#how is he just as bad as jkr for not using the book he made in the early 2000s an exact script for the TV show being released in 2024?

[ceasarslegion]

Oh, boy! @general-luce @justfortalkingtofriends @onwardsandfourwords

So i should underline that I don't know exactly where this started, but I have a few personal theories based on what I've read of his and his online presence.

For those who don't know, years and years ago, when Twitter was still Twitter, SK had made a public statement regarding the then-new wave of book banning in the US where he said that if your school bans a book, to go to the nearest public library or book store and find out exactly what it is they don't want you to see and make your own conclusions. In this he included a graph of all the usual suspects of alt right Christian eye lasers: the hunger games, to kill a mockingbird, 1984, Harry potter, etc. JKR responded to this by saying that SK was one of her allies and said something to the effect of "im so glad that someone in our circles still has common sense" because she had equated his statement about how banning books is always bad regardless of what that book is to mean he was supporting her personal views. SK responded with a short and sweet "trans women are women" and then posted a screenshot showing she had blocked him. Objectively funny interaction

My personal theory is that this is where it all started. Because you don't exactly see the whole interaction if you follow someone and they never reply to the last thing someone said to them. If radfems had only seen the one sided view of SKs words through JKR, then they would naturally assume he was on their side.

But ever since then, there's been a weird... spike of radfems in the tags for SK works. Most notably, I've seen them hanging around the tags for The Shining, Carrie, and most often, Misery.

For those who don't know the book plots of these works, The Shining and Carrie focus a lot more on the systemic misogyny aspect of the abuse that Wendy and Carrie White face than their film adaptations do. Wendy is lulled into learned helplessness by being totally financially dependent on Jack after he saved her from an abusive family life, essentially meaning that she traded one abusive situation for another. In Carrie White's case, she's described explicitly as fat and unconventionally attractive for a young woman, which is portrayed as the main reason that she is abused by the other girls in school, and why pig's blood specifically was chosen to dunk her with at the prom. And a HUGE difference between book and movie in these ones is that in the books, SK's women have a lot more personal agency over their actions and are a lot less passive than they seem in their movies. Wendy is way more gung-ho about self-defense against Jack and Carrie White owns her psychic powers more; they drive their own story and actions rather than being people those actions happen to.

In the case of Misery, you can take that and multiply it by 100. A brief plot summary for those who don't know is that Paul Sheldon is an internationally famous author who made millions off of his victorian period romance/drama novels featuring the character Misery Chastain. He kills her off in his recent book because he's tired of being defined by what he terms as trashy romance books and wants to be a Serious Author. He gets in a car wreck and breaks both his legs, and a former nurse named Annie Wilkes drags him out and nurses him back to health. She claims to be his biggest fan and worships the ground he walks on, until the last Misery book releases and she reads her death. She keeps him locked up and tortures him into writing one last Misery novel just for her where she gets resurrected and they all live happily ever after. That's a very basic version of it, but just know that at one point she chops his foot off with a rusty axe for trying to escape and runs a rookie cop's head over with a lawn mower for trying to rescue him, and the only reason she doesnt shoot Paul in between the eyes and then herself is because he hasnt finished her book yet.

Annie Wilkes is also not described as the most attractive person in the world. This is not for any physical features beyond what you would expect from a book written in 1987, this is a combination of how Paul is a bit of misogynist with mommy issues that he ascribes to women as a group himself (heavily implied that his mother used to emasculate and beat him as a child), and how Annie doesn't take care of herself. She's described as gross more than ugly, like she doesn't bother to shower and leaves greasy dishes behind for weeks to grow mold and rot and Paul can smell it on her breath, or hear the rats scuttling in the basement. She was once also on trial for murder in Denver after a strange amount of NICU infants died under her care as a nurse, but was let off for lack of evidence. She's also very religious but in the way racist republicans are religious, so she essentially kills people and thinks it's justified because they were wicked and deserving of damnation. Many things can be read into there with the earlier things I mentioned.

Anyway, Annie has been... I don't know if "reclaimed" is the best word to use? She's been somethinged by radfems. I think most of us with basic reading comprehension can grasp why Paul's character would not exactly describe Annie in the most respectful or best of lights, considering she kidnapped and tortured him, kept him drugged up, killed a bunch of babies, forced him to write a book for her, chopped off his foot, locked him in a cellar with rats, and horrifically murdered the man who tried to rescue him. The TERFs do not grasp this very well. A common theme you'll see among them in the SK book fandom is that Annie Wilkes did nothing wrong and Paul deserved his torture and should've been murdered at the end of the book for his pretty run of the mill milquetoast 1980s misogyny. And that the way King describes Annie is in itself misogynist for describing a kidnapper and torturer in a negative light. There's many who have voiced that they actually felt bad for Annie by the end of the book and described King as "verbally battering" her. As if a few mean words towards again, a kidnapper and torturer as described from the POV of the guy she is kidnapping and torturing, are worse than the kidnapping and torturing.

There's also a few slurs within the book. I want to heavily underline here that these were dropped within the context of showing the flaws of the characters who said them in a horror novel, they weren't just thrown around for the sake of it. For example, Paul introduces a new black character in the book he writes for Annie because his characters go to Africa looking for an experimental cure for Misery's condition and most people tend to not be white in Africa. Annie actually likes this character a lot, and still very casually and without hesitation refers to him as the N word, which in the context of an otherwise relatively relaxed scene, is meant to make the reader flinch and feel uncomfortable, which draws attention to how Annie's poisonous worldviews infect the way she thinks of even the people she likes, reducing them down to inherently inferior even when they hold positive positions in her head. Also, someone like her is not exactly going to realistically use PC language. The discomfort is the point and it's additive to the novel at large. This is of course taken as though King himself approves of the use of these terms despite being vocally anti-racist and portraying racism as an element of HORROR, ie, something to be HORRIFIED by.

So here's some examples I found after 5 minutes of scrolling the Misery tags to prove I'm not fucking with you:

Why are the Stephen King tags so full of terfs when the man himself has been vocally pro trans and told JKR to fuck off

[batcavescolony]

just saw someone say Rick Riordan making a TV show is just as bad as anything JKR has done. BFFR you're comparing Rick Riordan trying to make his world more inclusive, changing some parts because of money/time constraints, or just making changes cus he thinks they're needed, to JKR being a terrible person!

[neroushalvaus]

Okay I am going to use the Somerton situation to talk about something that is very important to me. Following the discussion I have seen former Somerton fans being disappointed in themselves and questioning how they can ever trust another video essayist again. I have also seen some people being smug because to them Somerton was obviously unreliable from the start. As a person who also saw the "red flags" in Somerton, I would like to skip the smugness and talk a bit about what the red flags were to me.

Someone else has probably posted something similar and Hbomberguy's & Todd in the Shadows's videos touched a few of these points, but they didn't focus on them or how to spot these things. I think it is a good thing: I think it would have reinforced the idea that Somerton's fans were to blame for being lied to, and these youtubers didn't want to pin any blame on the fans. Also, some of the things I'm going to talk about were not by any means proof of him being unreliable, they were common tropes I personally associate with people who are bullshitting on internet. Think of it as something like spotting terfs: If you consider following a tumblr user and find out they have at some point posted "males will always be a danger to females no matter what they say", it is very possible that they are not a terf. Maybe they were having a bad day and were just wording their post badly – But you should probably search "trans" from their blog before following them, just to be sure.

So, the tropes in James Somerton's content that I consider red flags:

Lack of sources. This one may seem obvious and Hbomb talked about this in his video, but the lack of sources in his videos was outrageous. Video essays are called essays for a reason, they are not supposed to be just a guy talking about whatever comes to his mind, they should be well researched essays. Obviously video essays should contain one's own thoughts and interpretations and those do not need citations. But James Somerton didn't come out of the womb knowing everything about LGBT history, Disney and film theory, if he actually knew something about all this stuff, he should have learnt it from somewhere. There should be sources he could point to. It is very common that even when a video essayist doesn't tell you where they got all their information, they open their video by saying stuff like "when I prepared for this video I read the book Also sprach Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche and this one thrilling blog post about lesbian cruising in 1960s Sweden". From what I've seen, James does not really do this. From watching his videos you could arrive to the conclusion that James Somerton does not read any books, he just knows everything. There are situations where people don't feel the need to add sources, like when the information is considered common knowledge or when the topic relates heavily to the essayist's actual academic field or profession. This is okay and very understandable, but can sometimes be dangerous, since if the video essayist markets himself as a marketing specialist, people are more likely to take his word for stuff that has to do with marketing, even without sources. It is understandable that in many situations an essayist may think "why should I cite a source? I know this thing!", but doing your research well is partly about checking if the information you are certain of is actually true. Also, as Hbomb pointed out, if you can cite a source, your audience can go learn more about the subject. It's not about anyone doubting you know your stuff, it's about learning. That's why well-respected video essayists usually cite their sources very clearly.

Lack of pictures and screenshots. This is about different kinds of sources again, many things on this list are kind of about sources. An example: When James Somerton made a video about JKR, he mentioned something about Rowling at one time saying that trans students in 30-50Feralhogs (or whatever the wizard school is called) could use magic to present as their gender. If this was any other video essayist, you'd expect a tweet to pop up, or something else confirming Rowling ever said this. Nothing pops up, obviously because Rowling didn't say this, but you can't see anything fishy in that because things rarely pop up in Somerton's videos. He doesn't show you court documents when speaking about a court case, he doesn't show you the comments apparently mad at him for implying the gay anime is gay when he is complaining about people being mad at him. There is a reason people show screenshots and tweets in video essays. When a good video essayist says JK Rowling has tweeted that all people who menstruate should be referred to as women, the video essayist shows the tweet so people know they are not making it up. If there were hoards of annoying bitc-- I mean, angry white women whining about gay sex in HuffPost articles or Somerton's youtube comments, he should have no trouble showing you those. Remember that you should not trust someone just because they show you pictures or screenshots. Pictures can be photoshopped, screenshots can be doctored. Many youtubers are aware that you listen to their videos while cleaning or while walking your dog and don't actually see the screen all the time, and some may take advantage of that by saying something like "and here she threatened to kill me" while showing a text message where someone said "die mad about it". A screenshot alone isn't much but you should demand to see the screenshot.

Passive voice. I am once again bitching about this. Somerton repeatedly says things like "it's been said that" or "it was common knowledge that" or "a legend says that" or "according to most interpretations". He doesn't say who says it, making it very hard to fact check and that seems to be his goal in some cases.

Relying heavily on anecdotes. Writing a dense, analytical video about film theory or history can be exhausting and you may want to pepper in little fun facts. However Somerton seemed to rely on these heavily; he can't just talk about how he has totally bought every lie told by The Pink Swastika, he also needs to tell a cute little anecdote about SS men forcing sexual favours out of men. He can't just tell a story about a court case, he needs to add in ridiculous stuff about the jury booing. This is what I mean by not all the things on this list being necessarily proof of someone being unreliable. Many people use anecdotes and little stories in their storytelling, it makes the videos flow better and it's hard to decide which anecdotes are valid and which are not. A source obviously makes an anecdote a bit more believable, but here are some things that instantly make me fact check an anecdote:

It's a bit too convenient, poetic or ironic. Sometimes real life is weirder than fiction but if an anecdote is "perfect" and has an amazing punchline and you could write twelve poems about it, there is a possibility it was invented by pop science books.

It assumes your political enemies are stupid. Dunking on conservatives, MRAs and transphobes is always fun and after you've seen a lot of this kind of content it's easy to believe anything about these people. You must resist the impulse to believe everything that may make your opponents look stupid.

The person telling the anecdote implies it is an example of a larger, systemic problem. You know what's worse than taking a random happenstance from human history or internet and basing an entire political theory on it? The said random happenstance being made up. You should in general be wary of people telling one story and explaining why it's an example of everything that's wrong in the world. We live in a huge world. You can always find a white woman who loves cute gays but hates the idea of Nick Heartstopper and Charlie Heartstopper getting nasty but that doesn't mean it's an indicator of a larger issue.

Simplifying complex issues. We all know that "only the boring gays survived the AIDS crisis, and that's why gays started to only care about marriage equality and military" is a horrible, insensitive thing to say, but you also have to think about it for like two seconds to realize that it can't be correct. It kind of reminds me of the "roe v wade caused the crime drop of 1990s" claim in Freakonomics. It sounds logical and simple, like a basic math calculation. Societal issues rarely are like that, though. You should never believe anyone who tells you about a huge societal shift and says it happened because of one thing and one thing only.

These were some of the things I noticed in Somerton's content that caused me to distrust him. I hope these were helpful to you and feel free to add your own "red flags" if you feel like it!

[wisteria-lodge]

JK Rowling & the Color Pink

So I'm working on a thing about queer coding in the Harry Potter books... and first I needed to do a sidebar on how the color pink is used. I’ve made a list of every time a character either wears pink, or is heavily associated with a pink object. We actually get some pretty clear categories that are unintentionally very revealing, and say a lot about how JKR sees "girly" femininity.

Let’s start off with the obvious: 

PINK = VILLAIN (FEMME) 

Petunia Dursley: “salmon-pink cocktail dress," "neat salmon-colored coat." Also paints her walls "a sickly peach color."

Gilderoy Lockhart: “lurid pink robes to match the decorations” 

Pansy Parkinson: “very frilly robes of pale pink” 

Rita Skeeter: “long nails were painted shocking pink” 

Aunt Muriel: “feathery pink hat gave her the look of a bad-tempered flamingo.” 

(Aunt Muriel only shows up briefly at Bill and Fleur’s wedding, but then proceeds to insult pretty much every other character, and give Harry an existential crisis by spilling the tea on Dumbledore)

Dolores Umbridge: “a horrible pink Alice band that matched the fluffy pink cardigan.” 

(Also: has pink stationary, and her pamphlet MUDBLOODS and the Dangers They Pose to a Peaceful Pure-Blood Society has a pink cover) 

Cho Chang

(Okay. Not a villain per se, BUT. Cho is the reason the mole gets into the DA in the books (and just is the mole in the films.) And given that she is a sort of Umbridge-aligned sub villain in book 5, at least structurally... it IS interesting that the place she brings Harry for a date has this very pink, Umbridge-coded description. 

It was a cramped, steamy little place where everything seemed to have been decorated with frills or bows. Harry was reminded unpleasantly of Umbridge’s office. “Cute, isn’t it?” said Cho happily. “Er . . . yeah,” said Harry untruthfully. “Look, she’s decorated it for Valentine’s Day!” said Cho, indicating a number of golden cherubs that were hovering over each of the small, circular tables, occasionally throwing pink confetti over the occupants.

Fleur Delacour: “[her wand] emitted a number of pink and gold sparks.” 

(Also not quite a villain, and I adore Fleur BUT… she’s written hyper-femme in an intimidating, borderline threatening way. She’s very opinionated, bordering on rude. She’s “full of herself” as Ginny puts it. And when she gets engaged to Bill and becomes an unambiguously good guy, she has this interesting moment of ~Pink Rejection~)

“. . . Bill and I ’ave almost decided on only two bridesmaids, Ginny and Gabrielle will look very sweet togezzer. I am theenking of dressing zem in pale gold — pink would of course be ’orrible with Ginny’s ’air —”

Hermione Granger: “Wearing a pink bathrobe and a frown”

(Hermione wears pink exactly one time, and it is at her most villainous… during Book 1, when she tries to stop Harry and Ron leaving in the middle of the night to go duel Malfoy.)

A voice spoke from the chair nearest them, “I can’t believe you’re going to do this, Harry.” A lamp flickered on. It was Hermione Granger, wearing a pink bathrobe and a frown. “You!” said Ron furiously. “Go back to bed!” “I almost told your brother,” Hermione snapped, “Percy — he’s a prefect, he’d put a stop to this.” Harry couldn’t believe anyone could be so interfering.

(She literally does the sitting-in-the-dark, villain-lamp thing. Also, in case you were wondering, yes Hermione DOES get a moment of ~Pink Rejection~)

Near the window was an array of violently pink products around which a cluster of excited girls was giggling enthusiastically. Hermione and Ginny both hung back, looking wary.

Which brings us too: 

PINK = SILLY/FRIVOLOUS (FEMME) 

Sybill Trelawney: “after you’ve broken your first cup, would you be so kind as to select one of the blue-patterned ones? I’m rather attached to the pink.”

(She’s a fraud. Also hides empty bottles of sherry in the room of requirement. (I’m going to have to be uncharitable in this section, so am sorry.) 

Parvati Patil: “robes of shocking pink"

(Often described as “giggling,” thinks Professor Trelawney is amazing, the real deal.)

The Fat Lady: “a very fat woman in a pink silk dress.” 

(Often described as giggling. Drinks too much during the holidays. JRK is unfortunately well known for being fatphobic. Also the Fat Lady has a friend named Violet, and Parvati has a friend named Lavender. Not really going anywhere with that, just funny that they’re both shades of purple.)

Hepzibah Smith: “an immensely fat old lady wearing an elaborate ginger wig and a brilliant pink set of robes.” 

(So… almost identical description to the Fat Lady. And I think we should maybe talk about her more, maybe? Because the way she’s framed… I think she might be Tom Riddle’s sugar mamma?)

“I brought you flowers,” he said quietly, producing a bunch of roses from nowhere. “You naughty boy, you shouldn’t have!” squealed old Hepzibah, though Harry noticed that she had an empty vase standing ready on the nearest little table. “You do spoil this old lady, Tom. . . .” 

(Or maybe we… shouldn’t talk about that. Either way, Tom Riddle does kill her, steal her stuff, and frame her house elf so thats… not great.)

PINK = EMBARRASSING 

“Everyone take a pair of earmuffs,” said Professor Sprout. There was a scramble as everyone tried to seize a pair that wasn’t pink and fluffy.

(Pink fluffy earmuffs are adorable.)

“Wash out your mouth,” said James coldly. “Scourgify!” Pink soap bubbles streamed from Snape’s mouth at once; the froth was covering his lips, making him gag.

(The next two example are 'pranks' as well, I think the pink-colored soap is there to add a kind of insult to injury.)

Shocking-pink Catherine wheels five feet in diameter were whizzing lethally through the air like so many flying saucers. 

(This is a bit from Fred and George’s farewell firework show, it's funny that they’re specifically pink fireworks that Umbridge can’t get rid of.)

“Headless Hats!” shouted George, as Fred waved a pointed hat decorated with a fluffy pink feather at the watching students. “Two Galleons each — watch Fred, now!” Fred swept the hat onto his head, beaming. For a second he merely looked rather stupid, then both hat and head vanished.

(also just, pumping up an embarrassing moment)

PINK = OUTSIDER, WEIRDO

Hagrid

Hagrid’s flowered pink umbrella, which contains his broken wand, is brought up a lot. In this case I think we’re meant to see it as a joke. Hagrid’s so big, and so masc, but the pink umbrella makes him non-threatening. However… the pink umbrella, it’s not a totally positive thing, is it? It doesn’t match, it isn’t *him.* Hagrid wouldn't have chosen to carry this around, totally on his own, if he'd had any other choice. It sets him apart, both visually and socially (because it's a constant reminder that he doesn't have a wand.)

Dobby

Dobby, once he is freed, gets pink-and-orange striped socks, and they’re meant to communicate that he’s… kind of a lot. “Yeh get weirdos in every breed,” as Hagrid puts it. JKR has a very strange, honestly antagonistic relationship with Dobby. He’s the victim of book 2, but structurally kind of the villain? He describes the house-elves situation as “enslavement,” but Hermione’s treated as overdramatic for calling house-elves slaves two books later. And then everything is ret-conned and Dobby is… just kind of weird for liking freedom (and socks) as much as he does.

Tonks

Book!Tonks defaults to “bubblegum-pink” hair. Her hair is described as pink a lot. (Movie!Tonks defaults to purple hair, because they were worried that pink would visually align her with Umbridge.) And this is the oddest one on the list to me, because Tonks is such a universally beloved, fan favorite character. But I really do think that *as written*... we’re supposed to put her in a category with Dobby. The two of them leave (unintentional) destruction in their wake. They’re loud, they’re a lot, they take up too much space. Harry thinks they’re both kind of annoying. (and yeah, Harry 100% thinks  Tonks is “a little annoying at times.”)

[youareatragedy]

I personally think SJM is a great writer, or at the very least, she’s good at weaving her own twist into things we already have in fantasy stories (like wyverns, incorporating myths from various cultures, etc.).

CC is so-so, take it or leave it. But when it comes to ACOTAR, it’s different. I’ve seen how protective people are about ToG, and I think that’s totally fine and makes a lot of sense. But the way some ACOTAR die hards use arguments like, "ACOTAR made me fall in love with books again, so I don’t want to hear anything bad about it" is just pure ignorance.

Because see, a lot of us grew up with Harry Potter, and when we became adults, we started seeing it with a different perspective. Sure we’re protective of Harry Potter, but at least most of us are not delusional. We don’t say no one can criticize Harry Potter or that no one can call out JKR. Just because Harry Potter was our "friend" growing up doesn’t mean we have to be defensive and unwilling to examine its flaws.

And just because SJM didn’t use an obvious zio flag in her bio doesn’t mean we can’t call her ignorant or tonedeaf, or even a supporter of problematic ideologies. Using a reason like, "ACOTAR is how I fell back in love with reading" doesn’t excuse people from being critical thinkers. If you liked reading in the first place, you should be able to think critically about the books you enjoy.

Again, like I’ve been saying before, people in no way need permission to like ACOTAR. You can like Rhysand, you can hate Nesta, of course. The thing is, I’m sure these people have already seen the arguments about why Rhys is problematic or why Nesta is actually nuanced, but they refuse to absorb these reasons and are stuck wearing their horse blinders. To them, challenging their initial beliefs feels like a personal attack, which it shouldn’t. Because I assume everyone who reads ACOTAR is an adult and smart enough to not just read. Especially something they know is heavily criticized left and right—with their "brain turned off."

Every time I criticize Rhys and his cult IC, I’m pointing out how incredibly toxic and hypocritical they are. But the stans just keep denying it. Babe, Rhys is a bad leader. He did SA Feyre. He did do something incredibly wrong by hiding an important medical issue about Feyre from Feyre. And the IC is a shit government full of tone-deaf, self-serving people. SJM obviously won’t admit that because SJM thinks Rhysand is the ideal man, and she essentially lives as an elite member of the Velaris of our real world. The IC is correct to her.

So, the next time someone says, "Don’t attack SJM or ACOTAR" I’ll just say, "Shut up. I will still criticize it if people still want to think Feyre wasn’t SA or that she was SA’d for 'good reason.'"

As long as SJM herself doesn’t openly support Palestine, I’ll think of her as complicit in genocide based on her history.

And as long as she keeps writing Rhysand and his "family" as the best kind of leaders who should never be held accountable, ACOTAR will always be a shallow book.

And honestly, anyone who reads it without even trying to view it from different angles? They’re also just ignorant, tone-deaf, and entitled as hell, living so privileged they can’t even bother to understand why something is wrong.

[v-a-l]

Hi! I was just thinking about what made Hermione come to the conclusion that Sirius wants to live through them. Now I last read OOTP a month ago, but I can't remember anything from the conversation that suggests that he wants to live through them, he only said that they should know how to defend themselves because of the environment that will come and that is why the DA is a good idea. And even if Hermione was influenced by Molly during the summer what makes her think that the DA is a bad idea after Sirius says it's a good idea? He gave valid reasons why it is a good idea. Hermione is very smart but this scene just felt and she felt ooc here.

I know that sometimes JKR used characters like Hermione and Dumbledore as spokespersons about what she wanted the audience to know that's why we get Hermione saying that but if that's what she wanted us to think, she did a poor job because Sirius actually kind of right and it makes Hermione look biased against Sirius.

Same with Dumbledore in that conversation with Harry after Sirius's death and it sucks. She wanted us to think Sirius saw Kreacher as inferior because of his species but that's not true at all. Now, some scenes with Sirius and Kreacher made me uncomfortable and I am not going to lie about it. But Sirius hated Kreacher because he was a part of his abusive childhood and repeated the same bigoted stuff his family thought and let's not forget Sirius only got violent with him when he called Hermione a slur. So Dumbledore saying that just feels so ooc because usually he is so wise (but once i read a meta about him seeing Sirius as Grindelwald and thinking by that meta it gives us an interesting perspective about this conversation as well).

Sorry this is getting long 😅. Anyways my point is that none of it makes any sense. It is clear that JKR was biased against Sirius and to show that she brought two other characters down (though these moments can be seen as interesting flaws in them)

Have a lovely day! (Sorry about the long ask, I hope it makes sense)

Honestly, while JKR is a brilliant writer, I also find her fairly reactionary in her writing style. Sirius was one of the most popular characters in the story because she wrote him that way, he inadvertently became more popular than a lot of other characters she preferred because again, she WROTE him that way. Perhaps the creation of a character as multi-faceted and dynamic as Sirius is was entirely by accident, as she really seems to double down on the character assassination as the books go by, but regardless, there's little in the way of canonical proof to suggest that Sirius is trying to live a vicarious life through the kids. Especially cause he's the one who seems to understand what they actually need after all they've been through instead of just patronising them.

Sirius is the only one who takes Harry seriously, he is the only one who tries to not just physically be there like the others, but actually also provide emotional support. He's constantly been doing this since he escaped Azkaban, and at this point, both in the case of Harry generally, and the Weasleys specifically when Arthur was injured, he's repeatedly looking after others at his own personal cost. He gets Ron an Owl, almost tells Harry how to beat a dragon (and that's the kind of stuff Sirius Black simply just goes around knowing, how to take down Dragons), gets Harry his firebolt and Hogsmeade slip. Sirius is generally an emotionally intelligent person, and this is after 12 years of forced isolation from civilisation.

The tragedy of Sirius' arc in OOTP is that there's no one around him who can relate to his experiences. This makes it impossible for Sirius to find the kind of empathy and support he needs from the members of the order. By OOTP, Sirius' mental health, whilst constantly deteriorating is also displayed on technicolour before the entire cast. He's not allowed any secrets, his abusive childhood, his unprocessed grief, years of dementor and solitary confinement related trauma, the fact that he lost his entire twenties, his burgeoning alcoholism is all on display and not spared judgement from the self-righteous members of the Order who did not support him at 21 and are not going to support him at 33.

Furthermore, the narrative repeatedly validates him. He insists that Harry should be told the truth, and he's right, he insists that he can do more instead of just being locked up and left alone and he's right, he wants Snape to restart Harry's lessons and he's right, he repeatedly and actively disagrees with Dumbledore's opaque methods and again, he's right. He gives Harry the two way mirror because Harry needs him to be there, and as Godfather, it is Sirius' responsibility to find a safe way to ensure that happens.

Whilst he's not at his best, he's still trying, he's trying so hard to be what everyone needs him to be even when its contrary to his own instincts and emotional needs which are either dismissed entirely by the people around him or mocked with derogatory catchphrases like "fit of the sullens" that its genuinely heartbreaking that despite him going out of his way to help the Order, not only is his devotion not returned it's barely even acknowledged. They never try to acquit him, there's no mission run by the Order to try and recapture Peter or get Sirius a trial or even an opportunity to give a press conference (which, with the political climate in OOTP would actually be a great way to discredit the ministry), Dumbledore pretty much just locked him in and threw away the key, a circumstance not entirely different from the past 12 years of Sirius' unfortunately short life. An acquitted Sirius would mean a discredited justice system and ministry and also a powerful wizard to run missions again, but this prospect is not even brought up let alone addressed. He gets a posthumous consolation through a footnote in the Daily Prophet, like that could compensate for the trauma and the decade he's lost.

I think it's very binary to put people into boxes and go "this person is only these set of traits and that's all they can be." Sirius is more than his grief for the Potters and love for Harry and years of isolation and torture. He's a brilliant detective, one of the order's most powerful duelists, someone who is blatantly not afraid of calling people out, be it Walburga or Crouch or Dumbledore, someone who despite growing up in a cesspit of bigotry and violence fights for people like Lily Potter and Remus Lupin and Hermione Granger. The guy who barely tolerates Kreacher but is distasteful of Crouch's treatment of Winky. Sirius, like most people, comes with facets and is possibly one of JKR's finest creations. Not that she seemed to realise it herself.

Not that that's surprising.

The most interesting thing about Sirius and Dumbledore, and Dumbledore's repeated refusal to trust Sirius is that unlike pretty much everyone else in the order, Sirius knows that Dumbledore and Grindewald used to be friends. Lily wrote it to him and Sirius read it. If Sirius could figure out the GoF plot while being half starved to death and living in a cave, a free healthy Sirius with a very much alive James Potter would probably have put the whole plot together. I wonder how much that influenced their dynamic in OOTP because whilst the others have nothing on Dumbledore, Sirius does. If Sirius can spare Dumbledore his judgement despite knowing the truth, Dumbledore can get over Sirius being a Black.

[iamnmbr3]

As a massive Drarry fan myself I just want to know your reasons for loving them? <3

To some extent I think it's the "I just think they're neat" meme. On a certain level, it's hard to define why I like anything. I just do, ya know? But yeah I love their characters and the complexity of their relationship and how it deepens both their arcs.

I love how they have been part of each other's lives since day 1, each one's story divergent from the other's and yet inextricably linked. Draco is present for/involved with so many pivotal moments for Harry - becoming a seeker, successfully conjuring a Patronus for the first time, learning he is a Parselmouth, learning Expelliarmus, using Sectum Sempra, gaining the Hawthorn wand and consequently defeating Voldemort etc. And many many more.

Similarly Harry is indirectly the cause of the Malfoy family's downfall, the only person Draco willingly tries to use an Unforgivable on, the only living person to witness Draco's hesitation on the Astronomy Tower, the cause of Draco's courageous decision at the Manor to lie to Voldemort, and the center of Draco's whole life for 5 books. I mean really - everything Draco does in books 1-5 is just summarized as: "Draco Malfoy and How Do I Get Potter to Pay Attention to Me?" Everything from spying on Hagrid's illegal pet dragon to going after the hippogriff to joining the Inquisitorial Squad centers around Harry.

Their stories are inextricably linked in so many ways - both petty and profound. And for all that they are in one sense enemies (first rivals at school and then soldiers on opposite sides of a war) they can never bring themselves to hate or even distrust each other like you'd expect. Whenever one is actually in trouble they always save each other immediately and without question. In book 6 Draco sends the other Slytherins away before confronting Harry and turns his back on Harry to get his wand, safe in the knowledge that Harry will not attack him, or if he does, it won't be that bad and then when Harry finds himself totally at Draco's mercy a moment later he doesn't for a minute fear that Draco will kill him or turn him over to Voldemort or even seriously hurt him. I can't imagine Harry reacting this way if he was in a similarly helpless position around Lucius or Pettigrew or Bellatrix or any other Death Eater.

And they also understand each other so deeply. Harry immediately can tell when something is off with Draco - in book 6 as well as in earlier books. Draco never for a moment believes that Harry is the Heir of Slytherin even when the whole school thinks he is and understands that Harry hates his fame (while even Ron sometimes struggles to accept this).

I am fascinated and compelled by how they circle each other and are enemies who can't quite hate each other and who are inexorably drawn to each other, how they understand each other so deeply and so intuitively, how their wit and personalities and abilities are so complimentary and so compatible, and how their stories connect but also diverge. There's so much potential there and it just feels so right to me. Plus, hilariously, JKR accidentally made it outrageously canon. Draco and Harry's fascination with each other is a major part of their characters and their stories which really can't be ignored or removed.

[severus-snaps]

a ramble and some open questions for fandom elders (and others) about whether Snape was only made more sympathetic on account of Alan Rickman's popularity/casting, and similar things

so I stopped engaging with a tiktok creator for a while who I'd previously found very interesting because nearly every time they brought up Snape, they'd throw in some casual "if Harry was a girl, Snape would be really creepy/predatory about it" or some other weird Snape take not rooted in anything (to my mind). Like, it was weird to me because they bring in book quotes or pottermore/interview snippets to other analyses of other characters and ideas, but never Snape - for Snape, it was always just about vibes and feelings. For Snape, the fact we never hear that he killed someone or the fact we never heard that he stalked Lily is, in fact, strong evidence that he did do those things - or certainly thought about it - and certainly enough to be considered predatory and likely to dose Lily (and later a hypothetical Harriet) with a love potion or keep them in his basement, or something.

I disputed that idea in the comments one time, and some Snape supporting comments outside of mine got removed and users blocked, meanwhile my comments were (I think deliberately) misinterpreted. I stopped using tiktok entirely for a while, and never went back to see if the comments got deleted or whatever. Tiktok never gave me any further notifications about it upon re-downloading, so I guess they were removed? Idk. I have no desire to check.

but all of that is background really; she's lately posted some videos (I still find the rest of her content interesting, but apparently snape content is a no-go lool) saying that Snape's whole characterisation is different after the 'three year summer' - that is, that JKR saw how popular Snape was in the films, that she had to find a way to keep Alan Rickman on board when he wanted to leave, and that when she took her break between writing GoF and OotP I think, Snape sort of morphed into a new character and she had to attempt to redeem him (which, in her eyes, he's not redeemed even at the end which is like. ok). She implied that there's no evidence of James' bullying prior to OotP, no evidence of Snape ever having had a relationship (much less a friendship) with Lily, and that all of that was tossed into the later books retroactively to 'redeem' his character. (Obviously, I have Thoughts on that, which I'll come back to).

Of course, with the sort of... bad vibes she's built up around pro-Snape comments on her videos, all of the comments were in agreement with her. I'm also new to HP/Snape in terms of actively engaging with the fandom online, as it somehow passed me by at the time. But now I have Thoughts

So with all of that in mind, and just because I want to hear other people's thoughts but TikTok comments are a nightmare on their own with the character limit, inability to read them properly/in order, and general vibe of TikTok comments (even without the creator deleting/getting antsy about pro-Snape ideas), if anyone wants to discuss this lot, I am keen to hear people's thoughts:

Was Snape always a popular book character, or did that change/skyrocket with Alan Rickman? (For my part, I don't remember hating Snape when I read the books the first time around - in fact, I hardly remember registering him at all - but I do remember hating Umbridge).

How true is it that Snape was made 'more sympathetic' following the films? To me, it doesn't make sense; the first big, weighty suggestion of the marauders bullying Snape was in PoA, which was released mid-1999; the first evidence that Snape was spying was in GoF, in mid-2000. The first film didn't even come out (Alan Rickman's charisma included) until 2001. Weirdly, the PoA stuff the user is convinced just says that Snape was jealous of James (probably true, not denying it) but in the exact same book Remus/Sirius all but admitted to Sirius trying to kill Snape, which seems like a massive overreaction to Snape being an annoying little hater of a teen that she never comments on because, I guess, Snape deserved it?

Also, does it matter if he was made 'more sympathetic'? ootp was published in 2003, and in early 2002 Alan considered leaving. sure, JK might have added/exaggerated SWM to make him more sympathetic, but the reasons for adding in scenes don't change the fact that that's now part of the fabric of the character - a character who, by this point, had already been revealed in PoA to be the subject of a near-murder plot at the hands of the Marauders and was Very Not Okay about it; the marauders had already been described as troublemakers; Snape was already shown to be wary of Lupin for reasons that weren't solely about him being a werewolf, but about the Prank/Trick/Willow incident. An incident, much like SWM, that occurred because Sirius thought it would be "amusing" to put Snape in a horrible position. if JKR wanted to, she could've made Sirius the ringleader in SWM - but for Snape, I think she just wanted to solidify why a grown man hates a child who looks exactly like his father, which was also referenced in the early books and strongly prefaced by the events of PoA in the Shack (I don't think she had it 'all planned out' from day dot, however, but went with the vibes and fleshed out the details later). Obviously, to this creator, Lupin's idea that Snape was solely a little bitch because he hated that James was better at Quidditch is to be taken at face value, despite the fact the conversation then moves on to Snape's near-death following Sirius 'trick'ing Snape into the willow

Same as above but with his characterisation; she acknowledges that the later books are darker and have a more adult tone, but somehow it's still suspicious that Snape's sympathetic backstory was never once alluded to in earlier books (which, again, I think it's fair to say it was alluded to, but in sufficiently lacking detail so that JK could deal with it when she got there). Also with PoA and GoF especially, there are hints of Snape going from his more 'silly evil teacher' which he kind of was in books 1 and 2, heading towards the more realistic, but still delightfully bitter and flawed, adult character as the books aged up. I haven't read the books in a while I'll admit, but from the Snape passages I have read, I never noticed a sufficient difference pre or post three-year-summer that didn't match the wider tone of the books changing also.

Unlike the tiktok creator, I also think that Snape's reaction to Harry in general is almost entirely to do with James, rather than Lily's so-called rejection, and so there's no evidence that Snape would be weird to a 'Harriet' that resembled his mother, or weird to Lily if he saw her again; I think with his characterisation it's more likely that Harriet would've been treated like Hermione, Ron, or Tonks - being largely ignored with the occasional insult and told off for causing trouble - aka, how Snape would treat most people. Outside of the one isolated 'mudblood' incident, Snape was a bit of a doormat when it came to Lily (bless his heart). He followed her from the train carriage without comment, backtracked when she appeared angry in the post-prank conversation, even the "I won't let you" seemed more "I won't let you turn him into some kind of hero" or even, at a stretch, an "I won't let you be with him" out of Lily's own safety or something than "I won't let you leave me", to me - because he did just let her leave him in school? James and Snape continued hexing one another in 7th year, but there's no suggestion that Snape ever tried to be weird to Lily.

To my mind, there's no suggestion that Snape stalked Lily, no suggestion that he asked Voldemort to capture her - just to spare her. And then Snape went to Dumbledore anyway, probably immediately based on how harried he is on the windy hilltop scene, because he knew Voldemort wouldn't spare her, and even if he did, Snape would probably have to keep up the ruse of 'desiring' Lily, and do the sorts of thing Snaters suggest he wanted to do, just to keep her alive. But with Dumbledore involved, Snape wouldn't ever have the chance to imprison/love potion her - and that wasn't what he wanted. He just wanted her alive so he wouldn't have played a part in her death. I also doubt that Snape had much time to think when Voldemort revealed who he was choosing to kill; it's not as though Voldemort makes decisions by committee. He'd have revealed his plans and Snape would make a quick, panic-stricken decision to tell Voldemort that he desired Lily (which he may have done, to an extent; he'd need to draw on something to back up his request when Voldemort undoubtedly looked into his mind to see why Snape wanted to spare his Priority #1 victim). And like I say, he then set up a meeting with Dumbledore, probably immediately/as soon as he could, sensing that that wouldn't work (was he not convincing enough? Did he just know Voldemort too well? I have so many questions about how that conversation went down, and subsequent conversations about Lily which presumably occurred after V's resurrection).

anyway, no conclusion, only thoughts too rambly for tiktok comments

[forestdeath1]

I see many Snape Stans (I dislike Snape but I see why he turned out the way he did) saying James sexually assaulted him, especially on TikTok, when it’s not the truth at all, we don’t know if he ever actually took off his pants because and it wasn’t his fault that Snape wasn’t wearing any trousers. While he did bully him he never sexually assaulted him, and so many people are now saying this and I’m just flabbergasted, why did no one read the books? Why does everyone get their informations off TikTok and Twitter?

I don't really like this topic, to be honest. But here's how I perceive it.

1. In the canon, as far as I remember, it wasn't even implied that wizards wore trousers under their robes. They all just wore their underwear. And Lupin says:

"Oh, that one had a great vogue during my time at Hogwarts," said Lupin reminiscently. "There were a few months in my fifth year when you couldn’t move for being hoisted into the air by your ankle."

"Yes," he said, "but he wasn't the only one. As I say, it was very popular. . . . You know how these spells come and go. . . ."

So Snape not only created this spell himself, but it also became popular at school. So many students were hanging upside down, showing off their underwear.

From this, we can infer that wizards perceived it slightly differently than we do now, and even than Harry. It was "fun" bullying, but nothing more. Even Lupin himself sounds like he's justifying it, although he probably got hung upside down too ("There were a few months in my fifth year when you couldn’t move for being hoisted into the air by your ankle.").

2. We don't know for sure if James ended up taking Snape's pants off. Logically speaking, JKR simply didn't describe it, assuming that he did. Given the time the book was written, she probably didn't intend to invest it with such a horrible meaning. This all happens in the 70s in the WW. For our time, of course, it's SA. And that's awful. But the perception of that time could leave its mark. For example, when I was in school, many things that are now considered "awful" were seen as "not so bad". Those who did those awful things back then didn't even really understand how awful their actions truly were. Society evolves and we increasingly respect people's personal psychological and physical boundaries. What we didn't perceive as SA back then is considered SA today. A simple example you've probably seen in movies, spanking children was considered normal and right. That's how society raised those people. Surely today those same people wouldn't spank their children, because they would understand it's bad.

So it's likely that nobody at school perceived this action as SA. Moreover, James always played to the crowd. And if he really, according to the author's intention, took Snape's pants off, and the whole school saw it as normal, and didn't start looking at James with disgust... it raises big questions for the school students, doesn't it? If my friend did this today, he wouldn't be my friend anymore. Most people would look at such a person with disgust. But James's popularity didn't diminish at all.

This brings us back to the fact that nobody back then saw it as worse than bullying. So the society of that time hadn't yet formed enough understanding of what SA was and how bad it was to expose someone else's genitals. So James didn't fully understand either how awful it was, much more awful than pink bubbles out of your mouth or doubling someone's head in size. So for them it was all on the same level — taking someone's pants off or making them hang upside down or doubling their head in size.

I'm not justifying it, but the wizarding world is pretty harsh. Neville was thrown out of a window, Harry almost killed Draco, Fred and George literally made a kid disappear for a week, and Hermione kept Rita Skeeter captive in a jar for over a month. All of this is awful, but the wizarding world operates by different moral standards.

If judged in terms of our morality, there are almost no morally pure characters in these books.

I especially don't understand Snape stans (I mean I like Snape, but I don’t understand their logic). In terms of our morality, both Snape and James deserve to be punished. Snape would have got a much bigger sentence for joining and helping a terrorist organisation. What are Snape stans trying to prove? That Snape was better? No, he wasn't. They're all arseholes in terms of the muggle world of 2024.

[aroaceleovaldez]

Your blog is the only blog where I feel safe enough asking this question. What do you think of Percy Jackson fans who feel as though they and the series have a moral superiority to Harty Potter ? Obviously, Harry Potter and its author are laden with questionable and sometimes straight-up hateful takes and views. But the way PJO fans constantly compare the two, its authors (even though RR is far from flawless), and the two MCs (ignoring how the two both share similarities in the fact that they are both traumatised, abused, angry teenage boys). I'm sorry that this ask got so long, but this has been annoying me for a while now.

This is an interesting question - for one, fandom fights over superiority is a concept that has been around for ages and has never been constructive. PJO and HP fandoms have been fighting in that exact way (and it has gone both ways!) for literal decades (remember, PJO turns 20 this year) so this isn't new, it's just taken on a moral flavor. Let's go over some things though (but please keep in mind i never got into HP and never read the books or fully watched the movies so my knowledge of HP is primarily pop culture absorption/secondhand from my family and friends):

Are either series perfect? No. HP absolutely is full of hateful sentiments and JKR is a hateful person and I do not respect her for that. Disney's marketing recently has absolutely fully leaned into trying to put Rick above her as a moral paragon and emphasizing how progressive he is and his support of diversity in middle grade series, despite some failings to reflect that in the actual text. Are Rick and JKR equally bad? Definitely not. Rick has had tangible good influence on adhd/dyslexia awareness that very directly impacted people like me as a neurodivergent kid going through school in the 2000s. JKR meanwhile has directly negatively impacted trans laws internationally very recently.

Rick absolutely isn't perfect, but he's vocally supportive, has made a lot of effort in the past to be inclusive, and still attempts to do so. Most of his issues simply stem from his own unaddressed internalized bigotry/biases and his research on varying topics not being great (plus poor management decisions such as not hiring a sensitivity reader actually fit for the story he's trying to tell). But he's not hateful. JKR is. JKR is very vocally hateful and bigoted and this is absolutely reflected in her work as well even in earlier HP. They are comparable in that they are both middle grade authors of easily two of the most popular middle grade fantasy (or specifically hidden world fantasy) series out right now. They are not equivalent in the slightest in their bigotry or tangible damage.

In terms of Percy versus Harry, I personally don't think they're very comparable. They share some similarities, but mostly just in that they're both the protagonists of their stories and thus serve protagonist purposes. Beyond that their use within the narrative is pretty different functionally. Their worlds' magic systems are not comparable. The hidden world aspect in both their universes isn't even comparable, since in PJO the "hidden world" aspect is very different from most hidden world fantasy formats because the entire point is that it's functionally not a hidden world. The characters themselves are very different as well - Percy's personality and the way he behaves and reacts to his environment is absolutely nothing like Harry's.

Most of the anti-HP-in-general sentiments stem from wanting to cut off JKR's notoriety, which I think is valid to want to do. And I do think there are a lot of issues with continuing to support JKR's work especially in ways that functionally promote her work or support her financially. Obviously, we will never be able to scrub HP from the cultural zeitgeist. It's just not feasible and I'm very anti-book burning so I do think it's important to acknowledge the role HP has had in pop-culture alongside acknowledging its harmful materials. HP is a text you absolutely can't death-of-the-author your way out of because a lot of the vitriol is baked into the text and worldbuilding in very overt ways - and there are plenty of other pop-culture staple novels like this. But fandom in general, at least true fandom and not mainstream fandom, is so obscure most of the time that I don't think, so long as people are not ignoring negative themes of the source material and are being thoughtful as they navigate engaging with it, that it is an inherently bad thing for HP fandom to just exist at all. It's never going to just stop existing no matter what people do. And HP fandom are not the only ones who should be thoughtful about how they engage with their source material - PJO fandom is not exempt from examining some of the problematic aspects in our own text and figuring out how to be respectful with those topics. It's just a lot easier for PJO fandom to tune it out without it being noticed because there's less of it and it's (at least sometimes) less overt. Honestly if HP fandom decided to go more down the path of a fandom like Warriors or Miraculous Ladybug, where the average sentiment is more along the lines of "Oh god no don't read/watch the source material it sucks/we stopped paying attention to it year ago and it's not relevant at all to what we're up to. We're over here functionally rewriting everything from the ground up/doing our own thing" I would very much support them in that endeavor. I do think there is merit in limiting promotion of the HP source material as much as possible, though.

Hopefully that all makes at least some amount of sense.

[junkgatorswritings]

The Prisoner of Azkaban

Hello, I started reading the Harry Potter books with one goal in mind: to prove that one of the reasons it has so many plot holes is because JKR didn't plan out the marauders era.

This book is better than the last one on account of JKR actually (to some extent) figuring out what happened in the marauders era. Now maybe I'm just a tragic backstory type of gal but I really want to know exactly what happened. But I'll get onto my questions later.

Here's what we learn about Lily Evans in this book:

She was a bad egg (Aunt Marge ch. 2 pg. 28).

She begged Voldemort to kill her instead of Harry, and didn't take his offer to move aside (ch. 9 pg. 179).

James and Lily were Married (ch. 10 pg. 204).

Dumbledore advised the Potter's to go into hiding after a spy tipped him off (ch. 10 pg. 204).

There you go that's all we get. Which both makes sense and doesn't. She wasn't technically friends with the Marauders but you'd think that she'd be mentioned at the very least.

James Potter:

He was a wastrel (Aunt Marge ch. 2 pg.28).

At some point probably around their 5th year (because this is when they became animagus) the marauder's map was created (ch. 10 pg. 192). 

You never saw James without Sirius (ch. 10 pg. 204).

He trusted Sirius more than all his other friends (ch. 10 pg. 204).

Sirius was his best man (ch. 10 pg. 204)

Technically it says "they" named Sirius as Harry's godfather but lets be honest it was probably mostly James seeing as Sirius doesn't mention Lily at all (ch. 10 pg. 204).

Dumbledore advised him to go into hiding after a spy tipped him off (ch. 10 pg. 204).

James trusted Sirius so much he told Dumbleore that he thought Sirius would rather die than give up their location (ch. 10 pg. 205).

James insisted that he use Sirius as his secret keeper (ch. 10 pg. 205).

James told Lily to take Harry and go, that he would try and hold Voldemort off (ch. 12 pg. 240).

He was exceedingly arrogant, a small amount of quidditch talent made him think he was a cut above the rest, and apparently he strutted (according to Snape ch. 14 pg. 284).

He saved Snape from an exceedingly deadly prank that was set up by him and his friends. James got cold feet at the last moment, so saving Snape's life was just a way of saving his own future (according to Snape ch. 14 pg. 285).

James would have done the same thing as Harry and go see Sirius himself when he popped up on the map (ch. 17 pg. 339).

James must have used the invisibility cloak fairly often, Remus makes a mention of "the number of times" he saw James disappear under the cloak (ch. 17 pg. 347).

Was one of the cleverest students in the school (ch. 18 pg. 354).

He helped Peter become an animagus and he himself became an animagus in fifth year after trying since third (ch. 18 pg. 354)

There were several near misses for the Marauders when they were running around with Remus on full moons, nothing specific is mentioned about with who or how. They laughed it off because they were young and carried away with their own cleverness (ch. 18 pg. 355). 

James didn't actually know that Snape had been told about the whomping willow, but at great risk to himself he pulled Snape back before he could come face to face with Remus (ch. 18 pg. 357).

He was too arrogant to believe that he shouldn't trust Sirius (Snape ch. 19 pg. 361).

He flew as well as Harry (ch. 19 pg. 372).

James was nicknamed Prongs because his Animagus form was a stag (ch. 21 pg. 411-412).

He would have been disappointed if Harry never found any of the secret passages out of the castle (ch. 22 pg. 424-425).

Dumbledore knew James very well, and he thinks that James would have spared Peter Pettigrew as well (ch. 22 pg. 427).

Sirius Black:

He was rumored to be Voldemort's second in command (ch. 3 pg. 39).

He has a nasty temper, whether this is just a current timeline thing or not is debatable (ch. 8 pg. 161).

At some point probably around their 5th year (because this is when they became animagus) the marauder's map was created (ch. 10 pg. 192).

Madam Rosmerta was shocked to hear he'd gone dark, in fact he was the last person she thought would (ch. 10 pg. 203).

You never saw Sirius without James (ch. 10 pg. 204).

James thought he would rather die than tell anyone where they were hiding (ch. 10 pg. 205).

People think that Sirius got tired of playing double agent and the Potter's death was a declaration to him (ch. 10 pg. 206).

Sirius showed up to the Potter's house almost immediately after they were killed, he got there right after Hagrid pulled Harry out of the house (ch. 10 pg. 206).

He tried to get Harry from Hagrid, but failed (ch. 10 pg. 206).

Said he wouldn't need his motorbike anymore (ch. 10 pg. 207).

He was found laughing with Peter Pettigrew's severed finger in front of him in a crater caused by a magical attack thought to be caused by him (ch. 10 pg. 208).

Fudge believed that Sirius was unhinged for sometime after Voldemort's death (ch. 10 pg. 209).

Sirius was in a picture of James and Lily's wedding as the best man (ch. 11 pg. 212).

Sirius was one of the cleverest students in the school, it took him the better part of three years to figure out how to turn into an animagus (ch. 18 pg. 354).

He could transform into large enough of an animal to keep a werewolf in check (ch. 18 pg. 355).

There were several near misses for the Marauders when they were running around with Remus on full moons, nothing specific is mentioned about with who or how. They laughed it off because they were young and carried away with their own cleverness (ch. 18 pg. 355). 

Sirius thought it would be amusing to tell Snape how to get past the whomping willow (ch. 18 pg. 357).

He blames himself for the Potters death because he's the one who convinced them to make Peter their secret keeper (ch. 19 pg. 365).

The night the Potters died he went to check on Peter and found him gone, it didn't feel right so he then went straight to the Potters house (ch. 19 pg. 365).

He thinks that Peter is weak and talentless, he thought that they could fool Voldemort by making him the secret keeper (ch. 19 pg. 369).

He didn't go insane because he knew he was innocent, and that wasn't happy so the dementor's couldn't suck it out of him (ch. 19 pg. 371).

He thought Remus was the spy (ch. 19 pg. 373).

Remus Lupin:

At some point probably around their 5th year (because this is when they became animagus) the marauder's map was created (ch. 10 pg. 192). 

He thinks that the makers of the Marauders map would have thought it entertaining to lure Harry out of the school (ch. 14 pg. 298).

He was very young when he received the bite that turned him into a werewolf. His parent's tried everything to fix it, but there was no cure. (ch. 18 pg. 352-353).

Dumbledore brought him to the school, and planted the whomping willow, so there would be a safe place for him to transform. Because there wasn't anything else to destroy he tore at himself. (ch. 18 pg. 353).

He was happier than he'd been in his entire life at Hogwarts, he had friends for the first time (ch. 18 pg. 354).

He made all kinds of excuses about where he was going when he transformed because he was afraid that his friends would leave him (ch. 18 pg. 354).

There were several near misses for the Marauders when they were running around with Remus on full moons, nothing specific is mentioned about with who or how. They laughed it off because they were young and carried away with their own cleverness (ch. 18 pg. 355). 

They used to roam the castle and Hogsmeade grounds with his friends, which is apparently how they learned so much about the castle and eventually got the idea for the Marauders map (ch. 18 pg. 355).

Remus and Snape didn't get along (ch. 18 pg. 357)

He thought Sirius was the spy. It's unclear if this is because he was put in prison, or he thought so before James and Lily died (ch. 19 pg. 373).

Peter Pettigrew:

At some point probably around their 5th year (because this is when they became animagus) the marauder's map was created (ch. 10 pg. 192). 

He was a fat little boy always following after James and Sirius (ch. 10 pg. 207).

He was always bad at dueling according to McGonigal (ch. 10 pg. 208).

He received the order of Merlin First Class (ch. 10 pg. 208).

His mother got back the order of Merlin first class and Pettigrew's finger in a box (ch. 11 pg. 215).

Was helped by Sirius and James with becoming an animagus, it took him the longest (ch. 18 pg. 354).

There were several near misses for the Marauders when they were running around with Remus on full moons, nothing specific is mentioned about with who or how. They laughed it off because they were young and carried away with their own cleverness (ch. 18 pg. 355). 

He was the Potter's secret keeper, because Sirius convinced James that no one would suspect Peter (ch. 19 pg. 365).

He betrayed the Potters (ch. 19 pg. 365).

He's been hiding from the death eaters more than Sirius (ch. 19 pg. 368).

He always liked big friends who would look after him, it used to be the other Marauders (ch. 19 pg. 369).

Peter never did anything for anyone unless he could see what was in it for him (ch. 19 pg. 370).

He says that Voldemort forced him to spy, but almost immediately back tracks and says that Voldemort was taking over everywhere and that he would have killed him (ch. 19 pg. 370-371).

General Marauder's era knowledge

Harry theorizes that Lucius Malfoy was in the inner circle and knew about Sirius (ch. 11 pg. 215).

According to Snape the Marauder's map is full of dark magic (ch. 14 pg. 289).

Snape was jealous of James, apparently of his quidditch prowess (ch. 18 pg. 357).

Snape saw Remus being led across the grounds by Madam Pomfrey one night and became curious (ch. 18 pg. 357).

Snape tried to get in on Sirius' advice and was then pulled back by James; saving his life (ch. 18 pg. 357).

Now on the surface this is a lot of information but here are my questions that I'm pretty sure aren't answered.

Why did Sirius think Remus was the spy? Was it simply because he was a werewolf?

Why did Peter betray them? Yes in theory it's because Voldemort was growing in power but was there a specific event? Did he get captured and then flip? Did he seek Voldemort out?

If Remus did think Sirius was the spy before he was sent to azkaban, why?

Where the hell are Lily's friends? One of her friend's is the only one who lives past the second war and she's part of the order, why doesn't she ever talk to Harry?

Edited on November 23, 2024 to add chapter numbers

[validdisaster]

I Probably Won't Watch MisMag, But I Think I'm Glad It Exists?

I don't know if this is a valid feeling or some kind of misplaced trauma reaction, but when I hear American leftists/liberals joking about jkr or performing reparative or critical versions of Harry Potter, I sometimes feel a deep... I dunno, unease? I could be wrong, but I'm not sure a lot of international people really understand the kind of grip she has on the UK.

This is a country where transgender people were banned from the panels and review boards for the 2024 Cass Report that would define how trans children were treated in schools, the healthcare they have access to, and the support they have, then gave recommendations that will pave the way for making it more challenging for trans people as a whole to move through society with general dignity, respect, and essential medical care. Meanwhile, the new (leftwing) prime minister, who has refused to make any declarative claim about his beliefs on transgender people, made special time for a meeting with jkr in a bid for votes just a few weeks before the election to assure her he would do basically whatever she said to 'support women and girls' (whatever that means to a woman who has designated herself the arbiter of who is 'too masculine' for girlhood). Now, I'll be honest, that was before her descent into minor Holocaust denial and the Olympics bollocks, but long after she started paling around with people in far-right white supremacist circles. Her voice was considered more important than any medical professional who happens to be trans.

Personally, (and this is just my anecdotal experience) I've had family members, colleagues and even an ex-partner parrot lines almost word-for-word from her essay as an excuse to get away with some pretty nasty behaviour, despite never having read it and not knowing where that was where it came from - that's how much she has permeated British society. I have a difficult, strained, or nonexistent relationship with people who meant a whole lot to me and I don't know if that would still be true if J K Rowling hadn't decided to go off one day. People hurt me who might not have. She's able to use the fact that she's the writer of the Harry Potter books as a kind of cover to gain this legitimacy that lets people hand-wave away or not look closer at some of the most unambiguously bad stuff you can do and say. Again, I do have to say, I'm from a not-very-liberal area and the work I do is mostly manufacturing or call centre (so full of not-very-liberal people). Idk if other parts of the UK are different, but I sure as shit can't afford to live in them.

This might be a personal despair that I need to work through, but I'm just not sure any reparative stories set in echoes of Hogwarts can possibly do any good. She's still here, she's still hurting us, she still has more of a voice in British politics and discourse than the rest of us working together can possibly muster and her past seems like more of a shield to the bad things she's currently doing than something that can be reimagined correctively.

To be fully clear, I'm not criticising the mismag crew here, and I'm not criticising international folks (trans or cis) for not knowing the detailed minutia of what's going on in my very unimportant neck of the woods. I'm just trying to work through my feelings about a person who's done a lot of demonstrable harm to me and mine, and the kind of casualness that I feel like her impact gets treated with sometimes.

I get the sense that a lot of (particularly cis or non-british) leftwing circles treat her like such an obviously-bad punchline gremlin that they forget she's still a bogeyman to some of us, I'm still scared of what she'll do next. And it's weird to see people having fun in the funhouse-mirror version of her passion project. Maybe it's jealousy. I loved Harry Potter and Hogwarts for a long time. Maybe I just miss feeling safe there.

I hope there will be a day I feel safe enough to laugh about her. Maybe it's not such a bad thing that other people are there already?

[firendgold]

Harry, Albus and King's Cross

I've seen a lot of fanfics over the years that (when sending Harry temporarily to the afterlife) treat Dumbledore's appearance at King's Cross as an error, or something that The Fandom As A Whole Thinks Is Bad. Not only is the latter a false idea (hi, meet me. I'm still in the fandom for some godforsaken reason lol), but it also kind of rubs me the wrong way to see fanfic-AU!Harry meet instead with Lily (whom he doesn't know and whose accurate shade he probably wouldn't be able to summon to the in-between), Sirius (who is the best alternate contender but isn't the loss weighing most heavily on Harry in DH), Remus (...lol. nah), Death itself (personifying a metaphysical concept to give it more gravity or screentime is a departure from the themes of the series, fight me) or someone/something else.

It was always going to be Albus who met Harry. Not because he's a hallucination. Not because he's the personification of Death or whatever. (Those two ideas are debatable and could be argued, but they're not the point. That's not why.) The why is because Albus Dumbledore is who Harry had come to rely on the most over the entire series. Before Sirius. In spite of Remus. Before his Head of House. Over the flaky government. Albus was Harry's mentor and one of Harry's many flawed father-figures; he was the most enduring person present in Harry's adolescence; and he was the person whose guidance Harry sought almost constantly over the entire final book when he couldn't get it anymore.

A good portion of Harry's character is about the losses he experienced before he was ever aware of them, and about the losses he experiences once he is aware of who he is and what he must do. Albus' loss slots neatly into the latter category and gives us a front-row seat to how Harry grapples with losing someone so important to him.

(Emphasis on "front-row seat" because for some reason, That Woman decided to have Harry insta-heal from losing Sirius in HBP with only the briefest single-sentence reference to off-screen grieving for a few weeks. Like. I realize he only knew Sirius for 2.5 years, but Harry loved him, JKR. What the fuck?)

But yeah. Tangents aside, it was always going to be Albus who met Harry in the fake King's Cross. Sirius died in an inexplicable way which had to be explained both to the readers and to Harry (recall Harry saying "He's only just gone through!" because he thinks the Veil is a curtain, and Remus having to be the one who says "There's nothing you can do, Harry... nothing... he's gone." And although I wasn't active in the fandom then, others can co-sign that there were LOTS of "Sirius Lived/Sirius Will Come Back!" conspiracy theories IRL following the release of book 5). By contrast, Harry watched Albus die. He knew what happened and how irrevocable it was from the moment it occurred.

Most of Harry's conflict and disillusionment with Albus in the final book is the equivalent of a pressure cooker, building until the "explosion" of numb betrayal that happens in The Prince's Tale and is then promptly reversed in King's Cross. Throughout Deathly Hallows, it is Dumbledore's absence which frustrates Harry, confuses him, unmoors him. Dumbledore's final return to Harry in chapter 35 is the circle closed; the wound cauterized. Explanations are finally had; information is finally available to Harry, who thrives on being informed so he can make the decisions which most align with his character. Once he has this information (information he could only have had confirmed from someone actually crossing from the land of Death to meet with him), once he understands that Dumbledore wanted him to live but made the painful choice to lead him to Death in the name of destroying Voldemort, Harry makes the choice to forgive Dumbledore for his part in the pain and misunderstandings that have plagued his life.

In order to have someone else meet Harry at the crossroads between living and dying, you have to basically rewrite not only the end of Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows, but also a significant portion of every other book. If it's an AU, have at—I might even give it a read. For meta discussions though? I say a third time: Albus was always going to be the one waiting for Harry at King's Cross.

[blorger]

jkr doesn't like Draco but is also desperately trying to make some sort of point with his depiction, I just think it doesn't translate very well to her audience. - can you explain more?

and jkr is terminally incapable of making a femme-coded villain that doesn't read as attractive - what do you mean by this?

Just to clarify, you're not asking me to prove that jkr dislikes Draco, right? Because that would take ages.

If you're wondering what point jkr was trying to make with Draco's depiction, well... in the post you're referring to I pointed out that we as readers often end up interpreting Draco as good looking (because of the way he's described) and that is just one of the many things that proves the huge disconnect between what jkr wanted Draco to be perceived like and how he's generally understood by the fandom.

Draco was deliberately created to be an amalgamation of things jkr dislikes:

he's evil wealthy

With the unquestioning belief in his own superior status he has imbibed from his pure-blood parents, he initially offers Harry friendship on the assumption that the offer needs only to be made to be accepted. The wealth of his family stands in contrast to the poverty of the Weasleys; this too, is a source of pride to Draco, even though the Weasleys’ blood credentials are identical to his own.

[x]

Notice how jkr herself compares the Weasleys, her genteel poverty-coded ideal family, to the nasty rich Malfoys. Reading jkr's books gives you the impression that she feels some type of way about rich people; on the one hand she started writing hp at a time in her life where she didn't have much money so she gave Harry a secret fortune as a sort of wish-fulfillment, on the other hand, despite what she says she definitely believes that experiencing poverty makes you somehow a better person.

2. he's pathetic

jkr has stated multiple times that Draco is someone to be pitied; in a series where courage=nobility of spirit Draco is a consummate coward and his deliberate femme-coding is there to further give you an overall negative impression of him.

3. he' s a Bad Guy

Like, Draco is on the wrong side of things for a reason, not only that he's on the wrong side in a way that jkr considers to be near irredeemable. Despite jkr herself acknowledging that Draco's beliefs are a natural result of his upbringing

I pity Draco, just as I feel sorry for Dudley. Being raised by either the Malfoys or the Dursleys would be a very damaging experience, and Draco undergoes dreadful trials as a direct result of his family’s misguided principles

[x]

She still considers him to be fundamentally unlikeable.

[x, x, x]

We're not supposed to like Draco, we're not supposed to sympathise with him, we're not supposed to see him as fundamentally redeemable. jkr (as clearly shown by her terf ways) is frankly incapable of feeling empathy for people whose experience cannot in some way shape or form relate back to her and will therefore never truly understand why people like Draco.

Draco, just like Pansy, is built in the image of a standard bully

[x]

and in the hp books, a series with a very black and white depiction of morality, a grey character like Draco can never truly be redeemed.

I don't know about you but my image of Draco differs greatly from jkr's. As I pointed out previously, the books read very differently if you don't hold the exact same worldview as jkr and that is precisely why Draco is a popular character; people are still able to empathise with him, despite jkr's intentions, and many people get a completely different, more nuanced read of his character.

As for the femme coding thing, I'm afraid I was using a hyperbole. I was thinking of jkr's bonkers depiction of Tom Riddle when I wrote that but there's quite a few characters that read very feminine but aren't described very flatteringly (Percy and Slughorn come to mind).

Hopefully this is the answer you were looking for,

xoxo

[360degreesasthecrowflies]

Sorry for more Harry Potter content (I've been on a meta binge again) but I'm just annoyed with this one because as a writer it's another worldbreaking moment: how on earth did Rowling think it was remotely realistic in Deathly Hallows after painstakingly setting up over the preceding six books that a) Harry doesn't work alone to solve mysteries/challenges, but collaborates with his friends and allies, and b) that Harry's minor enemies the Death Eaters and Malfoy have on multiple occasions, both social and battlefield-based interacted with not Harry solo, but Harry with friends and allies (notably, World Cup, COS Diagon Alley, Ministry of Magic OOTP battle) and furthermore never as far as I can remember outside of GOF graveyard come across Harry on anything that could be construed as a 'solo mission' - that anyone from Voldemort to the Death Eaters would believe that Harry would be working on a solo quest now against Voldemort and that Ron would just dip out due to illness and Hermione would disappear, while Ginny, Luna and Neville just went back to school and the rest of the Weasleys went back to work, and out of the narrative focus - yet weren't at any point tortured for information or threatened or assaulted etc. as associates of Harry who were probably working together.

In DH time and time again people are surprised to find Harry working with others, or oddly incurious about who those others might be. (And while this could work as a meta commentary on fame, celebrity, or class status - that's definitely not intended and giving her way too much credit!) JKR would have us believe that the Death Eaters can get into the HQ of the Order of the Phoenix and yet somehow never look for any info or records in there of who they were or whether they're still active? Nobody questions why, after Malfoy Manor, it seemed that someone who looked quite like Harry Potter (on that note, none of the wizards there could magically DNA test him or even cure his swollen face to bring him back to his normal appearance?) was travelling with a miscellaneous Weasley and Penelope Clearwater, a student he was never known for interacting with? Come on JK. You've told us the baddies are evil, they don't have to to a person be cartoonishly stupid as well. You told us you aren't writing for an audience of small children any more, so act like it.

For all that we can (and do, and I will continue to do so!) critique her as a person for her glaring flaws, bullying and bullshittery in recent years, this is just straight up bad plotting as a writer. It increasingly feels like the Harry Potter series of 7 books is in actuality made up of 3 AUs that just carry over the same character names and situations from books 1-3, to 4-5 and finally 6-7.

[vazaha-tya]

the fact that fans consider snape a poor and abused orphan and a hypercompetent prodigy at the same time is... interesting.

i suppose it's canon-accurate, the man does contain multitudes. when it's time to highlight how much the marauders suck, severus snape is defenseless against his horrible classist bullies. when it's time to show off how smart he was, he knows a wide array of curses and potions and invented some himself. the gap in canon comes when someone asks if he just fantasises about using those in his textbook margins, or if he actually used them. if he did, then against who, and why was is it never addressed by the narrative?

maybe because then the author would have had to work harder at writing a proper redemption arc instead of killing him conveniently and revealing he turned to the right side because he was childhood friends (and/or in love) with lily evans.

don't get me wrong, i want to like snape. i want to like the talented yet emotionally stunted potions professor who made the wrong choices and despises harry but still wants to do right by him and the wizarding world. i want to like the spy who hates kids but is forced to endure them because the dude who made sure he didn't go to jail is his former headmaster and he wants to keep him close at hand. i want to like the abused kid who was radicalised because he was offered power and a way to be vindicated after spending his life subjected to a horrible family dynamic where his father's hatred of magic features heavily.

but he's a bad spy, his motivations for switching sides are not compelling and the marauders-snape conflict, which could have been a smart way to represent a microcosm view of the wider issue i.e the clash of ideology and the brewing civil war existing at the time, instead becomes about a girl. eyeroll.

(but that's part of a wider conversation about how all the death eaters who turned against voldemort turn out to have done so only for selfish reasons and not because they saw his ideology as wrong. sigh. i'll headcanon it away as much as i can, but that's the textual information the books give us. thanks, i hate it.)

i even think it was a good idea to make the death eater an underdog who joined because he yearned for acceptance and respectability and also despised his muggle father while the front kids on the light side are two posh purebloods who have "no" stakes in this. it adds some complexity to the conversation, introduces nuances, and... is plainly something jkr couldn't handle. because she doesn't really do nuance.

and some fans can't either, i suppose, since i just saw a post saying that when remus and sirius talked about snape knowing more curses than half the seventh year while they just entered hogwarts, they actually meant curse words. eyeroll. why do you want him to be blameless? let him be a cunt. he's more interesting that way.