendas when it comes Harry. There is the war effort (eg. Umbridge, the DA, counter-propaganda) in which she recognizes Harry to be an extremely valuable resources, and there is Harry himself, her friend who is hurting deeply.

OotP is a balancing act for Hermione, and the problem in their relationship is that there is actually no way to balance both. Giving Harry the time and space he needs requires that she put her plans on hold. Her plans mean pretty much forcing Harry to do extremely painful things he would rather not do.

And so, failing to strike a balance that works, we see Hermione choose the war over Harry's well-being. It's not an easy choice though, and we see her try to be Harry's friend even if that friendship jeopardizes her painstaking plans.

We see this best in the Hog's Head. This chapter opens with Hermione's repeated assurance to Harry that these people just want to hear Harry's side.

We can therefore infer that her pitch to them was that they come to Hog's Head and Harry will tell them what they need to know.

"I’ve told you, they just want to hear what you’ve got to say,” said Hermione soothingly; but Harry continued to look at her so furiously that she added quickly, “You don’t have to do anything yet, I’ll speak to them first."

But the moment the meeting shifts, and these newcomers demand the story that was promised to them, Hermione backpedals hard.

"Zacharias Smith,” said the boy, “and I think we’ve got the right to know exactly what makes him say You-Know-Who’s back." “Look,” said Hermione, intervening swiftly, “that’s really not what this meeting was supposed to be about —"

She sees Harry's discomfort, and despite the success of the meeting hinging on his story, she tries to divert the attention away from him anyway. She's protecting him at the expense of her meeting.

But an interesting thing happens - stubborn Harry Potter CONCEDES.

“It’s okay, Hermione,” said Harry. It had just dawned upon him why there were so many people there. He felt that Hermione should have seen this coming. Some of these people — maybe even most of them — had turned up in the hope of hearing Harry’s story firsthand. “What makes me say You-Know-Who’s back?” he asked, looking Zacharias straight in the face. “I saw him. But Dumbledore told the whole school what happened last year, and if you didn’t believe him, you don’t believe me, and I’m not wasting an afternoon trying to convince anyone.”

He tells her it's okay and then proceeds to give up his stubborn reticence to support her. He compromises and tells them a version of the story he feels comfortable sharing with these strangers.

While understanding doesn't come easily to both of them, there is clear and concentrated effort from both parties to try. They listen to what the other person has to say. They freely voice their counter-arguments. They figure out compromises and accommodations that they can both live with.

We see this best even in what is arguably one of the biggest and most important fight between them: Sirius's rescue in OotP.

The interesting part here is that Hermione's approach is actually all wrong (at least at first). Her comment on his saving-people-thing has him becoming defensive. And upon seeing this, Hermione CHANGES track.

"I’m trying to say — Voldemort knows you, Harry! He took Ginny down into the Chamber of Secrets to lure you there, it’s the kind of thing he does, he knows you’re the — the sort of person who’d go to Sirius’s aid! What if he’s just trying to get you into the Department of Myst —"

She elaborates on her points, explains what she means in ways that not only Harry can understand, but also makes him feel less judged and attacked.

And it works - Harry understands. More importantly he LISTENS.

"But if this is a trick of V-Voldemort’s — Harry, we’ve got to check, we’ve got to —” “How?” Harry demanded. “How’re we going to check?"

Considering Harry's mindset here, it's actually quite impressive that Hermione managed to change his mind as much as she did. We can see here that he is in complete panic. He dismissed Ron and Ginny's protests outright. He is losing his head and wants to go charging ahead, Voldemort be damned.

But he listens to Hermione. He pays attention to what she has to say, and he does adjust his course of action according to her advice no matter how begrudgingly.

All of this is to say that Harry and Hermione's relationship is defined by compromise above all. It is a constant negotiation between the two of them, and this pattern persists all the way through HBP and DH.

Hermione insists that something dodgy is going on with the Potions book, so Harry let's her check it. Harry wants to stay in Grimmauld Place in DH, so Hermione goes with him. They both decide to go to Godric's Hollow, and while Hermione wants to focus on finding mission-relevant information, she looks for the Potter's graves too. Because that mattered to Harry.

What makes Harry and Hermione's relationship so compelling is how hard they try for each other. Their relationship only survives through a lot of effort on both sides. There is nothing instinctive or easy about the way communicate with each other. But they also love and respect each other enough that they willingly put in all the effort necessary to make it work between them.

From OotP onwards, Harry and Hermione stand as equals. They fight together, support each other, and it is only when they work together that they manage to see their missions through.

[slitheringghost]

Unweaving Canon Lily: Master Of Death

Part 2 of this meta is here.

In this meta I wanted to explore how the text portrays Lily as Death. 

Dumbledore tells Harry, “You are the true master of death, because the true master does not seek to run away from Death. He accepts that he must die, and understands that there are far, far worse things in the living world than dying.” 

Since Harry mirrors Lily in his sacrifice (“I’ve done what my mother did”), and since Lily is the reason Harry survived the Killing Curse and Voldemort was vanquished (IMO due to deliberate planning by Lily), what goes unsaid, but what readers are meant to weave together, is that Lily too is the Master of Death, and Death itself. 

1.0 Lily as Death

If you pay close attention to the scene of the Potters’ deaths, you’ll see that it parallels the story of Death and The Three Brothers, with Lily as the main one playing Death, and I'll be weaving the two together below to illuminate this (from DH 21 and DH 17):

There were once three brothers who were traveling along a lonely, winding road at twilight And along a new and darker street he moved, and now his destination was in sight at last - In time, the brothers reached a river too deep to wade through and too dangerous to swim across. He could hear her screaming from the upper floor, trapped, but as long as she was sensible, she, at least, had nothing to fear... He climbed the steps, listening with faint amusement to her attempts to barricade herself in... - However, these brothers were learned in the magical arts, and so they simply waved their wands and made a bridge appear across the treacherous water. He forced the door open, cast aside the chair and boxes hastily piled against it with one lazy wave of his wand - They were halfway across it when they found their path blocked by a hooded figure. ...and there she stood, the child in her arms. At the sight of him, she dropped her son into the crib behind her and threw her arms wide, as if this would help, as if in shielding him from sight she hoped to be chosen instead... - “‘And Death spoke to them —’” “Sorry,” interjected Harry, “but Death spoke to them?” “Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!” “Stand aside, you silly girl... stand aside, now.” “Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead —” “This is my last warning —” “Not Harry! Please... have mercy... have mercy... Not Harry! Not Harry! Please — I’ll do anything —” “Stand aside. Stand aside, girl!” ‘Then Death stood aside and allowed the three brothers to continue on their way, and they did so, talking with wonder of the adventure they had had, and admiring Death’s gifts.

(The line about the river being too deep to wade through etc. could probably apply to some other lines too) The most notable connection is Voldemort repeatedly telling Lily to “stand aside” and the line “Death stood aside”. 

The connection to the line “Death stood aside” is reiterated in the language surrounding Voldemort, Lily, and Harry as a trio, with the three of them described as “standing” - because the three of them are Death, and are (one variation of) the three brothers who conquered Death:

He forced the door open, cast aside the chair and boxes hastily piled against it with one lazy wave of his wand... and there she stood, the child in her arms.  The child had not cried all this time: He could stand, clutching the bars of his crib, and he looked up into the intruder’s face with a kind of bright interest  And now he stood at the broken window of Bathilda’s house, immersed in memories of his greatest loss (DH)

More on these lines in my meta about Lily and Harry as Voldemort’s Mirror Of Erised. 

Additionally, Voldemort who also plays Death is described explicitly as a “hooded figure” - “He saw the small boy’s smile falter as he ran near enough to see beneath the hood of the cloak”; but Lily too is a “hooded figure” in a more subtle way, because her face covered by her long hair evokes the hood of a cloak - "the mother entered [...] her long dark-red hair falling over her face." More on this in section 4.0.

2.0 Lily’s arms are Death’s arms

Lily's arms are repeatedly emphasized, especially in the scene of her death where they open towards Voldemort, because they're Death's arms wrapping around both Harry and Voldemort - welcoming for Harry, crushing and choking and drowning for Voldemort.

But though gashes appeared in their sodden rags and their icy skin, they had no blood to spill: They walked on, unfeeling, their shrunken hands outstretched toward him, and as he backed away still farther, he felt arms enclose him from behind, thin, fleshless arms cold as death, and his feet left the ground as they lifted him and began to carry him, slowly and surely, back to the water, and he knew there would be no release, that he would be drowned (HBP 26) “Death’s got an Invisibility Cloak?” Harry interrupted again. “So he can sneak up on people,” said Ron. “Sometimes he gets bored of running at them, flapping his arms and shrieking" (DH 21) Thrashing, suffocating, he scrabbled at the strangling chain, his frozen fingers unable to loosen it, and now little lights were popping inside his head, and he was going to drown, there was nothing left, nothing he could do, and the arms that closed around his chest were surely Death’s… (DH 19) […] Harry understood at last that he was not supposed to survive. His job was to walk calmly into Death’s welcoming arms. (DH 34) - Harry saw Sirius move up the bench to make room for her. She took one look at him, seemed to recognize him from the train, folded her arms, and firmly turned her back on him. (DH 33) It was nighttime. Lily, who was wearing a dressing gown, stood with her arms folded in front of the portrait of the Fat Lady, at the entrance to Gryffindor Tower. (DH 33) there was a statue of three people: a man with untidy hair and glasses, a woman with long hair and a kind, pretty face, and a baby boy sitting in his mother’s arms. (DH 16) and there she stood, the child in her arms. At the sight of him, she dropped her son into the crib behind her and threw her arms wide, as if this would help, as if in shielding him from sight she hoped to be chosen instead… (DH 17) Flitwick’s spell hit the suit of armor behind which Snape had taken shelter: With a clatter it came to life. Snape struggled free of the crushing arms and sent it flying back toward his attackers: Harry and Luna had to dive sideways to avoid it as it smashed into the wall and shattered. When Harry looked up again, Snape was in full flight (DH 30)

The suit of armor Snape hides behind is implied as the one by the door where Harry first found the Mirror of Erised, thereby tying it to Lily, who is both Harry and Snape's Mirror of Erised (For more on this, read my meta When Lily Cast Her Life As A Shield”: Analysis of the Shield Charm).

3.0 Lily’s ties to the Deathly Hallows

Since Lily is portrayed as Death, the text gives Lily links to all three Hallows, and I'll go through them below.

3.1 The Elder Wand

The scene with Snape, Lily, and Petunia by the Cokeworth river and Lily picking up the fallen twig evokes the imagery of the river of Death and the Elder Wand:

“‘So the oldest brother, who was a combative man, asked for a wand more powerful than any in existence: a wand that must always win duels for its owner, a wand worthy of a wizard who had conquered Death! So Death crossed to an elder tree on the banks of the river, fashioned a wand from a branch that hung there, and gave it to the oldest brother .” (DH 21) He was now in a small thicket of trees. He could see a sunlit river glittering through their trunks. The shadows cast by the trees made a basin of cool green shade. Two children sat facing each other, cross-legged on the ground. [...] “...and the Ministry can punish you if you do magic outside school, you get letters.” “But I have done magic outside school!” “We’re all right. We haven’t got wands yet. They let you off when you’re a kid and you can’t help it. But once you’re eleven,” he nodded importantly, “and they start training you, then you’ve got to go careful.” There was a little silence. Lily had picked up a fallen twig and twirled it in the air, and Harry knew that she was imagining sparks trailing from it. Then she dropped the twig , leaned in toward the boy, and said, “It is real, isn’t it?" (DH 33) There was a crack: A branch over Petunia’s head had fallen. Lily screamed: The branch caught Petunia on the shoulder, and she staggered backward and burst into tears. (DH 33)

3.2 The Resurrection Stone

An important implication is that it's specifically Lily's soul that came out of the Resurrection Stone and created the versions of James, Sirius, and Remus, the way the Tom Riddle locket horcrux soul piece creates Riddle-Harry and Riddle-Hermione.

Several details point to this - Sirius and Remus look much younger, rather than how they looked when they died; presumably their shades match their appearances in 1981, because they match when Lily last saw them and how she remembers them; likewise, James is stated to look exactly how he did the day he died, because that’s how Lily remembers him.

Lily's shade’s eyes being emphasized is a huge clue that it was Lily’s soul, as eyes are windows to the soul; this idea is echoed in Tom Riddle's eyes in the locket:

Behind both of the glass windows within blinked a living eye, dark and handsome as Tom Riddle’s eyes had been before he turned them scarlet and slit-pupiled. Ron raised the sword still higher, and as he did so, Riddle’s eyes gleamed scarlet. His [Ron’s] eyes were wide, and the Riddle-Harry and the Riddle-Hermione were reflected in them, their hair swirling like flames, their eyes shining red, their voices lifted in an evil duet. Ron looked toward him, and Harry thought he saw a trace of scarlet in his eyes. (DH 19) She pushed her long hair back as she drew close to him, and her green eyes, so like his, searched his face hungrily, as though she would never be able to look at him enough. (DH 34)

Lily’s stated as looking at Harry hungrily - because Lily’s soul has been separated from Harry. 

Interestingly, Lily’s shade and Harry both speak to each other the least - Lily only says four words “You’ve been so brave”, and Harry likewise only tells her “Stay close to me”. This is because Lily's speaking through the others to Harry. The strongest evidence towards this is the echoing here:

“And what use would that be to anyone?” said Dumbledore coldly. “If you loved Lily Evans, if you truly loved her, then your way forward is clear.” [...] “You know how and why she died. Make sure it was not in vain. Help me protect Lily’s son.” (DH 33) “I didn’t want you to die,” Harry said. These words came without his volition. “Any of you. I’m sorry —” He addressed Lupin more than any of them, beseeching him. “— right after you’d had your son ... Remus, I’m sorry —” “I am sorry too,” said Lupin. “Sorry I will never know him... but he will know why I died and I hope he will understand. I was trying to make a world in which he could live a happier life.” A chilly breeze that seemed to emanate from the heart of the forest lifted the hair at Harry’s brow. (DH 34)

Lily also died right after she’d had her son, and this is Lily telling Harry that she’s sorry that she’ll never know him, and he’ll never know her, but she hopes he understands why she sacrificed herself - to vanquish Voldemort and create a better world.

The breeze lifting Harry’s hair echoes Hermione doing the same thing earlier, who also echoes the gesture of Lily pushing her hair back to look at Harry - AKA that breeze is Lily’s hand brushing Harry’s hair, perhaps kissing his forehead (for more on how Hermione performs the part of Lily, read my meta Hermione As Teacher And Connections To Lily):

She picked up the book and then walked back past him into the tent, but as she did so, she brushed the top of his head lightly with her hand. He closed his eyes at her touch […] (DH 18) “Hermione!” She stirred, then sat up quickly, pushing her hair out of her face. “What’s wrong? Harry? Are you all right?” (DH 19)

Other connections include:

1. Harry’s dream with Nagini (Voldemort's symbolic mother) going through the Gaunt ring with the Resurrection Stone and then Lily's grave - in the same chapter the Silver Doe appears, and only a chapter after he visits Lily's grave and sees the memory of her murder, and

2. the Lily from the Resurrection Stone parallels Morfin while he's wearing the Gaunt ring with the Stone in it:

Harry’s dreams were confused and disturbing: Nagini wove in and out of them, first through a gigantic, cracked ring, then through a wreath of Christmas roses. (DH 19) Lily’s smile was widest of all. She pushed her long hair back as she drew close to him, and her green eyes, so like his, searched his face hungrily, as though she would never be able to look at him enough. (DH 34) Morfin pushed the hair out of his dirty face, the better to see Riddle, and Harry saw that he wore Marvolo’s black-stoned ring on his right hand. (HBP 17)

As fandom has pointed out, the real James, Lily, Sirius, and Remus never would’ve told Harry to die and so it’s a theory that it was Death purposely luring Harry - but if you accept that the Resurrection Stone’s shades were all Lily, and that Lily is Master of Death, it would make sense that they all tell Harry to sacrifice himself, because unlike Dumbledore who can only guess, Lily knows that Harry will come back to life, as it was her magic in the first place that caused it to happen (of course, in a way it was Death, because Lily is Death, etc).

3.3 The Invisibility Cloak

Despite the Cloak belonging to James, Lily is implied as the "true owner" as the Master of Death. For more on the Cloak’s link to Lily and how it represents the Aegis which is sometimes featured as a cloak, Lily passing the Cloak onto Harry as Zeus gives Athena the aegis, see the Shield Charm meta.

An important detail regarding both the 1981 flashback and the shades from the Resurrection Stone is that Voldemort, Harry, James, Remus, and Sirius's clothes are mentioned, but what Lily was wearing is never mentioned - because we're meant to make the connection that Lily is Death and Death wears an Invisibility Cloak:

“Nice costume, mister!” He saw the small boy’s smile falter as he ran near enough to see beneath the hood of the cloak, saw the fear cloud his painted face […] Beneath the robe he fingered the handle of his wand (DH 17) he saw them quite clearly in their little sitting room, the tall black-haired man in his glasses, making puffs of colored smoke erupt from his wand for the amusement of the small black-haired boy in his blue pajamas. (DH 17) James was exactly the same height as Harry. He was wearing the clothes in which he had died, and his hair was untidy and ruffled, and his glasses were a little lopsided, like Mr. Weasley’s. Sirius was tall and handsome, and younger by far than Harry had seen him in life. He loped with an easy grace, his hands in his pockets and a grin on his face. Lupin was younger too, and much less shabby, and his hair was thicker and darker. He looked happy to be back in this familiar place, scene of so many adolescent wanderings. (DH 34)

Note that mentions of Remus's "shabbiness" throughout the series are often references to his clothes ("The stranger was wearing an extremely shabby set of wizard’s robes that had been darned in several places"), so his clothes are referenced, if obliquely.

The text also emphasizes that Voldemort can "see James and Harry clearly", as well as see the child’s face clearly, with the unsaid implication being that he can't see Lily clearly - because her face is covered by her hair that resembles a cloak, perhaps because she's wearing Death's Invisibility Cloak around her shoulders (in a metaphorical sense) or has Disillusioned herself and therefore only part of her body is visible.

Additionally, one way to read the Three Brothers story is that Lily is the third brother who met Death as an old friend - and Harry is the third brother’s son, who she passes down her Cloak to; and when the text tells us that Harry is descended from the Ignotus Peverell, the hidden meaning behind this is that he's descended from Lily.

4.0 Additional details 

“Death’s got an Invisibility Cloak?” Harry interrupted again. “So he can sneak up on people,” said Ron. “Sometimes he gets bored of running at them, flapping his arms and shrieking" (DH 21)

Death “running at” people is echoed in Voldemort’s words about Lily, and “flapping his arms and shrieking" is evoked by Lily’s arms opening wide and her screams:

“Dumbledore’s favorite solution, love, which he claimed conquered death, though love did not stop him falling from the tower and breaking like an old waxwork? Love, which did not prevent me stamping out your Mudblood mother like a cockroach, Potter — and nobody seems to love you enough to run forward this time and take my curse. So what will stop you dying now when I strike?” (DH 36) He could hear her screaming from the upper floor, trapped, but as long as she was sensible, she, at least, had nothing to fear (DH 17) At the sight of him, she dropped her son into the crib behind her and threw her arms wide (DH 17)

As for Death sneaking up on people. Lily and Voldemort mirror each other here - as Voldemort is sneaking up on the Potters, so Lily is sneaking up on him (from DH 17).

And he made less noise than the dead leaves slithering along the pavement as he drew level with the dark hedge, and stared over it A door opened and the mother entered, saying words he could not hear The gate creaked a little as he pushed it open, but James Potter did not hear.

The wording also echoes Lily’s shade in Priori Incantatem: 

She walked close to Harry, looking down at him, and she spoke in the same distant, echoing voice as the others, but quietly, so that Voldemort, his face now livid with fear as his victims prowled around him, could not hear… (GoF)

More on this in future metas.

-

The part with the small child going up to Voldemort and running away is echoed by Voldemort and Lily, with Lily taking Voldemort’s role and Voldemort playing the child:

“Nice costume, mister!” He saw the small boy’s smile falter as he ran near enough to see beneath the hood of the cloak, saw the fear cloud his painted face: Then the child turned and ran away... (DH 17)

Remember, Voldemort turns into a child after he’s vanquished, as we see in GoF, and Harry compares him to a child in DH ("Harry […] thought absurdly of a child counting in a game of hide-and-seek", "His head was still tilted to one side, like a curious child, wondering what would happen if he proceeded.")

As mentioned before, Lily’s hair covering her face is meant to evoke the hood of a cloak and echo Voldemort's face being covered by his cloak, and it’s heavily implied that Voldemort never sees Lily's face or her eyes beneath the hair (remember the Lily from the Resurrection Stone pushes her hair back to see Harry, drawing a contrast to the Lily in the 1981 memory that Voldemort sees).

This is Voldemort first smiling with amusement like that child:

He could hear her screaming from the upper floor, trapped, but as long as she was sensible, she, at least, had nothing to fear… He climbed the steps, listening with faint amusement to her attempts to barricade herself in (DH 17)

When Voldemort murders Harry, he finally sees beneath the hood of Lily’s Cloak (AKA sees Lily's eyes) through Harry, because he’s looking into Harry’s eyes, which are exactly like Lily's, as he casts the Killing Curse on him (Lily and Harry’s eyes also being the color of the Killing Curse):

He pointed the wand very carefully into the boy’s face: He wanted to see it happen, the destruction of this one, inexplicable danger. The child began to cry: It had seen that he was not James. He did not like it crying, he had never been able to stomach the small ones whining in the orphanage — “Avada Kedavra!” (DH 17)

And now Voldemort’s amusement is replaced by fear, and he runs away, exactly like that child:

And then he broke: He was nothing, nothing but pain and terror, and he must hide himself, not here in the rubble of the ruined house, where the child was trapped and screaming, but far away... far away... (DH 17)

This is what Remus tells Harry about dementors:

“If it can, the dementor will feed on you long enough to reduce you to something like itself... soulless and evil.” (PoA 10)

Similarly to that quote, Voldemort turned Lily into someone like himself - turned her into Death.

-

The description of the street getting darker in the 1981 memory echoes the description the dementor's darkness, indicating that Voldemort is walking closer to Death:

And along a new and darker street he moved, and now his destination was in sight at last, the Fidelius Charm broken (DH 17) They turned right down the narrow alleyway where Harry had first seen Sirius and which formed a shortcut between Magnolia Crescent and Wisteria Walk. It was empty and much darker than the streets it linked because there were no streetlamps. (OoTP 1) Something had happened to the night. The star-strewn indigo sky was suddenly pitch-black and lightless — the stars, the moon, the misty streetlamps at either end of the alley had vanished [...] They were surrounded by total, impenetrable, silent darkness, as though some giant hand had dropped a thick, icy mantle over the entire alleyway, blinding them. (OoTP 1)

Additionally, we never get an explanation to why Harry and Voldemort see this full memory - it’s the same memory Harry relives with the dementors, however it’s much stronger. Dementors don’t show visual memories, only emotions and voices - and the only thing stronger than dementors is Death itself, so presumably it’s actual Death that made them both view the memory.

Dementors are implied as created by Death and are “Death’s servants”. Therefore the effect of the dementors on Harry (making him relive the moment of Lily’s death and vanquishment of Voldemort, which is the same memory Voldemort and Harry both relive when they get near the site of murder) may be related to Lily’s role as Death.

5.0 Veil of Death

Lily’s role as Death might also be the reason for Harry’s attraction to the Veil of Death, with the implication that it was Lily whispering to Harry being the Veil, as Lily in the Mirror of Erised and the Veil are similarly described:

He had the strangest feeling that there was someone standing right behind the veil on the other side of the archway. Gripping his wand very tightly, he edged around the dais, but there was nobody there. All that could be seen was the other side of the tattered black veil. (OoTP) There he was, reflected in it, white and scared-looking, and there, reflected behind him, were at least ten others. Harry looked over his shoulder — but still, no one was there. Or were they all invisible, too? Was he in fact in a room full of invisible people and this mirror’s trick was that it reflected them, invisible or not? He looked in the mirror again. A woman standing right behind his reflection was smiling at him and waving. He reached out a hand and felt the air behind him. If she was really there, he’d touch her, their reflections were so close together, but he felt only air — she and the others existed only in the mirror. (PS) - He took several paces back from the dais and wrenched his eyes from the veil. (OoTP) He tore his eyes away from his mother’s face, whispered, “I’ll come back,” and hurried from the room. (PS)

This implication is also weaved in via it being specifically Luna’s mother who is emphasized regarding the Veil, as well as Lily’s letter in DH described as “a friendly little wave from behind a veil”. 

Lily's long hair covering her face in her death scene also evokes the Veil, and Lily enters the memory through a door - which echoes both the Mirror of Erised and the Veil described as an "ancient doorway".

6.0 Draught of Living Death

JKR describes characters’ clothes often, and I expanded on Lily's tie to the Invisibility Cloak, but notably the only time Lily’s clothes are explicitly mentioned in the series is when she’s wearing a dressing gown outside of Gryffindor tower at night time, about to go to sleep. This is partially an allusion to Lily being in an “enchanted sleep”, like the state of the Draught of Living Death, which includes asphodel as an ingredient, a type of lily - again tying Lily to Death. When Harry needs her, her spirit is awoken from her death-like slumber and she comes to save him.

The Draught of Living Death’s connection to Lily is further shown in HBP, where it’s the potion that wins Harry Felix Felicis, or Liquid Luck - and other than the alliteration with Liquid Luck and Lily, “luck” is constantly used to describe Lily saving Harry from the Killing Curse:

“But Harry — what if You-Know-Who’s with him?” “Well — I was lucky once, wasn’t I?” said Harry, pointing at his scar. “I might get lucky again.” (PS)

(Harry does "get lucky" again - Lily's blood magic saves him from Quirrelmort right after this.)

So. Your mother died to save you. Yes, that’s a powerful counter-charm. […] But after all, it was merely a lucky chance that saved you from me. (CoS) “Harry Potter escaped me by a lucky chance.” (GoF)

But of course, it wasn’t luck, it was Lily. (The Draught of Living Death’s modification also includes the number 7, the magically significant number of horcruxes, and the amount of times Lily says “Not Harry” in her final words). 

This ultimately threads to the scene where Harry, under the influence of Felix Felicis, uses the graphic details of Lily’s death - and Lily’s eyes - to manipulate Slughorn into getting the real horcrux memory. More on this link in future metas. 

7.0 Conclusion

To summarize, Lily is portrayed as Death itself and is linked to everything surrounding Death - to the three Deathly Hallows, Death’s arms, dementors, the Veil of Death, the Draught of Living Death.

She’s the one whose magic conquered Death and caused both Voldemort and Harry’s death and resurrections, the one who keeps reaching out from beyond death to save Harry again and again - the true Master of Death.

Thank you to @artemisia-black for helping me with this meta, and credit to slashmarks fics for some of these realizations.

Part 2 of this meta is here.

[constitutionalweasleymonarchy]

I really wish some Ron fans would take a step back and realize how Ron antis have successfully lured you into playing on their field via the neverending social media moral purity circlejerk, buying into their arguments in your efforts to debunk them.

Whenever I hear a Ron fan say something about how the author did him dirty in HBP and how HBP was written in some kind of weird effort to malign him while glorifying Hermione and everyone else, i want to flip a table. You know why? Because in making this argument you are buying into the idea that Ron was some kind of awful person in that book (or at least really looked like one) and the only way you can combat that notion is by saying, "uh, well, yes, but the author intentionally wrote him wrong because we all know Hermione is her self-insert so she had to level the playing field."

I read HBP before social media had become anything like it is today, and before I was involved in any way with fandom online. HBP did nothing to lessen my love for Ron -- absolutely nothing. It did nothing to lessen my love for Hermione. It made me love them more, individually and together. The fucking humanity and heartache evoked in those characters in that book -- via their imperfect and completely fucking human attitudes and actions -- is wonderful. These are two young people each convinced that they are not being seen by the person they want the most. And they're dealing with this on top of the stress of school and the impending war and just how much it fucking sucks to be 16 years old. (And the fact that they have "more important" problems, by the way, doesn't magically make people behave more maturely and rationally when it comes to "silly" personal issues. That's some other pure unrealistic nonsense I've heard.)

I'll bet when you read it, HBP did nothing to lessen your love for Ron either. It was only after you began entertaining and internalizing garbage on tumblr and twitter about how awful and "abusive" they were, because people like pretending they've never behaved similarly in their lives, and social media isn't known for fostering nuance.

I behaved at age 16 in ways I really wouldn't like to have held against me forever. In ways I wouldn't have liked -- or deserved -- to have held against me for even a month. Same at age 20. And 25. And sometimes even today. If you claim you haven't behaved in harmful ways rooted in your own hurt, I won't even engage with that. Because it's delusional.

Forget this "who was worse" trap. The great thing about Ron and Hermione is how evenly matched they are -- in force, in fury, in passion, in loyalty, in pigheadedness, in their desire to be loved and needed, in their deeply-embedded sense of right and wrong, and not least of all, in their ability to know exactly how to push each other's buttons when they're pissed off. They both have moments where they behave shitty in this book, but none of it is in a vacuum and none of it is without a catalyst. And that doesn't mean the action itself is okay, but it's a hell of a lot different from someone like, say, Malfoy, who is maliciously cruel without provocation, or Cormac "Her Lack of Interest Means Try Harder" McLaggen.

Sometimes in a relationship, you need to say you're sorry for causing hurt even if you didn't mean to do it, or even if you believe you were in the right or the hurt was started by the other person in the first place. Because that's part of having a loving, understanding, gracious relationship. It's also being willing to admit you've done something uncool without falling into a sense of despair that you're suddenly a bad person. And it's no different when you're talking about these two idiots. If someone points out Hermione behaved like x because she was upset when Ron did y, it doesn't mean we need to do mental gymnastics to prove that y was completely justified. Y might not have been justified. Or maybe it was. Either way, we can acknowledge Hermione was responding out of hurt, without it having to mean that Ron is the devil incarnate. And vice versa. We don't need to do the proverbial "oh you like pancakes so you must hate waffles" bullshit.

The first stop in combating Ron hate, should be for self-proclaimed Ron fans to stop trying to reason his bad moments into nonexistence. Stop giving the time of day to people who believe someone's dipshitted moments of indiscretion during a time of learning and growing somehow make him less worthy. You were never going to win an argument against that kind of mindset anyway.

[dream-with-a-fever]

the people who claim ginny’s “personality” came out of nowhere never fail to amaze me with their inability to actually comprehend the text

it’s literally shown in PS (fleetingly) on the train platform and talked about as early as CoS that ginny weasley is a certified YAPPER. she’s a talkative, opinionated gal. ron points out that her quiet / shy behaviour is very unusual for her, so if one does have basic comprehension skills, it is pretty clear that the ginny we see in the earlier books (which are from harry’s pov) is not who she really is. ginny says as much herself in HBP, “i never used to be able to talk in front of you remember? hermione thought you’d take more notice if i was a bit more… myself”? like are we comprehending this? it’s not rocket science…

as the books go on, her confidence around harry grows the more she detaches herself from the idea of harry that she grew up with, and the actual harry. this journey is slightly impeded by the fact that harry saves ginny’s life in CoS, which she feels a significant amount of guilt and embarrassment over (which harry himself picks up on this in PoA), not to mention she’s still processing the trauma that accompanied that experience (as seen in the way she reacts to the dementors — she is the only one who has a strong reaction to them, like harry). in the years following, we find out in CC (whether you take that to be canon or not), ginny explains she was very lonely during and after the diary debacle, as she felt very isolated from everyone else. this would also cause her self-confidence to take a severe battering, therefore her true personality is not able to shine, especially not in front of harry potter aka her crush aka the boy who saved her life and almost died doing it.

in GoF, harry (and in turn us, as the readers) start to see glimpses of her playful personality - she’s close with fred and george, she calls her brothers out when they’re being unkind, she goes to the yule ball with neville (turning down the opportunity to go with harry, because she doesn’t want to go back on her word), she gives ron’s owl a silly name and she starts to let go of her childhood crush, and takes a chance on another boy who’s actually shown interest in her.

by the time we see her again in OotP, OF COURSE she has undergone some serious character development. she has a boyfriend now! she has a group of friends now! she’s able to be herself around harry! she has a better support system now, her self confidence has returned, and with it, her sense of self worth. she calls harry out on his shit when he needs it, she also comforts him and gives him the space to share his worries without judgement or admonition, she stands up for what’s right, she kicks ass at quidditch (which she’s been wanting to do for the past four years bc she has been practising since she was six years old!), she joins the fight at the DoM, risking her life and dumps her boyfriend for being a sore loser! because she deserves better than that!

the ginny we see in HBP has gone through So Much. but she has only continued to grow as a character - with so much heart, wit and spunk. of course, harry is paying attention now and of COURSE he’s a flustered mess trying not to fall for his bestfriend’s sister for nearly 800 pages but he can’t help it!!!

a lot of ginny’s development happens behind the scenes, in quiet ways, but if you actually pay attention, it’s very obvious who she truly is. the reader slowly becomes more fascinated by this girl as more and more of her story unravels — as does harry. and that’s the beauty of it.

[rickktish]

Some unsolicited Harry Potter Thoughts and Headcanons

Ron Weasley is one of my favorite characters. Ron Weasley should have died from the poison in Slughorn's office when he was 16 so that y'all would treat him with the respect he deserves instead of shitting on him and replacing him with Draco in Leather Pants.

The entire reason Dumbledore is so fucked up actually has nothing to do with his sordid past; it comes from the (Doylist) fact that he was a plot device in a children's book until the main characters (and thus the audience) got old enough that it needed to become a YA series, and then had to find ways to justify is plot device-ness after being magically transformed into a character. The justification did not succeed.

Harry and Ginny were fine as a ship. Not spectacular, but fine. But if the series had come out 10-20 years later than it did I would be frothing at the mouth that Harry ended up with Ron's sister instead of Ron.

Draco Malfoy was a victim of circumstance in that he was raised by racists to be a racist. Draco Malfoy did not change his mind about his racism by the end of the series, but he did change his mind about the cult leader his parents had raised him to worship, and he deserves credit for that. Do not give him credit for what we do not have evidence of him doing, namely becoming not racist. No one in his family did that. Don't pretend that they did just to make them look shinier.

Harry, Ron, and Hermione were all bad friends at different points in the series, but as far as I can recall only Harry and Hermione exhibited actively toxic behavior. Ron had his disagreement with Hermione in book 3 and with Harry in book 4, but he had valid points in PoA (owner of a pet is responsible for that pet's actions) and was operating under false assumptions which he clearly communicated in GoF ("I thought you might've told me if it was the Cloak... because it wouldn't covered both of us, wouldn't it? But you found another way, did you?") before getting his head out of his ass ("Harry," he said, very seriously, "whoever put your name in that goblet -- I -- I reckon they're trying to do you in!") Followed by a sincere apology, interrupted though it was ("Ron opened his mouth uncertainly. Harry knew Ron was about to apologize and suddenly found he didn't need to hear it. "It's okay," he said, before Ron could get the words out. "Forget it." |"No," said Ron, "I shouldn't've--"| "Forget it," Harry said. Ron grinned nervously at him, and Harry grinned back.) Ron also apologized after leaving in DH. If anyone can remember a single instance of either Harry or Hermione apologizing to Ron for something they did that was wrong or for direct harm rather than accidental harm they've done, would you please add it to this post? I'm hoping it's just been too long since I did an in-depth read of the series and I've forgotten something, because I genuinely can't remember a time and I haven't been successful in locating one by my cursory searches through my ebook editions. I would genuinely like to be wrong about this, please and thank you.

I believe with my whole soul that the reason Dumbledore didn't get Sirius out of prison was because he was having Grindelwald flashbacks. Person I trusted with my whole soul turned out to be pro-enslavement/genocide? Person my students trusted with their magically concealed location appears to have turned out to be pro-Voldemort (and everything he uses to justify his pursuit of power)? He literally did not believe any doubts he might have held about Sirius' guilt, because he hasn't trusted his own judgement since he was 18 and his little sister died. also he 1) canonically did not know that Sirius wasn't the secret keeper and 2) probably did not know that Sirius never had a trial, so there's also that.

Harry and Ron 100% should have gone to the Yule Ball together. I would forgive their not ending up together so long as they had gone and had a fantastic time. Unfortunately, GoF was written in 2000, and we missed out for it.

Hermione would be an emotionally (and potentially physically) abusive spouse to Ron, not because I feel any need to put her down or bash her in any way, but because she wasn't willing to tell him that she was into him and instead conjured birds to attack him when she caught him kissing another girl. I think with time, effort, and a decent dose of humility, they could work it out, but at some point their kids are going to be chatting with friends and reveal the most casually fucked up shit about their parents' relationship to someone who's going to look utterly horrified and poor Rose and Hugo will have no idea why because to them it will be completely normal.

Childhood is thinking Dumbledore is the good guy and Snape is the bad guy. Angsty teenhood is thinking Snape is the good guy and Dumbledore "raised Harry like a pig for slaughter." Maturity is realizing that Snape did good things for really fucked up reasons like "I'm obsessed with the woman whose husband and child I would have seen killed so I could have another chance to get in her pants but unfortunately she's dead so I guess I have to keep her child who I hate alive" while also actively causing (directed) severe harm to the children under his care, and that Dumbledore did fucked up things for some good reasons like "I can't let this person who tortured animals as a child and committed murder in his teens destroy the world" and for some bad reasons like "I would literally die right now but unfortunately I have shit to do" (I honestly think everyone somehow missed the fact that Dumbledore was suicidal?? in spite of the fact that he committed assisted suicide?? I'm not quite sure how, but I suspect it has something to do with the woobification of Snape, so. there's that) while also causing (mostly indirect) moderate to severe harm to all who were in his care including, but not limited to, the government officials who asked him for advice, the staff and children at the school he ran, and his own family. The essential difference comes because Snape acted as he did toward others because he hated the world and everything in it, especially children, whereas Dumbledore acted as he did toward others because he couldn't make up his mind whether or not the ends justified the means and his life was entirely defined by the practice of both intentional and unintentional self-sabotage.

This absolutely might be giving Rowling too much credit, but I grew up with fairy tales of goblins who stole and guarded gold and didn't learn that goblins were a racist caricature based in antisemitism until I was in my late teens or early twenties by reading a post about how writing goblins as bankers meant that Rowling is antisemitic. I also genuinely didn't believe it at first, because I grew up in a culture that reveres Judaism and the Jewish people as God's chosen and the source for the foundation of mankind's relationship with God, and I had to seriously work to believe that the slightly goofy, slightly gross fairy tale creature I was familiar with could have such a disgusting connotation. I strongly suspect that Rowling herself had no idea until she started being accused of racism, at which point she pulled her classic schtick and doubled down, radicalizing rather than being open to being told she might be wrong. Sometimes you grow up with something being so normal and part of the regular zeitgeist that it never occurs to you that it could have its origins in racism. (I experienced this myself recently from a post about the origin of the popularity of private pools in the US, which I always thought were just a rich people status symbol. Even though I've known about the issue of pool discrimination since my mom, who attended a formerly black-only middle school in Alabama as a child, read me picture books about it when I was in elementary school, I didn't put it together until I read the post.) The quality of your character is determined then by how you respond to the criticism rather than whether or not you knew before the accusations began. The end result is the same, but I feel like holding her responsible for knowledge we have no way of telling if she knew before she started being accused of having it is bad-faith criticism, and I'd much rather hold her accountable for wrongs I know she's committed rather than ones I can only speculate about.

Dudley Dursley deserved his redemption. He grew up with the rule "Don't be like Harry" and figured out by the end of the series that Harry was a person, which is better than either of his parents managed. I honestly think a good dose of the real world-- maybe university or something-- would give him the foundation he would need to separate himself from his parents' beliefs and become a halfway decent human being. I wish the best for Dudley Dursley.

Neville Longbottom deserved better. In every possible way.

[iamnmbr3]

harry definitely not heterosexual potter is the funniest thing to me because i literally cannot remember a single time in the book where he thinks “i should probably be nervous about draco trying to kill me because i am literally convinced that he is willingly working with voldemort.” no. he was like “oh draco? yeah he is definitely working for voldemort and he is so evil because did you see the way he is combing his hair now? probably switched shampoo. he would never change conditioner, that thing works wonders. what do you mean, this is common knowledge. anyway, he is so evil and definitely working for voldy. but of course he won’t kill me, are you crazy? who would he talk to across the great hall? like literally you don’t even understand.” and everyone just WENT WITH IT.

Hahahahaha I KNOW! Would he feel this safe around literally any other person who he suspected of being in league with Voldemort? I think tf not!

Even once Draco has Harry incapacitated and totally at his mercy on the train Harry at no point thinks that he's in danger. Even after Draco breaks his nose he doesn't think it. After that incident Harry still is all 'can't wait to break into the Room of Requirement BY MYSELF while Draco is in there so I can see what secret evil mission he's working on for Voldemort' and at no point does he worry that going in without backup could end badly. And HE'S RIGHT. When Draco has Harry at his mercy he never seriously harms him and risks everything multiple times in book 7 to protect him. This is NOT Harry seeing Draco with rose tinted glasses. This is Harry deeply and intimately understanding that Draco will not hurt him and feeling comfortable around him on an instinctual level despite every reason he has not to.

And let's not forget why Harry finally stops investigating Draco in 6th year. It's not because he decides he's wrong about his whole "Draco is a Death Eater on a mission from Voldemort" theory nor is it because he gets worried that since Draco is a Death Eater on a mission from Voldemort looking into this could get Harry or his friends hurt. No. He stops because his investigation leads to Draco getting hurt. And Harry is so horrified by this that he completely backs off and gives up trying to stop the super secret evil mission from Voldemort that Harry is sure Draco is on. Harry is like 'foiling an evil plot masterminded by Voldemort himself isn't worth it if it could lead to me hurting Draco.' He really said 'I can excuse putting myself in mortal danger on a regular basis to stop Voldemort's plots but I draw the line at Draco being upset.' In canon.

And yeah Harry cares about people in general but not to this extent. When Umbridge gets carried off by centaurs Harry doesn't even think of going after her. He's just like 'lmao bye bitch.' He straight up KILLS Quirrell in first year and when he finds out he's like 'well that sucks for him.' Tons of Death Eaters get hurt and maimed at the Department of Mysteries and Harry never even stops to check if they're ok. In second year he forces Lockhart to enter the Chamber of Secrets first in case there's a Basilisk waiting at the bottom of the chute.

But anytime he sees Draco in danger he does whatever he can to help without even thinking about it. From the time in first year in the Forbidden Forest when he immediately throws his arm out to stop Draco walking towards Voldemort to 7th year when he risks his own life and that of his friends to pull him out of the fiendfyre and reveals his presence while running through the battle so he can stun a Death Eater threatening Draco. And he does it automatically, without a second thought because Harry can't fathom a world where he wouldn't protect Draco.