#like I know the real reason is 'because JKR needed it to be that way for the plot to work'

[saintsenara]

Thoughts on Ron and Hermione as a ship?

thank you very much for the ask, @thesilverstarling!

i’ll state my position straight away: book ron and hermione are the best of the canon couples.

they will have a long and extremely happy marriage made rich by great and stalwart love, lust, fun, and faithfulness, rather than held together by duty and couples’ therapy like so many readers and authors (including jkr, who seems to have decided to spend the years since the conclusion of the series failing to understand anything about her own characters) tend to think.

i will state another position straight away: lest i seem like i’m just a fan with blinkers on, i think this even though hermione is, by far, my least favourite member of the trio. if she were real i would detest her, and i dislike how she is treated by the narrative as always justified in her negative characteristics. i like fanon hermione - perfect and preternaturally good - even less.

as a result, i think that it’s ridiculous that jkr has said that she thought ron needed to ‘become worthy’ of hermione. they belong together as equals - which is what they’re set up in the narrative as being from the off - and i hate seeing that undermined.

because ronald weasley? he’s an icon. and he doesn’t get anywhere near the respect he deserves in fandom.

there are multiple reasons for this - ron’s narrative purpose is to be the everyman sidekick, and so he is able to be less special than harry or hermione (the helper-figure); the amount of aristocracy wank in this fandom means that the weasleys’ ordinariness is less appealing to writers than making harry have twenty different lordships and call himself hadrian; the narrative interrogates ron’s flaws - especially his capacity for jealousy - much more intensively than it interrogates either hermione’s (cruel, inflexible, meddling) or harry’s (reckless, self-absorbed, judgemental) - but one i feel is particularly significant is that ron is such a british character that many of his traits are not understood as intended by non-british readers.

in particular - as is outlined in this excellent meta by @whinlatter - ron’s sense of humour isn’t indicative of immaturity or a lack of seriousness, but is, in fact, evidence that he’s the most emotionally aware of the trio.

ron is shown throughout the series to understand how both harry and hermione need to have their emotions approached - and i think there is no piece of writing which says this better than crocodile heart by @floreatcastellumposts:

That was what she liked most about Ron, she thought vaguely. He was very good at being suitably outraged on your behalf. For Harry, for her, for Neville. That sort of thing mattered, when you were hurt or embarrassed or wronged in some way. You needed to have someone else on your side, to be as emotional as you felt, maybe even more so, so that you might feel a bit more normal. It was very decent of him, and she was not sure he realised he did it.

ron’s inherent emotional awareness is an enormous source of comfort to other people. he does the work which isn’t flashy or special - he makes tea and tells jokes and is just there - but which is needed in healthy human relationships far more frequently than a willingness to fight to the death for the other person.

[as an aside, this normality - even though i think it is assumed rather than justified by the text - is also what ginny provides for harry. if you believe that hinny are a good couple but romione aren’t… i can’t help you.]

but let’s look at some specific reasons why ron and hermione belong together:

their communication styles mesh perfectly. ron is the only person hermione knows who feeds her love of being challenged and debated, and who is able to engage in this way of communicating without becoming irate when she refuses to back down. ron is good at picking his battles, but he’s also good at recognising that hermione’s tendency to argue isn’t intended to be confrontational a lot of the time - it’s just the way she works through feelings and problems. he’s far more easy-going about her tendency to nag, interrupt, try to provoke arguments, or speak condescendingly than he’s given credit for - and hermione evidently respects this, since when he does tell her not to push a situation (above all, when she’s trying to needle harry into talking about sirius), she listens to him.

that ron and hermione’s tendency to bicker is taken by fans to be a bad thing is because it’s something harry - from whose perspective the narrative is written - doesn’t understand. harry is extremely conflict-avoidant - he tends to take being pushed on views and opinions he has to be insulting; and he has a tendency to assume that he is right which is just as profound as hermione’s. he and ginny communicate not by debating, but by ginny having no time for his rigidity and refusing to indulge it - but ron and hermione bickering about everything is not a negative thing within their specific emotional dynamic.

[as another aside, this glaring chasm in communication styles is why harry and hermione would be a disaster as a couple.]

they each provide validation the other needs. it’s clear - reading between the lines - that hermione is a tremendously lonely person. the friendlessness of her initial few weeks at hogwarts seems to be a continuation of her experience as a child, and - outside of ron and harry - that friendlessness endures through her schooldays. i’m always struck, for example, by the fact that, when she falls out with ron in prisoner of azkaban, she has no-one else to spend time with, and that this is only avoided in half-blood prince because harry decides not to freeze her out. i don’t think her friendship with ginny is anywhere near as close as fanon seems to imply (ginny has no interest in being nagged either), nor do i think that she’s anywhere near as close to neville (not least because she is so condescending to him) as she’s often written to be.

and this loneliness seems to stretch beyond hogwarts. the absence of hermione’s parents’ from the narrative is - in a doylist sense - clearly just a device to maximise time with the trio all together, but the watsonian reading is that she doesn’t have a particularly good relationship with them. hermione’s obviously upper-middle-class background - the name! the skiing! the holidays in the south of france! - can be presumed, i think, to come with a series of expectations from her parents which she feels constantly that she’s not entirely meeting, particularly expectations attached to academic success.

[for example, the grangers - were she a muggle child - would undoubtedly have ambitions for her to attend an elite university and then go into a prestigious career. tertiary education of the type that they’re familiar with doesn’t seem to exist in the wizarding world - most careers seem to be taught by apprenticeship - and this, alongside all the other divides between the magical and muggle worlds which contribute to the distance between them, would be one very obvious area in which she felt the need to prove herself to them.]

ron, too, has quite a difficult relationship with his position in the family - voldemort’s locket is not wrong to point out that he seems to receive considerably less of his mother’s emotional attention than ginny or the rest of his brothers - and he too is constrained by expectations which he doesn’t know how to explain he has no interest in - above all, molly’s desire for her sons to achieve top grades and go into the ministry.

he also suffers while at hogwarts from being ‘harry potter’s best friend’, something which harry never appreciates. but hermione does. she recognises ron’s jealousy and never allows harry to minimise it (and she and ron are very much aligned on having no respect for harry’s saviour and martyr complexes). she appreciates ron’s strengths - above all his kindness and his sense of humour - and makes him feel as though he’s achieved things with them. and ron does the same for her; he is hugely observant when it comes to her, and he challenges and defends her.

the two of them clearly spend a lot of time together one-on-one while harry’s involved in his various shenanigans (including outside of school - hermione has often arrived at the burrow days or even weeks before harry, and they seem to write to each other frequently when apart). they do this within a relationship which is fundamentally equal. one issue with hinny is that, post-war, harry is going to have to get used to seeing ginny as a peer, rather than as someone he has to protect. but ron and hermione never have that issue - equality is baked into their relationship from the off.

because, to be quite frank, fandom overstates the role that jealousy plays in their relationship. it’s true that ron certainly doesn’t acquit himself brilliantly when it comes to hermione’s relationship with viktor krum (it’s because he’s bi and doesn’t know it yet), and a tendency to externalise his insecurity into trying to make others also feel insecure is one of his primary negative traits (hermione does this too, via her patented lofty voice when she’s trying to condescend to people). but this is often taken as the initial red flag for how the relationship would crash and burn, and ron’s toxic jealousy is often used in fan-fiction as the trigger for emotional and physical violence towards hermione which, frequently, seems to drive her into the arms of either draco malfoy or severus snape… who are, of course, the first people we think of when we hear the words ‘not prone to jealousy’...

but i think it’s important to point out several things in defence of ron’s jealousy over krum. firstly, hermione evidently regards his jealousy as ridiculous - she’s upset by it, yes, but her upset must be understood as being caused by the fact that she wanted him to ask her out. she doesn’t think he’s being possessive, she thinks he’s being stupid. secondly, hermione is equally as jealous over ron’s crush on fleur delacour and relationship with lavender brown. she behaves just as cruelly when it comes to lavender as ron does when it comes to krum - and the narrative only treats her actions as more sympathetic or justified both because harry dislikes lavender too, and because, by that point in the series, jkr has dispensed with any inclination to ever criticise her.

but, outside of this teenage pettiness, ron is never jealous of hermione over things which matter. he is never jealous of her intelligence or competence or ambition or success (indeed, he defends her constantly from attacks designed to undermine her in these areas). for someone who struggles with being overshadowed by harry, he is never upset at being overshadowed by her. he is clearly going to be happy to support her in any of the career ambitions she can be written as having post-war.

and, on this point, i think it’s worth interrogating why so many readers still seem to feel uncomfortable with the idea of ron and hermione having a dynamic where she is the more ‘powerful’ one. [it’s always a bit trite to say ‘but what if the genders were reversed?’, but actually that’s not irrelevant here]. if hermione ends up taking the ministry by storm and ron becomes a stay-at-home father or has a job which is just to pay the bills, what, precisely, is wrong with that? why, precisely, should hermione regard ron making that choice for himself as a negative thing? hermione so often seems to leave ron in fan-fiction because of a lack of ambition - something which seems to be particularly common in dramione - but, in canon, she is shown to not particularly care if ron and harry do the bare minimum when it comes to studying etc. she nags them to do their work so they don’t get in trouble. she doesn’t nag them to do it to the same standard that she would.

and, actually, i think that ron being less ambitious than hermione is something which is key to how well they work. because ron provides not only emotional support, but emotional clarity.

hermione is shown throughout canon to - just as harry does - have a tendency to become obsessive to the detriment of her own health. she is also often - as harry is - emotionally or intellectually inflexible, and finds it hard to move on when what she feels or believes is proven to be wrong. both she and harry are micro-thinkers, who lean towards knee-jerk assumptions and stubborn convictions (and, indeed, hermione has a remarkably hagrid-ish tendency towards blind loyalty).

ron is none of these things. ron is a big-picture thinker (it’s why he’s so good at chess). he’s a pragmatist. he’s the least righteous of the three. he understands that faith and loyalty are choices, and that sometimes these choices will lead to outcomes which are bad or hard. he is the one of the three most willing to own up to having made mistakes. he is the one least likely to act on gut instinct (and, therefore, the hardest to fool - i think it’s worth emphasising that he clocks that tom riddle is tricking harry immediately, the only one of the trio to do so). he understands that things are a marathon, not a sprint. he is the least obsessive.

and these traits contribute to aspects of his character which are underappreciated. ron worries about hermione making herself ill during exams, or when she is using the time-turner, and makes an effort to get her to set healthy boundaries and redirect her anxiety. ron stands on a broken leg in front of sirius or goes into the forest to fight aragog not out of righteousness, but out of choice. ron takes over the burden of preparing buckbeak’s defence when it is clear that hermione is approaching burnout. ron is completely right that harry hasn’t done any long-term planning for the horcrux hunt, and his anger does force harry to tighten up after he leaves the trio. ron has a clear head in the middle of battle. ron makes harry and hermione laugh. ron is unafraid of human emotion. ron arrests harry’s tendency to brood over the little things by looking at the bigger picture. ron will always come back.

ron is bringing his politician wife regular cups of tea and making sure she doesn’t work all night. he is helping his lawyer wife to feel less upset over losing one case by reminding her that she’s won ten others. he is noticing stress creeping in and whirling her off for a dirty weekend, or even just a takeaway on the sofa. he is teaching his daughter to be proud of her ambition and his son to treat women as equals and both of his children that all you can do when you fuck up is apologise and try to do better. he is making hermione smile on the worst days of her life. he is helping her strategise her long-term goals when she gets stuck on the short-term ones. he is telling her straight when she needs to get it together. he is seeing a misogynistic head of department call hermione a ‘silly little girl’ and choosing to tell him exactly what he thinks of that.

ron is the ultimate wife guy. hermione is a very, very lucky lady.

[hollowed-theory-hall]

Do you think Harry will able to defeat veritaserum?

I mean, It's Harry, so yeah, probably.

I couldn't track down anything about it in the books, but in a JKR F&Q she said this:

4. Why isn’t Veritaserum used in interrogations? It is, but skilled wizards can avoid its effects by using antidotes and charms. A gifted Occlumens could also resist Veritaserum.

(Source)

And as it's said:

“I am about to attempt to break into your mind,” said Snape softly. “We are going to see how well you resist. I have been told that you have already shown aptitude at resisting the Imperius Curse. . . . You will find that similar powers are needed for this. . . . Brace yourself, now. . . . Legilimens!”

(OotP, Ch24)

And we know Harry can resist the Imperius Curse almost easily, but it's different with Occlumency when we see him attempt it in book 5... So, what I want to talk about is how what Harry does (both when he finally blocks his mind in book 7 and how he resists the Imperius) isn't actually Occlumancy at all. But it doesn't matter because the results are the same and it should allow him to resist Veritaserum too!

This is Harry resisting the Imperius curse:

Ah, it was bliss, not to think, it was as though he were floating, dreaming . . . just answer no . . . say no . . . just answer no. . . . I will not, said a stronger voice, in the back of his head, I won’t answer. . . . Just answer no. . . . I won’t do it, I won’t say it. . . . Just answer no. . . . “I WON’T!” And these words burst from Harry’s mouth; they echoed through the graveyard, and the dream state was lifted as suddenly as though cold water had been thrown over him

(GoF, Ch34)

This is Harry practicing "Occlumency" in book 7:

His scar burned, but he was master of the pain, he felt it, yet was apart from it. He had learned control at last, learned to shut his mind to Voldemort, the very thing Dumbledore had wanted him to learn from Snape. Just as Voldemort had not been able to possess Harry while Harry was consumed with grief for Sirius, so his thoughts could not penetrate Harry now while he mourned Dobby. Grief, it seemed, drove Voldemort out. . . though Dumbledore, of course, would have said that it was love

(DH, Ch24)

There are common denominators here. What Harry is doing in both cases isn't anything controlled or well thought out or focused. He and his magic are going on instinct. It's all emotion and resistance. He outright notices his secret to Occlumancy is grief — emotion.

Harry's magic is always very instinctual. He treats magic as a feeling rather than a hard science (the way Dumbledore did most of his life and like Hermione does) and in his case, he is right to do so. Harry's magic reacts to him instinctively and is very intuned with his emotions. Harry's magic is much more influenced by Harry's force of will, rather than if he's actually doing the wand movement right. (More on Harry's magic with evidence: here, here & here).

Now, this actually makes sense with how magic works, but I'll go more into it later.

Now, the reason I'm bringing up these aspects of how Harry practices "Occlumency" is because they outright contradict how Snape explains Occlumency works. Let's recall how Occlumency is described:

“Now, Occlumency. As I told you back in your dear godfather’s kitchen, this branch of magic seals the mind against magical intrusion and influence.” [...] “Clear your mind, Potter,” said Snape’s cold voice. “Let go of all emotion. . . .” But Harry’s anger at Snape continued to pound through his veins like venom. Let go of his anger? He could as easily detach his legs. . . . “You’re not doing it, Potter. . . . You will need more discipline than this. . . . Focus, now. . . .”

(OotP, Ch24)

It's against any influences on the mind. Be it the Imperius, Legilemancy, or Veritaserum. Hell, it would probably help against the mental effects of a dementor. But Snape clearly states it's about focus. For real Occlumency you need a clear mind. You need to let go of all emotion. Something Harry is incapable of doing.

And even when we look at Harry's most successful attempt to defend himself from Snape's Legilemancy in book 5, it's very similar to his reaction to the Imperius, filled with emotion:

No, said a voice in Harry’s head, as the memory of Cho drew nearer, you’re not watching that, you’re not watching it, it’s private — He felt a sharp pain in his knee. Snape’s office had come back into view and he realized that he had fallen to the floor; one of his knees had collided painfully with the leg of Snape’s desk. He looked up at Snape, who had lowered his wand and was rubbing his wrist. There was an angry weal there, like a scorch mark. “Did you mean to produce a Stinging Hex?” asked Snape coolly. “No,” said Harry bitterly, getting up from the floor.

(OotP, Ch24)

His magic casts Snape out with a stinging hex, this isn't Occlumancy, Harry had no idea he was doing it because that's how Harry's magic is. Harry wanted Snape out of his mind and his magic complied, there was no focus, no clear mind — it was all instinct and emotion.

When he throws Voldemort out of his mind in the ministry, it's the same — all emotion and instinct:

“If death is nothing, Dumbledore, kill the boy. . . .” Let the pain stop, thought Harry. Let him kill us. . . . End it, Dumbledore. . . . Death is nothing compared to this. . . . And I’ll see Sirius again. . . . And as Harry’s heart filled with emotion, the creature’s coils loosened, the pain was gone, Harry was lying facedown on the floor, his glasses gone, shivering as though he lay upon ice, not wood. . . .

(OotP, Ch36)

His emotions cast Voldemort out, not his mind. This isn't Occlumency.

I have spoken in the past about how magic in HP seems to work (based on my understanding of alchemical concepts). A spell/potion/any other piece of magic requires 3 things:

Intent - What - The intention and will of the caster to disarm their opponent.

Form - How - The way the spell should do it, make the wand fly from the openent's hand.

Energy - Magic - the power to fuel the spell.

Intent and energy must exist. Accidental magic is basically just intent and energy without the form, hence why it's usually so unpredictable and so few wizards can control it. The form is the part that changes the most between magical disciplines. It's what gives focus to that intention and makes the spell controlled. This is waving your wand while saying an incantation. This is mixing a potion counterclockwise.

The thing is, as I said, the form isn't necessary. Not only is it not necessary, it places a limit on what your magic can do and how spells can be used. We see Harry apparating as a child before he knows he's a wizard. Young Tom can control animals (not just snakes) without a spell, just his intent and magic. Lily, similarly floats unaided as a child, something we're told is considered impossible until Voldemort (and later Snape) does it in the books.

And that's why I'm saying Harry's magic makes sense. If your will is strong enough, and you have enough magic to pull it off, the form aspect doesn't really matter. Your magic can do a lot spells just aren't capable of doing (as Harry repeatedly does as I mentioned in the posts I linked above) if you have the will and magic for it. Like, Voldemort, Harry, and Lily you don't need incantations and wand movements.

(Dumbledore probably could too, he has the magic for it, but I think he's too controlled for that. I think after Grindelwald and his sister he's so terrified of losing control of his magic that he doesn't really see it as an option. I think the concept scared him until Lily's sacrificial magic (which is this instinctual magic that isn't really a spell) when he saw it can do good, but I digress.)

Now, there are two other factors that are occasionally required for magic as I mentioned in the post I linked. These are:

4. Emotion

That's what the Patronus Charm requires — happiness. But it's also what the Unforgivable Curses require, after all:

“You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain — to enjoy it — righteous anger won’t hurt me for long...

(OotP, Ch36)

And we see repeatedly that emotion can change how spells behave. Spells cast with emotion don't act like spells cast with just the 3 base components.

The alternative to emotion as the fourth component is:

4. Focus/clear mind

This is what Snape is talking about for Occlumency. Like the Unforgivable, it requires a particular mindset, but it's the opposite mindset. Instead of emotion, you need none. You need a clear mind.

So what Harry is doing when practicing his "Occlumency" isn't Occlumency at all, but a new piece of magic Harry invented and has no idea he invented. He invented an emotion-based magical defence to your mind and he has no idea. Becouse Occlumency, by definition, requires the absence of emotion — that same emotion Harry actively uses to protect his mind.

So, yes, I think Harry could resist the effects of Veritaserum, but it's not going to be thanks to Occlumency, but thanks to the emotion-based mind protection Harry does that has nothing to do with Occlumency. I mean, Dumbledore doesn't ever call it Occlumency:

“There is a room in the Department of Mysteries,” interrupted Dumbledore, “that is kept locked at all times. It contains a force that is at once more wonderful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than forces of nature. It is also, perhaps, the most mysterious of the many subjects for study that reside there. It is the power held within that room that you possess in such quantities and which Voldemort has not at all. That power took you to save Sirius tonight. That power also saved you from possession by Voldemort, because he could not bear to reside in a body so full of the force he detests. In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you.”

(OotP, Ch37)

He considers it a sign of Harry's specialness (which it is). Dumbledore is aware what Harry did is not Occlumency. Harry just misunderstood Dumbledore and now he thinks Occlumency works with emotion.

(That being said, what Harry did is a bit more complicated than how Dumbledore phrases it here, and really an emotion like anger or spite would work just as well as grief or love, and it was mostly because Harry kicked Voldemort out subconsciously and not that Voldemort is allergic to love. But, the point is, no one but Harry thinks it's Occlumency)

I think it could be really funny if post-books someone asks Harry how he learned Occlumency since he's such a good Occlumence and he reveals it's all about emotion, and everyone blinks at him, like: "Mr. Potter, that's not how this works..."

Harry: "What do you mean? It clearly works,"

Them: "Eh..."

And that's how Harry invents a new piece of magic that's an alternative to Occlumency by accident.

[greenerteacups]

I wonder often why Deathly Hallows as a book is so fascinated with wandcraft and wandlore, especially after the series has spent six volumes being more or less disinterested in it (with the exception of the Twin Cores plot in Book 4). A weirdly high % of the plot depends on who owns whose wand and why: the wand mixup with the Snatchers, Harry's wand being broken, Draco's wand, Bellatrix's wand, and of course, the final rigmarole over who's the "rightful master" of the Elder Wand, which ends up being a weird combination of killing/disarming/fist-fight to disarm someone who... wasn't even wielding the Elder Wand at the time he was disarmed, which begs the question of what it counts to "disarm" someone of a weapon they're not technically wielding? Also, are we to assume that Dumbledore was not disarmed once in the N years since his fight with Grindlewald? Or — here's a harder one — that Draco wasn't disarmed once between Dumbledore's death and his fight with Harry? That's plausible, but it's kind of weird that I need to believe it for the rest of the plot to make sense.

And like, I can think of a few Doylist reasons for this to be the case. The first is that JKR wants Voldemort to kill Snape in the boathouse, which allows Harry to get Snape's memories and retroactively justify why Snape's acted this way since PoA (and explain where the sword comes from in the lake in DH, too). I can think of better, more character-driven reasons for him to kill Snape (just... blow Snape's cover? reveal him as a double agent? have him try to kill Nagini? idk), but let's suppose, for subtextual reasons, she wants Voldemort to think Snape was loyal to the end. Having him die by Nagini's hand muddies the already-opaque water of what constitutes "disarming," because Nagini is a living creature. What if I drop someone into a pool of piranhas? Do I get their wand? Yeah, Voldemort commands her, but then — okay, what if I Imperius someone and make them disarm someone else? I get that it's not like DH has time for Harry to sit down with Ollivander and go through all of the tiny procedural rules for wand usage, but also, are these not relevant questions? Is this not the central mechanic of the final battle, this one piece of magic? Am I not supposed to wonder how it works?

The other reason I can imagine is that Harry wins a duel against Voldemort 1v1, which is not terribly believable unless there's some kind of magical advantage working in his favor. We know the Elder Wand's failure to execute the Cruciatus means Harry can't be harmed by spells the Elder casts, because it's his "true master." This is a really weird quirk in wandlore — why does it work this way? Is it the only wand that works this way? By that logic, shouldn't everyone Harry disarms be incapable of casting spells on him? — that emerges in Book 7, apparently for the purpose of giving Harry a buff in the final duel. Functionally, that's weird, because on a technical level it works the same way as Lily's protection — it's a reason that Voldemort can't hurt him. So why get rid of Lily's protection at all? It's not like he duels Voldemort between Book 4 and Book 7. The graveyard scene artificially hikes the stakes for Harry by making him physically vulnerable, pretty much only so he can die at the end of DH... except again, not for real, because Voldemort only ends up killing the piece of Harry that's a horcrux, so it doesn't even count!

And then Harry replaces the wand in Dumbledore's tomb. Which would be a nice moment if the lore hadn't established that anyone who disarms Harry, ever, will become the master of the Elder Wand by default. Harry knows this. He also knows that this knowledge is out there in the world; sure, Grindlewald's dead now, but do we think that Grindlewald never told anyone else about the Elder Wand? And he learned about it from somewhere, didn't he? So Harry might naturally assume that someone else would eventually come looking, in which case Dumbledore's tomb is far from the safest place to put this equivalent of a wizarding nuke. (Not that it seems to be all that powerful anyway; the coolest thing it does is fix Harry's other wand, and we're left wondering why the Elder Wand is considered "unbeatable" when people who own it seem to be getting disarmed all over the fucking place.)

Also, in retrospect, this makes it incredibly odd that Dumbledore allows Draco to disarm him, because he's giving the Wizarding Nuke to a 16-year-old servant of Lord Voldemort. Suppose that he's trying to prevent Snape from getting the wand, because he doesn't want Snape to be a target: okay, fine, but does he know Draco's going to give Snape credit for the kill? What if Draco lies? What if LV just... accepts the fact that the wand recognizes Expelliarmus as a point of transfer, and either disarms or kills Draco? And in any case, no matter what the answers to these questions are, why didn't he just ask Harry to disarm him before he went to the lake?

I'm usually not one to be an asshole about plot holes — mostly because, taken by themselves, I don't find them that interesting — but they become interesting to me when I see several of them in the same vein, because they tell me that the author's trying to do something. And they want to do it so badly they're willing to strain other parts of the story to make it happen.

[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.

[birdiebirdjay]

what are your thoughts on Severus Snape?

AW HECK YEAH I FREAKING LOVE SEVERUS SNAPE!!!

I've talked about him a lot on my blog lol- not as much recently, but rest assured I still love him <3

He's one of my favorite dudes!! Percy is awesome because he is me and I am him sometimes but Snape is awesome because HOLY SHIT the amount of trauma this man went through just to become one of the saviors of the wizarding world?? holy shit it's insane

I have so much love and admiration for him as a character. He's the most heroic hero to ever hero tbh (overexaggeration I know.. but still)

Also, honestly, no I don't really care about the whole thing with Neville. In the most polite way possible, canonically, that kid was either a cowardly idiot or a kid who didn't listen in class and needed to get straightened out. Signed, an autistic nerd who would have hated him in real life. I'm sorry but I just cannot listen to any argument that basically goes 'ohh but he BULLIED CHILDREN!!' like no he was a strict teacher and Neville was a bad student who endangered others 😭😭

Oh also I absolutely love the John Nettleship lore!! (Basically Snape was based off JKR's old chemistry teacher, who she hated for like no reason lmao. He was super nice and everyone else loved him and he dressed up as a wizard and sang songs in Welsh. He was also most likely autistic and most definitely a mega feminist!! Absolutely based dude tbh. He even had disability accomodations installed in their building for JKR's mother!) Anyways book!Snape is autistic and you can't convince me otherwise <3

OH!! ANOTHER THING!! I love Alan Rickman, think he was an awesome actor, but movie!Snape is inferior to book!Snape in every way to me. He makes me shudder. Canon Snape is screamy and rough around the edges and mentally unstable and traumatized AND IT SHOWS! Movie!Snape is... smooth speaking... and calm... and slaps student... and is NOT book!Snape in any way shape or form!!!

Oh speaking of (can you tell I love yapping about Snape?), despite being pronounced a student-hating abusive bully by a certain side of the fandom, he's actually one of the only teachers that canonically never put the students in physical danger, and I think that's very snexy of him.

Anyways yeah I love Snape :) there's literally only one thing he's done in canon that I can't defend. Ask me questions about him anytime <3

[transsexula]

Hate seeing people say that Transandrophobia isn't real because, in their words, the "androphobia" isn't something people in real life face.

Now. Maybe this is because when I see this opinion, it's attached to someone who is either transfem, AMAB, or who has only ever lived in incredibly liberal areas.

Meaning: They do not have the life experience to speak on that.

It's simple, I can use myself as an easy example: I grew up on the west side of the US. My extended family and parents were very Christian, very conservative. The community I grew up in was in turn the same- very conservative, very Christian, very fundamentalist. Certain Disney movies were banned from the house for featuring witchcraft, or other "morally reprehensible" things. DISNEY MOVIES.

With this background, I'm sure you can tell where this was headed: I can clearly remember being in the pharmacy with my mother. I was small. I saw a lady with what I now know is a pixie cut- incredibly short hair, bright bold pink. Her girlfriend was there, and her own hair was incredibly butch- like they went to a sports clips and asked for what the guy next to them was getting. I was amazed- I'd never seen a woman that looked like that before. I voiced so with awe and wonder to my mother. I was supposed to get a haircut in an hour. "I want that! She looks so pretty and nice"

Who was visibly disgusted. Grabbing me, yanking me away, muttering "no. You don't want to look like that. Let's go."

Fast forward a few years. I'm too young to be drinking a beer, my uncle has stayed up late. We are watching music videos and sharing interests, when we see a rather masc looking woman in a video. He's disgusted. He makes an offhand joke about how she needs to be reminded of her feminine ways. I know what violations he's implying so vividly. He opens up about his fantasy of hatecriming two butch "women" he saw. I'm too afraid to speak.

There's a debate in church. Should women be allowed to wear above the knee shorts? We really didn't like that they can wear pants. Really, the pastor says in his sermon- it's the woman's job to maintain her feminine nature, in opposition to her husband's masculine nature. These blurring lines aren't good for people.

And- I don't want to get into the people I've known who've been hurt, abused, forcefully feminized, beaten for being masculine- the men that feel entitled to their bodies, because they feel entitled to a say in how they present.

The reason you don't see the abuse for being masculine, is because you come from a world where it's widely accepted in ways that not every culture, not every state or country has.

Gnc women, trans men, transmasc nonbinary people- if you're in the wrong place, born to the wrong family, you may never be safe enough to wear pants. You may not be able to cut your hair. Or be anything less than the perfect, ideal woman.

You get punished for not being what you have been assigned. For the act of defiance against others perception, you can be killed.

So, yeah. There's a lot of androphobia. There's a LOT of fear of the masculine. It just comes out in ways you aren't expecting, as someone who hasn't had to experience it. You don't know what to look for. Where to look. It's everywhere but you can be blind to it if you're insulated enough.

Hell- even terfs are falling into severe androphobia. It's their whole motto. What am I, if not a failed woman to them? Mutilating my perfect feminine form? Being a man is the ultimate crime to these people. Are you really telling me JKRs very public campaign hasn't made life hell for ALL of us? We are all losing healthcare due to this.

[my-castles-crumbling]

Hello,

I recently got back into the Harry Potter fandom, mostly because of tumblr. Otherwise I wouldn't even consider talking about my hyperfixations with my real friends.

So here's the thing, I know JKR is problematic and that is an understatement. I know this. And I came across a post which basically condemned her and said you shouldn't need more reasons to drop HP than this or something along those lines right.

And I completely agree with them. So I reblogged the post adding to it saying that the only way I am connected to this fandom is through this site.

Idk if this sounds like someone just like pettily complaining about people or whatever. They reblogged that post with my additions saying it's bad to even connect with the fandom, it gives her more support and kind of shamed me for still being a part of this.

Idk I just feel so guilty rn. And I just wanted someone to say it's okay to be here I guess. Until now I have loved HP content here, and this has been such an important part of my life. I can't just let it go.

I just wanted to let it out somewhere. Ughh as I type it out I feel I'm overreating but still. It's kinda been eating me up.

No, don't feel guilty at all! This is such a real feeling, and something I struggle with.

I guess to me, it's a personal decision.

Some people view loving harry potter (and any potter-related fandoms like the Marauders) as support of JKR. And that's...I can't fault them for that. Because people are so excruciatingly MAD. As someone who grew up literally idolizing her, it was absolutely devastating to see her turn into this. It was literally a betrayal. Like...the queer community used to really love her for pushing the idea of love and being yourself and fucking....not living in a closet. SO when she turned into this? It was really upsetting. People have literally had a staple of their childhood tainted, and for some, that's enough to completely write everything HP off completely. And that's fair.

For other people, they've decided to take the series as their own. To basically steal it and say- nope. Sorry, bestie. Not yours to be an author of anymore. I think that's more my view. Harry Potter (not even exaggerating) probably saved my life when I was a child, and got the through so much that I can't just get rid of it. It's quite literally a part of me. So while I respect the people who can't do it anymore, I just can't let go of something that really was a coping mechanism for years.

And then there are some people (like a newer generation) who never saw JKR as the author. It's always been the fandom. And I think that's also valid.

I think it's fair to say JKR doesn't have control over the fandom anymore, and we've made it our own. I don't lose sleep over being a part of it. But again, I think it's a personal decision, and one you can only make for yourself, you know?

[joannerowling]

I mean, people are absolutely entitled to argue that Harry Potter is ethically inconsistent and unintentionally revealing of classist biases even while acknowledging that JKR is an excellent writer and that children’s books do not need to lead readers by the hand to the correct opinion. There was a lot of very reasonable literary criticism to this effect right after Hallows was released by perfectly rational critics, well before ‘JKR bad’ took root in mainstream opinion on account of her political activism. I sat in a Catholic studies class in 2008 debating this, it isn’t new.

I never said it was new. I do think it's stupid though, not because i disagree with the argument (reasonably put or not), but because i disagree with the premise.

"Ethical consistency" is a completely nonsensical measure of quality for literature in general. The purpose of JKR's literature specifically is, amongst other things, to be a mirror of her time, and that involves depicting people who feel real. Real people are not consistently ethical.

"Unintentionally revealing of classist biases": Again, it's not that i doubt one could make an argument out of that premise and make it convincing. But it bores me to tears just to think of it. The judgement of it all - hidden being this falsely distant term, "unintentionally". It's so anachronistic. a) As if anyone who is her contemporary could be unaffected by the same biases and therefore credible in this criticism. b) She's right there, alive! You know her intentions, and if you don't, you can ask her them. That's not literary analysis, that's politics. If we're talking about JKR's politics, why not be honest and have a look at her political actions, then analyse how her books reflect them, not the other way around? That's more logical and constructive that this weird, "let's try to reverse engineer JKR's subconscious feelings about XYZ" obsession. I mean, why would it matter anyways? I have subconscious feelings of anger at my parents like probably 99% of people on earth. Who gives a shit. People are what they do.

Also, I actually don't care if JKR shows some classist biases (whatever that means) in her books. Good literature is always representative of its time, flaws included. Victor Hugo was a sexist fool, that doesn't make Notre Dame not great.

[metalomagnetic]

I was curious to know why do you think that in canon, why did dumbledore not fight for Sirius to get a trial, despite knowing him in school. I’ve seen many people bash dumbledore for this reason but I thought that he was simply convinced that Sirius had changed sides

I think that's not Albus' as a character fault, but JKR not planning ahead. That mistake was an oversight of JK, really.

That being said, to make it make sense, I think (and write) Sirius was very badly behaved- he was a bit cruel, a bit of a bully, a wild card, came from Black family, probably used some questionable spells now and again or said something bigoted without realising (as anyone raised in a bigoted family would do, even unconsciously); I think he did some bad stuff before his arrest, he annoyed some Order Members etc, so when he was caught amongst dead muggles and with a finger left of Pettigrew, and Sirius was laughing his head off and then admitting it's his fault....really, why wouldn't Dumbledore think Sirius changed sides and went back to his family? Especially since Bellatrix was arrested a few days later, confirmed as a devout Death Eater, and Regulus was mysteriously 'missing' and his other cousin married to another Death Eater.

I like to think Dumbledore would have wanted a trial for him and all the other men that didn't get one, but these were troubled times, martial law was probably in place, huge changes were being made in the Ministry- the aftermath of a war is rarely about justice. It's about cleaning up the mess, fast, and in real life many men like Sirius ended up in prison.

So yes, it probably made sense to Dumbledore- Sirius had an upbringing and behaviours that hinted at a possibility of betrayal, and Sirius laughing over corpses didn't much help. It seemed obvious, so they went with it.

Same for Aurors not checking his wand for spells- it seemed he did it, he confessed, why bother? It was chaos, the very next morning after V's death, and they were arresting suspected Death Eater left, right and centre, so no need to investigate a 'sure case'. Like I said, it happens very often in really life, after an abrupt change of regime or civil war etc.

On top of it, Dumbledore is neither an Auror, nor a Minister- this was the Ministry's job, not Dumbledore's, and they failed spectacularly. Maybe he did ask, maybe he enquired about Sirius and Barty Crouch or Fudge or anyone else said that he confessed (which Sirius sort of did, saying it was his fault, that he got them killed, etc. He kept saying that even to Harry in book 3, making all of us reader believe he truly was a killer, the vague way in which he was speaking. Again, this is bad writing by JK, to get some drama in with the ol' miscommunication trope).

So that's how I try to make it work. It's one thing to view Albus as a flawed character, as a manipulator, but quite another to look at that man and believe he willingly threw Sirius in Azkaban (as if he had that power) just so he can 'steal' Harry away from him.

Hell, maybe he even asked Remus 'do you think this is likely?' and Remus would have said yes. Of course it was Sirius, because James made him Secret Keeper, because they were besties; who else could it have been? Silly little Peter? No way, he was not skilled enough, and James wouldn't have trusted Peter with the Secret over Sirius.

I don't think Dumbledore was too close with these kiddos, really. It's more questionable to me that Remus never thought to question what he heard, because, unlike Dumbledore, he knew Sirius, knew this was the boy that wanted to risk his life to become an animagus just so he could keep him company; he knew how tight Sirius and James were.

Alas, it seems even for Remus, Sirius betrayal seemed a likely story, and this must be because Sirius was going around acting like a menace, way before he was arrested.

[jupitermelichios]

I'm feeling the need to be a hater but in a harmless and ultimately meaningless way, so join me around this barrell and lets shoot some motherfucking fish

Disclaimer: I am not telling you you can't enjoy these movies, or judging your taste if you loved them. This is literally just me being a hater about movies that happen to bug me personally for various reasons.

*of these random 10 11 movies I personally really hated

** obligatory disclaimer that I did not pay to watch this movie, JKR did not make a single penny out of my morbid fascination with cinematic trainwrecks

(despite what this list suggests, I watch a lot of movies that aren't cgi-heavy blockbusters, but having a specific interest in movie adaptations of comic books means I watch a lot of really terrible cgi-heavy blockbusters)

Anti-propoganda below the cut

Spawn: this movie hurts to look it. One of the single most visually unpleasant experiences of my life, and I'm including recovering from major surgery in that.

Batman v Superman: the entire plot hinges on people believing Superman shot a man to death with a gun. A less significant but unavoidable plot point involves Lex Luthor giving someone a jar of his own piss as a death threat. Compared to that, the Martha thing barely registers as stupid.

Cats: is it as bad as the viral reviews claimed? Sadly no. Did I almost strain a muscle trying not to laugh too loudly at how terrible it was when I saw it in the cinema? Absolutely.

Fantastic Beasts: none of the FB movies could reasonably be described as good, but the third one really lends credence to the JKR black mould poisoning theory.

The King's Man: they very clearly ran out of filming time/locations due to covid, and then for some reason instead of shelving what cannot have been a particularly expensive production, they decided to edit together what little footage they had and release it as one of the most fascinatingly incoherent movies of the last decade.

Last Airbender: the very rare movie that actually is as bad as the negative hype, this may have the worst use of cgi superpowers in all of cinema.

Fant4stic: if you don't have depression, but want to know what it feels like, watch this movie. That utter emptiness you're now feeling? That's what depression feel like. You don't feel bad, necessarily. You just feel nothing.

Transformers: none of the bayformers movies are good, but Last Knight is the only one which just straight up doesn't make sense. It's like someone took the strawman 'terrible soulless entirely CGI blockbuster' movie people use in tumblr arguments about hollywood, and decided to actually make it.

Black Adam: I feel bad about how terrible this film is, because it was a genuine passion project, and it has a great cast, but it also has the worst colour-grading and some of the worst editting I've ever seen. If a group of untallented first year film students got trapped in purgatory with dwayne johnson, pierce brosnan, and manual editting equipment from the 1930s, and had to make a superhero film in order to escape, this is the film they'd make.

TMNT: this film just makes me irrationally angry. It feels like a bad youtube skit about 'what if michael bay made an animated kids movie' but it's real and it cost $150 million

Flash: this was going to be a 10 option poll, but then I remembered this movie includes CGI christopher reeve, against the express wishes of christopher reeve, and WB went ahead and released it after Ezra Miller was arrested for kidnapping, and then it had the gall to also be a terrible film in almost every way.

[firendgold]

Pk now I want to hear tour rant about how Harrydore is bettter than Grindeldore. Bring it 🤣❤️

ohhh, this one's easy. I've been in this fandom on and off since 2006, and seen how Harry, Albus and Gellert were written pre- and post-'Dumbledore closet interview'. cracks knuckles

got to hit you with that readmore though. and it's going to be in two parts. I rambled again. ^^

🗲

//

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

//

(...'rambled' is perhaps an understatement.)

🗲

grindeldore vs harrydore

grindeldore

the tl;dr of the below is the following sentences, and then I'll get into it. My philosophy on gr*ndeld*re extends to all other ships in all other fandoms, especially HP: if it's not an AU and you have to excessively mischaracterize Character A to get them to 'fit' with Character B, then it's not a good ship, canon or not. Albus Dumbledore is quite often mischaracterized in order to 'fit' or 'keep' him with Gellert Grindelwald.

here's my problems with how gr*ndeld*re is most often portrayed:

Inconsistency within canon. JKR is partly mostly to blame for this (because she has contradicted her original 2007 statement in the present day with more interviews in the 2010s and with the Fantastic Beasts movies), but the first problem is: gr*ndeld*re was originally an unrequited ship. The original statement was that Albus was dazzled by Gellert's power, his presence, their similarities, their shared ideals... but That Woman wasn't explicit on whether Gellert ever returned his feelings. But based on her quotes where she says "falling in love can blind you to an extent" and that [Dumbledore] was "terribly, terribly let down" by the result of that whirlwind relationship, I think it's safe to assume that her original idea of Gellert cared far more for seeing his grander plans realized than for the needs and feelings of his 'equal'. And yet... in fandom, they are most often portrayed instead as star-crossed lovers torn apart by 'conflicting ideals'.

The second problem is that in the avalanche of fics and art that have come from The Reveal, the original lesson (/moral...?) behind the reveal of gr*ndeld*re, and how it shaped Albus as an adult, leader, and progressive, just... got lost. Completely lost. The whole point of it was to show that even Albus (supposed 'paragon of goodness' until book 7 showed the fandom that he is a regular human being) can make 'relatable' mistakes like... you know... being friends with a fascist. Being in love with a fascist, even. Thanks to said retcon interviews and the new movies (and even before that tbh) the fandom has since: overexaggerated Albus' new clay feet to the point of bashing him, idolized Grindelwald's red flag traits and ideals to the point where he has become the new "Tom Riddle was just misunderstood!" guy, and twisted that lesson/moral/whatever to mean that actually Albus and Gellert were tragically kept away from each other by an itsy bitsy little difference of opinion. A minor little fight. Casual death of your sick sister. Haven't we all been there?

The fandom diminishing the real reasons why Albus and Gellert eventually clashed, were destined to clash, is bad enough. What's worse is the opposite end. Some Dumbledore-bashing fans go the other way and paint present-day Dumbledore with the same brush as Grindelwald, even going so far as to say he still supports The Greater Good even though his entire character is literally built on being the opposite of the pro-magic, anti-Muggle philosophy. Albus has also been painted in some fics and even meta discussions as someone who 'regrets' his past not because his sister died and his brother is estranged from him, but just because his ex-boyfriend is in prison and he maybe kind of regrets not going full fascist with him. Like... bruh. NO. There are people who ship gr*ndeld*re just because they feel like Grindelwald, the worst dark wizard in the world, the reason why Voldemort is only a minor league little lord in comparison, is an appropriate "punishment" for the character they already dislike and thus misinterpret. (Side note: I'm not sure if I'm in a worse hell watching Albus' character get whitewashed for fascism or demonized so he can be a miserable lonely gay.)

Albus diminishes himself to meet Gellert's needs. An in-universe problem this time instead of a meta/RL one: Albus and Gellert were lovers, yes, but in order to be so, Albus had to actively start neglecting his siblings (since in Aberforth's words he was 'doing all right' taking care of them before Gellert showed up) and leaning more into anti-Muggle sentiment. He put all his energy into what for most of the magical world was a wild goose chase after some fairy-tale items. (Remember, most wixen don't give a shit about the Deathly Hallows, or think they're even real.) He became the person Gellert needed/desired most. Albus became a version of himself that he despised later in his life and after his death.

Relationships often include the members changing, and it's easy for even the most devoted partners to fall out of love if they change and are now too different from one another, or one person changes and the other... doesn't. After Ariana died, Albus chose to become a different person and champion the same people he and his family once despised. He chose to stay away from Gellert, whether he called it cowardice or principles or whatever else. And his choice put him in conflict with Gellert, who at sixteen refused to change course or rethink his ideals even when his choices led to the death of a magical person (the type of person he supposedly prizes above all others). His magical boyfriend's magical sister, even. And we see no sign that Gellert changed, repented, or considered Albus until decades later, at the very end of his life—far too late.

Healthy relationships require give-and-take, sacrificing for your partner in things big and small. For high-stakes relationships like Albus and Gellert's (queer in the 1800s, sweet Merlin), that is even more true. During that steamy summer of 1899, it was Albus who did all the sacrifcing/giving and Gellert who did all the taking. Gellert may have entertained the idea of bringing Ariana along on his quest with Albus (we don't know), but Aberforth was right to say that it would have been torture for her—and no alternate idea was brought up that would prioritize the wellbeing of Albus' siblings while he was away. And in the moment of required reciprocity when Albus was at his lowest, Gellert left him behind and went off to go rule the world. Not even the most diehard shipper can argue against the fact that when Ariana died, Grindelwald left.

This problem is even more personal/biased than the other ones. Albus and Gellert parted ways in 1899. They didn't see each other again until the duel in 1945 (because fuck Fantastic Beasts, the scripts don't even make fucking sense). Albus defeated Gellert, put him in prison, and then went on living for another fifty-two years. And That Woman expects me to believe that Albus never had a relationship with anyone before Gellert, and never even looked at another wizard afterward? In 52 years, he was one-and-done? He never once fell in love with other people, whether or not he fully trusted them/let them in? Be serious. Pull the other one. It's not realistic, and it doesn't speak to the kind of man Albus Dumbledore is. He may not have found a man to check the same boxes Gellert did, but he wouldn't arguably be looking for someone too similar to his old flame. He might not trust them unconditionally or be the Perfect Partner for them (bc whew traumaaa), but there would be other people for Albus in a realistic Magical Britain (even discounting time travel shenanigans). Before the reveal, the most popular people to ship Albus with were Minerva, Alastor, and Elphias Doge; these options are still arguably more valid. Albus Dumbledore loves love, he champions love, and he doesn't think he deserves it after his sins, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't go looking. It's mind-boggling to me that with all the well-deserved disavowing of JKR following her anti-trans hate (and her shameless pandering to the same people calling her a witch poisoning their children's minds decades ago), that some people still treat her words about Albus and Gellert's relationship and its effects on Albus in particular as gospel. I sure don't. (Especially because she said he became "asexual" after His One Gay Experience when like. That's not. What asexuality is??? And ace gay people exist???) Whether you count the FB movies or not, there are still decades of Albus' life that are a mystery, and I refuse to believe he closed his heart and caged his dick for all of them.

IMPORTANT END NOTE: These observations obviously do not apply to all gr*ndeld*re shippers. Some people genuinely do like both characters, characterize them correctly, and still want to see them together for reasons. I'm not going to judge them. I ship a frigging time travel age gap ship, how the fuck could I. And I'm also aware that a lot of fics/art are made to color in between the lines of what we don't know in the fandom, bringing Albus and Gellert together during the mystery years, or making one wizard better for the other to address all the ship baggage. I just can't join them because of how rarely that occurs (and, admittedly, how much I personally can't see it). You would not believe how many fics and discussions I've seen that lionize Grindelwald and treat Dumbledore like an accessory, or completely mischaracterize Albus' motivations, intentions, and actions, and then put him with "the other Big Bad". UGH.

Most of the time, I see gr*ndeld*re the ship hurting Albus the individual. It's very rare to find an iteration where Albus is not bearing the consequences of Gellert's choices, Gellert's actions, Gellert's mistakes and harm done. I think Albus deserves better than to be Gellert's accessory just because he loved him deeply long ago.

okay. whew. that was a lot.

a character limit prevents me from continuing here, so the second half of this versus will go elsewhere, sorry!

[saintsenara]

Hey!

My main takeaway from your unhinged ships series - which provides me with limitless entertainment btw so thank you for your service - is how intricate your knowledge of the HP series is!

I'm kind of in a weird limbo rn where I have a great love for this world and the series but JKR's behaviour in recent years has completely turned me off the whole thing. I've been too disheartened to engage with the canon material in any real sense for years, but your exploration of it is kind of rekindling my interest. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Also, is HP like your niche or do you possess an encyclopaedic knowledge on any other works of literature or pop culture phenomena? This is just pure curiosity on my end.

thank you very much for this anon! it's extremely sweet.

how to reconcile being a part of this fandom - and, especially, how to be in a corner of the fandom which places more emphasis on the text than others - with jkr's decision to become a bigot is a question i'm sure we've all spent a lot of time on, and it's one which is going to have an inherently subjective answer.

my personal view is that she'll never get another penny out of me - i'm persevering with my original copies of the books, judiciously sellotaped; i won't engage at all with the upcoming television adaptation; i've not seen the fantastic beasts films; i wouldn't go and see cursed child; i wouldn't play hogwarts legacy; i don't buy merch and so on - but that writing my little stories and yapping away on my little tumblr is fine, because it's an engagement with the series which, no matter how much it focuses on the text she wrote, is still mine rather than hers.

but - of course - there are entirely reasonable arguments against this position, in either direction. someone who does engage more with jkr's post-radicalisation output could justifiably say that - since i've written stories involving delphini, who only exists because of cursed child, the fact that i've never seen or read the play is irrelevant and my insistence that there's a meaningful distinction between enjoying the expanded world of the series and enjoying the expanded world of the series in a way jkr materially benefits from is performative nonsense. someone else could justifiably say that jkr benefits [directly and indirectly] from all fandom engagement, even if that fandom engagement is critical of her and even if it doesn't financially support her - the upcoming television adaptation, for example, wouldn't have been greenlit if hbo didn't think it would get an audience, and the continued vitality of the harry potter fandom undoubtedly contributed to their belief that it would.

neither of these arguments are wrong - although neither is objectively correct either. each of us has to form a subjective opinion, be ok with it, and be open to changing it as time passes.

and i do genuinely think that engaging with the text as a text - something else i bang on about all the time - is helpful when it comes to reconciling everything.

i know it sounds very pretentious [and i also suspect that many people think the series isn't "well-written" enough to justify such pretension...] to say that the fandom needs to get better at embracing a variety of methods of reading the text and understanding the author's relationship to it.

this isn't me saying that anyone who wants to get into fandom needs to be able to rattle of the names of literary theorists, or be able to give an answer to "the series is historiographic metafiction: discuss".

[although if anyone would like to try and argue in favour of that proposition... i'd shriek.]

what it is is me saying that the dominant way of reading the text in the fandom - which is to focus on the reader's emotional response [and, above all, the reader's emotional response in childhood] - can end up giving jkr quite a bit more authority in how we engage with the series than she deserves. it's why many of us might say that we feel she's "betrayed" or "taken something away from" us, for example - and it's why many of us might feel that she's forced us into approaching the series in ways which decentre the canon material.

and this is - obviously - a completely legitimate way of engaging and responding. but there's also a lot to be gained from thinking outside of our emotional responses about things like the genre conventions which govern the series, the tropes and archetypes it uses, its language and syntax, its existence as something standalone, the other works of literature which influence it, and the social and historical context in which it was written. treating the series as "just" some books reduces jkr's authority over our response to it - and while the argument that this doesn't mean anything in the real world, since all she's going to care about is that people are reading her stuff, is an inherently reasonable one, i do think it has real-world benefits to us in how we square the circle of enjoying the text.

more controversially, though, i think it's also worth thinking about the personal context in which the series was written.

for me, the author is dead based on whether or not i need her to be. i don't think that the only valid interpretation of a text is the author's intended one, and i don't think that the only valid interpretation of a text is one dependent on matching parts of the story onto the author's biography. but i do think it's important for readers to know both what jkr understands the text as saying and what has happened in her life that bleeds through into it [such as the way her difficult relationship with her father and her experience of her mother's terminal illness undeniably influences the series' prioritisation of sacrifical motherhood and certain coolness towards fathers]. this doesn't mean agreeing with - or even empathising with - her by any means, it's just another tool in our arsenal when it comes to thinking of the series as no more or less special than any other piece of literature, and jkr no more or less important to our interpretation of it than any other author.

and i think it's worth saying that she doesn't seem to be someone who's bothered when fans say that she doesn't understand her own text or that she's lost the right to speak about it or that the fandom has taken it back from her - which is also why when people say that non-canon shipping [especially of queer pairings] must piss her off i think it's just cope - because she can spin that as these people being childish and unwilling to face reality.

but she does seem to be bothered by people who say "yeah, i know that's what you think and i know that's what you intended... but i disagree and you don't have the right to dictate otherwise".

[this is why - i think - she gets so frothingly pissed-off by daniel radcliffe's immaculate stance against her anti-trans bigotry. he's always very firm in saying "she can think what she wants, but - firstly - this isn't about what she thinks privately, it's about what she does publicly and - secondly - i think she's completely wrong and i'm not going to change my mind just because she wants me to", and she obviously doesn't like the fact that this is much harder to spin into the narrative that she's being "oppressed" and "victimised" than she'd like...]

the text is just a text, and she's just one woman, but our ways of reading are infinite and important and ours. the new horizon in literary theory is "fuck her, we ball".

[when it comes to "do i have a good memory?" the answer is "yes, but for purely useless information". when the question is whether that good memory relates to other pieces of pop culture, i'm either very lucky or very unlucky - depending on where you stand on such things - that the fandoms for hit millennial sitcoms don't seem to be large... otherwise i'd clearly be spending all my time writing epic nick/schmidt or liz lemon/jenna maroney romances and/or being cancelled for being in george michael/maeby nation...]

[hollowed-theory-hall]

Do you think of Ginny as a “pick me girl”? Some of the things you say in your post makes her come across as that, which is sad since she is a strong female character and there’s so many m|m bloggers who shitting on strong female characters these days.

I don't know if you're just looking for a fight or if you're genuine, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt about this subject once.

Yes, I think Ginny comes off as a bit of a "pick me" which I already wrote about here, which I don't think was intentional on JKR's part. I don't think Ginny was intended to come off the way she did.

Like, Ginny in the early books is just, really boring, in my opinion. and I think Ginny in book 5 had the potential to be an interesting character. She had a good sense of humor and she seemed somewhat in line with the twins (though on the crueler side), but I despise Ginny of books 6 and 7.

Like, all power to you for like Ginny and her romance with Harry. Truly, have fun with your canon pairing, I wish you the best and that you find many fics that portray them just as you like to see them.

But I don't see them that way. I think Ginny is a badly written character, and I think her romance with Harry is similarly badly written. It has nothing to do with gay ships. Trust me, if Harry was written into a compelling romance with a well-written female character, I'd be all over that. But he wasn't.

I mean, hell, I don't even ship Drarry, which is the most popular gay ship for Harry because I don't like Draco much. I think he's written well for what he is in the story, but I just don't vibe with him.

Becouse I don't need an excuse to dislike a character or a pairing. I can give my reasons, I have them, but I'm (and anyone else is) allowed to say I just don't vibe with a character. Even if Ginny was the best-written character in literature (she isn't) and her romance with Harry was perfectly written (it isn't) I could still shit on her as much as I want to, you know why?

Becouse she's fictional.

Fictional characters can't be offended. You can't be mean to a fictional character. Because fictional characters don't have feelings. They're not real.

You can say you personally find it sad people don't like Ginny the way you do, and you can be personally disappointed — but it isn't objectively sad. It isn't sad for Ginny becouse Ginny isn't real and only real people have feelings. It's sad to you, that's your opinion.

I love Harry, he's my favorite and I made it no secret, but I have good irl friends who shit on him in casual conversation and I can laugh with them when they make a funny joke about him even when we disagree, you know why? — we agree to disagree. We know Harry is fictional and that he doesn't care. Because he isn't real, he can't care.

So, for me, it doesn't matter if you shit and hate on fictional characters and fictional relationships as long as you're decent to real people.

You aren't a misogynist for disliking a female fictional character. She's fictional. She isn't real. You would be a misogynist if you mistreated irl women because they're women. In the same vein, you aren't a homophobe for disliking a popular gay ship. You would be a homophobe if you mistreated irl gay people because of their sexuality. You aren't wrong for disliking a fictional character or ship for any reason, even if the reason is just "vibes". You would be a dick if you mistreated irl people because they don't think the same as you about a fictional character or ship.

I personally find it sad that fandom seems to have lost the ability to say "agree to disagree" and move on (if the ability ever existed in the first place). I follow some blogs who shit on HJP himself because they post other stuff I find compelling. I follow blogs that post a lot of Drarry because I like how they write Harry even if I don't really care for Draco. You can like someone and enjoy their writing and be friendly with them even if you don't agree with them on some fictional characters and fictional relationships. And if it really bothers you, you can block and move on as many of us do.

So yeah, I think Ginny comes off as a "pick me." I think she's a badly written character, and you can disagree with me on that, you can think she's a strong female character, but that's your opinion, not an objective truth. And I dislike her for being a badly written character, which, I assure you, is gender-natural.

I also think it's important to remember that at the end of the day, we're all just playing with dolls, and the only feelings that matter are those of real people.

[seriousbrat]

i sort of figured that the magical world is pretty progressive gender-wise for primarily doylist reasons. while gender isn’t ignored in the books or anything — we see the dynamics between girls and the unique issues there most clearly when fleur or lavender are also in play, obviously lily’s sacrifice and love as a mother (and later narcissa’s) are massively vital to the story, etc. but on the whole, the magical world needs to seem wondrous, and so it has its own unique hierarchal systems for the characters to confront, rather than the ones we the readers are already familiar with. additionally, it’s a kids book aimed to appeal to both boys and girls, and that was a rarity on top of a rarity, so it was important that the magical world be a magical place for girls too. and i myself am a canon truther (yes this is redundant but feels necessary in the hp fandom) so how it was written is what’s “real”. but from within the narrative it’s hard to imagine. we’re looking at a small insular society obsessed with blood and lineage. controlling lineage means controlling reproduction means controlling women. but i definitely do agree that with everyone having the same magic, it keeps the playing field more level. certainly so long as a witch has her wand, she is much safer and much more able to defend herself than she would be without. at the same time, we see that magical creatures have magic (though not wands) and muggleborns of course have both magic and wands (until DH) and the wizarding world manages to uphold strong hierarchies which push down both groups, with of course the occasional exception.

Yesss, very well expressed! We see this play out in the fact that the original Death Eaters in Slughorn's memory were very much a boy's club, and there are only two notable female Death Eaters, and only one (Bellatrix) with any real influence.

But that's kind of the thing for me; the same way the Death Eaters and their sympathisers are regressive in terms of blood politics, they're also more regressive in terms of gender, because lineage is what matters to them. We know from Pottermore that wizarding society was once intertwined with Muggle society and that families like the Malfoys had close ties to the British aristocracy, but abandoned this quickly once it fell out of fashion, so the obsession with lineage isn't something that has always existed in wizarding society.

I think you just expressed this so well that I can't add much, but I absolutely agree-- obviously an obsession with lineage leads to an obsession with controlling reproduction leads to controlling women. This, as I personally believe, is the basis of patriarchy: controlling resources means controlling labour means controlling reproduction, means controlling women. But when magic is taken into account, a witch can defend herself and be equally efficient in terms of raw magical ability when compared to a man. As you said, it levels the playing field somewhat, and I get the feeling that in the general (non-DE-aligned) wizarding society women have historically enjoyed much more equality than they have in real life.

It's an interesting topic! As I said in the other reply, I think JKR injected misogyny into her world because that's what she herself had experienced at the time of writing-- which, look, for all her atrocious beliefs, I can understand that at least. And sometimes in writing it is about striking that balance between escapism and relatability, and I think you're right to point out that it needed to appeal equally to girls and boys. As a kid, I related to Hermione being second-guessed by her male friends but I also looked up to her for being more intelligent than them!

Anyway, if you could give likes to asks I'd like this fifty times because you smashed this!

[lovl3igh]

You know, it be preferable if certain Jily artists would bother to tag their art with poc/desi james potter tag. Cause not all of us consider that headcanon to be ‘canon’. The author is problematic and all, but that doesn’t mean race swapping existing white characters is any better/makes y’all superior. It works for Hermione because she’s a muggleborn and the added subtext of her being picked on by a racist, pureblood white prick like Draco and the garbage Malfoys. And this doesn’t fucking mean Jily=Dramione! Fuck no. If anything, James being the reverse of Draco, but similar in he too was a white, pure blood privileged boy raised and pampered but was actual taught to not be a complete dick to those who’s blood status isn’t pure. Changing his race to fit a certain headcanon is bs and makes Dursleys hypocritical and worse(but skin color logic, they should hate Kingsley too). And it’s always James & Harry. Never Sirius, Remus, or Lily(who has the most reason to be race swapped). So overall, this fandom is a joke

overall after reading that i think every word you wrote is a joke (yeah, i'm answering just now, i had no time in last few weeks whatsoever)

"not all of us consider that headcanon to be 'canon'" what. putting canon in quotation marks doesn't make that sounds any more sensible. people know that poc james isn't canon even if they don't like idea of him being white. no one makes it canon or 'canon', it's fandom thing. no one calls it canon for real. no one can argue canonically white james

no one feels superior because of making race swap to any character but there's also nothing wrong with that as long as it's not harmful. there's bunch of white characters in hp, most of them. james is canonically white so there's no problem that he stays this way for you. but the thing is most of the things about marauders is headcanon because jkr didn't do much with them and one of those is poc james. and it's okay! there's canon white james and there's desi james and asian james and black james and biracial james and there's no way that could be harmful to you to the point to write long ask referring to my old post

harry potter universe has a canon black character that comes from muggle family. he's called dean thomas. there's also canon white character that is muggleborn. hermione granger. there are white and black characters born either in muggle family or magic one or mixed. because yes, blood purists in hp can be seen as racists. and looking from our world into what we're reading and watching it can be a good analogy. but characters in hp can be both racists and blood purists. dean could have been hated for beeing black and for being muggleborn, jkr just never wrote anything like that in her work but to the moment when dean was haunted in book 7 for being muggleborn. ted tonks was haunted as well and he's white. it wasn't about race, it was about blood. jkr made basically everyone white there and pretended that the only problem in the universe is purity of blood as if racism didn't exist

so no, it doesn't "work for hermione because she's a muggleborn". it doesn't work for lily "who has the most reason to be race swapped". it works for any character in the universe. in universe when you can see how muggleborn and mixed blood people are treated worse than those with pure blood . and if you need added subtext of muggleborn being poc to see a problem with blood purists, that's on you. as if black hp character couldn't be a blood purist. blaise zabini anyone?

headcanoning james and harry as poc doesn't make dursleys seem worse than they are. they are already horrible people. they were abusing A CHILD. canonically they were abusing white boy because he was a wizard, not other reason. making harry poc in headcanon doesn't make them worse because they did that canonically to white kid. it's terrible enough. making lily and harry poc instead of james and harry doesn't work better. vernon canonically still is white, with poc petunia abusing poc harry wouldn't automatically make vernon non-racist. it's giving "i have black friends, i can't be racist". you can. but we know that whatever color harry would be, vernon still would hate him because of his magic

[cecenyss]

Okay listen. Listen okay. Dumbledore’s moral failings are a result of poor writing.

Like jkr goes out of her way to describes Albus Dumbledore as this paragon of virtue who’s constantly trying to do the right thing and he’s practically omniscient and one of the only reasonable people in the entire wizarding world

And then she turns around and goes “but he didn’t check on the boy he left in the care of a Muggle he had been warned was going to mistreat him by someone he’s known for years” and he didn’t check for eleven years.

And then after that when Harry’s envelope literally said cupboard under the stairs nobody checked on that?? And hey hey McGonagall was the only one who’d see that letter actually she was the one who signed it so that’s poor writing on her character too

But this is about Dumbledore not her

And then nobody double checked on Sirius Black and whatnot including Dumbledore (and that’s not just Albus?? Like Remus didn’t, nobody else who knew Sirius didn’t) which is frankly ridiculous because he had friends and what can be assumed was an active social life given he was friends with James Potter who everybody falls over themselves to sing the praises of at every opportunity

This is, I think, an issue with writing an overpowered character in general. You describe them as virtually all-knowing, but then don’t come up with reasonable explanations for why they wouldn’t know certain things that need to be unknown for the plot to progress. You give them awesome powers, and then struggle thinking of ways for them to be thwarted.

When this isn’t done correctly, the only possible explanation for the fans is to make the op character in question an asshole. They didn’t care enough to check that a child was safe or they didn’t feel like vouching for the safety of someone else so they just didn’t or they allowed people to become collateral damage even though it would’ve been a perfectly viable solution to let things play out another way.

It’s so annoying to me that people do this but it’s also perfectly understandable because in reality the character is fundamentally contradictory; there’s no real way to reconcile the ideas that “Dumbledore is intelligent and wise” and “Dumbledore didn’t bother checking on an infant who actively had terrorists gunning for him for over a decade.” Those two things just can’t coexist without some serious bending over to make them make sense.

But they have to for the story to make internal sense, because it is a bad story. It’s just bad writing, there’s no way around it. And that’s a really difficult thing to swallow, even after coming to terms with jkr’s bigotry. Because even when she was just transphobic and racist and just kind of a bigot in general I could still say “well, the story was good, but it sucks she turned out so bad.” But I really can’t say that anymore. And that hurts so, so bad.