the-south-north

[the-south-north]

The Ginny and Peter parallel though?? How have I never thought about that?? It‘s so horrifying and insanely compelling to me at the same time. I would love to hear (read?) you elaborate on that.

"Sirius, Sirius, what could I have done? The Dark Lord… you have no idea… he has weapons you can't imagine…. I was scared, Sirius, I was never brave like you and Remus and James. I never meant it to happen…. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named forced me - " "Harry – oh, Harry – I tried to tell you at b-breakfast, but I c-couldn’t say it in front of Percy. It was me, Harry – but I – I s-swear I d-didn’t mean to  - R-Riddle made me, he took me over..."

thank you so much for this question anon.  i have been thinking about this for a long time - about how ginny weasley might have made a really, really good traitor - and would love to talk more about my thinking behind it. a little meta on traitor talk - who flips, and why, and why ginny weasley might be the peter pettigrew to the trio's marauders after all - can be found below the cut (with spoilers for beasts chapter 14). 

hp, as a series, puts great moral emphasis on the concept of choice. after all, it’s about a world at war, where the question of whose side you're on is often a matter of life or death. double agents, deception, treachery, people serving the interests of others (either consensually or under duress): these are recurrent tropes, on both sides of the wizarding war. the plot begins the ultimate act of betrayal - that of lily and james potter by peter pettigrew - and the series concludes with the revelation of another (snape). throughout the books, there are all sorts of characters who spy, or flip, for all sorts of reasons. you have those who knowingly pretend to be serving the interests of one side when actually serving another, for principled reasons, either ideological motivation or out of selfless loyalty to another person: snape, peter, likely rookwood, quirrell, fake moody/barty crouch jr, both sirius and regulus black, kreacher, and narcissa in the forest. and then you have the group who betray either out of fear, or who are manipulated into acts of betrayal and deceit, sometimes through possession but otherwise through blackmail and intimidation, to varying degrees: xenophilius lovegood, mundungus fletcher, pius thicknesse, marietta edgecombe, bertha jorkins, bathilda bagshot, those types. (in a sign of jkr’s consistently dicked-up biases re gender in the series, women are never allowed to be interesting enough to actively betray anyone unless they’re doing it out of maternal love eg. narcissa - they can only ever actively be led astray or hoodwinked, whereas male characters can have a vast array of complex motivations and all sorts of shades of moral grey. we'll come back to that in a minute).

in chapter 14 of my postwar fic beasts, during the course of the hogwarts inquiry, augustus rookwood takes the stand and testifies of an attempt by him and his fellow death eaters to find someone who could play double agent to pass secrets about the resistance, the order and harry to the other side during the second wizarding war. rookwood - himself a former double agent - talks about how to make a traitor. he discusses the different motivations of traitors, how to find a target and how to exploit their existing vulnerabilities and weak-points to get them to come around to your side. he also reveals that, during the death eater seizure of the ministry and hogwarts school, he and his peers identified a would-be target in ginny weasley. in the fic, i have him describe the process of traitor-identification as ‘the pettigrew playbook’: finding someone who is connected, who knows the order’s secrets, who has the information you want, and who will flip less out of an ardent ideological commitment, but more because they are weak and scared but also disrespected and resentful and more inclined to save their own neck than act out of loyalty

i’ve always been very struck by peter pettigrew’s attempts to justify his betrayal of lily and james in PoA (see above). peter pettigrew is always a slippery and elusive character, rendered mostly through other people’s memories or descriptions of him. this is one of the very few times he explains something of his own worldview - though, as we know he is a liar, and in this instance errrr trying to save his own life as sirius threatens to kill him (slay), we have to take even these lines with a pinch of salt. we know pettigrew is a character that acts, at all times, out of a desire for self-preservation, trying to secure his own survival. he was tolerated but never respected by his schoolfriends, made the potters’ secret keeper as a ‘perfect bluff’ because he was a  ‘weak, talentless thing’ voldemort would never bother going after, a trait which ultimately made him the perfect and most vulnerable target. when outed as the real spy by sirius and remus here, he acknowledges he is aware of his deficiencies and weaknesses, and talks about his fear for his own life, his sense of how he did not live up to the principled bravery of his friends, and claims  that voldemort ‘forced him’ to surrender lily and james - presumably through the threat of terrible violence, suffering and death. 

pettigrew’s remarks are particularly interesting when put alongside the justifications and excuses of another character who has betrayed harry to voldemort, albeit under very different circumstances. like peter, ginny’s confession is given through floods of tears as a desperate plea to be believed and excused. in it, ginny begs harry to understand her own lack of culpability. just as wormtail does, she insists to harry she was forced by riddle to cause harm to others and to hand information about harry over to riddle, and to play an integral role in returning lord voldemort to life.  of course, the series always frames ginny’s actions in CoS as the behaviour of an entirely innocent person. but even these lines show a streak of self-preservation and a certain amount of weakness and cowardice that runs throughout ginny’s encounter with the diary. ‘I couldn’t say it in front of Percy’, she says, suggesting she feared getting in deep trouble with no proof of riddle’s hand in her actions. in fact throughout the diary episode, ginny shows real moments of acting to save herself rather than do the right thing and come forward with the truth. she tries to dispose of the diary, but doesn’t go to a teacher about what it has been making her do. she stole the diary back not to protect harry but to protect her own secrets and prevent him from discovering her complicity (at least by TMR’s telling). she even watches hagrid get falsely accused and sent to azkaban, and stays silent in the process, a distinctly pettigrew echo if ever i heard one. 

of course, we know ginny and peter pettigrew’s relationships with voldemort are not alike in dignity. it’s clear that, in so many ways, ginny’s encounter with the diary is much more clearly an experience of victimhood than of malicious intent. we know that ginny was possessed; we know she is not a character who would commit murder without that level of involuntary mental surrender. but there are more uncomfortable echoes of pettigrew in her experiences in CoS. we see them in the decisions of a character acting of fear and a desire to save their own skin in ginny’s experience of the diary than we might like to think. ginny ofc was targeted by lucius malfoy because of who her family was, as stalwarts of the anti-voldemort pro-muggle resistance during the first wizarding war, with powerful enemies determined to discredit and undermine them at every turn. but, as TMR makes clear, what makes ginny such a good target in the end, so vulnerable and so useful, was that she was weak. she was insecure, and lonely, teased and misunderstood and feeling inadequate. in all of that, there was a very rich opening for TMR to access her innermost fears and secrets and to use them to manipulate, pressure and threaten her into compliance, in addition to the active possession of her body to conduct deliberate acts of attempted murder. it’s not a perfect pettigrew parallel by any means. but there’s more than a little bit of pettigrew in that, too. 

maybe more parallels with ginny and peter pettigrew than meets the eye - particularly in ginny’s relationship to the trio. there are a few posts that periodically do the rounds on tumblr and reddit that talk about neville’s relationship to the trio as the parallel to peter pettigrew’s with the marauders - as this post compellingly puts it, ‘all who peter could have been’. neville, these posts usually point out, was a character who was weak and much less talented than his friends, an outsider who needed the protection and patience of cooler classmates, who was always on the outside looking in on a friend group that largely excluded him. what distinguished neville from peter was his approach to his own weakness, and how that approach drove him to heroism rather than betrayal and villainy. it’s an interesting idea, and there’s something to it. but the more i thought about it, the more i thought - is neville + the trio the only parallel with peter + the marauders? what about ginny? 

it’s remarkably under-appreciated in fandom that ginny is remarkably poorly treated by the trio for much of the series. ‘go away, ginny’ - that’s how ron banishes his sister at the start of PoA, because harry mutters to his two mates that he wants to talk to them in private and to ditch ginny. neither harry nor hermione object to it - hermione, though kind to ginny when the dementors arrive, makes no defence of her right to stay. ginny duly leaves, hurt, to go sit by herself on the train back to school, returning to hogwarts for the first time after her deeply traumatic experience in the chamber, dismissed and dispatched. not meaning to drag ron here - this is, ofc, how big brothers have behaved for time immemorial, as is their wont. but it’s kind of the statement for how the trio treat ginny for much of her school career really until HBP, harry and hermione included. ofc there are many textual/plot reasons ginny needs to be held at arms length from the trio. but it is striking that the effect of this plot habit for the reader is a usually unkind and sometimes even callous exclusion of ginny by the trio throughout many of the books.

in CoS itself, ginny is never invited to join the trio or spend any time with them: when she isn’t, you know, trying her hand at possessed attempted murder, she’s doing a light bit of potter hero worship that does recall a certain lakeside snitch-catching display of yore. it’s ginny who’s left feeling left out when the trio are swapping suspicious eyes and sirius secrets in GoF, ginny who is hermione’s back-up friend when the ron and harry showdown kicks off over the triwizard tournament, ginny who shoulders the role as harry’s consolation prize friend when ron and hermione go off to the prefects on the train in ootp (and takes him to neville and luna), ginny who goes defenceless when the trio are demanding to be included in order secrets and is physically removed from the room with no protest from the others, ginny who has to fight her case to be taken seriously and included in the department of mysteries plot to rescue a man she too is friends with (‘I care about Sirius as much as you do!’), being patronised by three friends who pick her up and put her down when they feel like it (always enjoy hermione being like ‘we need three thestrals!’ and ginny being like ffs we need four why won’t you show me an ounce of respect). in fact, when ginny is revealed to be becoming popular in a different social circle throughout ootp and hbp, it is something of a shock to harry and ron, who have spent a good six years making no effort to include her and now are finding she has built a much more successful social life beyond them (you reap what you sow, lads). i don’t say this to overstate the trio’s malice nor to overstate the pettigrew comparisons (ginny is clearly both conventionally attractive and much more socially adept).. but i do think it’s striking that  if there is a character with pettigrew echoes in the trio’s surround, always orbiting the trio, trying to feel included (and hero worshipping the potter at the heart of it), it’s more often young ginny than it is neville. so many of the things that made ginny vulnerable to TMR - her loneliness, her isolation, her insecurities and sense of inadequacy - are not helped by the trio in the years afterwards, and in some cases, actively reinforced.

(to briefly say something on gender - sometimes wonder if ginny were a male character if people would have made more of this. percy stans, for instance, go to great lengths to point out all the ways percy was bullied or teased by his family as an excuse for his errrrr war crimes. would people care more about many ginny's exclusions if she were a maligned misunderstood young man? probably? it's noticeable too that all traitors in hp are men lol, a classic example of jkr’s weird and fucked feminism striking again. women are led astray or hoodwinked - men get the complex motivations and agency arcs. but i digress).

why does any of this matter? we know ginny doesn't take the path of pettigrew, however much she might have good reason to. harry's endearingly naive line in DH ('I trust all of you, I don’t think anyone in this room would ever sell me to Voldemort’) ends up being borne out: there are no betrayals during the second wizarding war, and certainly not by ginny (though the sword heist almost ended up doing it on accident). but i found myself thinking a lot about this as i was sketching out the plotline for beasts and thinking about ginny’s war, and what is asked of ginny in it. i was particularly thinking about it relation to how the second wizarding war plays out, the unique position of danger ginny would have been in as a hogwarts student in the 1997-1998 academic year, and what a good target she would make for death eaters on the hunt for a spy within the order of the phoenix.

when i was reading DH for the first time, i remember thinking that it is absolutely bonkers that ginny weasley goes back to hogwarts in september ’97. by that summer, the weasleys are the order of the phoenix. no longer just the blood traitors’ blood traitor, they’re now the face of the wizarding resistance, both parents and (nearly) all sons in active combat, something the ministry certainly knows about even when trying to normalise death eater rule and allowing the facade of arthur et al going to go to work in the ministry/gringotts etc. ginny’s family home is order hq: she lives there all summer, and trots off to the hogwarts express straight from the kitchen table where order meetings take place. when death eaters descend on the wedding, she’s there alongside the rest of the rest of dumbledore stans. she is also famously in the DA, and fought death eaters alongside the trio in the department of mysteries, and again in the battle of the astronomy tower. and then there’s the obvious point that hinny shippers everywhere have pointed out is baffling since the dawn of time, which is that the world and his wife knows that ginny weasley is harry potter’s ex, something that might put a big fat target on her head for a death eater or two to have a pop at trying to get some secrets and intel out of her. 

of course, there’s a compelling case for why ginny has to go back. ron’s already used the splattergroit excuse, and arthur’s going to work, and so is bill, and the twins (at least for a bit), and the weasleys are going for normalisation and at least a fig leaf of compliance. so off ginny goes, into the belly of the beast, back to school, despite all the access she has to order secrets and intel, as well as information on harry and the trio. she is in a uniquely dangerous position of risk: it’s a fortress run by death eaters and her card is marked. she finds herself in an unenviable and unrivalled position as a very good person to go after if you’re a death eater fancying some intel about what the guerilla resistance - and harry potter - are up to. we know there are death eaters about who would like to claw themselves back into some level of relevance by working towards the big man and trying to curry favour (yaxley). we know there is a family intimately aware of ginny weasley's weakness and failings who are desperate to get back in voldemort's good books (the malfoys). we also know there are witnesses to ginny's exclusions both from the order and from the trio over the years - in particular, one witness that already sold secrets on the order to death eaters, namely kreacher.

the reason i came back to thinking about parallels between ginny and peter in beasts is because beasts is a story about ginny’s war, but also in part about morality in the wizarding world, about war and sides and choices. at various points in beasts, i’ve tried to play with ginny’s echoes with characters that waver morally - including regulus - or who find themselves drawn to or in some way embroiled in darkness, and who are at times governed by fear and cowardice and self-preservation in a moral universe that prizes bravery, loyalty, and self-sacrifice. so this plot came from putting all these pieces together - ginny's existing vulnerabilities and insecurities, her position of privilege and access, but also her alienation and mistreatment, and this interest in moral motivations and what experiences or traumas might lead a person, or even justify, a person's treachery, moral inaction, or active moral failing. it was even more interesting for me to play with the idea that other people might have noticed ginny weasley's weird position relative to the trio and the order too, people who want to know what she knows and who would be willing to exploit the cracks in those relationships for strategic wartime gain. and that's for chapters fifteen and sixteen!

[the-south-north]

What if Remus Lupin is only wearing dull brown colours because when he's near full moon his "wolf traits" cause him to be partially colourblind? And he already had an awkward situation once, pairing a violet scarf with an aggressively orange sweater, and the other Marauders gave him hell about it, so he decided NEVER AGAIN?

Well, that and brown is the colour of the "boring and harmless people" that he's posing as, obviously.

(Inspired by @dufferpuffer 's lovely post)

[the-south-north]

JK Rowling & the Color Pink

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

Let’s start off with the obvious: 

PINK = VILLAIN (FEMME) 

Petunia Dursley: “a salmon-pink cocktail dress.” 

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

Pansy Parkinson: “very frilly robes of pale pink” 

Rita Skeeter: “long nails were painted shocking pink” 

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

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

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

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

Cho Chang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which brings us too: 

PINK = SILLY/FRIVOLOUS (FEMME) 

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

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

Parvati Patil: “robes of shocking pink"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PINK = EMBARRASSING 

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

(Pink fluffy earmuffs are adorable.)

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

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

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

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

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

(also just, pumping up an embarrassing moment)

PINK = OUTSIDER, WEIRDO

Hagrid

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

Dobby

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

Tonks

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

[the-south-north]

[the-south-north]

life is tough when you’re being haunted by a ghost of your dead classmate

[the-south-north]

I think you're quite correct! I get the impression that the Malfoys (both of them) are politic people who value power above blood.

I think of them as a true pair, though. They are both opportunistic, amoral people who support Voldemort because they think he is going to win. When Voldemort disappears, they politic their way into keeping their money and power, not in restoring him. After they have a child, they fight for power even more fiercely so they can give it all to Draco.

They behave differently from each other post-book 5, though. Lucius is being punished and humiliated for his failures and disloyalty, so he is extra desperate to fix it via Draco. His damaged pride clouds his judgement, but the logic is there. Draco succeeds => the Malfoy name recovers => the family wins when Voldemort wins. I think Voldemort very much engineered Draco's task to give Lucius false hope so it could be crushed completely. Also, Lucius and Draco would be imprisoned if Voldemort lost, and Voldemort would punish them for desertion, so Lucius sees that earning Voldemort's favor is the best way forward.

Narcissa, however, isn't under the same pressure. She's passive. She isn't as entrenched in death eater internal politics, as she maintains her relationships with Lucius, Bellatrix, and Snape, even as all three are at odds with each other. Thus, with a less biased perspective, Narcissa can see that the Draco is being set up to fail (and that he will suffer for it). She knows Draco is in danger, so she asks Snape, lies for Harry, etc. Also, sometimes people use the Malfoys' defection, especially Draco's or Narcissa's, as evidence that they aren't all that bigoted. Of course the Malfoys care about their survival more than blood-supremacy. That doesn't make them any better. Narcissa still enabled her family members to commit atrocities when they were on top. She doesn't give a damn about Harry Potter or persecuted muggleborns, she just wants to get back to castle to look for Draco and maybe get rid of Voldemort now that he's a threat to her family.

for the character asks, how about Narcissa Malfoy?

How I feel about this character

I love Narcissa so much. I think she's a really interesting (and deeply flawed) character! I think her arc is fascinating. I always imagine that she kind of expected to just play a very traditionally feminine pureblood 'lady of the house' type role in her life, but following Lucius's arrest and the dire straits her family found themselves in she found herself calling on inner strength and talent she didn't know she had.

I really enjoy her strength of character (especially in later scenes like in the opening of book 7 where Lucius is much more openly flustered than she is) and I enjoy the shifting power dynamic where by book 7 she is the one that both Lucius and Draco are looking to for cues on how to act. And of course I love that she straight up lied to Voldemort's face successfully. Without a wand no less.

I also like that she and Bellatrix have such a sibling dynamic and while most other people are really scared of Bellatrix and afraid of upsetting her in any way Narcissa is not afraid to argue with her. And Bellatrix in turn seems to care about Narcissa more than she cares about pretty much anyone else (other than Voldemort) which is super interesting and something I wish was explored more. It's also an interesting contrast to Bellatrix's relationship with Lucius which we could, at best, call "strained."

I feel like after the war Narcissa probably doesn't actually renounce her blood supremacist beliefs but at least puts on a show of it in order to improve the family's standing for Draco's sake. I also think she would have made overtures to Andromeda, though whether she'd succeed or not I'm not sure. Maybe ultimately after many years.

All the people I ship romantically with this character

Generally I like her with Lucius. I think you could do something interesting with Narcissa/Snape as well.

My non-romantic OTP for this character

I love her sibling dynamic with Bellatrix because Narcissa can relate to Bellatrix in a way few others can and because on the one hand they have an obvious familial bond but also we get moments like Bellatrix being all '???? y r u so sad about ur child dying. so cringe omg!' and by book 7 Bellatrix doesn't think much of Lucius or Draco, who are 2 of the most important people in Narcissa's life. (Wonder if Bellatrix is a bit jealous of that and feels like she should be the priority.)

My unpopular opinion about this character

I don't like when people whitewash the fact that Narcissa was very much a blood supremacist who was probably totally on board with Lucius's views and actions. Her flaws make her interesting and complex. Sometimes I feel like Lucius gets treated as an evil bigot while Narcissa gets a total pass which is just weird.

One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in canon.

I'm pretty happy with her arc. Might've been interesting to see her have a moment with Andromeda.

[the-south-north]

Very interested in you calling Draco femme coded. Is it just because of how he is described physically or something more?

I've got a post called "Gendered Bullying in Harry Potter" in drafts... but the short answer is that Draco bullies like a mean girl, not a mean boy. (And there are plenty of both in this series to compare him to.) He is very much an intentional pair with Pansy. He's never physical or violent, and it's actually highligted that he backs down from fights (or is flattened, usually by Ron.) Instead, Draco spreads rumors and embarrassing stories, he baits/tricks people into breaking the rules, runs smear campaigns, flashes his wealth and his *stuff,* and does a lot of pointing and sniggering from within a group of people.

He also gets beats like "crying in the bathroom" (otherwise seen with girls like Myrtle and Hermione) and "poisoning" (otherwise only seen from Nagini - very specifically a girl giant snake. and arguably Romilda Vane (spiking food with love potion) and Umbridge (spiking tea with Veritaserum.)

Also, yeah, it might be kind of an accident, but both he and Lucius get femme-coded descriptive language.

[the-south-north]

i wonder how much of Remus' flight reaction is natural and how much it comes from his childhood and his parents' reactions to anyone maybe discovering he's a werewolf being packing everything up and leaving

[the-south-north]

But I’ve heard people questioning if Snape was really traumatized by SWM. At first I had no idea what they were on about. How could Snape not be traumatized? Why are you even questioning this? But I figured what they meant was: why doesn’t Snape act the way I know traumatized characters to act? Why isn’t he having flashbacks or breaking down when being exposed to his triggers? 

Snape’s trauma is the angry aggressive kind. Snape’s trauma can be mistaken for a “grudge”. Because it’s not what people understand trauma to be.

In HBP, Harry was trying to crucio Snape and do all this other stuff, and Snape was so unbothered by it. But the moment Snape noticed Harry was about to cast levicorpus on him, Snape completely lost his shit. Below was Snape’s response to Harry trying to cast levicorpus on him.

“No, Potter!” screamed Snape. There was a loud BANG and Harry was soaring backward, hitting the ground hard again, and this time his wand flew out of his hand.

This is Snape’s response to Harry trying to crucio him. Literally torture him.

But Snape parried the curse,

Like a casual “whatever”. Yeah Harry got knocked off his feet, but he didn’t go soaring backwards like he did when Snape responded to Harry’s levicorpus.

During occlumency lessons Snape manhandled Harry and threw him out of the room, after seeing Harry watching James Potter humiliate him.

I shouldn’t have to add disclaimers to my post, disclaimers should be givens. But unfortunately we haven’t reached that point yet.

Disclaimer: I don’t approve of Snape hurting Harry more than what he had to (Snape still had to defend himself in HBP) and I don’t approve of Snape physically hurting Harry in Snape’s Worst Memory chapter. 

I’m not saying that Snape’s way of expressing his trauma is okay. He needed therapy to help him learn to deal with and express his trauma in a less problematic way. The point is that Snape’s trauma is overlooked and lessened. Snape’s PTSD is called a “grudge.” 

Snape had a grudge against James Potter vs Snape was still traumatized by James Potter.

James’ change.

I will always maintain that James changed for the better. I won’t argue my point, because I’m not here to convince you that James changed.

There seems to be this “unspoken” “implied” message that because James changed, the damage he did to Snape doesn’t count anymore. Okay yeah James hurt Snape, but James changed, why can’t Snape just get over it?

I have zero problem with the idea of James changing. He grew as a character, happens to be morally grey, and actually has the capacity for good? Not a problem with me. He changed? Great.

If people spoke about James’ change like he fits in with one of the themes in HP, that people can change for the better.

But unfortunately James’ change isn’t spoken about like that. James’ change is treated like some sort of band aid to slap on Snape’s trauma. 

I am okay with James changing if we’re speaking about James’ overall character, as well as his character development. But, if a post is specifically about Snape’s trauma, then I don’t care how much James changed, and I don’t think “but James changed” should be slapped on any original post talking about the very real post traumatic stress disorder that Snape has because of James and Sirius’ bullying him for years. 

I was wondering for the longest time why some Snape fans were so salty over the idea of James changing. So the fuck what if he did change? Why is the very idea of James changing a bad thing? Why is it so hurtful? My response to James’ changing was “meh cool.” Like I’m not jumping up and down in joy over it, but I don’t find the idea of James changing personally offensive. 

But now I get why even the POSSIBILITY of James having changed is personally offensive for people. When we hear the statement James changed, it’s hardly ever on an original post. It’s nearly always some Snape anti James stan coming onto a post (that is appropriately tagged) talking about Snape’s PTSD and they come onto that post and say “but James changed.” As in yeah but whatever about the emotional pain Snape had to suffer from years later, yeah but whatever about his triggers because James changed.

“James changed” has become a symbol for dismissing Snape’s PTSD.

I now understand why people take “James changed” so personally, as if someone went up to them and slapped them across the face. 

[the-south-north]

Do you think Snape had anything to do with the why the Order confronted the Dursley's at then end of OotP? I always found it odd that this happen's after Harry's Occlumency lessons.

Yeah, I read it that way.

Prior to this, there are other characters who are somewhat aware of Harry’s plight (Ron and the twins save Harry in CoS, for instance), but this intervention feels as if there’s been some extra pressure from someone whose opinion carries weight.

Snape is important here for two reasons:

1)  The Order know for a fact that Snape has been looking into Harry’s mind, so they can’t write this off as a mistake or children who are ‘telling tales’ - Snape has witnessed this activity directly.

2)  Snape outwardly - and openly - dislikes Harry, and if he’s saying, “Woah, there’s something really wrong, you need to have a word,” - then it suggests the behaviour he’s witnessed is awful.

I think both of those mean that the adult Order members take his warning seriously and intervene.

[the-south-north]

Snape is an extremely dynamic character, in that he’s a very different person depending on what point in time you analyze him.

The contrast between Snape as young man and Snape as an adult in term of selfishness is astounding. Young Snape only really cared about himself and Lily, and the rest of the world could go to hell. He doesn’t care about Mary McDonald, he doesn’t care about all the people that would suffer should Voldemort win, he doesn’t care about condemning an innocent to death by reporting a prophecy, he doesn’t care about Harry (I know that he couldn’t have begged for his life, I still highly doubt he cared either way). He’s an extremely selfish individual.

 Adult Snape is willing to sacrifice anything and everything in order to save lives, to do the right thing. Snape sacrifices his life, kills the only man who really knew him, torpedo’s his reputation and all of his relationships in the Order of the Phoenix, and even puts his very soul at risk, all to save lives and do the right thing. As far as he knows, he will be remembered as a monster, since the only person he tells the truth is Harry, who as far as he knows has to die. He’s the most selfless man in the entire series, rivaled only by Harry Potter himself. I adore his character arc, it’s astounding.

[the-south-north]

This is nothing new, but the Tale of Three Brothers mirror Voldemort, Snape, and Harry.

So the oldest brother, who was a combative man, asked for a wand more powerful than any in existence: a wand that must always win duels for its owner, a wand worthy of a wizard who had conquered Death!

The first brother traveled on for a week or more, and reaching a distant village, sought out a fellow wizard with whom he had a quarrel. Naturally, with the Elder Wand as his weapon, he could not fail to win the duel that followed. Leaving his enemy dead upon the floor, the oldest brother proceeded to an inn, where he boasted loudly of the powerful wand he had snatched from Death himself, and of how it made him invincible. That very night, another wizard crept upon the oldest brother as he lay, wine-sodden, upon his bed. The thief took the wand and, for good measure, slit the oldest brother’s throat.

Voldemort is proud of "conquering" death through his Horcruxes (thinking of himself as elevated to god-like), and he pursues the wand "worthy of a wizard who had conquered Death!" It's fitting.

The first brother "boasted loudly of the powerful wand he had snatched from Death himself, and of how it made him invincible," just as Voldemort announces that "the Elder Wand, the Deathstick, the Wand of Destiny is truly mine! Dumbledore’s last plan went wrong, Harry Potter!"

As for the second brother:

Meanwhile, the second brother journeyed to his own home, where he lived alone. Here he took out the stone that had the power to recall the dead, and turned it thrice in his hand. To his amazement and his delight, the figure of the girl he had once hoped to marry, before her untimely death, appeared at once before him.

Snape is chronically alone after October 1981. He devotes his life to the memory of Lily, who is "the girl he had once hoped to marry, before her untimely death."

And finally, the third brother:

But though Death searched for the third brother for many years, he was never able to find him. It was only when he had attained a great age that the youngest brother finally took off the Cloak of Invisibility and gave it to his son. And then he greeted Death as an old friend, and went with him gladly, and, equals, they departed this life.

Harry is descended from the Peverells–this his how he inherits the cloak, passed down from his father.

Interestingly, Harry evades many close brushes with death, like how "Although Death searched for the third brother for many years, he was never able to find him."

Finally, unlike the other two, he accepts his own death and "went with him gladly."

Bonus: Dumbledore shares qualities with all three brothers over the course of his life. In his youth, he is ambitious and pursues the hollows. He actually wins the wand. At the same time (and for many years after he stops caring about having the wand's power for himself), he wants the stone to bring back Ariana. Finally, he accepts own his mortality and dies willingly, like the third brother.

[the-south-north]

The only time where a soul is actually retrieved from the dead is the in the Tale of Two Brothers.

To his amazement and his delight, the figure of the girl he had once hoped to marry, before her untimely death, appeared at once before him. Yet she was sad and cold, separated from him as by a veil. Though she had returned to the mortal world, she did not truly belong there and suffered.

However, the fairy tale doesn't represent the Hallows literally, like how the Elder Wand isn't actually unbeatable. This is what Dumbledore (who is the in-text authority on all things magical) says.

I think it more likely that the Peverell brothers were simply gifted, dangerous wizards who succeeded in creating those powerful objects.

Harry and Dumbledore don't believe the legends happen at all, and I think they're correct. So, there's no evidence that the original portrayal of resurrection ever happens.

Furthermore, the shades function like happy memories!

The dementors’ chill did not overcome him; he passed through it with his companions, and they acted like Patronuses to him,

I agree that the text implies the stone's true function is to allows you to see memories of people you want to see, which is probably possible given the Mirror of Erised.

I do believe Dumbledore understood what the stone shows you because he touched the stone himself. He probably thought that if Harry could see his parents, he would have more than enough courage to sacrifice himself and that he would okay with joining his parents and godfather.

Oh god I just had a thought. In the final book, when Harry goes into the forest to sacrifice himself, he uses the Resurrection Stone to see his parents, Lupin, and Sirius, one last time. They accompany him, and this helps give him the emotional strength to take the final steps towards his own death. BUT. Why on earth would any of them - Lily, James, Sirius, Lupin - be okay with Harry willingly going to his death?? There’s NO way. No way. If it truly was their ‘ghosts’ that Harry saw, they’d all be telling him not to do it, to be safe, to live. Which begs the question… was it really the Resurrection Stone? Or was it something that Dumbledore created specifically for that moment, to act as a final push to ensure Harry did what needed to be done?

[the-south-north]

ghost tom au where hagrids spider friend ate him alive :)

[the-south-north]

Ships with height differences. Reblog if you agree

[the-south-north]

Harry and Snape’s Clashing Communication Styles

It's interesting to think that Harry and Snape don’t have longer conversations in the series, but when they do, their communication styles are so different that they often clash.

Harry’s way of communicating is practical and straightforward. He tends to break down complex ideas into simpler terms that he can easily understand. This makes sense, given his upbringing in a non-magical world and his tendency to rely more on gut instinct than deep theoretical knowledge. For Harry, things are usually black and white, and his directness shows his desire to cut through the confusion and get straight to the point.

Snape, on the other hand, has a more complex and layered way of speaking. His language is precise and often sarcastic, which reflects not just his intelligence but also his disdain for what he sees as Harry’s lack of subtlety. Snape’s use of imagery and metaphor, especially when he describes consepts, gives his speech a poetic, almost philosophical quality. He takes pleasure in showing off his superior knowledge and uses this as a way to belittle Harry.

We see this clash clearly in OOTP during Harry’s first Occlumency lesson:

Snape looked back at him for a moment and then said contemptuously, “Surely even you could have worked that out by now, Potter? The Dark Lord is highly skilled at Legilimency —” “What’s that? Sir?” “It is the ability to extract feelings and memories from another person’s mind —” “He can read minds?” said Harry quickly, his worst fears confirmed. “You have no subtlety, Potter,” said Snape, his dark eyes glittering. “You do not understand fine distinctions. It is one of the shortcomings that makes you such a lamentable potion-maker.” Snape paused for a moment, apparently to savor the pleasure of insulting Harry, before continuing, “Only Muggles talk of ‘mind reading.’ The mind is not a book, to be opened at will and examined at leisure. Thoughts are not etched on the inside of skulls, to be perused by any invader. The mind is a complex and many-layered thing, Potter . . . or at least, most minds are. . . .” He smirked. Whatever Snape said, Legilimency sounded like mind reading to Harry and he did not like the sound of it at all.

For Harry, when Snape mentions Legilimency, it immediately sounds like “mind reading,” which is a reasonable but overly simple way to understand such a complex concept. His quick jump to this conclusion shows his need to make sense of something that feels threatening, but it also reveals his limited grasp of the deeper nuances.

Snape, however, can’t resist mocking Harry’s lack of subtlety. His response is laced with condescension as he insists on the complexity of the mind and dismisses the idea of “mind reading” as something only muggles would think of. Snape’s explanation is detailed and philosophical, contrasting sharply with Harry’s desire for a straightforward answer.

Another great example of their different communication styles comes in HBP when Snape puts Harry on the spot, asking him to explain the difference between an inferius and a ghost:

“Let us ask Potter how we would tell the difference between an Inferius and a ghost.” The whole class looked around at Harry, who hastily tried to recall what Dumbledore had told him the night that they had gone to visit Slughorn. “Er — well — ghosts are transparent —” he said. “Oh, very good,” interrupted Snape, his lip curling. “Yes, it is easy to see that nearly six years of magical education have not been wasted on you, Potter. ‘Ghosts are transparent.’ ” Harry took a deep breath and continued calmly, though his insides were boiling, “Yeah, ghosts are transparent, but Inferi are dead bodies, aren’t they? So they’d be solid —” “A five-year-old could have told us as much,” sneered Snape. “The Inferius is a corpse that has been reanimated by a Dark wizard’s spells. It is not alive, it is merely used like a puppet to do the wizard’s bidding. A ghost, as I trust that you are all aware by now, is the imprint of a departed soul left upon the earth . . . and of course, as Potter so wisely tells us, transparent.” “Well, what Harry said is the most useful if we’re trying to tell them apart!” said Ron. “When we come face-to-face with one down a dark alley, we’re going to be having a shufti to see if it’s solid, aren’t we, we’re not going to be asking, ‘Excuse me, are you the imprint of a departed soul?’

Once again, Harry demonstrates his practical and straightforward approach. He gives a simple, clear distinction based on what would be most useful in a real-life situation—whether the entity is solid or transparent. This shows how Harry tends to focus on what’s immediately relevant and actionable, and Ron’s defense of Harry’s answer highlights this practicality. Ron even points out that in a real-world scenario, Harry’s answer is actually the most helpful, contrasting it with Snape’s more academic approach.

Snape, though, dismisses Harry’s answer as too simplistic and mocks him for stating what he sees as the obvious. Snape’s communication is more about the theoretical and precise understanding of magical concepts. He emphasizes the deeper, more complex nature of an Inferius, which, while academically accurate, is less practical in the context that Harry is thinking of. Snape’s disdain shows that he values this deeper, nuanced understanding more than the direct, practical knowledge that Harry offers.

These moments really bring out the deeper divide between Harry and Snape. Harry approaches things with instinct and a straightforward mindset, while Snape is all about nuance, precision, and seeing the layers in everything. Because they see the world so differently, they struggle to communicate, which only adds to the distrust and misunderstanding between them—a tension that echoes throughout the entire series.

[the-south-north]

more than a joke the earliest point, chronologically, in the series is about snape, and the series ends the day he dies

Marauders Era should be changed to Severus Snape Era- now don’t get me wrong- I like the Marauders (if you couldn’t tell-) but- Severus was a lot more relevant in canon in the 70s than the Marauders. Same with him being extremely relevant in the 90s in canon as well. Snape deserves his own era more than the Marauders who are background characters- but that’s just my opinion take it as you will I suppose