#pro arthur weasley

[grammarrrrrr]

What I think about certain characters:

Snape;

People have many different opinions on Snape- some think he's a stalker, a creep and that he's terrible- and some think that he's the bravest man ever, and that Lily should have married him instead.

Both are right. Because it all depends on how you see it- I mean, Snape did seem pretty obsessed with Lily. He was in love with her. And Snape-haters can deny it all they want- but he was brave. Brave because he was a second agent, he managed to stay loyal to Dumbledore, while still staying on Voldemort's good side. But he was a terrible teacher.

Yep, I've admitted it, finally- Snape was a terrible teacher. Snape-haters say he was, and they're right, because he was. And don't even try to deny it, because he was completely unfair. He was nice to the Slytherins, but terrible to every other house, and especially the Gryffindors.

Snape looked coldly at Hermione, then said, ‘I see no difference.’ (When Hermione's teeth were hit with the Densaugeo hex, Goblet Of Fire.)

‘I don’t remember asking you to show off, Miss Granger,’ said Snape coldly, and Hermione went as pink as Neville. ‘Longbottom, at the end of this lesson we will feed a few drops of this potion to your toad and see what happens. Perhaps that will encourage you to do it properly.’ (When Snape was threatening to poison Trevor, Neville's toad, Prisoner of Azkaban)

And I could show more examples, but I'm lazy.

Snape was a terrible teacher, he was unfair and played favorites, and he was often just cruel. Tell me, would you want a teacher like Snape teaching your child?

Being brave doesn't excuse what he did towards his students. He definitely traumatized some of them, because who would forget such a teacher? I wouldn't. And do you remember how Neville's boggart was Snape-? Let that sink in.

A boggart represents (turns into) one's greatest fear. Like how Ron's was an acromantula, and how Harry's was a dementor. But Neville's was Snape- that's his teacher, no they don't have to have a student/mentor relationship people love, but if you're a teacher and one of your student's worst fear is you, then you need to revaluate your teaching abilities.

So in short; I don't really know how I feel about this character.

Petunia;

Now, are we going to deny that Petunia is a good mother? Because she is, not to Harry of course, but she is to Dudley. She's kind of a good example of gentle parenting, the no-discipline kind of parenting. I mean, Dudley has probably never been grounded before. With her hugs and kisses, and cringy but affectionate pet-names in every sentence, it's made clear that she loves Dudley. Even though Dudley is pretty hard to love.

But is she a good aunt? Oh absolutely not. She has never been a good aunt, clearly doesn't know how to do it. She was terrible to Harry, downright terrible. In fact, all the Dursleys were. They were abusive, and I don't want to hear any comments saying the opposite, though I doubt I'll get any.

Let's just get this clear- in the Philosophers' Stone, Harry wasn't just small, he was malnourished. Because growing up, he barely got any food. The Dursleys starved him. That includes Petunia, she overfed Dudley, but barely gave Harry any food. And what's the difference between Dudley and Harry? One is her son, one isn't.

Sure, she loved Lily, but what does that excuse? Does that excuse her abusing Lily's kid? I mean sure, she likely saw that it just came out of nowhere- like ’Oh, your sister's dead, here's her baby.’- but that doesn't excuse anything. She didn't have to treat Harry like that, just because she missed Lily so much.

And what was her whole thing with hating wizards? I mean, it was understandable in the Goblet of Fire, when the Weasleys tried to floo to their house. I'd be pretty mad too, if someone practically blew up my living room. Yeah, after and before that it was just unreasonable. But in the Goblet of Fire, I've got to admit, it's reasonable to react like that.

It was understandable when she was kid, but it stopped being understandable the second she became an adult. When she was a kid, she was jealous and therefore pushed everything that reminded her of it away, and that's understandable because kids do stuff like that. But when you're an adult? It's just childish. And that doesn't mean she should abuse her nephew.

And is it just me, or do Mrs and Mr Evans kind of seem like bad parents? Oh my god, is this anti Mr and Mrs Evans? Well, that's a tag I doubt exists. But seriously, they never noticed the feud between Petunia and Lily? Because they were so proud of having a witch in the family? They could have noticed, I doubt either Petunia and Lily made their feud secret. And clearly them being so proud of Lily, made Petunia feel inferior because she was just a muggle.

And what is it with the theory that the Dursleys were so mean because they were around Harry, who was a Horcrux? That's dumb, if you think about it. Firstly, it excuses the Dursleys terrible treatment of Harry, so just victim-blaming, basically. ’Oh, it's Harry's fault he was abused, because he was a Horcrux and that affected the Dursleys.’ And secondly, Ron and Hermione were around Harry even more than the Dursleys one could argue, and they never got in a bad mood from that, did they? No. So many other people were around Harry more than the Dursleys were, and they were never in a bad mood.

So in short; I hate her character.

Dumbledore;

So I know I might possibly get cancelled for this, but I actually like Dumbledore.

Yes, yes- I know- terrible as most people nowadays are anti Dumbledore, but I'm not. Not really, anyways. Sure, some of his actions were questionable, but he's not a manipulative villain that didn't care about anybody. He genuinely cared about Hagrid, and Grindelwald, and Harry.

Harry and Dumbledore's relationship wasn't really that toxic, as people like to say, it was just kind of cute. Because Harry loved Dumbledore, and Dumbledore loved Harry. People say that in the books Dumbledore ’raised Harry like a pig for slaughter’, but nobody thinks about that Harry was practically made to be a pig for slaughter because of the prophecy.

And Dumbledore didn't want to, he delayed telling Harry about the prophecy because he cared about him. He reckoned 11 was too young, which I'd say it was, and 12 is barely different. Too young. And wouldn't you say it was kind of Dumbledore to keep this from Harry, so it wouldn't weigh on the boy’s mind?

Now the thing I hear Dumbledore being called the most is manipulative. Basically, he knows how to get his way, which is a good thing. And he is a powerful wizard, and important, shouldn't he know how to do that?

’Played everyone like a chess pawn’, well it was war, so who could really blame him? You have to do things you don't want to do sometimes in war. Sometimes you have to do everything to make sure the war ends, which sometimes means people have to be used a little bit. War is not an ideal situation to be in, and it's not a good situation to follow all of your morals.

Something I've always appreciated about Dumbledore is that he's so odd it's funny. He likes candy, so much he decides the passwords to his office after them, and always says such things so calmly. But you can't underestimate him because of that, as he's also very powerful.

He's a great wizard, and Hogwarts was only attacked after Dumbledore died (and conveniently, Dumbledore didn't have his wand on him then.)

Now another thing I hear people both talk bad about AND joke about it; about how much Dumbledore gives points to Gryffindor, how he wants them to win. Which I do disagree with. Because tell me: if your students prevented a powerful terrorist from coming back, would you, or would you not, give them points?

Ron got given points for doing a smart move, and winning a chess match against one of the professors (who I'm pretty sure is canonically really good at chess?) Because chess is a hard game I couldn't understand to save my life, and to be really good at it, you have to be smart. Ron got given points for his intelligence (and excellent chess skills), something they do give points for. ’… for the best-played game of chess Hogwarts has seen in many years, I award Gryffindor house fifty points.’

Hermione basically got given points because she made a smart move, she was smart. Which do they give points for regularly. ‘Second – to Miss Hermione Granger … for the use of cool logic in the face of fire, I award Gryffindor house fifty points.’ She was in a stressful situation, yet used great logic. She did good, basically, and it's understandable for Dumbledore to give points to that.

Harry was the one who actually prevented the return of the most feared wizard/powerful terrorist, Voldemort, in this case. He also stood tall, in front of said terrorist. At 11. And I don't know about you, but I would give points for that. ‘Third – to Mr Harry Potter …’ said Dumbledore. The room went deadly quiet. ‘… for pure nerve and outstanding courage, I award Gryffindor house sixty points.’ For being a true Gryffindor, basically. And that sounds like something the professors would give points for.

‘There are all kinds of courage,’ said Dumbledore, smiling. ‘It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends. I therefore award ten points to Mr Neville Longbottom.’ He was brave, that's why he got points. He proved he was a Gryffindor at heart, and probably somewhat earned the respect of Dumbledore.

Recent events do matter, and should be taken into account, as Dumbledore said.

And in the Chamber of Secrets, I'm pretty sure they won the house cup again, and I've got only one thing to say; are you saying you wouldn't give points to students for saving someone's life?

I won't go into it more, because I know I'll probably get something about in the comments- if I get any, of course- and I'll definitely defend my opinion. Because in short; I like Albus Dumbledore's character.

Ron;

So, stating this will not give me hate like my opinion on Dumbledore will, but; I frickin love Ron Weasley.

Now some who have only watched the movie might say stuff like: ’Why? He was a terrible friend to Harry’ or ’All he did was eat though’. Or they might not, and I just need to stop saying ’say stuff like:’

Maybe people have finally stopped hating on Ron, and I'm just stuck in the past of Anti-Ron, but I'm still going to defend him here. Starting by debunking my first example of what someone might say.

’Why? He was a terrible friend to Harry’ Sorry, are you saying Ron stood-in-front-of-a-believed-murder-on-a-broken-leg-for-his-best-friend Weasley is a bad friend? In the movies it may have been Hermione who did that but I call bullshit. Because this is what happened in the book;

’No, Harry!’ Hermione gasped in a petrified whisper; Ron, however, spoke to Black.

‘If you want to kill Harry, you’ll have to kill us, too!’ he said fiercely, though the effort of standing up had drained him of still more colour, and he swayed slightly as he spoke. (When the trio were in the Whomping Willow with Sirius, Prisoner of Azkaban.)

And then debunking my second example; ’All he did was eat though’ which is also kind of people saying Ron loved food. WHICH he did not, or at least I don't recall him loving food that much in the books. Specifically him loving chicken, which people think he loved so much there's a ship called ’Chickron’ (Ron x Chicken.)

I can't mention instances in the book because that's just that: there aren't any. Ron ate at breakfast, lunch and dinner and that's just that. Did he eat a lot then? Maybe?? oMg HoW dArE hE eAt A lOt, NoBoDy ElSe DiD (cough cough Harry cough cough) Yeah, Harry ate a lot too but I don't see anybody calling him a ’foodie’ or ’food-lover’ or whatever they call Ron.

And for people to say he doesn't deserve Hermione: he begged to be tortured in her place, and if that isn't love, then nothing is. Was he a douche sometimes? Yeah. Was he also, conveniently, a teenager then? Yeah. People are douches sometimes, when they're teenagers, and can't always treat someone right. They bickered, they disagreed. Which only really proved that Ron listened to her, and then gave his opinion. Nobody else did that, and especially not Harry. He's what Hermione needs; somebody to kind of put her in her place yet support her and comfort her when she's upset. Ron is right for Hermione, and trust me; she thinks so too.

Something else people often bring up was the situation in PoA, or the Crookshanks/Scabbers situation? I don't know what people call it but time to put my opinion out there; I think Ron was in the right. Tell me, if one of your best friends’ pet ate your pet (or at least, allegedly with very believable proof) and then refused to apologize or even acknowledge it, would you get mad? Just because Scabbers turned out being Peter Pettigrew (which I'll probably talk more about another time) does not mean Hermione was in the right. Did Ron act kind of shitty about it? Yeah, but he was 13. Honestly? I act the same way when I'm mad at someone.

Was he in the right in GoF? No. But do I think that's when he realized his feelings for Hermione, didn't know how to deal with it, so took it out on her? Because he was probably thinking; No I can't have feelings for her, she'd never even like me back. Also, he was 14, were you expecting him to be really mature? And also; it wouldn't have been the best night of her life or something, it was just prom. (But maybe don't listen to me about that, I've always been anti-prom.)

And about the ’Hermione, you're a girl’ comment; I kind of think of it a little bit differently. I think it was more, a start of asking her out, like ’Hermione, you're a girl. And I'm a boy. Wanna go to the Yule Ball with me? J-just as friends!’ I think he had wanted to ask her out for a while- and wondering why he wanted to ask her out- and that he had been building up courage, because asking somebody out takes a lot of courage and he's also really insecure. He just didn't know how to do it, and maybe it came out a little wrong.

And something else he gets a lot of hate for; leaving Harry and Hermione in the Horcrux Hunt. But he was under the control of the Locket (a Horcrux made by Voldemort), which affected him most presumably because of his insecurities. (Seriously he should have gotten help for that) and also, it was more that he was stepping out for a breather but just forgot about the charms, whatever they're called. Was it still a mistake? Yeah, but are you telling m you've never made mistakes (especially in bad times)? ALSO, NO MATTER WHAT, HE DID NOT- I REPEAT: HE DID NOT- SAY HARRY HAD NO FAMILY: ‘Oh, you’re sure, are you? Right then, well, I won’t bother myself about them. It’s all right for you two, isn’t it, with your parents safely out of the way –’ ‘My parents are dead!’ Harry bellowed. ‘And mine could be going the same way!’ yelled Ron. ’ To me, both were in the wrong in that situation.

Now is there anything I should adress about Ron? Well, in that case:

Malfoy;

*deep breath*

I FUCKING HATE THIS RACIST, STUPID, DEATH AND RAPE-WISHING TWAT.

Seriously, how does anyone like this guy?

Oh wait- They don't; they only like Tom Felton, who they think is hot. And if Malfoy was played by someone else, someone ’less attractive’, then nobody would be liking him. Trust me.

And as an ex Draco fan- yes, I admit to the part of my past I'm deeply ashamed of- I know how his fan-part of Tiktok looks like; all edits of Tom Felton (more specifically, him playing Malfoy) and no talks about Malfoy's character, or why they like him other than ’He's so hot’ and ’The boy who had no choice’.

Now to addressing the ’The boy who had no choice’ nickname; it's actually quite ironic, because in most of the series, he did have a choice. Chose to bully Harry, Hermione, Ron and Neville and probably countless other people. He chose to be the racist bully who wished death and rape upon people (Hermione, to be more specific.) Now I don't really know about how he wished rape upon Hermione, as I've only seen one person talk about it, about how Malfoy wished she would get her panties revealed in the incident at the Quidditch World Cup.

'Granger, they’re after Muggles,' said Malfoy. 'D’you want to be showing off your knickers in midair? Because if you do, hang around . . . they’re moving this way, and it would give us all a laugh.'

No, that's not him 'warning her', that's him wishing sexual assault on her. Having something as private as your panties revealed against your will is sexual assault; and that's what Malfoy wished would happen to her.

Stop seeing him in this distorted, rose-tinted view and start seeing him for what he is: a racist (him calling Hermione a m**blood, which is basically the wizard version of the n-word), stupid (Lucius, his father, said he was getting bad grades) death-wishing (multiple instances where he wished Hermione would die), rape-wishing (or at least sexual assault-wishing) twat.

So yeah, if you have not yet understood; I hate him.

Molly Weasley;

Watch Mikaila's video on her, called 'In defense of Molly Weasley' as she expresses it much better, in my opinion.

BUT I do not like how she has so many children even if they were poor just because she wanted a girl: Once I saw a Tumblr Post, saying that Molly didn't actually want a girl (or at least that there was no proof of it) and that it was just the locket saying that to Ron BUT if she didn't, why did she stop at Ginny? Did she, after seven kids, think 'Okay that's enough kids' NO, presumably, she was satisfied; she had gotten what she wanted. A girl. Also, what the locket said was based on Ron's feelings and he would definitely know if Molly had wanted a girl all along.

Arthur Weasley;

I've seen a couple of people here on Tumblr talking about how he's selfish for not trying to get a promotion when his family is poor just for his 'muggle fascination.' Now I do have to say this; I don't think he wasn't aiming for a promotion, rather that he just wasn't getting one. He got a promotion in the sixth book, if you remember, and why would he be aiming for one then? Exactly. He wasn't getting a promotion all those years, that's it. He was stuck in his position (that presumably didn't pay as much.)

---------

I might make a Part 2, talking about more characters. Just tell me what more characters you'd like to hear my opinion on, and I'll do it.

I'm sorry if the last part of it is a little bit bad, I was just tired when writing that and honestly just wanted to get this posted to move on to other stuff.

[cemeterydrive5]

no bc why are all of the harry antis just dumb and lack media literacy 😭

"he was disappointed when ron was made a prefect" BECAUSE VOLDEMORT WAS IN HIS HEAD??? AFFECTING HIS THOUGHTS??? HARRY LITERALLY FELT GUILTY??? HES LITERALLY JUST HAVING MAGICAL INTRUSIVE THOUGHTS???

"he never gave the weasleys money" yes he did? its said multiple times throughout the series the weasleys were proud people who wouldn't accept his money. instead of giving it straight out to molly and arthur he bought their kids things and literally gave 1,000 galleons to fred and george?? that they only took after they were threatened?? because they're proud people??

the fact that yall are misunderstanding a CHILDRENS book this much is wild

[snifellus]

<check my blog for more>

[yennas-stuff]

Vanserras are so Weasleys coded (obv excluding the abusive father figure):

Old magical/fae family

7 kids

redheads

death of a sibling (or 2)

looking good in red and gold/autumnal colors

one sibling getting estranged...

Now, imagine Eris and Lucien in classic Weasley Christmas sweaters with E and L respectively. That would be so cute! 🥹

If someone ever drew it, please tag me!

[simping-4-voldemort]

Onion Headlines and Harry Potter Characters part 5/?

[expectopatronum18]

Let me just say it, jkr is brilliant at writing friendships and individual characters but absolute shit at writing romance. None of the main ships were well written, the side ones were much better, though probably because we don't have enough info for them to be ruined

Ships I like :

Bill and Fleur - 💯💯💯 second best ship in the books imo

Molly and Arthur - for some reason the fandom hates this ship. U need to be a solid team to pull off a family of 7 kids ( especially with 6 boys). They also clearly love each other, they even call each other cute nicknames. What's not to like?

Dumbledore and Grindelwald - this is going to bring me hate, but they're my fav couple in the whole series. I don't need a couple to be morally good to appreciate the pairing. Probably the only well written one because they're both fleshed out as characters. Their relationship only makes them more complex and interesting than they already are.

Ships I dislike :

Harry and Ginny - The protagonist's love story was a disappointment. Ginny could have been such an interesting character, instead she was made into the boring 'perfect girl tm' just to become Harry's 'ideal partner'. She's basically made into a female version of james without his flaws being called out. Harry's 'chest monster' was cringe asf, sounded like something tht could hv been picked out of Twilight 😂😂

Ron and Hermione - i like the idea of them, but i don't think it was executed well. That bird attack practically made its appeal non existent for me ( i love Hermione but wtf)

James and Lily - we know a lot about James's character but very little about lily despite the fact that they're both dead before the series starts. James hexing Snape behind Lily's back doesn't set a good precedent, seeing as they get married the very next yr. Lily almost smiling at Snape's underpants being exposed is never addressed when Harry's being critical about james. To me it honestly feels lyk shipping james with a ghost as we know nothing substantial about lily.

PS: I also really appreciate the fact that Sirius was never paired up with anyone. He was far too broken and rebellious and traumatized. He had different priorities and I m so glad his character wasn't forced into one. Single characters for the win, they're such a rarity in fiction

[thefiery-phoenix]

PLATONIC YANDERE WEASLEY FAMILY HEADCANONS

They're very protective of each other, that's for sure. Molly might be the first one to meet you, or the Weasley children at Hogwarts. Heck, you might not even be related to the Weasleys and they'll still think of you as one of their own when they see the chance to make you theirs for good, you're just too naive and innocent for this world. And no doubt Harry and Hermione would play roles in helping them with their obsession with you as well since they are yanderes for you after all

Arthur would LOVE to talk to you about your knowledge of Muggles if you know about them that is. But don't worry, there are still plenty of other things he'd LOVE to talk to you about. It's actually kind of nice and adorable seeing him get so excited whenever you bring up the topic of Muggles, the way his eyes shine and light up with excitement like as if he's some sort of kid in a toy shop. But Molly has to be there to rein him in in case he makes you feel too overwhelmed with his questions. Arthur doesn't care if you're pure blood, related to them or not, half blood, muggle or heck even if your dad is Voldy himself. Unless of course, you're good. He'll still look after you like his own and care for you, and of course, keep you far far away from the prying eyes of the evil Malfoys and dangerous things like Death Eaters and concerning yourself with the activities of the Dark Lord

Bill is the chill and easy going brother who'll understand how you're feeling since he's a pro at it and he's also the oldest Weasley, he's the brother to 6 siblings of his. He's a good listener and always has good advice for you whenever you need to ask him about something and he'll also love it if you talk to him about his work and stuff. And he'll also tell Fred and George to lay back off a bit if their pranks become too much to which they'll apologize instantly. They would never think of hurting you, not even in their worst nightmares. And if you were brought into their family by force, he'll know how you're feeling and he'll make sure to always be there for you no matter what. Oh, and no dating, NONE of the Weasleys would ever allow you to date someone at all. Nope, you're their precious little baby and they don't want some riff raff tainting your innocence

Molly is a really coddling and protective yandere for you. She'll always make you nice hot lunches and meals when you need them, she'll always give you the comfort and love you need from a mother and of course, she'll get jealous when you talk about your past family. You just can't seem to hate her no matter what since she's being so nice to you, hating her would literally be a crime. She looks after you so well and that's actually part of a plan she has in mind. Oh, yeah, she's crafty too. She wants to win over your love and affection by doing these sweet things and all that, but she does truly genuinely care for you. And if you ever mention the name of someone you like, I seriously pray for that poor schmuck, be it boy or girl since I believe in gender equality lol

Charlie loves you as well and he's the adorable nerd, who'll like talking to you about dragons and stuff. Like Bill he's also laid back and easy going, and trying to make you feel more comfortable with the family. He'll tell you funny stories from his time in Romania, some of the hilarious things his brothers and sisters have done, their embarrassing stories and stuff that'll be sure to have a smile on your face. He would literally cry if you wanted to enter his field, he'd be so freaking happy and pleased, no doubt he'd actually say "IN YOUR FACE!" to the rest lol

Percy Weasley is the uptight stick in the mud, the spoilsport and sometimes the killjoy but he truly does want what's best for you despite him being arrogant and pompous. He tries to be a good example for people and his family but it's frustrating when no one follows him or even strives to be like him. He'll try to get you under his wing before the twins try corrupting you. He'll help you with your homework, ask you how your day is going and if anyone's bothering you, he'll teach them a lesson. He knows he isn't supposed to use his status as Headboy for personal reasons but he won't tolerate it if someone decided to make his sibling feel bad about something. And if you guys are at Hogwarts, he'll make his duty to check in on you every single freaking day and act like some sort of pompous watchdog for you

The fun loving Weasley twins, who love pranking you and the others, but will never go too far with their pranks for you since they would never want to see you cry. They're the best to come to when you're having a bad day or when you feel like crying. In which case they'll cheer you up by some of their pranks and make you laugh since they can't stand to see you cry and be sad. And as for the person whoever made the mistake of making you sad... they'll be on the wrong end of their pranks and NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE wants to be on the wrong end of their pranks, trust me on this. And they'll even take your opinion for their products at their joke shop Weasley's Wizard's Wheezes, and go as far as naming something after you and giving you some of their stuff for free, low prices or discounts ESPECIALLY for you. Lol, they'd just rub it in Ron's face and he'd so freaking jealous

Ron would be the really overprotective type for you. Normally the Weasleys are just over protective of you but he's INSANELY over protective. And it's mentioned in canon too that he's really protective over Ginny when she starts dating Terry Boot, Dean and Harry. And if you think he's bad there, he's WAY worse when you're concerned since the way he sees it is NO ONE is worthy of being your s/o, you're the baby of the family and he will NOT allow someone to ruin you. He'll love to talk about Quidditch with you and maybe even show off some of his flying skills to you, to impress you. And he will not think twice to defend you if some prat like Malfoy decides to be a prick to you, and what'll make his blood boil even more is if Malfoy decides to take an interest in you. In which case the entire Gryffindor house would have to get involved in trying to hold him, the Weasley twins and Percy from literally punching the hell out of him. And of course, with the help of his trust y friends Harry and Hermione they follow you with the Marauder's map and keep tabs on what you're doing just for your safety of course

And last but not the least, Ginny, the youngest of the family but knows how to get something when she wants it. And that includes your attention. She's kinda crafty and demands for your attention regularly. And she will snatch you up like some feather if you're spending time with someone else, except for Molly of course. NO ONE has the guts to dare to go against Molly lol. And of course, she'll introduce you to Luna and even Luna would turn out to be very protective over you. For someone who looks so innocent and calm like her, she does know how to get rid of people who bother you and make you sad. There's always someone watching you no matter what, be it a Weasley, a Granger, a Potter, or a Lovegood... they're all there for you and they're at the back of you, scaring people off who they don't like seeing close to you since all they want is the best for you, that's all. They might not have much, but they have family and it's home...

[saintsenara]

Spill the Stan is a death eater tea

thank you very much for the ask, anon!

i've been committed to believing ever since half-blood prince came out that stan shunpike is a genuine death eater - and not as crack, but as an example of how the series' politics flattening into a straightforward good-versus-evil narrative as the books reach their conclusion is at the detriment of what war, radicalisation, and resistance actually looks like.

stan's arrest in half-blood prince is unquestioningly presented in the text as nothing more than government corruption. there is never any suggestion that his charges are legitimate - arthur weasley tells us that he was imprisoned to let scrimgeour save face; harry then says this to scrimegour's face, and scrimgeour doesn't refute it.

but - more interestingly - nor is there any suggestion that stan's charges - illegitimate or not - might be plausible.

stan is arrested - to quote hermione - after he's "overheard talking about the death eaters' secret plans in a pub". all three members of the trio immediately decide that anything he's claimed to have said can be totally dismissed as just someone who is demonstrably grandiose and attention-seeking chatting shit.

and sure, stan clearly does love a nonsensical boast. i'm certainly not saying that i think that him - for example - claiming to be voldemort's right-hand man [and therefore in charge of some intricate, high-level, thrilling, and dangerous mission] would be anything close to the truth.

but i think it's really striking that none of the trio ever considers that stan might not only have been overheard talking about the death eaters' plans in a way which implied insider knowledge of voldemort's actions, but in a way which expressed ideological support for them.

that is to say, the trio don't learn of his arrest and assume that he's one of voldemort's ordinary foot soldiers making himself look more important than he is by pretending that he's a marked death eater in the dark lord's inner circle... they assume that any pro-voldemort sentiment he may have expressed isn't something he genuinely believes.

[which is then built upon in deathly hallows, when stan's appearance among voldemort's forces during the seven potters chase is dismissed by harry - without any real pushback - as being the result of him being under the imperius curse.]

the doylist text undoubtedly intends harry's interpretation of things to be understood as correct. throughout the series, harry is shown to be someone with incredibly good intuition when it comes to working out people's motivations and loyalties. his immediate dislike of characters such as draco malfoy, gilderoy lockhart, and dolores umbridge is entirely justified. his immediate trust in characters such as sirius is the same.

his only misjudgments relate to characters who are crucial to the narrative outside of his personal feelings towards them - harry's wrong to trust the teenage tom riddle in chamber of secrets, he’s wrong to trust the fake “moody” in goblet of fire, he’s wrong to trust “bathilda bagshot” in deathly hallows, and he is, of course, wrong about both snape and dumbledore.

since stan isn't important to the narrative outside of harry's own views, then, the reader is clearly intended to think that harry's assessment is right - which [given that arthur and harry's conversation about stan's illegitimate imprisonment comes the day before scrimgeour arrives at the burrow, tells him umbridge still works for the ministry, and tries to get him to be a poster-boy for the government] primes the reader to regard scrimgeour as an antagonist, his ministry as corrupt, and the state as fundamentally useless to the anti-voldemort cause.

[and - of course - it also makes the reader think of sirius, similarly falsely imprisoned by a ministry which was more concerned with looking effective than it was with justice.]

however...

throughout the series, the positive character trait which is harry's good intuition has a flip-side which is less so - that the judgements he reaches on people are self-serving. harry tends to regard people as good [and right] if they're nice to him personally and bad [and wrong] if they're cruel to him - and to be very, very unwilling to deviate from this black-and-white assessment of people unless he's forced into nuance by something he's unable to ignore.

the most obvious example of this in canon is the fact that harry is totally unwilling to criticise sirius' treatment of kreacher - because sirius is kind to him and harry loves him, and kreacher is unkind to him and harry loathes him - until the revelations about kreacher's involvement in retrieving the locket [and a series of stone-cold banger quotes from hermione] compel him to acknowledge that sirius could be a good man and simultaneously deserving of criticism for the absolute contempt he showed towards his slave.

[and harry will continue on this journey of learning to see people in shades of grey throughout deathly hallows - the conclusion of which depends on him being able to acknowledge both dumbledore and snape as flawed, contradictory people, neither wholly good nor wholly bad.]

harry's conviction that stan's arrest is illegitimate is rooted in this tendency towards making definitive, self-interested judgements without considering factors other than his own personal feelings on the matter. harry thinks that stan is ridiculous and irritating, and he also clearly thinks that he isn't very clever or sophisticated and that his lies are so over-the-top that they can always be spotted - and that this [plus the fact that stan is perfectly kind to him on the occasions they meet in canon] therefore means that he's fundamentally harmless, and anyone assuming that he would be capable of something dark is misguided at best.

but stan is also a young, working-class man [something the text communicates via how it writes him speaking with an accent], who's stuck in what is undoubtedly a low-paying, dead-end job, and who presumably lacks any connections who might help him advance beyond the limits his class-status sets for him.

[not least because - given how the text presents him as speaking and behaving - there's no way he went to hogwarts...]

for someone whose operation seems to have so much to do with the upper echelons of wizarding society - and whose posher supporters clearly believe, at least until deathly hallows, that his ultimate goal is pureblood oligarchy - it's really striking in canon that voldemort's support among the non-elite of wizarding britain seems to be considerable. the snatchers who capture the trio - for example - are all written with regional accents and/or speaking non-standard dialects of british english, which is the series' standard way of communicating to the reader that they're supposed to be understood as working class.

[and that their class-status is supposed to be understood as indicating that they lack a certain amount of sophistication and intelligence... how kind of you, joanne...]

the most plausible explanation - based on what we see in the text - for why and how snape was radicalised into becoming a death eater is to assume that voldemort offered him a way to transcend the limitations placed upon him by his blood-status, class-background, and financial situation in a society which is obsessed with blood, lineage, and correct adherence to elite social convention. and, connected to this, there are hints in canon - especially in deathly hallows - that voldemort and his regime are happy to be understood as populist.

[the "mudbloods steal magic" line put about by the muggleborn registration commission is clearly accompanied by "mudbloods steal your jobs and resources", for example - since "runcorn" - really harry in disguise - is congratulated for ousting the muggleborn dirk cresswell from his post so that a non-muggleborn man who thinks he deserves the position can feel "confident" that he'll get the job...]

due to the doylist text's massively unradical worldview, the thing the good guys are defending from voldemort is the status quo. the order of the phoenix's aim is not only to preserve the state and its institutions broadly unchanged, but to preserve the social structures of the wizarding world broadly unchanged as well [blood-supremacy is out post-voldemort, but the class-system clearly isn't] - and the text thinks that all will be well after the war not because the system is going to be radically torn down and made anew, but because the people in charge of it are good.

[the watsonian explanation for this is that the good guys are - with the exception of mundungus "working-class-and-therefore-feckless" fletcher - all from middle-class-or-above class-backgrounds and all beneficiaries of an elite education and the social cachet this confers, and that a certain lack of understanding of how the state is experienced by people who don't have this status often follows on from this.]

but i think it's interesting - and, tbh, important - to interrogate this more than canon does, and to recognise that there is a lot about the status quo the order is seeking to defend which places someone like stan not just on an uneven playing field, but buried underneath the pitch, with only his over-active imagination for company and no way of getting out.

and one way of doing this is to imagine that the death eaters - like many terrorist groups throughout history - recognise [while the order do not] that stan is someone stuck, greedily dreaming of power and success the status quo can't offer him, and decide to come along with a spade and dig him up...

[hollowed-theory-hall]

Identification in the Wizarding World

I don't remember how I got to thinking about it, but wizards in Harry Potter don't seem to really have IDs... like no license cards or social security numbers, and that kind of begs the question of how you prove you are who you are. So I went to the books to see if it was ever answered, and to my surprise — it was.

Wands are their IDs

I'm gonna explain where in the books it's written and how it seems to work since I just didn't really see anyone mention it, and I found it curious. I'm not sure if it was just me who was a bit dumb and didn't notice it or what, but I do want to write about it.

“Madam Lestrange!” said the goblin, evidently startled. “Dear me! How- how may I help you today?” “I wish to enter my vault,” said Hermione. The old goblin seemed to recoil a little. Harry glanced around. Not only was Travers hanging back, watching, but several other goblins had looked up from their work to stare at Hermione. “You have . . . identification?” asked the goblin. “Identification? I-I have never been asked for identification before!” said Hermione. “They know!” whispered Griphook in Harry’s ear, “They must have been warned there might be an imposter!” “Your wand will do, madam,” said the goblin. He held out a slightly trembling hand, and in a dreadful blast of realization Harry knew that the goblins of Gringotts were aware that Bellatrix’s wand had been stolen.

(Deathly Hollows, page 452)

So, I'll start with this scene in Deathly Hollows, in which a Gringott's Goblin outright says a wand can be used for identification. The Golden Trio here shows the disadvantage of such an identification method, as wands can be stolen. And besides, how would a wand even work for identification? Like, how does it prove you are who you say you are?

Well, I think I know how wands are supposed to function as identification, and it's not as bad and easily fakable as it may seem. I'm not saying it's perfect, but if implemented correctly it isn't the worst they could come up with.

After all, everyone has a wand (at least in the Western Wizarding World) and everyone carries their wand with them everywhere and at all times. Not only that, but wands are unique enough to work as an ID. Wand description is broken into 6 components of its making: wood, core, flexibility, length, the wandmaker, and how long it's been in use, making each wand unique to the specific individual wielding it. Therefore a wand is something reasonable to use to identify individuals.

So, how is it supposed to work?

“Wand weighing?” Harry repeated nervously. “We have to check that your wands are fully functional, no problems, you know, as they’re your most important tools in the tasks ahead,”

(Goblet of Fire, page 303)

Wand weighing.

In GOF, the wand weighing is shown to tell the characteristics of each wand, and if we jump ahead to Arthur Weasley's and Harry's arrival in the ministry for Harry's trial in OOTP:

“Visitor to the Ministry, you are required to submit to a search and present your wand for registration at the security desk, which is located at the far end of the Atrium.”

(Order of the Phoenix, page 126)

“Wand,” grunted the security wizard at Harry, putting down the golden instrument and holding out his hand. Harry produced his wand. The wizard dropped it onto a strange brass instrument, which looked something like a set of scales with only one dish. It began to vibrate. A narrow strip of parchment came speeding out of a slit in the base. The wizard tore this off and read the writing upon it. “Eleven inches, phoenix-feather core, been in use four years. That correct?” “Yes,” said Harry nervously. “I keep this,” said the wizard, impaling the slip of parchment on a small brass spike. “You get this back,” he added, thrusting the wand at Harry.

(Order of the Phoenix, page 128)

We see exactly how wand weighing (the brass scale Harry describes) is meant to identify. This device prints out the makings of the wand when it was sold, and probably more information than Eric at the security desk reads out. He then asks Harry if it's correct because wands don't have their making and when they were bought written on them. This means only the wand's owner would supposedly remember all the details of the wandmaker, make, and when it was bought, then by asking about it, it can be revealed if the wand was stolen or not.

It's not a great method, but it's something.

It's not any dramatic revelation about the Wizarding World, I just didn't really see wands being used as IDs in the fandom and I found it interesting. I just really am interested in the Wizarding World as a culture and how it works. IDs are just part of it.

[whinlatter]

That brings up an interesting point. Since you seen to be a canon girlie, do you think/feel that Hermione DOES become Minister?

What do you make of Harry being Head of Magical Law Enforcement?

thank you for this question anon! i do think it's very plausible hermione becomes minister of magic. i think it's equally plausible that harry becomes head of magical law enforcement. mostly because, well:

basically: i think both characters' career trajectories are in keeping with the politics of the series as a whole - eg. the goodies are all liberal, pro-state, non-revolutionary moderates who support a gradualist reformist agenda rather than a radical re-imagining of societal organisation. i also think both career options track with who each character is in canon (or rather, who the teenage versions of these characters might become as adults). and i think most of the reasons people are disappointed by either idea, and especially by harry coming 'a cop' then rising up the ranks to run law enforcement, is because they are putting their own more radical ambitions around social justice onto characters that would be poor vehicles for them.

on hermione - i don't know how many people have huge issue with the idea of hermione as minister of magic. i imagine the complaints with this idea come from people who a) like hermione and think hermione's politics as a teenager - identifying systemic injustice and labour exploitation of a subject people - jar with the idea of her settling within a political system that upholds and enforces that structure and others like it, or b) people don't like hermione as much and who think she would be too unpopular to get elected. to the former group, i'd trot out the arguments made far better than people other than me: that hermione's support for the house elves mostly boils down to a bit of a saviour complex and 'be nicer to your slaves', which is not especially radical position, and also point out the ministry's institutional culture seems to reward high-achieving technocrats with establishment credentials (or at least, prior records of academic and professional achievement), and i could see hermione riding that train straight to the top, especially on wave of post-war reformism with diminishing anti-muggleborn prejudice. (the wizarding world also loves a good (and bad) law and is extremely vigilant in enforcing them to a fault. hermione jean granger absolutely loves a rule. it's a match-made in heaven. it is - i fear - giving keir starmer).

to the second point, as i talked a bit about here, the wizarding world does not seem to be a democracy. so hermione wouldn't even need to be especially popular to get the top job. i personally love the idea of hermione quietly parking her commitments to representative democracy to get a bit of good labour legislation passed, or even thinking about wizarding democracy in victorian terms (as long as you're representing what you think the enlightened citizenry want, you're gucci). i mean honestly, what do the masses know! ignore em, queen. they're all kind of pureblood racists anyway!

on harry: i have a feeling it's harry's trajectory that most pisses people off. and i absolutely get it! people hate cops, and harry appears to become one, after spending a lot of the series raging against how shit senior leadership at the ministry of magic tend to be. while i do see the argument that teenage harry has strong criticisms of the ministry for its officials' self-interest, corruption and lack of accountability for their many miscarriages of justice, the truth is that a) harry never really associates being an auror with representing the ministry of magic as an institution, that b) he thinks of lots of characters who work in and around the ministry of magic, including in law enforcement, as agents of good (arthur weasley, kingsley, tonks, mad-eye, amelia bones) and c) harry at no point shows himself interested in thinking about ideology, about political systems, or about a more developed worldview beyond a deep sense of right and wrong and a need for justice. i think harry would like being head of magical law enforcement much less than hermione would like being minister, and i could see him finding the job enormously frustrating both for how much politicking it likely requires and for how little field action it would require. but i don't think that means it's out of character for him to rise up the ranks in pursuit of a more effective justice system and eventually take the top job as a means to an end.

the only other thing i'll say is that i do think there is something a bit culturally specific about imagining these two characters we think of as morally good actors taking up roles within the state to try to work for what they feel to be positive reform and progressive causes. the state appears quite neutrally in the hp series: it's a tool to be picked up and used to affect political change. this reflects its author's worldview, the political moment in which it was written (eg. under blair's new labour), and a longstanding dimension of real-life centre-left social democratic british politics usually expressed, at various times and to varying extents, by the political programme of the labour party throughout its history (to say nothing of a wider european context). it's not an inherently problematic political worldview (it is a core social democratic and socialist principle; it is also my own view of the state...), though ofc it can become so in the wrong hands. for instance, it's a consistent through-line in jkr's political evolution and a staple of her practically single-issue dangerous anti-trans politics even now - terf politics is a lot about wielding the state to remove legal protections from trans people, stop them from accessing health care etc. but the idea of the big state and of laws and government as a positive interventionist tool does colour hp as a text in lots of ways and is reflected in the worldview of many of its characters with which the reader is supposed to side. and i don't think we should overlook that.

conversely, hp is also a series devoid of political movements, and certainly of a meaningful far-left ideology or political sphere. and that's important to remember too if we're interested in canon coherence: hp is a liberal text in that it seemed plausible for its author to vacate a great deal of politics from her world-building. and i think that is, regretfully, worth remembering when we're claiming hermione should have been a trade union agitator or harry should have been an acab abolitionist organiser or whatever.

[fanfic-lover-girl]

Double Standards: Malfoys vs Weasleys Edition

I'm on a roll, baby! TWO double standards today! All from book 4!

Nepotism/Favoritism

Moody’s magical eye spun around to stare at Ron; Ron looked extremely apprehensive, but after a moment Moody smiled – the first time Harry had seen him do so. ‘You’ll be Arthur Weasley’s son, eh?’ Moody said. ‘Your father got me out of a very tight corner a few days ago …”

. . . my husband, Arthur, has just managed to get prime tickets through his connections at the Department of Magical Games and Sports.

Fudge, who wasn’t listening, said, “Lucius has just given a very generous contribution to St Mungo’s Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries, Arthur. He’s here as my guest.”

Bonus from Book 5

Harry distinctly heard the gentle clinking of what sounded like a full pocket of gold. ‘Really, just because you are Dumbledore’s favourite boy, you must not expect the same indulgence from the rest of us … shall we go up to your office, then, Minister?’

What I find most notable here is the difference in nature between the scenarios. The Malfoys' nepotism is more quid pro quo. Charity donations and political bribery. Whereas Authur Weasley seems to have used his position to help people like the Bagmans skirt the law. A government official helps another official's relative with a sketchy situation and in return, he gets expensive, premier seats?! Sounds a bit corrupt to me.

But hardly anyone in HP fandom has an issue with nepotism when the Weasleys do it. Nope, it's only bad when the rich Malfoys do it, duh!

Discrimination

Mum’s writing to the Muggles to ask you to stay. We’re coming for you whether the Muggles like it or not, you can’t miss the World Cup, only Mum and Dad reckon it’s better if we pretend to ask their permission first. Ron, it’s all OK, the Muggles say I can come.

Mr Malfoy’s eyes had returned to Hermione, who went slightly pink, but stared determinedly back at him. Harry knew exactly what was making Mr Malfoy’s lip curl. The Malfoys prided themselves on being pure-bloods; in other words, they considered anyone of Muggle descent, like Hermione, second-class.

Bonus: Weasley hypocrisy

“That’s sick,” Ron muttered, watching the smallest Muggle child, who had begun to spin like a top, sixty feet above the ground, his head flopping limply from side to side. “That is really sick…”

What I found very fascinating is how the discrimination is presented. The Weasleys' disgusting prejudice towards muggles is very casual. It's treated as normal and acceptable: for heaven's sake, Harry (our wonderful hero) even participates in dehumanizing his relatives. I bet most HP readers don't even bat an eye - JKR has trained the reader to accept muggle dehumanization. Yet, what I find strange is that Harry has to literally spell out the Malfoy's distaste for Hermione. Why is JKR wasting her time with this? By book 4, we already know how the Malfoys feel about Hermione. I think it's another indicator of JKR's crappy writing.

Anyway, after we see the appalling way the Weasleys treat the Durselys and the Grangers, JKR expects her readers to swallow Ron acting as a moral compass when he sees the muggle family being tortured? Please.

People need to remember that we are the muggles. Would you prefer the Malfoys who hate all things muggle and mainly want their world to be separate from muggles and keep to themselves (which Draco said way back in book 1 when he met Harry)?? Or would you prefer the Weasleys who have little respect for muggles and have little qualms about invading your home and bodily autonomy?

As a black woman, I prefer a KKK racist who lives far away from me and who I will probably never see in my lifetime. Compared to a white liberal who causally asks me degrading questions every day like why my English is so good when I am from Jamaica. Or anyone else for that matter who makes me feel insecure about my culture and abilities. All under the guise of being a so-called ally.

Truly, between the Malfoys and Weasleys, who has caused muggles more harm on screen or on paper?? I don't know how many people Lucius hurt as a DE besides the poor Roberts family but given JKR treats muggles as NPCs in her books, I guess those rando people Lucius may have killed don't matter :(. And why were muggles there anyway?! At a wizarding event?! That poor Mr. Roberts being treated worse than a dog by people who are supposed to be pro-muggle leaning.

At that moment, a wizard in plus-fours appeared out of thin air next to Mr Roberts’s front door. “Obliviate!” he said sharply, pointing his wand at Mr Roberts. “Been having a lot of trouble with him. Needs a Memory Charm ten times a day to keep him happy.”

Sigh. Muggles deserved better. Forget Draco calling Hermione a mudblood. Like that slur means anything to Hermione anyway. Or has any meaningful impact. Muggles are the true victims in these books.

[loserboyfriendrjl]

based off on my last post, i’ll be sharing my kingsley and dorcas headcanons

dorcas was a slytherin, kingsley was a ravenclaw

they were a few years older than bellatrix black and her sisters, as well as arthur weasley and molly prewett (i headcanon them to be born somewhere in the mid fourties)

speaking of which, dorcas was the head girl when bellatrix started attending hogwarts and, despite the fact that she would never admit it, bellatrix wanted to be like her one day

kingsley was a quidditch lad, and he was friends with everyone who wants on any of the teams (particularly with the prewett twins). he was well accustomed with dorcas meadowes, who had been one of chasers on the team and, later, the captain, like him

however, when they truly became friends was when the duelling club was founded, and dorcas absolutely crushed him on her first try (“how did you do that?” “with my wand?”)

dorcas introduced kingsley to muggle music (he was a pureblood, whereas she was a half-blood; she smuggled a record player into the school and managed to make it work; kingsley fell in love with elvis presley, frank sinatra, and everything soul)

openly pro-muggle and muggle-born rights

they had been members of the slug club when they were students, (slughorn took a liking to dorcas due to her skill in potions and determination, and to kingsley because of his daring answers and natural abilities), and that was how they got their first job, an internship at the ministry

spent most of their time together, although both of them were fairly popular and well-liked as students; they instantly clicked when they met

visited slughorn regularly after they graduated; despite his rather boastful nature, they both liked him

both of them joined the auror department

dorcas was the one who made the introductions when the younger order members joined; she took a particular liking to lily evans, who reminded her of her own hogwarts self. kingsley, however, took a liking to remus lupin, due to his mild-mannered and warm nature

after dorcas died, kingsley promised himself that he would do whatever it took to made dorcas proud; he knew that one of her ambitions had been becoming the minister of magic, and so, he did it for her

[hchollym]

Little background I'm childfree, so I have two relevant head-cannons. Feel free not to answer if you feel these are too political.

What is do you think Molly and Arthur's reaction be if one of their favored kids, say Bill or Ginny be if they decided not to have kids (ignoring the last part of DH).

Maybe Ginny knows there is no way she can be a pro Quiddich player if she gets pregnant or Bill decides he wants the married life but not kids. I imagine with the others while it would hurt the relationship, but it could be excused for any number of reasons.

Based on a common 'bingo' asked of childfree women, do you think it's possible that the bad with money Molly and Arthur assumed that their kids would take care of them when they are elderly. Which kid do you think got saddled with them?

Growing up I'd assume that Percy was the son chosen for that task especially when the older brothers yeeted upon graduation. I just get the feeling that Percy was initially chosen to be the one but after the fight, I'm not so sure.

I don't mind answering political questions at all. 😉

Oof. That is not going to go over well, and I don't think it matters much if it's a favored kid or not. Either way, Arthur doesn't really care, but Molly tries to guilt trip them constantly - crying, talking about how children give your life meaning, saying that she doesn't want them to miss out on such a precious gift, etc. It puts a definite strain on their relationship, and whoever it is gets tired of having to deal with it, so they don't come around much.

I highly doubt Charlie came back to visit often, because Molly kept setting him up with blind dates (i.e. inviting women over for dinner) no matter how many times he told her to stop. It would honestly be bad for any of them, but I imagine it's worse for Bill & Ginny because of their partners. Bill would have to constantly deal with Molly blaming Fleur, and Ginny would have to constantly deal with Molly's horrible comments about how she's depriving Harry of happiness and the family he never had growing up.

To answer your second question, I do think Molly & Arthur assumed that one of their kids would take care of them when they got older (if necessary), just like Molly assumed she would take care of Aunt Muriel when the time came. It may not have been spoken about, but the expectation was always there.

I think it's (subconsciously) part of the reason they tried so hard for a girl - statistically speaking, daughters are far more likely to take care of ailing parents than sons (and that expectation is yet another way the Weasleys are misogynistic). So I think they originally hoped Ginny would do it, but that obviously didn't work. I'm not insulting Ginny at all, but I definitely don't think she would be the one to care for them.

Once they realized that, Bill was their next best hope. He's the oldest, cherished son, who does try to act responsibly when he's in town (letting Ron stay with him, distracting Molly when she gets upset about Percy, trying to keep the peace with her by being passive, etc.). That's partially why Molly hated his marriage to Fleur so much, because Fleur threw a huge wrench into that plan.

I do think Bill would help them financially - he has a decent job and makes enough money that he could manage, and I picture him as feeling a fiscal obligation to them. But if Molly & Arthur need physical help (such as moving in with him, needing help changing/bathing, etc.), then that's a giant no. Bill (and Fleur) are not doing it.

Similarly, I also think George, Ginny, and Ron would help financially (if possible), but that's about it, and to be honest, I doubt Charlie would even help in that way.

So that leaves Percy.

Percy and his spouse get stuck with the physical and emotional burden. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Percy has Oldest Daughter Syndrome. His parents may not have originally expected him to be their caregiver, but when you think about it, it was pretty much inevitable the whole time. 😢

Thanks for the ask! 😊

[nerdyerror]

Minerva McGonagall FACTS

She is actually only in her 50s when Harry comes to Hogwarts, which means she’s around the same age as Arthur Weasley

She would absolutely have been a better leader of the order of the phoenix and everything would’ve gone better if snape went to her after y’know every problem he faced

She is pro trans and doesn’t not approve or allow any purposeful misgendering of HER students

[360degreesasthecrowflies]

I sometimes think in a stronger author’s hands, it would have been more thematic for Ron to be muggleborn and Hermione to be pureblood wizard-raised

In terms of their character arcs and what they teach Harry about wizarding society in many ways this might have been a more impactful story.

Harry is raised by abusive Muggle relatives and at least supposedly, one of the series’ core themes is anti-prejudice and pro-equality. However despite this, we never get a portrait or focus on kind, genuine, well-meaning Muggle characters. We get canon Hermione’s parents, once, for a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it scene, and they don’t even canonically have first names. Petunia, Marge and Vernon Dursley and Dudley are cruel, and the other Muggles Harry meets at home range from actively cruel to passively oblivious to his struggles and mistreatment at his relatives’ hands.

Enter the muggle!Weasley family. Muggle!Molly is a stay at home mother doing her best. She doesn’t have magical means of helping herself, so she just has to work hard to put her kids through school and keep the house in order by hand. Older sons Bill and Charlie are non magical and already moved out - and they might as well be for all the impact they have on the story in canon. The muggleborn!Weasleys comprise five magical children: Percy, dedicated to learning as much magic as possible to help his mum and dad, from fixing up their house to improving their healthcare and Arthur’s chronic conditions from work as a labourer for years. Wizards may want to hoard their magic - but Percy has practical reasons to go against that to protect his family.

Fred and George are experimenting to push the boundaries of magic. They have ambitions to make a name for themselves in this world despite the prejudices against muggleborns, and to support their mum and dad as they approach retirement.

Ron and Ginny don’t know much about Harry Potter, except the stories Percy and the twins have told them. They’ll act as the supplementary audience surrogate characters; both new to the Harry Potter world and the Harry Potter mythos, while also striking up a friendship with the boy himself when they bonded over being new to the wizarding world and finding out that Harry too was from a difficult home background and a mixed family like them.

Meanwhile, wizard-raised!Hermione Granger is a know-it-all. She thinks she’s above everyone because she’s read all the school textbooks, not that she even needed to, growing up in this world with the connections to know many of the authors anyway through her family. She has a healthy respect for the rules, after all, they safeguard people like her from undesirables. As the books continue she’ll learn to question her assumptions and prejudices, and become a revolutionary figure in the wizarding world and great ally to non-human beings and non-wizard-raised humans alike. Finding out that the real Harry Potter is nothing like all the books she read said is only the start of her journey.

I think the dynamics between Draco and Ron, Draco and Hermione, Hermione and the teachers and Ron and the teachers would also be more impactful this way around without conflicting with the world originally set up in which Rowling expects us to believe simultaneously that a plurality of wizards are opposed to muggleborn equality: yet Hermione is most of her teachers’ favourite student by far, children with a vested interest in improving their family’s circumstances have no interest in studying and learning skills and practical methods to put that into action, and various other thematic inconsistencies as the books continue.