#hp meta

[pangaeaseas]

also its obvious that Harry's signature spell that he chooses to use against Voldemort is a nonlethal spell without much of a physical effect that deprives anopponent of the ability to do harm is deliberately contrasting Voldemort's signature spell being solely to kill on one hit with no other uses.

[hermiones-amortentia]

Does the Weasley bashing stem from their horrible portrayal in movies or there's another reason behind it aka good ol' classism?

Arthur is seen as this aloof, dumb, airhead guy who only talks about rubber ducks. When he is one of the prominent members of the order of the phoenix, exclusively fights death Eaters, is reasonably intelligent and has strong moral compass. Meanwhile Lucius is seen as this badass intelligent suave powerful guy who loses to a couple of 15 yos in the department of mysteries fight.

Molly treats harry as her own son. She risks her life and his family to keep harry safe. She actively fights against deatheaters. She literally never takes a single penny from Harry. But she is seen as this overbearing toxic boy mom who apparently steals from Harry's vault, uses love potion on Harry and Hermione and plots with dumbledore to pimp her daughter. Meanwhile Narcissa the racist, classist, bigoted woman who was gleefully watching an 18 yo girl getting crucioed in her own house by her mad sister is seen as this aristocrat, progressive muggleborn lover wholesome mom who only wants her son to be safe.

Both Narcissa and Molly are housewives. I see numerous people complaining how it's out of character for Molly to kill Bellatrix in a duel when she is an active member of the order for years. While the same people do not give a f that Narcissa lied to the most powerful occlumence in the world. No one says it's out of character.

Don't get me started on Percy and his redemption. Percy came back to his senses, apologized, fought in the battle of Hogwarts. One of the best redemptions after kreacher's. Yet I see no one's salivating over it since people claim to love redemption so much. Yet the fangirling over Regulus Black's futile attempt to get the locket after his slave was harmed by voldemort or Draco Malfoy being the bare minimum king not killing dumbledore face to face are seen as peak redemption.

Also while we are on this topic, Percy got more OWLs than Hermione. He is extremely academic and bright. Why does no one say Percy is Hermione's 'intellectual equal' when so called 'hermione fans' are all about finding her intellectual equal?

Ron. Oh dear ol Ron. Where to start? Boy gets 7 OWLs with mostly Es, is a chess prodigy, can mimic a language that is almost impossible for anyone to copy, is praised by a qualified auror for his combative skills, can conjure slugs with a nonverbal spell in second year, is witty, sarcastic yet he is 'dumb' and 'stupid'. Meanwhile the guy whose father openly says that if his marks don't improve he would have to become a thief or a plunderer and who takes an entire year to fix the vanishing cabinet is seen this smartest wizard in his year. Hermione's true intellectual equal. Ron who gloats about his wife's success and intellect and is her biggest cheerleader is seen as 'he would hold her back and would resent her success' meanwhile the guy who verbally emotionally as well as physically abused her for being a muggleborn, for being smart, is seen as this progressive feminist icon.

Also there's this notion that Ron would want a wife similar to his mother and would prefer a house wife when Ron's one of the biggest insecurities is his mom doesn't love him and he is Expendable. He would keep his wife barefeet pregnant like his mom when his wife became the minister of magic. Meanwhile the progressive feminist icon's wife is a house wife. Not that there's anything wrong in being a house wife. I am just pointing out the irony.

Ginny hate is a combination of both classism and mysogyny. She dated 2 guys before Harry so she is a wh***. Meanwhile Hermione who dated 2 guys before Ron is pure virgin mary.

Bill while not as much bashed as the others is still accused of stealing from Harry's vault, love potioning Fleur and helping dumbles to execute his plan.

Fred George and Charlie get the least amount of hate because

1. They didn't come in the way of people's non canon ships.

2. They are not as relevant as the other Weasleys. So it's easy to ignore them.

The amount of classism and aporophobia Weasleys face is insane.

[otter-and-terrier]

omg this is literally a perfect explanation??

Ginny Weasley

Ginny is such a fascinating character when you peel back her layers: beneath her bold, confident exterior is a girl fighting to carve out her own identity in a family where it’s easy to get lost. Being the youngest and the only girl in a family full of loud, opinionated boys? That’s a battle for space, for attention, for agency. And the way she navigates that pressure (sometimes through defiance, sometimes through sharpness) reveals both her strength and her wounds.

The Weight of Being "The Only Girl"

Ginny grows up in a household where gender roles, while never explicitly rigid, definitely shape how she is treated. Her mother dotes on her and clearly wants to protect her in a way she doesn’t with the boys. Molly’s love is fierce, but also stifling, especially for someone as independent as Ginny. Imagine how frustrating that must be when all your brothers are given more freedom while you’re constantly being watched.

This is a girl who grew up watching her brothers play Quidditch but was never invited to join them. She had to sneak out and practice on her own. Even from an early age, Ginny learned that if she wanted something, she had to take it for herself, no one was going to offer her a seat at the table.

And that kind of environment breeds a specific kind of defiance: I will not be ignored.

Why She’s So Sharp with Ron

Her relationship with Ron is especially charged because, in many ways, they’re both fighting for the same thing: respect. Ron feels like the overshadowed youngest brother, constantly compared to the successful older ones. Ginny feels like the invisible baby sister, struggling to be seen as more than a fragile little girl. When those frustrations collide? Fireworks.

• Ginny’s Insults to Ron: There’s a meanness in how Ginny talks to Ron sometimes, calling him immature, mocking his romantic failures. But isn’t that rooted in her own frustration? She sees herself as stronger and more mature because she’s had to grow up faster under the weight of being underestimated. To Ginny, Ron represents everything she’s trying not to be: uncertain, insecure, and overshadowed. Maybe tearing him down is her way of asserting her own independence.

• Ron’s Dismissiveness of Ginny: On the flip side, Ron tends to treat Ginny like a child long after she’s proven she isn’t one. He’s protective in a way that’s both loving and condescending. From Ginny’s perspective, it must feel infuriating, especially when she’s lived through things (like the Chamber of Secrets) that none of them fully understand.

Their friction isn’t just sibling rivalry, it’s a fight for autonomy, for recognition. They’re both clawing to be seen as themselves, not as the roles their family casts them in.

Her Distance from the Older Brothers

Ginny’s relationship with Bill, Charlie, and Percy is more distant, partly because they were already grown or gone by the time she came into her own, but also because she probably felt like she had to perform around them.

• Bill and Charlie: They’re the “cool, successful” older brothers, and it’s easy to imagine Ginny hiding parts of herself when they’re around. She likely admires them but knows they don’t see her fully. With them, she probably leans into the role of the “feisty little sister”, a persona that is real, but not the whole truth.

• Percy: This relationship is particularly interesting because, in some ways, Ginny might understand Percy more than the others. Both of them want to be taken seriously in a family that doesn’t always make room for that. But where Percy chose rules and ambition to carve out his identity, Ginny chose rebellion and strength. You could imagine her feeling a mix of pity and judgment toward him, maybe she sees his rigidness as a cautionary tale.

Molly’s Suffocating Expectations

Molly’s love for Ginny is intense. As her only daughter, Ginny represents all of Molly’s hopes and all of her fears. There’s a sense that Molly wants to protect Ginny in a way that feels both maternal and controlling.

• Overprotection After the Chamber: After Ginny’s trauma in her first year, I imagine Molly becomes even more protective. But for someone as strong-willed as Ginny, that kind of coddling feels like a prison. It probably explains a lot about why Ginny pushes boundaries, dating older boys, joining the DA, fighting in the Battle of Hogwarts. She needs to reclaim her power after losing it so completely to Tom Riddle.

• The “Perfect Daughter” Ideal: Molly also likely has a vision of who Ginny should b (kind, ladylike, the future wife and mother) and Ginny pushes against that every chance she gets. Her boldness, her sarcasm, her refusal to be "sweet" in a conventional sense is a direct rejection of Molly’s expectations.

I imagine Ginny feels both loved and trapped by her mother. She’s proud to be a Weasley but unwilling to be defined by her family’s image.

Ginny’s Hard Edges – A Defense Mechanism

A lot of Ginny’s harshness, especially toward her brothers, can be read as self-defense. She’s had to be tough to survive:

• The Chamber of Secrets: Ginny’s first year is marked by profound isolation and violation. No one, not her family, not even Harry, really understands what she went through. That trauma likely shapes her fierce independence. She won’t let herself be vulnerable like that again.

• Living in the Shadows: Imagine being the seventh Weasley. By the time Ginny reaches Hogwarts, every teacher, every student has already met a Weasley sibling. She’s probably constantly compared: to Bill’s brilliance, Charlie’s bravery, Percy’s ambition, the twins’ humor, Ron’s friendship with Harry. Being tough, being bold, and refusing to conform is her way of saying: I am not just another Weasley.

Why This Makes Her Relationships More Complex

Ginny’s complexities make her relationships richer and more meaningful:

• Her Love for Harry: With Harry, Ginny starts as an infatuated child but grows into an equal partner. Part of why she doesn’t coddle or chase him is because she’s tired of being dismissed herself, she refuses to play the role of "adoring girlfriend." She demands to be seen as an equal, not a prize.

• Her Bond with Fred and George: They treat her with the most respect, maybe because they also reject the family’s rigid roles. But even here, Ginny’s wit is a weapon. She has to be sharp to survive their teasing. In some ways, her humor is an armor she learned from them.

• Her Loyalty to the Family: For all her rebellion, Ginny loves her family fiercely. She stays and fights in the DA. She risks her life in the Battle of Hogwarts. She pushes back against her family’s labels not because she doesn’t love them, but because she wants them to love the real her.

The Heart of Ginny’s Story

At its core, Ginny’s arc is about fighting to be herself in a family where it’s easy to be swallowed whole. She’s bold because she has to be. She’s sharp because the world won’t make space for her softness. And beneath all that fire? A girl who wants to be loved for who she truly is, not the image others impose on her.

And maybe that’s why she’s so fascinating because in her struggle to be heard, we see both her strength and her vulnerability

[ugly-cactus]

common criticism i see of remus lupin is that he should've taken in harry as a baby (forseeing his mistreatment by the dursleys) but petunia is harry's blood relative. she is a mother, financially stable, and physically and psychologically capable; she and vernon are ostensibly fit to accept a second child. meanwhile, remus is a single 21-year-old who can never have stable employment. he can't afford childcare while he's working/wolfing. even if he had money, his mental state (likely the worst of his depression) is in shambles after the deaths of his friends and comrades. his furry problem would be a danger to harry. he no longer has a strong support system. he is in no state to, especially by himself, figure out how to care for an infant, raise a child, and protect this very very high-profile boy from politics, violence, and literally himself. and remus never checks up on harry or visited him, because he trusts dumbledore implicitly and can't imagine that his childhood would be unsafe. i think he wouldn't presume that petunia could mistreat harry either. he's friends with james, but doesn't seem to know lily that well (lily's letters talk about sirius, but never remus) so maybe he doesn't know of her hatred for wizards.

no hate for young remus yo

[neverenoughmarauders]

Lily's meaningless sacrifice

One thing that irks me is when people suggest that in canon, Lily had any idea that Harry would survive (this is merely a canon post, nothing to do with fanfiction). It irks me, partly because it's just incorrect and that's the sort of person I am. More importantly, however, it irks me because Lily not stepping aside when she had nothing to gain from dying is fundamental to the story.

Let's start with JKR own words from an interview in 2005:

MA: Did she know anything about the possible effect of standing in front of Harry? JKR: No - because as I've tried to make clear in the series, it never happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore, knew that could happen.

Lily knew nothing about the possible effect of standing in front of Harry. Lily was faced with this choice:

Scenario 1: Steps aside, and Harry is killed.

Scenario 2: Be killed, and Harry is killed.

Scenario 1 is (on the surface) objectively better (unless you're a DE and thus want less muggle-borns around). To Voldemort, it's a simple choice: In both scenarios Harry will die, in one, Lily will survive. In fact, this is what makes a lot of people defend Severus' choice to only ask Voldemort to spare Lily. Severus could not save Harry (and apparently it's totally cool not trying to save others if they bullied you).

Lily could not save Harry.

Lily's choice, as far as she is aware, is not whether to save Harry or not, but whether to save herself. And yet, Lily cannot stand aside. As JKR points out earlier in the interview, what Lily did is not that surprising to us readers ("I don't think any mother would stand aside from their child"). Why? Love. Because, as Dumbledore reminds us on multiple occasions: there are worse things than death - most notably in DH:

"Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living, and, above all, those who live without love."

Love, and life with and without love is an undercurrent in the story. Lily's sacrifice is meaningless when made, and yet it's the biggest and most understandable expression of love anyone can show someone else. Lily cannot, and does not want to, live in a world where she has witnessed her son being murdered - especially when her husband has been murdered too. A world without Harry and James is no world for Lily Potter.

It is also - bear with me - not that different from what it was like to be in the Order at that time:

[Y]ou weren’t in the Order then, you don’t understand, last time we were outnumbered twenty to one by the Death Eaters and they were picking us off one by one...

“He — he was taking over everywhere!” gasped Pettigrew. “Wh — what was there to be gained by refusing him?”

The Order operated against the odds and were being picked off one by one. As Peter asks - what was there to be gained by refusing him? What was there to be gained from standing (metaphorically or not) in front of Voldemort's victims? I've said this before and I'll say it again, Sirius' answer is powerful:

“What was there to be gained by fighting the most evil wizard who has ever existed?” said Black, with a terribly fury in his face. “Only innocent lives, Peter!” “You don’t understand!” whined Pettigrew. “He would have killed me, Sirius!” “THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!” roared Black.

Only innocent lives. They weren't fighting this war because they were winning. In fact they were very much losing. But they were fighting because it was right thing to do. Many Order members chose to die, rather than to step aside and let Voldemort take over. Only in their case it didn't make a difference - or at least, it didn't feel like it at the time. Members were murdered, and Voldemort was just getting stronger and stronger.

What was there to be gained by refusing Voldemort?

I firmly believe this is a theme that is repeated throughout the book: not just love and choice, but the obligation to choose what is right, no matter the odds (the irony that this was written by JKR will never be lost on me), and how love is a powerful motivator to do just that. Doing the right thing might seem hopeless in the moment - wasteful even - but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing, or that in the end, it won't add up.

Imagine what Harry felt like at the end of PS/SS when he risked his life to stop Voldemort, only to realise that Voldemort would keep trying to come back:

“Well, Voldemort’s going to try other ways of coming back, isn’t he? I mean, he hasn’t gone, has he?” “No, Harry, he has not. (...) Nevertheless, Harry, while you may only have delayed his return to power, it will merely take someone else who is prepared to fight what seems a losing battle next time — and if he is delayed again, and again, why, he may never return to power.”

Harry Potter isn't about doing the right thing because it will bring you rewards, but because it is the right thing.

“Remember Cedric. Remember, if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort. Remember Cedric Diggory.”

This speech doesn't sit well with a few people because it sounds like you're asked to remember what happened to someone who did do the right thing (spoiler: he died). But that's not the point, of course. Cedric wasn't killed for doing the right thing or making a hard choice - Dumbledore asks the students to remember Cedric because the enemy is willing to kill innocent people indiscriminately. Standing aside will not be good enough against people like Voldemort. There is, as Dumbledore put it, a need to keep fighting what seems a losing battle. Why? Only innocent lives.

Both James and Lily die that evening because they are unwilling to let Voldemort near their innocent son as long as there is breath in their bodies. James had no choice (this irks me because he did, he could have run away - he could have not fought Voldemort in the Order to being with. They all had a choice, but not the point). Lily had a choice. And she chose, like many had before her, to fight what seemed like a losing battle. She died, not knowing that she had saved her son. Her sacrifice was meaningless - like so many before her - and yet her sacrifice changed the world.

In the end, by choosing to do what was right, she was granted the wish she most desired: Her son lived.

[thepulsatingflapper]

JKR's treatment of Voldemort is evidence of her serious ableism.

Voldemort becoming disembodied immedaitely after trying to kill Harry really shows how JKR sees physical disability as a "punishment" for being a bad person. It shows how in real life she believes disabled people became disabled because they weren't good enough.

This is just one of many examples of JKR's writing showing her real life beliefs about a group of people. Just like the werewolf shows that she believes gay people with HIV are dangerous and predatory, or how the narrative treats slavery like it's a good thing, or the fact that the characters joke about love potions shows that she doesn't believe rape is really that bad.

When Voldemort gets reborn, he says how painful it was to become disembodied, which is an obvious illusion to chronic illness. Because he wasn't a good enough person by JKR's standards, she decided to give him a chronic illness as punishment, which really shows what she thinks about people who are chronically ill. News flash JKR, chronic illness isn't a punishment for being naughty or bad, and chronically ill people aren't automatically evil.

Not to mention that Voldemort has lots of traits of neurodivergence, as well as becoming disfigured and "ugly", again as a punishment for not acting the way JKR thought he should act. His inhuman appearance shows how she doesn't really see disabled people as human at all. And how she believes disabled people are ugly (they're not).

The Most evil character of all, also being the most disabled, is a really bad look and really shows that JKR has not made any effort to not put ableist themes all over her writing.

(I don't support murder or any other evil stuff, I just think it shows how JKR imposes her owl morals and bigotry all over her writing. Sorry if any of this was offensive just let me know and I'll correct it.)

~The Pulsating Flapper~

[petals2fish]

Hello! We need to talk about the marauders era war!

The war during the Marauders' time was far worse than most of the fandom portrays in fanfics. When Voldemort rose to power, long before the Marauders were even in their first year, it plunged the wizarding world into their version of a civil war. The Marauders grew up seeing headline after headline about the damage Purebloods (or muggles depending on your household) were inflicting on their world. They lived through supplies shortages, canceled Hogsmede trips, and saw Muggleborns hunted even in everyday spaces like Hogwarts’ halls.

At the end of Prisoner of Azkaban, Sirius and Remus wanting to kill Peter wasn’t just about revenge for betraying the Potters, though that certainly was part of it. The war had left them with trauma that Harry, only a third-year at the time of the Shrieking Shack events, couldn’t fully comprehend. It had left them with callousness, grief, and the knowledge that Harry didn’t have: James and Lily Potter would have 100% hunted down Peter and killed him themselves if they had survived Halloween.

Loyalty to the Potters—especially James—was everything. To Remus and Sirius, Peter wasn’t just a coward; he was a deserter, a double-crosser, and a murderer who had caused more death than just James and Lily’s. Peter’s spying had likely led to many of their friends dying—Remus and Sirius were smart enough to piece things together. Betrayal was the worst crime in their eyes, and they knew far more about Peter’s war crimes than Harry did. They had spent countless hours with the Order, hunting men like Peter, and knew now that Peter had ratted everyone they loved out to Voldemort.

Harry, on the other hand, grew up in a time of peace after Voldemort’s first fall. When Harry entered the wizarding world, everyone praised his parents. Everyone called them hero’s. James was brave and loyal, Lily was kind and courageous. Harry came to believe they were perfect, putting them on a pedestal and imagining they could never do anything as terrible as killing someone.

Harry told Remus and Sirius that he thought James and Lily would never want their friends to become killers. Harry told them to spare Peter’s life, in the name of his parent’s honor.

What Harry didn’t realize—at the time anyways—was that his parents had been raised by their experiences in the First Wizarding War. They, like the other marauders, had killed to protect themselves and fight for their friends. The Potter’s had defied Voldemort three times before turning 21, they were on the front lines. Although James and Lily were good people, they had to make tough choices during the war. With their lives and their loved ones’ lives at stake, their decisions weren’t always about what was “right,” but about survival.

The real difference between Harry's war and the Marauders' war wasn't just the time period in which they fought; it was how each group perceived the consequences of their surroundings and the outcomes that followed their responses to those circumstances.

For Harry, the war was about lost innocence and a chance to do things differently, to live up to his parents’ legacy. Harry’s belief that his parents would want mercy for Peter was noble, but it came from a completely different world and time.

For the marauders, the war taught them that surviving often meant making tough, sometimes chilling choices. Loyalty was everything, and betrayal at Peter’s level was something that couldn’t be forgiven. This is how the war shaped Sirius and Remus into a “loyalty or death” mentality that was shown in Prisoner of Azkaban.

[hollowed-theory-hall]

So we know Harry was super popular at school, is there any canon evidence about Ron and Hermione's popularity? I guess they must be a little bit just by association

I wouldn't call Harry popular, more like notorious, which is quite different.

I mean, in CoS, GoF, and OotP, we see Harry is treated like shit by the school population. Even when he is "popular" in HBP, it's not like most students actually know who he is. He is the cool, mysterious chosen one to them, not a real person. In DH, he is literally treated as a symbol of hope and resistance, something other and beyond a human being, as much as Voldemort is seen as a boogeyman rather than an actual man by most of the wizarding population.

Harry's "popularity" is surface level. He only has two close friends for most of the series (Ron and Hermione). He hangs out with Luna and Neville, whom he considers his friends, when other students (like Romilda and her friends) wonder what the "cool" Boy Who Lived is doing with the weirdos. Even within the D.A. Harry doesn't really care to know most of them well, and most of them don't really know him.

He doesn't have the casual, easy friendships of popularity, but he is famous and notorious, and a lot of people pay attention to him. I think that's the more accurate way to phrase it.

As for Ron and Hermione, there is evidence Hermione has more casual friends in the school and knows more students from their own and other houses than either Harry or Ron (in the later books, that is, early on she's a "swotty know it all"). I mean, Hermione is the one to get the D.A. together:

“So who did you say is supposed to be meeting us?” Harry asked, wrenching open the rusty top of his butterbeer and taking a swig. “Just a couple of people,” Hermione repeated, checking her watch and then looking anxiously toward the door. “I told them to be here about now and I’m sure they all know where it is — oh look, this might be them now —”

(OotP)

“I don’t like him much either,” admitted Hermione, “but he over- heard me talking to Ernie and Hannah at the Hufflepuff table and he seemed really interested in coming, so what could I say? But the more people the better really — I mean, Michael Corner and his friends wouldn’t have come if he hadn’t been going out with Ginny —” [...] “He’s WHAT?” said Ron, outraged, his ears now resembling curls of raw beef. “She’s going out with — my sister’s going — what d’you mean, Michael Corner?” [...] “They met at the Yule Ball and they got together at the end of last year,” said Hermione composedly.

(OotP)

And like the above quote states, she is closer to Ginny than Harry is by this point and does know who dates who among people closer to her. And she cares to know this stuff:

Hermione rolled her eyes at Harry and then said in an undertone, while Ron was muttering imprecations about Michael Corner, “And talking about Michael and Ginny . . . what about Cho and you?” “What d’you mean?” said Harry quickly.

(OotP)

She also knows the names of students Harry doesn't:

He saw them with their heads together later that afternoon in the library, together with a weedy-looking boy Hermione whispered was called Theodore Nott. 

(OotP)

And clearly talks to Lavender and Pravati more than either boys since she knows quite a bit about them:

they passed Lavender Brown and Parvati Patil. Remembering what Hermione had said about the Patil twins’ parents wanting them to leave Hogwarts, Harry was unsurprised to see that the two best friends were whispering together, looking distressed. 

(HBP)

Like, she has more casual friendships with Ginny, Pravati, Lavender, Hannah, and Ernie that Harry doesn't have. She is also generally nosy and likes knowing school gossip and what people are doing/talking about (even if she'd deny it):

By the end of that day, though Harry had not seen so much as a corner of The Quibbler anywhere in the school, the whole place seemed to be quoting the interview at each other; Harry heard them whispering about it as they queued up outside classes, discussing it over lunch and in the back of lessons, while Hermione even reported that every occupant of the cubicles in the girls’ toilets had been talking about it when she nipped in there before Ancient Runes.

(OotP)

Ron, on the other hand, is happy to just have his two good friends (like Harry is), he doesn't keep up with school gossip as much as Hermione does (even when it pertains to his sister). And it's clear that many students see him as "Harry's best friend" rather than his own person (which definitely feeds into Ron's insecurities) earlier in the books:

“Yes, all right then,” she said finally, blushing furiously. “Thanks,” said Harry, in relief. “Lavender — will you go with Ron?” “She’s going with Seamus,” said Parvati, and the pair of them giggled harder than ever. Harry sighed. “Can’t you think of anyone who’d go with Ron?” he said, lowering his voice so that Ron wouldn’t hear. [...] “Well . . .” said Parvati slowly, “I suppose my sister might . . . Padma, you know . . . in Ravenclaw. I’ll ask her if you like.”

(GoF) - Pravati is getting Ron a date for the Yule Ball so she could go with Harry. Parvati also assumes Harry wouldn't remember her sister is in Ravenclaw.

But, by HBP, after Ron starts playing Quidditch and the D.A., he starts being of interest to other students as well:

What did surprise him was that when Ron drew level with them, Parvati suddenly nudged Lavender, who looked around and gave Ron a wide smile. Ron blinked at her, then returned the smile uncertainly.

(HBP)

By DH, all three of them are more notorious than popular, though.

Like, I don't think any of them are "popular" per se. Harry, as I said, is notorious, Hermione eavesdrops in the girls' toilets so she's up with gossip and has some casual friends from classes Harry and Ron don't bother with (I bet she pretends to not care when Pravati and Lavender are gossiping in their dorm room, but she lsitens and catalogs everything). Ron is well-known in association with Harry in the early books, and more on his own by HBP.

But, none of the Golden Trio is what I'd call "popular".

[constitutionalweasleymonarchy]

What's your favourite thing about [character]?

Percy 🤢

(You promised Percy Gone Wild fics)

Hello Nena is that you Nena good to hear from you Nena

(How awkward if you aren't in fact, Nena)

As with people, it's so hard with good characters to pinpoint the One Favorite Thing about them. But actually with Percy I do think one of my favorite things about him is what a rule-follower he is. He is at his heart someone who wants to do things the right way, who in fact when he is eventually placed into various positions of authority himself takes it very seriously because he believes in upholding the rules. We live in a society! There are curfews for a reason! Cauldron bottom thickness is a consumer protection issue!

As much as Percy is regarded as someone very full of himself and who loves being in charge, a huge part of his personality that's not often recognized in tandem with this is how deferential he is, in fact, to those in positions of authority over him. He respects authority, and he respects it because it is authority. He assumes authority is good and ought to be followed. Now, is this a weakness as well? Of course, I'd in fact say it might be his biggest weakness and is even more prominent a reason for his split with his family, even more than pride or ambition or resentment. He places all of his trust in authority and I think it's hugely difficult for him to deprogram himself of the habit to submit to the established order of things. (He's different in this way to Hermione, for example, who believes in rules but ultimately has no qualms breaking them when she believes it is the right thing to do or will serve her subjective purpose.)

At all stages of his life that we see, we see Percy meeting if not exceeding expectations. These are the things that are expected of you as a good son, elder sibling, student, Prefect, employee, citizen -- and by God he is going to do all of those things. This guy tries, and it's not just about self-aggrandizement; he cares about getting it right. He feels responsible for the welfare of his siblings, and even of Harry (we see him following Harry around in POA after Sirius has been seen in the castle, and Harry suspects it's per Molly's orders). He expresses that care in the form of bossing them around, but I mean, look who his mother is!

Halfway through canon all these various sources of authority -- parents, teachers and school administrators, bosses, government leaders -- start to come into conflict with one another, as is often the case in life. When he was younger it was much more straightforward. Do your chores, look after the younger ones, get good marks, get a good job. I believe there are a lot of factors that play into his choosing the the authority of the Ministry over his family/ Harry/ Dumbledore in book 5, but I genuinely believe that he genuinely believed the Ministry had everyone's best interests in mind. And I think by that point owing to the convergence of various factors, he trusted the Ministry a lot more.

And there's actually something really heartbreaking about the idea that Percy has to contend more and more with the fact that you can do everything right -- in the sense of doing everything that is prescribed and asked of you, performing well according to conventionally held standards, being responsible -- and your life can still be magnificently fucked up. You're the black sheep at home. Your siblings make fun of you to your face for things you're doing in earnest. You have never rebelled against your parents, and when the time comes that you do have a knock-down-drag-out fight with your father, he doesn't even stop to look more deeply into the source of antagonism in his otherwise perfect child (this is perhaps the biggest fuck-up of Arthur's in that fight -- there is a huge lack of curiosity and reflection about the source of Percy's enmity -- Arthur is peak Weasley reacting first and asking questions later.)

And the last thing you have to cling to is being an excellent employee and loyal citizen and committed to order, and wow, does that blow up in your face SPECTACULARLY.

[chilledcitrus]

There are many reasons why I think Draco is so interesting, but if I had to choose one that is most compelling to me, it would be his contradictory nature. He is an emotional and sensitive person, yet he is good at occlumency. He is mean-spirited and loves to antagonize people, but he is also averse to violence. He wants to seem cool and aloof, but his natural personality is expressive and reactive. There are so many layers to his character, which makes him really fun to explore.

But I also think his contradictions make him quite difficult to understand, even for those close to him. In a drarry context, I don’t think Harry would ever fully understand him either, and there would always be sides of Draco that surprise him, even after years of knowing each other. But that might be a good thing for them because Harry thrives on curiosity, and Draco being a puzzle would keep things interesting for him.

[juniperpyre]

lily evans potter: womanhood, motherhood & morality

lily as the dream girl in canon and fan spaces

i want to talk about this while there isn't a current upsurge in the discourse

Lily Evans Potter is introduced to us as Lily Potter, the dead mother of Harry Potter. Lily and James potter, dead, leaving their poor, miraculous son to live with the dull, horrible Durselys. We only ever see her through, with the exception of her sister, the memory of men.

I've said before that I believe James and Lily are the ideal masculine and ideal feminine, both to Harry and in a metatextual way. parents are our introduction into gender roles, the "correct" way to be a man and woman. since Lily is dead she cannot disappoint Harry. she can be imagined as the perfect woman, which is, of course, a wife and mother. the dream girl!

Lily's death makes her a silent, ever-loving, beautiful young mother, for both Harry and the reader. James is slightly deconstructed in SWM, but Lily is not. She is a fierce protector, brave, clever, and only emotional (angry) once James, her future husband, provokes her enough.

in the text Lily is not truly presented as flawed in a meaningful way. the moral choices she makes: to build a relationship with Severus, to defend Severus, to break their relationship when he refuses to reject bigotry, to join the Order, to die for her child, are all the correct moral choices. these are the choices the narrative is telling us to respect.

women have, for the past 200 years or so, been conceived of as the moral center of the family.* Lily Evans Potter is the moral center of the series. her choice to die is mirrored by the main character, Harry, and sparks the beginning of victory. Harry's sacrifice is enabled by another mother, Narcissa, making the correct moral choice because the power of her maternal love urges her to this choice. finally, Voldemort's most powerful follower, Bellatrix, is killed by a housewife and mother, Molly, in a maternal rage at the idea of her daughter being murdered.

Lily's sacrifice and the emotions behind it are mirrored multiple times in the final battle because it and she are the moral center of the series.

that Harry is frequently told he has his mother's eyes, and that Dumbledore points out how his essential nature mirrors his mother's, further highlights Lily's character and her choices as implicitly good.

women, especially mothers, as our moral authorities, is an unconscious cultural belief we can see play out in the fandom and subfandoms that Lily is discussed in. we can all recall the characterization of Lily as the goody-two shoes that James has to change for, the characterization of Lily as "not like other girls", the BAMF characterization, the current near mommy dom to James characterization.

the characterization of Lily changes with our view of the best kind of woman. but she is, always, demonstrating a most "correct" way to be. maybe it's 2007 and she's telling James off—not fun, but right. or it's 2012 and she's not preoccupied with boys like her classmates. or it's 2019 and she always knows the right thing to say to Remus when he's down on himself. or it's 2025 and James is trailing after her like a puppy while she contemplates what size strap to use on him after she beats up a bigot.

We don't see a lot of moderate views on Lily. Above, I've discussed how Lily lovers tend to portray her. Lily haters, a smaller group from what I can tell, do not utilize these common fanon characterizations. They disparage her as an immoral, selfish, bad woman. The wholesale rejection of Lily as the moral center based on her perceived immorality is the other side of the coin.

I'll refer to people with this perspective as "Lily haters" though I am aware there are people who dislike her outside of the topics I'm discussing.

I rarely engage with Lily haters, though I am aware of their arguments that Lily was a bad friend to Severus, a social climber, a gold digger, or boring. All grave sins for the woman who's supposed to save everyone.

This perspective doesn't reject Lily as the moral center or the perfect woman, it is an argument that she's not fulfilling her role correctly. Her unwillingness to give Severus more chances is selfish, stuck-up, classist. Her desire for James is an further betrayal of Severus.

She's supposed to be the Madonna, why is she being a whore?

I believe Lily hate comes from a belief she failed at being the perfect woman/mother, and therefore she is worthless. A bitch. Weak willed. Oversexed. even by haters her role as the moral center is not questioned.

in both the og text and in the fandom supertext Lily is the moral center because of her role as mother. her status as the moral center is inextricably tied to her motherhood. since Lily being a mother is the point of her character, divorcing her from her motherhood often changes the foundation of her character.**

when her literal motherhood is removed from a depiction of her character, her metaphorical status as the perfect woman/mother is often still intact. this is seen in the characterizations I described earlier, and, I argue, in the belief that she's too good for James when it is used as a "justification" for shipping James with someone else.*** thereby, she is further purified, not even having been touched by a man. she's put on a pedestal, where she can't be touched, and is rarely noticed.

it is also frequently seen when she is written as a side character in a relationship with James, and the pair become the dual moral guides for the main couple.

this reflects James and Lily as the ideal masculine and feminine, as they are a perfectly harmonious couple when a side pairing. their implicit canonical roles are subconsciously reflected in fanon with little critique or commentary on the canon text.

Lily's entire character is crafted to be The Perfect Mother™️. whether she is literally a mother in her fanon depiction or not, she is still The Perfect Woman™️—and is still affected by the biases our culture has towards women and mothers.

thus, Lily is the dream girl in the text, the moral center only seen through a nostalgic veil, and a dream girl in fan spaces, as the moral guide for the men in her life who pegs her husband or is too pure for the touch of a man.

for more on gender in the wizarding world, based on gender in early modern england (pre the cult of domesticity) see this post

*see the cult of domesticity if you'd rather not read the article

**please like fucking do not fucking act like I'm saying you cannot do this. I swear to fucking god

***you don't need to justify your ships

[chameleonsd1sh]

thinking about house elves in the HP books.

while hermione sees the whole system as in need of uprooting, harry blames the people who MISTREAT their elves, but doesn’t see the whole system as particularly bad. just in need of improvement

and honestly when discussing IN-UNIVERSE house elf slavery (NOT real life!!!!!) it is interesting to notice that hermione does not listen to the house elves or what they want, and insists on doing things her way despite their protests 

now, i recognize that propaganda has brought the house elves to this viewpoint, that they’ve been pushed into this role by society telling them it’s where they belong… so hermione knows better. 

but... she knows better than they do? she is... superior? they’re not fit to make their own decisions? 

even if it seems right because they are victims of propaganda, it slips dangerously into the same mentality of them being inferior that supports house elf slavery in the first place 

so education is needed, and listening to house elf voices… trying to uplift them and make them know that they’re their own people and worthy of the same rights as other species 

because while IN REAL LIFE the happy slave thing was propaganda made up to justify slavery, in the HARRY POTTER UNIVERSE, the house elves… actually DO want to be slaves. 

NOW. we can say that it is super fucked up jkr did this, because, yes, the implications are horrendous. but it is what we are stuck with and we have to follow it. the fact is, the majority of house elves are content where they are and believe it is right... because of propaganda, internalized lessons of inferiority, subservience

so a gradual shift would be needed rather than sudden freedom. the house elves would need time to come to their own realization that they deserve more than this, time to get angry. this would happen naturally with education and a shift in the attitudes toward house elves 

also, house elves are based on brownies, which DO like to serve, as long as they receive a bowl of cream or something similar in return. but if they feel like they’re being viewed with pity or charity, they will flip out and leave. we see this in the house elves to a certain degree… they take great offence at being given clothing, just like brownies, although they take offence because they don’t want to be freed, while brownies take offence because they don’t want to be pitied. but you could see house elves hating being freed as a form of hating being looked down on and seen as victims… anyway, my point is there’s interesting stuff there to apply to house elves, and jkr didn’t fully whip this out of her ass so yeah both harry and hermione were wrong in the way they went about things... harry for thinking the status quo is fine as long as house elves are treated well, and hermione for not listening to the house elves because the right thing is so obvious to her (hermione autism moment if im being honest. lack of nuance, seeing them as irrational so not catering to it, strong morals that she applies even when a softer touch is needed...) hermione was absolutely correct in her motives, but the way she went about it was not good. but that makes sense for her!!! she’s stubborn and struggles to understand behaviour she views as irrational. the way hermione sees things, HER way is the RIGHT way, HER morals are the RIGHT morals... she wants change immediately and she wants to be the one to bring it. and i love her for that. she’s literally a kid. she’s doing her best. but it wasn’t the most effective or empathetic approach, which isn’t her fault. at least she is trying to do something, which is more than most can say. her heart was in the right place, and with time, a different approach, and perseverance, i believe she would have great impact on the rights of elves.

[blorger]

One thing I noticed only recently is the way Percy calls his father and how it's an indication of his storyline's progress throughout the books. Percy's whole character arc is about how he's doing ambition wrong; there's this undercurrent of judgement towards Percy's desire to be an accomplished professional and i think his language reflects that.

Percy has had a very formal way of speaking since the very first book, it's one of the main indicators that we're supposed to read him as a pompous party pooper, but we don't see him address his father until book 3, when jkr starts setting up the ministry plot:

(from PoA: Percy enjoys the treatment Arthur is getting from the ministry, foreshadowing his interest in climbing up the ministerial ladder)

I find the use of the word "Father" interesting: the most notable person we see use the term in the books is Draco, who is very much posh-coded.

(from PS, one of the very first things we come to know about Draco is how he addresses his father: this is a scene from Harry and Draco's first meeting)

A not insignificant facet of Draco's personality comes from how his elevated status in society has shaped him to be arrogant and dismissive of other people. Draco speaks like a Fancy Boy, with his "Father"s (always capitalised) and his insistence on calling most people (even his friends and housemates) by their last name.

Seeing Percy start to use the type of language we've been accustomed to see from posh boy extraordinaire Draco is jarring, and it primes us to start disliking him. As Percy's brief foray into the Evil side begins (basically From GoF onwards) Percy starts ramping up in his use of "Father":

and

and

but at the culmination of his story arc, when Percy is reunited with his family during the battle of Hogwarts, Percy switches to "dad":

This, again, mirrors Draco in that he also changes the way he addresses his father when he's at his most emotional

and I find this very interesting.

[fandoomrants]

Most jegulus fics:

James' POV: Omg, he's so smooth and collected and mean and hard to impress, I have to work very hard to win his heart.

Regulus' POV: GAY PANIC, GAY PANIC, GAY-

[antebellum13]

“And My Soul, Dumbledore?” — The Case for Snape Never Killing Before That Night

We often talk about The Prince’s Tale as the final reveal of Severus Snape’s true loyalties—but there’s a moment in that chapter that gets overshadowed by the big memories, the Patronus, the “Always.” And yet it might be the most damning and revealing line in the entire series.

It’s this:

“And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?”

Let’s sit with that for a second.

Snape is being asked to kill. Not for power, not for punishment, not for vengeance—but out of mercy. Dumbledore is dying. The end is already written. All he’s asking for is dignity.

And Snape balks.

He doesn’t recoil at the strategic risk. He doesn’t flinch at the morality of sparing Dumbledore’s life.

He flinches because of the possibility that this will damage his soul.

This isn’t the voice of a killer.

That one line unearths so much about who Snape is beneath the persona—beneath the spy, the double agent, the snarling teacher. It reveals that he has not taken a life before.

Because if he had? This would be a non-issue. He wouldn’t need to ask. The damage would already be done. The soul, already torn.

But instead, he stops and asks:

Will this be the thing that breaks me?

That’s the cry of a man standing on a line he hasn’t crossed.

And the fact that he still believes in the soul at all is deeply significant.

Let’s compare him to real killers in the series:

• Voldemort doesn’t flinch at murder—he does it for power, to fracture his soul on purpose.

• Bellatrix (and many other Death Eaters) kills for sport.

But Draco, when faced with the same choice, cannot do it. Harry, even in war, casts Expelliarmus.

And Snape—the supposed villain of the early books, the morally ambiguous double agent—asks if his soul will survive it.

He’s not worried about punishment. He’s worried about what killing will do to him.

That is not the thought process of a man with blood on his hands.

Dumbledore’s response is everything:

“You alone know whether it will harm your soul.”

Not “Your soul’s already lost.”

Not “It won’t make a difference.”

Not even “You have no choice.”

Dumbledore leaves it to him.

That means he believes Snape still has something to lose.

He wouldn’t ask this of someone whose soul was already fractured. He asks it of Snape because he knows this will be his first and only kill.

The implication is enormous.

This is a man who has done horrific things. He’s served Voldemort. He’s used dark magic. He’s endangered children.

But he has never killed. Not once.

And when he finally does, it’s to:

• Honour a dying man’s wishes.

• Spare a child’s soul (Draco’s).

• End suffering, not prolong it.

And even then, it tears at him.

So what does that make him?

A villain? An anti-hero? A deeply damaged man trying to atone? Maybe all of the above.

But not a murderer.

Not by choice. Not by pattern.

Just once. And it nearly breaks him.