#potter meta

[majorbaby]

Aside from being a Potter hater, I really do think it's a shame we lost Henry because McLean Stevenson was a comedic heavyweight not just as an actor but as a writer, giving us The Trial of Henry Blake and The Army-Navy Game. He was unafraid to commit whole-heartedly to the bit, and while some of Henry's heroism in Trial was probably McLean's positive bias, I think it was nice that we got to see Henry's competence as a doctor shine through despite his incompetence as a CO. On early MASH, this was the sign of a heroic character, so it falls neatly in line with what the narrative was trying to tell us anyway.

"Your boss is not your friend" but Henry didn't want to be anyone's boss and he doesn't appear to be suffering any delusions that he's any good at the job. He wants to hang out with the cool kids, Hawkeye and Trapper and do the things they do: get drunk, fuck around, practice medicine and dream of home. I can't think of a show that's replicated the Henry-Trapper-Hawkeye dynamic.

Any time Henry tries to use his rank, he ends up flat on his ass. Women reject him for it, Hawkeye and Trapper pull fast ones on him, and he never lives up to Burns and Houlihan's expectations anyway.

At one point Henry muses aloud to Hawkeye that he might be getting to do more interesting work as a doctor in the war than he was doing back home. I think this is one time I can actually stand to hear the other side of it. What Henry is expressing here is a disillusionment with comforts of upper-middle-to-upper-class suburban life, a very How did I get here??? moment for him if I may say so. And a pretty normal thing for him to feel.

I like how Larry Gelbart imagined Trapper might've responded to a similar hypothetical:

REPORTER: Do you feel this experience has in any way helped you as a doctor?

TRAPPER JOHN: Let me ask you a question: just how many people you figure’re going to be carried into my office someday with a chunk of shrapnel sticking out of their heads? I don’t know where you live, pal, but where I come from very few folks ever step on a landmine in the middle of trying to cross the street.

Instead of Henry coming to this himself, we have Hawkeye to shoot him down immediately, and good on him for it, but those kinds of initial reflections on the state of one's life are the first step to doing something about one's dissatisfaction. For a character like Henry, who isn't often moved to do anything that pushes him outside of his comfort zone, I like this as some depth for him. And I would've liked to have seen him stay on and be proved wrong, you know, without him dying on the way to his beautiful house, beautiful wife etc.

I also think McLean would've handled the shift from the more comedic to dramatic moments masterfully. We already see pieces of it in Sometimes You Hear the Bullet and Abyssinia Henry.

And most importantly we lost something when the incompetent draftee CO was replaced by the on-my-third-war-ex-cavalry-man-and-damn-proud-of-it guy. There's an assumed 'respect' everyone, even Hawkeye, is expected to afford Potter if not for his rank, then his age. This is the opposite of what was done with Henry, where Hawkeye and Trapper openly flouted the notion that they should respect Henry because of his rank.

Like even if Trapper had stayed on and continued in his unquestioning support of Hawkeye's campaigns, I don't think that would've flown with Potter unless the show was willing to make him the butt of the joke the way that Henry sometimes was and indeed there's not much evidence of it ever happening post season 4. There is that one episode where he gets high and the gang ferry him back and forth to get him to requisition supplies - which was great, and very Henry-like but I can't think of many other examples.

Because MASH was progressive for it's time, it's very interesting to see where it draws the line. It didn't do great with race, it was so-so with women all the way through... but these things seem pretty obvious and to some even forgivable on account of "it's the product of its time". I think another limit for the show was the treatment of the highest-ranking officer on the base in the later years. Henry vs. Potter - Henry who the show had no problem trampling over and Potter who it very politely tip-toed past, resulting in some comparatively lukewarm and dated statements on authority. When it comes to Potter "Your boss is not your friend" is something Hawkeye, BJ, Klinger and Radar all need to hear.

[firendgold]

I love Harrydore but it is hard to ignore the huge difference in their magical power. I know their relationship wasn't affected by that tho. Do you think Harry was a powerful wizard on his own, even if not in comparison to Albus?

For me personally, their magical power doesn't really come into it. I do agree that it doesn't matter to their relationship.

One of the things I like about Dumbledore is that he is simultaneously very proud of his own brain but also almost entirely dismissive of his magical prowess. He doesn't judge people based on how powerful they are or aren't, or due to any other details of their background. And Harry is the same way.

As for Harry himself, I don't think he was a magical prodigy. But I don't think he was dumb or untalented either, whether that's compared to Albus or not. Harry comes across as someone who has two or three very specific specialties, and is top-of-the-pack in all of those specialties. (I'm thinking of his mastery of the Patronus, his rather expansive Summoning Charm, and his quick mastery of the Unforgivable Curses, among other things.)

He does have natural curiosity even though he's not a genius, so I think Harry can improve in fanworks if authors lean into that curiosity and have Harry learn/expand upon branches of magic without just having him undergo a ritual or read a library's worth of Forbidden Texts.

With a few years of self-study and a few dangerous situations sprinkled in, I can see Harry getting to Snape-level of single-subject mastery.

[firendgold]

Harry and Lily's motivations and thought patterns can be said to be similar, though, even with how cruelly they were separated.

Harry did not have the chance to be raised by Lily, true. Personality is not solely shaped by genetics: also true. But Harry still shares Lily's stubbornness, cutting tongue, and her strong sense of justice. He shares her belief in the value of sacrifice, even when that sacrifice is personal, final, and has no guarantee of leading to the most ideal outcome. Like both Lily and James, like Sirius and Remus, Harry has no fear of sacrificing himself for friends and family—no fear of dying for what he believes in. He believes in doing things for the benefit of the many, even at his own expense.

This isn't because he's been "groomed" to be that way. It is an innate part of his character from the moment we first meet him in chapter 2 of book 1. It is a part of his character that is clear to characters like Albus, Sirius, Remus, and Severus without Harry ever having to express it in words. It's not an aspect of his character many people like that much, much less accept, but it is a distinct tie between Lily's character and Harry's.

The wizarding world has only a vague idea of who Harry is, and Harry is only infrequently bothered by their opinions of him. His strongest rejection of any role they might put him in is during year 5, when the general public's denial of Voldemort's return is literally threatening his life. But the Ministry and the general public don't have the slightest idea of who Harry is and what he's motivated by—ironically, very similar to many members of Harry's own fandom.

As for Lily's home life, we know that her parents adored her and she had a strong friendship with Severus. But we also know that all was not rosy (no pun intended) in her early life before she grew up and joined the fight against Voldemort. She and Petunia had a rocky relationship which only worsened the more Lily leaned into her identity as a witch. Her first best friend splintered off at some early point during their school years, splitting his time between her and a group of people who thought she was sub-human and a thief of magic. Of the other close friends she may have had, none seem to have outlived her, and she spent at least some of her last days on earth getting news of their deaths.

Lily does not get the screen time she deserves, and much of her behavior is left only to our speculation as fans. But Lily's words and choices in light of the few things we do know about her speak to a deep strength of character, an inflexible sense of right and wrong. Lily Potter is an altruistic woman who is able to empathize with others even without suffering a quarter of the harm that her son comes to experience once she is gone.

Harry was most certainly abused: neglected, treated as less than his cousin, left alone to handle problems no child should have to handle. But I'd argue that these things did not take away his sense of identity, or prevent him from having one; and that it's a common fanon misconception that Harry is either a beaten-down butterfly or a blank-slate everyman.

One of the thing many fans miss about Harry (despite how much his mistreatment is discussed) is that even with the way the Dursleys treat him, Harry does not bend or break before them. A different child might have been submissive, shy, obedient. They might have taken on some of the same ugly beliefs as their 'caretakers'. At eleven years old, Harry is and does none of those things. He is defiant. He is snarky. He is strong-willed, and extremely opinionated, and loyal—though he doesn't fall in line behind the first person with power or wealth or even a winning smile. As he matures throughout the series, these core traits mature with him.

The Harry who sends his friends away for help and decides to face Voldemort at eleven, knowing he will likely die, is the same Harry who goes in secret to face Voldemort at seventeen, knowing he will most certainly die. And he shares this choice, and the belief system it's based on, with the woman who threw herself in front of her killer, her son's would-be killer, and said please not Harry. Have mercy.

Harry Potter wasn't raised to be a soldier or a self-sacrificial lamb. Harry experienced criminal neglect in his early years and realized that no one was going to swoop in and save him when he needed help. He took that to mean that if he wanted something done, if he wanted to help others, he needed to do it himself. By the time he met with adults who did want to help him, and could have helped him, their hands were tied by murderous half-dead men and bureaucratic conservatist systems and discrimination and their own misconceptions of him and a million other things—and that cemented the part of Harry's personality that insisted he must handle things by himself.

And that, acting where others don't or won't, is a choice he makes on his own throughout the series. Harry has plenty of chances to run away from his issues, and a host of people who might have been glad to let him do it. But he doesn't, because he never wants to be a bystander. He never wants to be the type of person who turns his back on the suffering of others—like Wormtail, like the Death Eaters, like the Ministry of Magic. It is a trait he shares with his mother, who could have just as easily packed up and moved clear across the world when Voldemort started terrorizing Britain—but didn't.

Whether they are loved or hated by others, villainized or lionized, both Harry and Lily choose to make personal sacrifices to fight for what's right.

All this to say—I agree with the OP. Harry Potter is not James Potter and he is not Lily Evans Potter either. But I also believe Harry does have some of his parents' less obvious traits, traits which shine through in some of his most perilous moments and give him the strength to overcome his opponents. Still, Harry should NOT be written or interpreted as a carbon copy of either of his parents, because it was Harry James Potter alone who had the personality, the strength, the wisdom, and the selflessness necessary to destroy Voldemort.

Harry Potter is an extremely complex character who deserves actual deep analysis of his choices and character that aren't tied to what his parents said or did or how fans feel about his sacrificial tendencies.

harry potter is NOT james potter.

I love parallels. I love people reminding others of those they've lost along the way.

But Harry Potter is not James . And that is so vital to his entire character.

When people see Harry, they see James. They see a James who sees the world through Lily's eyes. When they see Harry, they don't see Harry.

And that is so vital to his entire being. It's vital to how people see Harry. The people that didn't know James, see the Boy-Who-Lived.

The people who did, who were close to Harry, to James, to Lily. They see James and Lily Potter. They see the people who died, people they were close to, people they miss every day but will never see again.

Remus, Sirius, Snape, McGonagall.

At first, they see James and Lily. And then when they meet him - apart from Snape- they quickly realise he is anything but.

Harry is not arrogant, rich, spoilt. He doesn't have an ego, he doesn't play pranks, he isn't a chaser, he doesn't pick fights.

Harry isn't exceptionally bright at everything he does, he isn't inconceivably forgiving for those who don't deserve it.

He is not Lily and James.

When peole write Harry as a golden retriever, as effortlessly good at everything, they aren't writing about Harry.

Harry who grew up not wanted. Harry who grew up believing something was wrong with him. Harry who was forced into the wizarding world with no knowledge. Harry who is as stubborn as a mule,. Harry who is loyal to a fault, who forgives those he loves, Harry who isn't his parents.

He has traits of them, their anger, their ability to love, and much much more.

BUT Harry Potter isn't them. He isn't the 'best of them both' he isn't James or Lily or Sirius or Regulus.

Harry Potter is Harry. Just Harry.

And that is why he doesn't get along ith Snape. That's why McGonagall believes Harry dragged Neville out for a joke in first year.

When people see Harry, they don't see Harry. And by writing Harry as somebody else, or as 'so-and-so's child' you're not doing the character justice.

'I want a complex character with complex relationships'

'i want an angry character'

'i want to read a book that makes me think'

you couldn't even handle Harry Potter.

[my-castles-crumbling]

Guys PLEAAAASSSSEEEEEEEE stop using AI for fanart. I know so many amazing people who literally spend HOURS creating art. HOURS. And they do it for free, or for very little. To use AI for fanart so incredibly insulting to them.

Want art? Find something that's created and boost their work by reblogging!

Better yet, commission an artist! So many of these people are using commissions to pay for rent, or other bills, or fucking top surgery. Don't take that from them.

Stop using fucking AI.

[sparsilees]

can we talk about how harry james potter appreciates the finer things in life? if tom riddle is a magpie, harry potter is a niffler.

an hour into wee harry’s freedom from the dursleys’ clutches, his newfound riches barely warm in his pockets, and he’s decided on a solid gold cauldron

and what are all his riches good for if not treating himself and his new, first ever friend to every kind of sweet on the trolley?

third year, he ponders the wisdom of splashing out on a firebolt and solid gold gobstones, but very admirably chooses to be a responsible spender

harry spots shiny gleaming metal, and he makes a beeline for it. then he proceeds to shell out thirty galleons without blinking an eye because niffler he may be, he also has a heart of gold

it’s no wonder he never misses a tiny, fluttering gold sphere zooming through the air

[myvaginacalledmehomo-blog]

Lily Evans is not just a wife or a mother. Repeat after me, Lily Evans is not just a wife or a mother. Motherhood and marriage are not the only things she's capable of. We're better than the terf that wrote her.

[maxdibert]

The nickname “Snivellus” derives from the word “snivel,” which means crybaby. So, Snivellus was basically a way of mocking the fact that Severus might show his emotions—that instead of toughing it out like a stereotypical, macho, strong, hairy-chested man, he cried. I don’t think I need to explain why this nickname is problematic—any nickname used to bully someone is problematic—but a nickname that also references a supposed weakness, stemming from the expectations of a patriarchal society for men to display “unmanly” behavior typical of “weak” men, is not just problematic due to the bullying itself but also because of the misogynistic implications it carries. Because yes, misogyny and hegemonic gender roles also affect men by demanding certain traits from them to validate them socially. And I know the Marauders lived in the 1970s, and that Rowling is one of the worst when it comes to gender issues. But I find it quite ironic how Marauders Stans or Slytherin Skittles, who have built their trash fandom and constant Snape-bashing around the topic of LGBTQ+ themes, have the audacity to mock Snape using a nickname that directly attacks gender nonconformity and justifies a toxic, traditional masculinity that shames men who cry or show emotions, labeling them as less valid.

The Marauders weren’t social justice warriors, and James and Sirius, in particular, embodied the classic values of male success through the performance of stereotypical “macho” characteristics: as leaders, as “alphas” of the pack. Both are violent; both are cocky men who try to stand out and mark their territory. Both exhibit behaviors that have typically been excused in men just because they are men, such as abusive and reckless behavior. Their nickname for Severus stems from the idea that showing emotions—especially crying—if you are a man, is a reason for ridicule and mockery because men don’t cry. Men are supposed to be strong, puff out their chests, and keep going because that’s what men do. It’s a misogynistic and archaic mindset that continues to be perpetuated in social models and relationships to this day. And I find it incredibly hypocritical that certain people who claim to hate J.K. Rowling for being a transphobe then go on to appropriate the horribly sexist nicknames she created for a group of heterosexual men embodying toxic masculinity to bully another man for not performing the traditional masculine model expected of someone like him.

Because Severus wasn’t a “macho”. Severus was a studious introvert with a more passive character who didn’t fit into the masculine vision of the time. Everything about him, including his appearance, demeanor, and interests, is unmasculine from a hegemonic perspective given the historical context. But these people don’t care. They’re so limited, so ignorant, and so cynical that they not only ignore these kinds of nuances but even find it funny to reproduce insults that any real-life James Potter would probably have used against them.

Make no mistake: James Potter and Sirius Black wouldn’t have been your friends. They would have tortured you as much, if not more, than Snape. And that’s the most pathetic part of their fandom, unfortunately.

[dinarosie]

The Hidden Tragedy of Snape's Sacrifice is He Died at 20, Not 38

Where does the idea of selfish Severus Snape and his possessive love come from? Do people really believe that Snape died in the Shrieking Shack at 38, at the hands of Voldemort? Do they honestly think that, until he was 38, he lived a normal, happy life, full of hope and dreams, right up until that last minute when everything was suddenly ripped away from him?

Snape didn’t just die in that moment. His life ended 18 years earlier, when he was 20 years old, standing on a hill in front of Dumbledore. That’s when he gave up everything—his freedom, his future, and his life—in exchange for the safety of the Potter family: James, Lily, and Harry.

From that moment on, Snape no longer lived for himself. He had no control over his own fate; his life had been bargained away to protect others. Every step he took after that was part of a long, ongoing sacrifice.

People say they don’t like Snape because he didn’t make up for his mistakes the way he should have, that his redemption arc wasn’t complete. Excuse me? I’m not sure what more a person can give than their life. What’s more precious than their time and youth? What’s more important than their freedom? Snape sacrificed all of that—what else did he even have left to give?

He was barely out of his teenage years when he chose to give up everything—his youth, his dreams, his ambitions, even his loyalty—for people who didn’t care about him. Yet, Snape stayed on that path with unwavering courage for the next 18 years, never backing down.

In truth, Severus Snape was a boy who lost his life at 20. The only thing is, they didn’t bury him until he was 38.

[arkadijxpancakes]

Yes. The Weasleys had too many kids. An analysis. (Part 1 of 2)

Everyone who read Harry Potter read about the prejudices regarding the Weasleys: They all have red hair, are poor and have more kids than they can afford. Insert a sneering Malfoy here.

The books were adamant that that was not the case. The Weasleys are depicted as the best family in the books. (Just look at the others. The Dursleys were narrow-minded, bigoted and abusive. The Malfoys were bigoted terrorists. The Lovegoods were weird. Let’s not even start about Merope and Riddle.)

However, if you look closer, the prejudices have some truth to them: They had more kids than they could afford. However, money isn’t the issue here, not really.

Yes, the Weasleys are clearly depicted as members of the working class. They don’t have much money and fall back on second-hand stuff a lot of the time. Ron in particular is shown to be using hand-me-downs in book one.

However, they don’t live in abject poverty. The family owns their own home on their own land. They have a garden to grow their own vegetables and they have chickens. This means that food scarcity shouldn’t be a big issue for them, because they can produce a lot of it on their own. (Magic should make this even easier, because they can use it for the gardening stuff. And if we assume that you can duplicate food, this should keep everyone well-fed.)

The main issue when it comes to money isn’t that they don’t have anything. They have clearly enough money to stay comfortably over water. They just don’t have enough money to buy all the fancy shit the wizarding world uses as status symbols. (Like racing brooms and dress robes.)

Could things be better, money-wise? Sure. But one can have a loving, comfortable childhood, even with second-hand clothes and working class food. So no. It’s not about the money.

It’s about time. 

And it's also about how the parents divide that time (and the work that comes along with it.)

The Weasleys follow a family structure one would expect from a muggle family of their time (the second half of the 20th century): Arthur is the one who goes out to work and earns money, while his wife Molly is a stay-at-home-mother who takes care of their home and kids. It’s also just their nuclear family that lives in the burrow. There are no other relatives (no grandparents and no aunts or uncles, either) living there.

I find this a little bit weird, tbh. The nuclear family (parents and kids) living alone, without any other relatives and with the father as the sole breadwinner, is a pretty new development. The practice only really established itself after the Statute of Secrecy went into effect. It developed first in the upper classes (who used this to flaunt their wealth) and in urban centers (where there was no space to live together with your extended family.) Before this, living with one's extended family was very common, especially in rural areas, where it was beneficial to stick together. The Weasley’s don’t really have a reason to live as a nuclear family. There is no need for wizards to follow the Muggle trend, and things were different before the statute. Living with other, adult family members would also be beneficial, especially for Molly. And the books do suggest that the extended family is quite large, so “They don’t live with other relatives, because they don’t have any” doesn’t fit their situation either.

This is a common theme for Rowling, by the way. She tends to ignore the extended families of her characters, whenever it is possible. The numbers of grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins that get mentioned in the book is incredibly low. (The only character who seems to have close connections to his extended family is Neville – and that’s because the other members of his nuclear family are completely absent because of health reasons.)

Anyway. When we look back at the Weasleys, this leaves Molly basically as a tradwife. (Minus the religious baggage.) But let's start at the beginning. 

(Note: I will focus on the books in this. I don’t consider the games canon and will not use them as a source.) Arthur and Molly were born around 1950. We know that he went to Hogwarts from 1961 to 1968. They were close enough in age to start a relationship while still at Hogwarts, and they married shortly after graduating. For this to work, she must have been in his year or maybe the year below or above.

Bill was born in 1970 and was followed by six siblings, the last who was born in 1981. So from the age of ca. 20 to the age of ca. 33 Molly was either pregnant or nursing at least one baby at any given time. (There might have been a short break in that pattern between Charlie and Percy, but it only got worse after that.)

As I said before, Molly and Arthur seem to have a very traditional division of labor between them: He works at the ministry and earns money, she takes care of their home and kids. This means that Molly has drawn the short end of the stick.

While Arthur is working one job 9-5, Molly has to work three jobs and at least one of them is 24/7. Let’s pick them apart:

Her first job is to take care of the home. Molly cleans the house and does the laundry. It is also very likely that she is not only responsible for cooking, but for food production in general. This means that she takes care of the garden and chickens. This would be pretty exhausting, if not for her magic. She can likely cut down on time and effort by using magic for most of those tasks.

On top of this, she is also producing at least some of the clothing her family wears. We don't see her sewing, but she knits a lot. She is using magic for that, too.

Her second job is to raise their kids. Molly is their primary caregiver and does most of the parenting. This is a difficult job to begin with, but there are seven of them. This is where her workload starts to stretch her thin. It can’t be easy to do the laundry, while Ginny needs to be fed, Bill and Charlie are arguing in the backyard, and the twins have just vanished. Magic is less helpful here, because a lot of the work requires her to interact with her kids. She can’t really flick her wand to speed that up.

On top of that - and this is where things get even worse - there doesn't seem to be any kind of elementary school in Wizarding Great Britain. At the very least, the books do not mention any form of primary education and Hogwarts seems to be Ron’s first school. But Hogwarts still requires its students to be able to read, write and do math. Having some education about the Wizarding World couldn’t hurt, either.

However, someone has to teach the kids. And this someone is probably Molly, because Arthur is at work, and they don’t have the money for a private tutor. They cant sent their kids to an elementary school, because there is none. (And they obviously did not send them to a muggle school.) 

So this is her third job. This is another job she can’t really speed up with magic, because she can’t hex the knowledge into her kids’ brains. (Or at least I hope she can’t, because everything else would be disturbing.)

This means Molly has to take care of their home, produce their food, take care of their kids and teach them elementary school-stuff. All while being pregnant and/or nursing for circa 13 years straight.

Her workload just isn’t doable for a single person. It might have started off okay, when she only had Bill and Charlie, and it probably got better once most kids had left the house to study at Hogwarts. But the years in between must have been hell. And she did not really have any help to do it.

Arthur was off to work most days and seems to spend quite a lot of time on his hobby. Additionally, he just doesn’t seem to be all that involved as a father and seems to take care mostly of the fun stuff. 

His parenting style is much more relaxed than Molly’s, too. He’s probably the parent the kids go to when they want to do something their mother would say no to. This, of course, makes parenting even harder for her, because she doesn’t just have to deal with the kids, but also with Arthur’s parenting decisions. There are no other adult family members around to help her, either. They also don’t have the money to hire help. (No wonder Molly dreamed of having her own slave house elf. It would have allowed her to drastically reduce her workload. It’s a really disgusting wish, but I understand where it comes from.)

This is where the family dynamics probably took their first severe hit: It’s very likely that Molly’s workload left her with more work than she was able to do consistently. Whether Arthur pulled his weight in that regard is questionable (and he was at work for most of the day anyway.) She also had no other adults to help her, so she probably offloaded her workload elsewhere: her kids.

Yes. I think it is very likely that the Weasleys parentified their kids, especially Bill, Charlie and Percy. We don’t see it with Bill and Charlie, probably because they had already left the house when Harry meets the family. Still, it’s a little weird that both of them went to live so far away from home. Yes, sure, exploring tombs in Egypt and taming dragons in Romania is fun and exciting in and off itself – but being so far away from home that mom can’t rope you into household chores and babysitting duty is probably a really nice bonus. It would also relax their familial relationships quite a bit, because moving away gives them control over when and how they want to engage. (And it’s probably easier to be the fun big brother to your younger siblings when you aren’t required to watch and control them every day.)

We do see it with Percy, however. He looks after and take responsibility for his younger siblings a lot, especially at Hogwarts. You can see it in the way he looks after Ginny and how he’s constantly at odds with Fred and George because they refuse to follow any rules.

Fuck, he still does this after the big row with his father. Yes, the letter he sends to Ron is pretty obnoxious, but he still wrote it. He did not need to. At that point he had cut all contact, after all. He clearly cared for his younger brother and wanted to look out for him, even if he did it in the most annoying way possible. It would be interesting to know whether he also wrote to Ginny or the twins or not.

Also, did I mention that the Weasleys have too many kids?

They have too many kids.

It’s a numbers game, really. The more kids you have, the more time you have to use for household chores (you need to clean more, wash more, cook more, etc.) You also have less time to spend time with each kid individually. This is especially true for quality time – so time that isn’t spent on chores or education. Time that is spent playing and talking with each other, just to enjoy each other's company.

Molly is already working three jobs. She doesn’t really have any opportunity to spend time with her kids equally. She’s too busy looking after the home and teaching the older ones, while watching the younger ones and making sure the twins don’t burn the house down. 

I just don’t see her spending quality time with her kids regularly, because of this. It’s just difficult to talk with Charlie about his favorite dragons or read something to Percy or to play with Ron, when there is always someone else who needs her more. Full diapers. Empty stomachs. Unyielding stains of unknown origin on Arthur's work robes. A sudden explosion on the second floor. And probably everything at the same time and all the time.

So yeah. Chances are that her attention and her affection can be pretty hard to come by at times. (To a certain degree, this also applies to Arthur, because he is away from home so much.)

Let’s look at the timeline.

It probably starts pretty harmless:

1970 - Bill is born, and he’s the only kid for two years. Yeah, it’s Molly’s first child, and she is a really young mother, but she is a stay-at-home-mum, and it’s just one kid. It’s mostly her and Bill who are at home, and her workload isn’t all that big, because she can use magic for most stuff. The war has started, but it probably hasn’t kicked into overdrive just yet, so this shouldn’t affect her too much either.

1972 – Charlie is born. Molly’s workload is expanding, but things should still be pretty manageable. Also, they don’t have another kid for almost four years. This allows Molly to adjust to caring for two kids. She can also relax from both pregnancies and births. If it wasn’t for the war, this might be her favorite years as a mother.

When Arthur is involved in parenting Bill and Charlie, it’s probably on the weekends. I can imagine him taking them out to do fun stuff, so their mother can get some rest. It’s probably a great time for him, because he can bond with his boys. I can’t see him do much more than that, though. Molly has a handle on things, and interfering could be seen as overstepping.

1976 – Percy is born. This is probably the moment, where the attention-distribution in the family gets a little bit wonky. Molly has three kids now, and it’s the middle of the war. Bill is almost six, which means that she has to start teaching him, while simultaneously nursing Percy and keeping Charlie entertained/away from trouble. This is probably still manageable. She can wait a little longer with teaching Bill, so she can teach him and Charlie together. She can also hand him (and maybe Charlie) over to Arthur, so he can teach him/them on weekends.

Additionally, Arthur is probably still taking Bill and Charlie out for some bonding-fun-time. However, the war is in full swing now, so leaving the house gets increasingly dangerous. Their trips will get shorter and stay closer to home. They will happen less frequently, too. He will also end up working more because of the war, doing overtime much more frequently. When he is home, he is going to be exhausted, as a result.

1978 – Fred and George are born. The attention-distribution in the family falls off a cliff.

This is when Molly's workload starts to become overwhelming. Charlie will be 6 at the end of the year, Bill will be 8. She has to start teaching them, if she hasn’t already. Otherwise, Bill will not be ready when he starts Hogwarts.

And on top of everything, Molly has to take care of the twins. She has to do everything that needs to be done for a newborn – times two.

So her workload explodes. Molly is raising five kids, now. She needs to educate Bill and Charlie, nurse Fred and George, and has to make sure Percy doesn’t fall to the wayside completely. She also has her household chores that aren’t related to her kids. The war is still raging on. Arthur is probably tied up at work most of the time, and when he is home, he’s exhausted. And Molly will be pregnant again in a year. (Really, why do they have so many kids during a war? One or two, I would understand, but this is getting irresponsible.)

This is probably the time when Bill has to take over at least some chores, not just to learn how to do them, but to take some pressure off of his mother. This might not be parentification yet, but it will get worse over time. I assume he has to look after his younger brothers a lot.

On top of all that, it is increasingly hard to shield the kids from the war. At least Bill and Charlie are old enough to understand that things are really, really wrong and scary. And there is not much Molly can do about it.

1980 - Ron is born. The twins are already old enough to open cupboards. Molly is not having a great time. She probably hands over Percy to Bill and Charlie (“Go, play with your little brother!”), so she can take care of baby Ron while keeping an eye on the twin shaped chaos that is growing by the day. She will be pregnant again in a couple of months.

Bill (who will be 10 at the end of the year) and Charlie (8) still require teaching. Percy (4) isn’t old enough just yet, but he will be, soon. (And, let’s face it: It’s Percy. Chances are that he wants to learn, even now.)

The war is still in full swing. Arthur is still overworked and underpaid. Everyone is tired and scared. This also affects the kids. There is probably a lot of pressure on Bill as the oldest brother to watch over his younger siblings, to make sure all of them stay safe. They don’t spend much time outside their home, because it’s just too dangerous to do so.

Around 1980/81 is also the time when Molly’s brothers Fabian and Gideon die. (Gideon can be seen in the photograph that was taken of the Order before James and Lily went into hiding, so he was still alive back then. But we know that he dies soon after the photograph was taken.) Molly never talks about her brothers in canon, but this must have been horrible for her.

1981 – Ginny is born. They are seven kids now. Fabian and Gideon will be dead by the end of the year (if they aren’t already.) Molly’s workload is at its peak, while her ability to pay equal amounts of attention to her kids is at an all-time low. She’s grieving, the rest of her family is in danger, and Arthur is stuck at the ministry. This means that she will likely lean on Bill’s support even more. As Charlie is 8 now (and will be 9 at the end of the year), Molly might consider him old enough to help, so he might see an increase in responsibility, too. At this point, we are in parentification-territory.

With each day, the twins grow more into the troublemakers we see in canon. This sucks away attention and affection from their siblings (simply because they need to be watched and disciplined).

I think the following years are very formative for the family dynamics between the kids. It’s probably less pronounced for Bill and Charlie (who are stuck with chores and babysitting-duty and will leave for Hogwarts soon-ish) and Ginny (who gets more attention because she is the youngest child and only girl). It’s worse for the others. Percy, Fred, George and Ron are basically in direct competition for their mother's attention. I think the dynamic develops as follows:

Fred and George are active and pretty extroverted. They explore a lot and start to play pranks on their family members. This is overall harmless, but Molly has to pay attention to them, to make sure that no one accidentally gets hurt. From this, the twins learn that they can get Molly’s attention by causing trouble, so they will lean into it even more.

This sucks away attention from Percy and Ron. It causes Percy to veer hard into the opposite direction: He tries to gain Molly’s attention by following all her rules and fulfilling her wishes. This earns him her affection and will turn him into her golden child in the long run. It will also put a strain on his relationship with the twins, because Molly compares them a lot, especially when angry. This will cause Percy to perform the “Good boy”-role even harder (because he doesn’t want to be treated like the twins), while they start to resent him on some level.

Ron on the other hand is still too young to affect the family dynamic on his own. He internalizes that his mother cares more about his siblings and that there is nothing he can do about it.

The only good news: At the end of the year, the war ends. This will bring a lot of relief. (It’s short term relief for now, things will need some time to go back to normal.)

However, the end of the war also means, that Percy gets a pet. Either late in 1981 or early in 1982 he (or another member of the family) finds a rat that is missing a finger on its front paw. Percy keeps him and calls him Scabbers.

We all know who Scabbers is, of course. I just want to highlight how fucked up this situation is. Percy is 5, when he adopts him. Because he was a little kid, he probably took him everywhere without a second thought – into the bathroom, into his bed, you know, everywhere. There is probably no part of Percy’s body Scabbers hasn’t seen. Percy probably told him everything, too, all his worries, all of his fears. It’s just creepy.

And keep in mind, Scabbers – Peter – is not just a random wizard. He is a Death Eater and mass murderer. We don’t know if he ever hurt Percy (there are fanfics that do explore that possibility). He probably didn’t, but the idea alone is nightmare fuel.

To get this back on track: This could have impacted the sibling-relationship, too. It depends on whether the other kids were allowed to keep pets.

With that, we are done with the war and with Molly’s time being pregnant. The family dynamic is already fucked up – and it will get worse, as the kids get older. However, this post is long enough, already. So we’ll take a break here. Next time, we will look at how the dynamics shift, once the kids start to go to Hogwarts. See ya!

[hollowed-theory-hall]

Do you think Harry could be scary at times? Like put actual fear into people? Because I think I remember some moments where Hermione was afraid of him or was a least kinda hesitant with him. Like this quote here from HP and the Deathly Hallows:

“You nev­er re­al­ly tried!” she said hot­ly. “I don’t get it, Har­ry – do you like hav­ing this spe­cial con­nec­tion or re­la­tion­ship or what – what­ev­er – “

She fal­tered un­der the look he gave her as he stood up.

“Like it?” he said qui­et­ly. “Would you like it?”

“I – no – I’m sor­ry, Har­ry. I just didn’t mean – “

He literally just looked at her, stood, and she was over there stuttering and backing down.

Yes! OMG, yes! Harry can and is scary when he wants to be and I love him for it!

A few more examples that popped into my head:

“I haven’t finished with you, boy!” “Get out of the way,” said Harry quietly. “You’re going to stay here and explain how my son —” “If you don’t get out of the way I’m going to jinx you,” said Harry, raising the wand. “You can’t pull that one on me!” snarled Uncle Vernon. “I know you’re not allowed to use it outside that madhouse you call a school!” “The madhouse has chucked me out,” said Harry. “So I can do whatever I like. You’ve got three seconds. One — two —”

(OotP, 45)

Uncle Vernon reacts to him with anger, which is his fear response. But Harry is talking quietly and deliberately, he isn't shouting and Vernon shuts up and listens, not cutting Harry off with his shouts. Harry actually cuts him off speaking quietly and Vernon lets him. And Vernon lashes out, as he always does when it comes to magic — because it scares him. Harry scares him.

“Well, it’s like Hagrid said, they can look after themselves,” said Hermione impatiently, “and I suppose a teacher like Grubbly-Plank wouldn’t usually show them to us before N.E.W.T. level, but, well, they are very interesting, aren’t they? The way some people can see them and some can’t! I wish I could.” “Do you?” Harry asked her quietly. She looked horrorstruck. “Oh Harry — I’m sorry — no, of course I don’t — that was a really stupid thing to say —”

(OotP, 450)

Hermione stutters around Harry quite a bit. I think she is, like, concerned about him at all times at the back of her head a bit since it takes very little from him to rattle her. I'm not copying it here but you see it too when Harry shouts at her and Ron at the beginning of OotP, Ron argues back a bit, but Hermione gets incredibly rattled. Hermione doesn't deal with Harry's anger well. There are more scenes like the one you mentioned as well.

I'm re-reading Deathly Hallows right now and came upon this scene:

Somehow her [Hermione's] panic seemed to clear Harry’s head. “Lock the door,” he told her, “and Ron, turn out the lights.” He looked down at the paralyzed Dolohov, thinking fast as the lock clicked and Ron used the Deluminator to plunge the caf into darkness. Harry could hear the men who had jeered at Hermione earlier, yelling at another girl in the distance. “What are we going to do with them?” Ron whispered to Harry through the dark; then, even more quietly, “Kill them? They’d kill us. They had a good go just now.” Hermione shuddered and took a step backward. Harry shook his head. “We just need to wipe their memories,” said Harry. “It’s better like that, it’ll throw them off the scent. If we killed them it’d be obvious we were here.” “You’re the boss,” said Ron, sounding profoundly relieved. “But I’ve never done a Memory Charm.”

(DH, 146)

That needs to be talked about more.

Some people like to point at Remus telling Harry that "the time for Expeliarmos is over" as proof Harry isn't willing to kill, but this isn't true. Harry isn't willing to kill Stan Shunpike, whom he considers innocent, Harry was the calmest of the trio and very much considered killing the Death Eaters and chose not to for completely tactical and cold reasons, not ones of ethics or qualms about murder. And I love the dynamic this short scene portrays with the trio a lot. Like, Harry is calm under pressure and calls the shots, Ron offers a way to deal with things, and then Hermione actually executes the memory charms. And here too, when Hermione stepped back, she was scared of Harry (and Ron a little). She doesn't for a second think he wouldn't kill them if he thought it was the right thing to do. She stepped back because she was scared Harry would kill them.

“...Thank you!” said Mundungus, snatching the goblet out of Ron’s hand and stuffing it back into the case. “Well, I’ll see you all — OUCH!” Harry had pinned Mundungus against the wall of the pub by the throat. Holding him fast with one hand, he pulled out his wand. “Harry!” squealed Hermione. “You took that from Sirius’s house,” said Harry, who was almost nose to nose with Mundungus and was breathing in an unpleasant smell of old tobacco and spirits. “That had the Black family crest on it.” “I — no — what — ?” spluttered Mundungus, who was slowly turning purple. “What did you do, go back the night he died and strip the place?” snarled Harry. “I — no —” “Give it to me!”

(HBP, 245-246)

Harry lifts Mundungus and strangles him... and both Mundungus and Hermione are scared of him... because he is scary.

said Voldemort coldly, and though he could not see it, Harry pictured Bellatrix withdrawing a helpful hand. “The boy . . . Is he dead?” There was complete silence in the clearing. Nobody approached Harry, but he felt their concentrated gaze; it seemed to press him harder into the ground, and he was terrified a finger or an eyelid might twitch. “You,” said Voldemort, and there was a bang and a small shriek of pain. “Examine him. Tell me whether he is dead.” Harry did not know who had been sent to verify. He could only lie there, with his heart thumping traitorously, and wait to be examined, but at the same time noting, small comfort though it was, that Voldemort was wary of approaching him, that Voldemort suspected that all had not gone to plan. . . .

(DH, 612)

Voldemort is outright scared of Harry and isn't willing to come near him to check if he's dead...

Like, I am not a fan of the weaker, softer fanon version of Harry James Potter that I see on occasion (obviously everyone can do what they want, I just personally don't like it much when he's portrayed as small and submissive as if Harry has ever submitted in his life). He is not as tall as Ron, but he isn't short either (the same height as James, so likely around 6 feet), he is physically capable of lifting Mundungus even without magic with a single hand and he is so magically capable (more than almost every other character, bar exceptions like Dumbledore, Voldemort, and Snape). No wonder he can be scary, both physically and magically. And yes, Hermione is outright scared of Harry at times. So are other characters.

So, yeah, I strongly agree, Harry can definitely scare people if he wants to, and sometimes even when he doesn't. He seems to have an intimidation factor he isn't fully aware of and therefore doesn't notice all that much.

[kazuza-art]

Amen

Some people should just read the book before attacking a character indeed. JK writing is not that deep XD

I was reading a post about Dumbledore yesterday - which I won't link to because OP wanted to rant about Dumbledore, and that's cool - which made the commonly-repeated point about Dumbledore having the opportunity to leave Harry somewhere other than the Dursleys' and choosing not to.

There's lots of arguments made on either side of this point - not all of which I agree with - but one which I rarely see made is the fact that Dumbledore's decision is entirely vindicated by Voldemort himself:

“But how to get at Harry Potter? For he has been better protected than I think even he knows, protected in ways devised by Dumbledore long ago, when it fell to him to arrange the boy’s future. Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy’s protection as long as he is in his relations’ care. Not even I can touch him there."

[majorbaby]

potter deserved worse 

[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!

[dream-with-a-fever]

i love the silver trio so much but it always grinds my gears when i remember that while neville and luna still don’t have that much screen time, you still get an essence of who they are as people. their personalities, their morals, their relationship dynamics with other characters (like harry) and yet ginny, despite being a bigger character than both of them, and being harry’s future partner, mother of his children, most important person in his life (to name a few), ginny has exactly ZERO opportunity to shine. unlike her pals, she gets little to no screen time, let alone scenes one-on-one with harry (which both neville and luna have), her entire personality is erased. everything that makes ginny who she is is removed.

it’s absolutely infuriating to watch. as an audience, how are we supposed to get to know her? to understand her? to understand why she is the woman harry wants to spends the rest of his life with? like i love luna and neville, they’re wonderful characters and additions to the story, but prioritising them over ginny in the films (and giving them additional scenes like luna and harry in the forest alone?? it’s a sweet scene but also??? harry & luna don’t interact like that in the books, not to mention luna is much more eccentric and unintentionally amusing in the books, more so than she is perpetually wise and friendly… like we couldn’t have the library scene or the ‘lucky you’ scene in ootp - arguably the most important scenes for ginny (and harry’s) development but we have time for luna to share some nice slightly ooc wisdom with harry? again, i love luna, and i love that scene too, but cutting other important scenes…?)

i could go on and on about this. but i just hate that she is so sidelined, and discarded in the films, despite being such an important character as an individual and in relation to harry. i’ll never understand you david yates. ginny, sweetie, i’m so sorry.

[my-castles-crumbling]

I am taking a survey...

Fic writers, like this if you sometimes reread your own content just because.

Reblog if you then get surprised by your writing in either a positive OR a negative way. (or both)

[sparsilees]

tom riddle is a yapper. he loves his monologues and dramatics.

draco malfoy is a yapper. he, too, loves the sound of his voice and dramatics.

ron weasley has no qualms about being loud and seen. he grew up in a large household, fighting to be heard over his siblings.

harry potter grew up in a cupboard, friendless except for the spiders, and learned to subdue and suppress and submit at the dursleys. he isn’t loud, he isn’t boisterous, he isn’t talkative, he doesn’t like socialising, he keeps his opinions in his head and his feelings buried inside, he has very few close friends, he doesn’t reveal his worries and struggles easily, he dislikes showing his pain and weakness, and he sure doesn’t give up his secrets and personal details freely, sometimes not even to ron and hermione.

this is what canon harry’s like—very quiet and an introvert, someone who speaks when spoken to or has cause to broadcast his voice, and someone who’d rather blend into the walls than draw unnecessary attention to himself.