redbronsonaction

[redbronsonaction]

It's valid and invalid.

It's invalid because:

Snape somehow didn't notice anything amiss when Hermione's front tooth was stretching towards her chin? The man has crooked teeth, he's not blind.

Snape let Hermione run away unattended - and that' somehow good? It's magic. She might be in some magically-induced hysteria, for all he knows. Letting her just run away was terribly irresponsible, potentially dangerous not only to Hermione, but also the others. Hell, letting Goyle walk alone to the Hospital Wing when his entire face is a mess was certainly a decision. Not a decision of all time, Snape set a record for those a few months before, but a decision nonetheless.

Snape punished anyone but a student who caused not one, but two students to be injured (to the point of needing medical attention) - and he's somehow reasonable? This blatant disregard for students' lives was lesson - and it was a lesson well learned. A couple of years later that same student will almost murder three students and a professor, enslaving an innocent woman to boot. I wonder where did little Draco learn that other people can be injured and maimed without consequence...

And of course, this rapid-fire lack of professionalism and basic concern for student welfare is somehow filed under "Pro Severus Snape".

It's also valid because:

... well, yeah? Severus Snape has been engaging in wildly irresponsible behavior endangering students' very lives since the first book. He is the kind of guy who might very well miss a student being injured by the virtue of not caring all that much.

Just a few months before the teeth incident, Snape was planning to summon dangerous and unruly Dementors to further his double-murder-revenge plot. The fact that he had three students on his hands (Hermione among them) didn't concern him in the slightest. Neither did the fact that the Dementors have attacked the students twice already.

Severus Snape didn't give two shits about Hermione Granger keeping her immortal soul, so him not noticing that she has grown giant teeth works perfectly.

Okay, so I was rereading the famous "I see no difference" episode, and remind me, why do we so unanimously connect Snape's comment to Hermione's teeth at all? I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, and I have no problems with loving a character who made a mean lookist comment on their student in Snape's conditions, really, but I analyzed it, and it appears.... at least not as straightforward as it's most often described. Let's remember how the scene goes first:

"For a split second, they looked into each other’s eyes, then, at exactly the same time, both acted. ‘Furnunculus!’ Harry yelled. ‘Densaugeo!’ screamed Malfoy. Jets of light shot from both wands, hit each other in mid-air, and ricocheted off at angles – Harry’s hit Goyle in the face, and Malfoy’s hit Hermione. Goyle bellowed and put his hands to his nose, where great ugly boils were springing up – Hermione, whimpering in panic, was clutching her mouth. ‘Hermione!’ Ron had hurried forwards to see what was wrong with her. Harry turned and saw Ron dragging Hermione’s hand away from her face. It wasn’t a pretty sight. Hermione’s front teeth – already larger than average – were now growing at an alarming rate; she was looking more and more like a beaver as her teeth elongated, past her bottom lip, towards her chin – panic-stricken, she felt them, and let out a terrified cry. ‘And what is all this noise about?’ said a soft, deadly voice. Snape had arrived. The Slytherins clamoured to give their explanations. Snape pointed a long yellow finger at Malfoy and said, ‘Explain.’ ‘Potter attacked me, sir –’ ‘We attacked each other at the same time!’ Harry shouted. ‘– and he hit Goyle – look –’ Snape examined Goyle, whose face now resembled something that would have been at home in a book on poisonous fungi. ‘Hospital wing, Goyle,’ Snape said calmly. ‘Malfoy got Hermione!’ Ron said. ‘Look!’ He forced Hermione to show Snape her teeth – she was doing her best to hide them with her hands, though this was difficult as they had now grown down past her collar. Pansy Parkinson and the other Slytherin girls were doubled up with silent giggles, pointing at Hermione from behind Snape’s back. Snape looked coldly at Hermione, then said, ‘I see no difference.’ Hermione let out a whimper; her eyes filled with tears, she turned on her heel and ran, ran all the way up the corridor and out of sight."

First of all, was the spell intended as a comment on Hermione's teeth, or bullying of her? No. It was directed at Harry. It was just a coincidence that Hermione's front teeth were naturally prominent. Did any slytherins or Snape directly connect the effect of the spell to Hermione's teeth? Also no. The girls giggle silently behind Snape's back, but whether that's because they make fun of Hermione's own teeth, or they just think she looks funny with the spell taking effect right now, is unclear. No-one laughs after "I see no difference", too, even tho Slytherins often giggle at Snape's comments, and previously mentioned girls could've stopped hiding if Snape supported their fun – but it hadn't happened. The only person who connects the effects of the spell with how Hermione normally looks is Harry in his head, imposing that view on a reader with that notion: "already larger than average". But that is never voiced anywhere during the scene but in Harry's private thoughts.

Now let's look at what was said out loud:

'Explain.’ ‘Potter attacked me, sir –’ ‘We attacked each other at the same time!’  ‘– and he hit Goyle – look –’ 'Hospital wing, Goyle,’  ‘Malfoy got Hermione! Look!' 'I see no difference.’

When we see the dialogue itself, the fact that "I see no difference" is connected to Hermione personally is more than unclear. It literally can mean "I see no difference between what happened to her and to Goyle". It can mean “I see no difference between what Goyle and Granger should do”. He could say "she looks the same" or "I don't see what's wrong" if jkr wanted to make it clear it's a comment on Hermione's appearance.

Okay, but how it was said? Was Snape smirking or speaking in a sarcastic, snide voice? No. He gave Hermione a cold look – well, sorry, I do not see such a difference between descriptions "examined" and "looked coldly". It's not like he kissed Goyle's forehead – he also just looked at his traumas, with his eyes that we know generally look "cold and empty" according to Harry. His tone isn't described here – we can assume it was also cold, and considering that Snape previously spoke in a "deadly" and "calm" voice, that's not a drastic difference as well.

Did Snape punish anyone unreasonably? No. He didn't punish Harry for attacking Goyle, which is what happened according to Draco (Snape is so prejudiced though, right?), and he didn't punish Hermione for leaving the class without permission. If Snape insulted her, then she ran away without him letting her go, yet no points were taken from Gryffindor for that – except if he wanted Hermione to do exactly what he told Goyle to do, that is go to the Hospital Wing, and that's why he didn't have problems with it. Snape only took points and gave Harry and Ron detention for publically cursing and screaming at the teacher, which is more than fair, if you ask me.

Would Snape even notice Hermione's unusual teeth at all? Harry, Hermione's best friend, didn't notice that they became shorter for a couple of months, nor did Ron. We don't ever have Snape's POV, so we don't know if he tends to notice details like that about people, but we know that his own teeth were uneven as well, and he didn't care enough to change them, or anything else about himself; and we know that he didn’t insult anyone's appearance in the books on any other occasions, making mean comments on skills or moral qualities instead. I personally quite often am perplexed when a person shares that they are insecure about some part of their body, because I don't pay much attention to that, so I wouldn't even know it's "unconventional" if they didn't tell me. What for Hermione was a feature she saw in the mirror every day and was well aware of, for Snape was a minor detail in the appearance of one of the hundreds of students he teaches. We know that Draco did notice Hermione's teeth, but Draco also makes comments on Lupin's old robes, for example, it's not unusual for him. Even if Snape noticed that Hermione's teeth looked unconventional before, "I see no difference" still totally could apply to the parallel between Hermione and Goyle, because without Harry’s commentary, the ISND connection to teeth is not only vague – it's almost non-existent.

"But Harry got mad at him! Harry and Ron cursed and screamed at him, they clearly thought he insulted her!" Well, Harry and Ron also thought that Snape was trying to kill Harry, or poison Lupin, or that him giving Neville a detention where he worked with ingredients for melting 6 cauldrons in a very short period of time was somehow unreasonable. Like I literally do not care what those boys assume about Snape, they are incorrect 90% of the time.

"But Hermione cried and ran away and was upset!". She was already "whimpering in panic" and "letting out a terrified cry" before that. Whether Hermione had taken it as a comment on her natural teeth or not, it doesn't necessarily mean that's what Snape was saying. She also got over it, and kept telling Harry he's unfair to Snape.

The only other times when Snape voiced his problems with Hermione in unprofessional ways was when he called her an "insufferable know-it-all" for speaking out of turn for the third time, and called her a "stupid girl" in a middle of a mental breakdown, reliving his near-death expierience and trying to save her. That's it.

So that's my take on it. You can agree or disagree, but frankly, I think this interpretation is at least as valid as that he made a comment on her teeth, if not making more actual sence.

[redbronsonaction]

I can see the logic behind it.

At the age when Snape/Draco fell into abyss, Draco was significantly younger. Draco was 17-18 in 1997, while Severus was 21 in 1981. All authority figures were pulling Draco into one direction - Dad was a Death Eater, Mum had no Mark but was having fun with Dad attacking people (judging by Draco's comment in GoF), even his Head of House encouraged Draco's worst tendencies. Young Severus didn't have that.

So if we thread upon the shaky ground of "deserving" redemption arcs, an argument can be made that Draco was less responsible for his actions than Snape when they took their respective plunges.

As for Regulus... he may have been a terrible person, we don't know enough to deny that with certainty. After all, Regulus spent years gathering (hostile) press coverage on Voldemort. Enslaving, torturing and murdering people, Regulus loved it so much, he signed up with the guy. And their break only came when Regulus found out about horcrux.

If Regulus was all for torture, slavery and genocide, but was willing to die on the horcrux hill... that's not really a redemption, is it.

We just don't know what Regulus was thinking to say for sure, while his actions leave a lot of room for interpretation.

Y’know what confuses me like nothing else? People insisting that Draco deserved a redemption arc more than Snape because Draco was a child, but then calling Regulus a terrible person when HE was a child WITH a redemption arc which is EXACTLY what they wanted with Draco!!

[redbronsonaction]

It gets worse. Approaching Whomping Willow was forbidden to students. Remus mentions it because kids used to play around it back in the day and one of them nearly lost an eye.

So Severus broke explicit ban by the staff to approach the Willow. He presumably broke the curfew - otherwise he would not have been in any danger at all, it had to be late enough for the moon to shine. Depending on how you interpret his conversation with Lily, he also ignored his own theory about Lupin being a werewolf. Then he crawled through a mysterious tunnel which small 13-yo Harry described as "very low" and had to "bent almost double" to pass through.

All because Sirius Black said something. Now that's dedication.

Okay, this is actually my last post on this subject, because I’m tired of talking about it but I realized I don’t think I’ve stated my position directly.

The prank was not a big deal.

There was no plot. There was no “explanation of what Sirius was thinking,” because Sirius wasn’t thinking, because it wasn’t a set up at all. It was a snide comment responding to a student who we are told, and who Lily tells us, had been following the Mauraders around with the conviction he could catch them and reveal their secrets for an extended period of time and fifty/fifty already suspected and was insinuating Remus was a werewolf. (He tells Lily this is his theory based on other evidence, and she reacts like it isn’t news; it could be something he made up post fact but like… charting moon cycles isn’t hard, Hermione does it third year too and is a large measure less obsessed than Snape apparently was.) It was a sarcastic comment Sirius tossed off with no intention or expectation that Snape would actually follow the instructions, because the idea of Snape following his instructions was ludicrous.

I think this because a) in the books, many people discuss it, and no one suggests what Sirius did was a big deal except for Snape, including the other person most directly affected, Remus, but mostly because b) any other scenario is ludicrous.

We know Sirius made the remark directly to Snape, vs. arranging for him to over hear it. So, in order for Sirius to be setting up Snape, Sirius would have to say something like, “It would be funny if you poked the knot under the Womping Willow and followed us, then you’d find out where Remus went with Madam Pomfrey,” and expect Snape to actually do it, naively believing Sirius wasn’t setting him up. And honestly, the more hostile and violent you believe Sirius generally was to Snape, the more ludicrous this scenario is.

[redbronsonaction]

The only time Draco ended up in a harsh environment was the grand finale, and on that day he needed the heroes to bail him out twice. Draco isn't weak because he lacks Harry's bravery. Draco is weak because he keeps doing the stupid. In the second book Draco boasted about Lucius' secret stash to his pals at school and that could go sideways in a hurry in so many ways, none of them pleasant for Draco. But Draco got lucky. In the third book Draco aggravated the creature the size of a horse with half-foot long talons. Again, that could go very badly for Draco since the nearest nurse was in the castle and apparation wasn't available, but Draco got lucky. In the fourth book Draco went full Voldenjugend mode in a public place, got his ass kicked, but that could have gone so much worse, so that was pure luck. In the fifth book Draco assaulted newly re-minted national celebrity in a public place to avenge his terrorist father. That was monumentally stupid idea, but luckily for Draco nobody called the cops. In the sixth book he volunteered to become a Death Eater. Draco doesn't adapt to changing environments. He just keeps doing the most stupid, the most dangerous shit for the sake of his ego. And that's not a mark of a survivor.

I think people really downplay Draco's ability to survive in harsh environments. He went from being a pampered rich kid with all the protection in the world to being thrown into a warzone with no safety net. The fact that he didn't completely break under the pressure says a lot about his resilience.

Yes, his plan in HBP wasn’t foolproof, and Dumbledore mostly gave him a pass, but he still managed to get the job done without anyone’s help. Even after that sectusempra accident, instead of stopping out of fear, he kept going.

It truly annoys me when people act like he’s weak just because he’s not as bold as Harry. But in reality, his ability to adapt to changing environments and survive in a completely hostile situation is really impressive.

[redbronsonaction]

It's hilarious, actually.

Hogwarts professor burnt to death? Six kids petrified? National celebrity turned into a clueless idiot who requires permanent medical care? Government employees attacking minors - three times in a row?

No investigation, nobody even shows up to claim it was all an unfortunate accident.

Some guy tweaked his lawnmower with magic?

That monster better have an inside man in the government to cover up his dastardly crimes!

Corruption at the Ministry

This time through reading Harry Potter, I'm noticing more how corrupt the Ministry is. In Goblet of Fire, Mr Weasley says

‘I like Ludo,’ said Mr Weasley mildly. ‘He was the one who got us such good tickets for the Cup. I did him a bit of a favour: his brother, Otto, got into a spot of trouble – a lawnmower with unnatural powers – I smoothed the whole thing over.’

And then later with Moody

‘– it’s a real stroke of luck I heard about it,’ said Mr Diggory’s head, ‘I had to come into the office early to send a couple of owls, and I found the Improper Use of Magic lot all setting off – if Rita Skeeter gets hold of this one, Arthur –’

....

‘Arthur, you know Mad-Eye,’ said Mr Diggory’s head, rolling its eyes again. ‘Someone creeping into his yard at the dead of night? More likely there’s a very shellshocked cat wandering around somewhere, covered in potato peelings. But if the Improper Use of Magic lot get their hands on Mad-Eye, he’s had it – think of his record – we’ve got to get him off on a minor charge, something in your department – what are exploding dustbins worth?’ ‘Might be a caution,’ said Mr Weasley, still writing very fast, his brow furrowed. ‘Mad-Eye didn’t use his wand? He didn’t actually attack anyone?’ ‘I’ll bet he leapt out of bed and started jinxing everything he could reach through the window,’ said Mr Diggory, ‘but they’ll have a job proving it, there aren’t any casualties.’

So even the good guys are involved in the system of corruption where the justice system depends on your social connections.

We know that there's no defense lawyers and Sirius was thrown in Azkaban for a crime he didn't commit, but I didn't realize how bad it was.

[redbronsonaction]

Let's break it down into simplest components: 1. Snape pretends to be a Death Eater who fooled Dumbledore into believing that Snape was his man who regretted his Death Eater past. 2. Ergo, Snape must act in public in Dumbledore-approvable fashion, i.e. no support of magical racism. An outside observer should be able to look at Snape and say - yeah, this guy totally sold out to Dumbledore.

3. If even little boy like Draco can identify Snape as amiable to magical racism, then Snape's claim to have somehow deceived Dumbledore immediately falls apart.

4. If Snape's ability to fool Dumbledore is suspect, then he opens himself up to suspicions that he is either a dumb stooge who only thinks he fooled Dumbledore and whom Dumbledore uses for his own gain - or that he is an actual turncoat who actually works for Dumbledore.

So yeah, in order to pass for a man who fooled Dumbledore, Snape should have a public persona as a man who rejects magical racism. If a random child at Hogwarts can take one look at Severus and say - that dude is totally magical racist, then his entire cover story becomes nonsense. Snape is either super-convincing actor who can fool everyone, including Dumbledore - or he is a terrible actor who is so bad at pretending that everyone, including Dumbledore, knows he's pretending. He can't be both at the same time.

the fact that the Slytherin house password is 'pureblood' during a series of racially motivated attacks on Muggleborns says really terrible things about the house's culture and the failure of Snape and Dumbledore to adequately address it. like someone should be stopping them from setting up this password, and the fact that it's chosen speaks of both administrative failure and a toxic exclusionary house culture. like imagine you're the one muggleborn Slytherin or one of the many halfblood Slytherins and you have to give that password every day. you don't feel welcome or safe at all.

[redbronsonaction]

The idea that Snape needs to encourage or tolerate magical racism in Slytherin to maintain his cover is a contradiction.

Snape's cover story isn't that Snape is magical racist. His cover story is that he is a secret magical racist who plays a penitent for Dumbledore. If Snape's cover was a consideration, he would have to shut all that shit down ASAP. At least the public parts, like Malfoy cheerfully screaming to all and sundry that muggleborns are next for the slaughter.

the fact that the Slytherin house password is 'pureblood' during a series of racially motivated attacks on Muggleborns says really terrible things about the house's culture and the failure of Snape and Dumbledore to adequately address it. like someone should be stopping them from setting up this password, and the fact that it's chosen speaks of both administrative failure and a toxic exclusionary house culture. like imagine you're the one muggleborn Slytherin or one of the many halfblood Slytherins and you have to give that password every day. you don't feel welcome or safe at all.

[redbronsonaction]

The law is often assumed to have three purposes:

- Incapacitation (individuals dangerous to the society are contained to prevent them rampaging across the land)

- Deterrence (threat of punishment makes dangerous individuals reconsider their plans)

- Retribution (severity of violation is answered by severity of punishment)

What does it have to do with Harry, Hermione and Ron as characters?

In Harry Potter narrative, the law does not exist. Even the greatest of crimes - murder, treason, terrorism - do not only go unpunished, but are entirely ignored.

For example when Lucius Malfoy starts a terrorist plot which nearly kills six children and places hundreds of others in mortal peril, nobody even bothers to investigate. A dangerous (attempted) mass murderer is left roaming the streets (no incapacitation), demonstrating to others that mass murder is perfectly viable in the wizarding world (no deterrence). And there is no retribution of any kind for him.

And this shit keeps happening year after year after year. Harry's heroics keep the books from descending into outright Hobbsean "nasty, brutish and short", but the issue is omnipresent.

To say that Hermione imprisoning Rita is "unnatural" is to miss the point. Why? Because it's only "unnatural" in a modern society with police, courts and everything. But British wizarding community is not modern society. Aurors and legal system theoretically exist, but they never do anything over the course of the books, so they might as well not exist. Harry can't go to the aurors and expect any protection. Hermione can't sue Rita in court. By the end of the fourth book, how many murders and murder attempts have they seen without a single cop showing up to even investigate? Dozen? More? I'm losing count, to be honest.

In absence of law and order, Hermione imprisoning Rita is entirely natural. Who is to say otherwise? The law? The law doesn't care about freaking basilisk being unleashed upon on a school full of kids, what's a little imprisonment in comparison. The church? Wizards aren't big on faith. The family? Yeah, that works for those who have the family, like Ron. So Ron feels the wrongness. But Harry's parents are dead and Hermione's parents might as well not exist in magical world. Is it any wonder they start going feral?

Okay but this scene reveals so much about the golden trio as characters.

This is an expansion of this post, providing textual evidence of the claims made there (but you don't necessarily have to read it to understand this). Let's compare Harry's and Ron's reactions to Hermione's trick here. Ron is dumbstruck and shocked to his core. He spends a minute just trying to process what he's seeing. He cannot possibly fathom the prospect of seeing the reporter he knew to be trapped in a jar like a zoo animal. His first reaction is to stutter wildly because he's horrified on what he's seeing. He's rightfully mortified, perfectly representing most readers in this scene.

Now, take a look at Harry. While I'm pretty sure Harry would have felt the initial shock, he literally indicates nothing. His first reaction is to think logically and recall what he saw before. He isn't even horrified in the slightest, far from the extent of Ron. This scene only shows Ron's shock while Harry seemingly betrays nothing. He acts like it's something ordinary and pretty much gets on with the discussion like it's no big deal. His only reaction is "Oh she's right" and not even a single thought of how unnatural this really is.

And let's take Hermione too. The entire scene she is practically bursting with happiness. Throughout the scene, all we see is "Happily" "beaming" "smiling serenely". She considers her actions to be of triumph and not even for a single moment does she feel that she might have been too harsh. But in fact, considers it as the most normal thing anyone can do to punish someone they don't like. Like her first thought really was "OH! She's an animagus! I'm going to cage her in a jar for one year and blackmail her to do my bidding." She feels no remorse, no regret - if anything, she feels this vindictive pleasure.

Ron is the only one, who I would say, has a normal human reaction here. Harry and Hermione are literally like "Well, that serves her right." So, let's really talk about how ruthless both Harry and Hermione can be. The fact that Harry saves the life of the man who betrayed his parents and Hermione was unabashedly kind to house elves and people like Neville when no one else was - but they can also accept trapping a grown woman in a glass jar without batting an eye. Harry and Hermione are both kind in entirely different ways but both of them share this slightly similar vengeance and you cannot tell me otherwise.

I have seen the few people talk about ruthless Hermione and vengeful Harry but no one really talks about how that would be like with both of them together. Harry actually appreciates Hermione's ruthlessness on occasion. This being the first example and let's also take how Harry feels "a surge of pride" in Hermione's jinxing abilities, on seeing Marietta's face. It's described to so bad that Fudge gasps and jumps back into the fireplace. Yet Harry's first reaction is literally "Good job Hermione, this is brilliant." You'll notice yet again, in that scene, Harry betrays no mortification whatsoever. Anyone else would have at least been slightly horrified but that isn't Harry, is it? Harry is as vengeful as Hermione, so all he does is soak up in pride and defend her actions.

When I tell people "I would hate to be standing on the other end of Harry and Hermione's wands" people think I'm talking about how powerful they can be. While that plays a small role, this is more of what I mean. One of the biggest crimes the movies did was cutting out nearly every scene that showed how ruthless both of them can be. So, let us take a moment to appreciate Ruthless Hermione and Vengeful Harry.

[redbronsonaction]

Pursuing Hermione's expulsion would require explaining how any of these three situations came to be.

Yes, Hermione set his robes on fire in the first book. But how did this come to be? Dumbledore was trying to lure freaking Voldemort into the school full of kids and Snape was actively working with Dumbledore in this scheme. Imagine telling people that you have helped your boss to recklessly endanger hundreds of children, but that one girl who set your robes on fire trying to save her friend - she is the real menace!

Yes, Hermione stole ingredients for the Polyjuice potion in the second book. But how did she arrive to such a decision? There were attacks on students. And the staff decided not only to do dick all to stop those attacks, but to "hush up" the news. Yeah, we let local equivalent of KKK wizard go to town on the students belonging to a minority group, suppressed the news of it, didn't call the cops, endangered hundreds of children yet again... but that little girl who had to scooby-doo this bitch, she is the real menace!

And the third year debacle was just... oof. At least Snape could blame Dumbledore for the first and second year. This one? All him. Snape chose to go to the Shack alone and not to summon any of his colleagues because he wanted some sweet sweet revenge without interference. Snape "took a gobletful" of Wolfsbane from Lupin's office with him - and then chose not to give it to Lupin, which was certainly a decision of all time. Snape chose to ignore entirely legitimate counterpoints Harry was making. Snape chose the wonderful plan to summon unruly soul-sucking monsters who have already attacked the students twice - while also having three students on his hands.

But that little girl who dared to defend herself against the teacher who obviously went nuts, putting her and her friends in mortal danger - she is the real menace! Unless Severus is ready to lie and obfuscate the truth to get Hermione expelled, it's in his best interests to pretend that none of this has ever happened. Because "this" includes repeated endangerment of children and criminal levels of negligence which are far more likely to bury him than Hermione.

Hermione:

*Literally sets Snape on fire*.

*Steals from him*.

*Knocks him unconscious*

Snape: *Makes one rude comment about her teeth*

The fandom: Wow, he's such a child abusing psychopath & shouldn't be allowed to teach!

Mm... I can sense some hypocrisy here.

[redbronsonaction]

The "many" practical uses of all the fluff that is contained in "Hogwarts, a history" shall remain forever a mystery because our heroes never found them. The invaluable knowledge like the fact that boys are forbidden from entering the girls' dorms has helped them with... bugger all, especially since Harry and Ron found it out without reading the book. The only two useful facts in that book was Chamber fluff and transportation restriction.

The same issue makes me doubt how well-documented Voldemort's rise actually is. If books like Modern Magical History and Great Wizarding Events of the Twentieth Century were quality sources, how come our heroes get nothing useful from them? Worse still, "The Rise and Fall of the Dark Arts" (which is supposed to cover Voldemort and his reign) doesn't provide Hermione with the knowledge of what "Death Eaters" are. With history books like that, is it any wonder that Harry has to learn relevant facts from Hagrid, Bill and Mr. Weasley?

As for the history being taught by topics - the practical result is the same. Harry never gets to the relevant topics, hence why he has to hear it from the adults.

The fact that History of Magic could have been an easy and natural way to introduce world-building to the reader, but JKR made it a joke class instead, is such a missed opportunity. Poor 15-year-old Harry didn’t even know what the Wizengamot was.

It’s frustrating that she wrote an entire series about a political war but barely thought about how the government functioned or what the actual opposing forces in the political structure were.

[redbronsonaction]

This. I would add two points in Barty Senior's favor: 1. Even if Barty Senior was an absent father, he had the mother of all excuses to be one. He was fighting a war against Voldemort and his merry gang of psychopaths who were murdering, torturing and mind-raping their way across the land. 2. When Barty Senior frees himself from the Imperius, he immediately beelines for Hogwarts. He attempts to contain Voldemort and protect Harry, even though there is no way that's gonna end well for him. Best case scenario - his son and Voldemort get caught, while Barty Senior goes to the Dementors for staging his son's escape from Azkaban. It speaks for his character that he put common good above his own, instead of just running away from it all and spending the rest of his life in hiding somewhere far from Britain, Voldemort, his son and all the madness.

i think we as a fandom need to stop villainising barty crouch senior. that man was put through HELL and back. imagine doing nothing wrong your whole life and then getting everything blown up by your sociopathic son. you lose your family, your career, then your life! poor, poor man.

it’s a common consensus within the fandom that barty senior was some sort of monster, controlling and abusing his son to the point of insanity, and whilst i acknowledge this is a compelling and accessible way of constructing barty as a morally good character who did Bad Things because of this traumatic childhood, i personally find it so much more interesting if bcj is just. a bad guy. there is equal amounts of canon evidence to the idea that that barty had a good childhood and that he had a bad one (none). sure, it’s easier to gravitate towards the latter, but for me, the idea of barty being raised in a loving??? environment makes his character so much more interesting. imagine these two well-to-do, respectable members of wizarding society who have followed all the rules, done everything ‘right’ their whole lives (including the way they raised their son), and yet. and yet they end up with this morally drained, completely unredeemable sociopath of a son. and it’s no one’s fault, he’s just Born That Way.

reducing a character down to their Trauma is such a limited way of thinking about it. saying that every evil character is actually inherently good, just desolated by circumstance, is not that interesting! humans are all flawed, and some more than others. thinking of barty as someone who is just a Bad Person, for me, makes him so much more powerful. and therefore, thinking of barty senior as less of the villain, and more of a victim, also makes him, and the father-son relationship, much more interesting. we know barty senior isn’t perfect- absent father is probably the most reasonable read of his parenting skills- but in my opinion, if there is any character in this dynamic who IS the inherently good one corrupted by circumstance, it’s not bcj, but his father. to me, it’s not plausible that the man who went against his entire belief system out of love for his wife (and to some extent, his son) is the same man who abused his kid. barty’s trial scene becomes so much less interesting if he had been harmed by his father prior- to give him a ‘reason’ for his actions, to say he was lashing out or rebelling against his abusive father, is changing the core of his character! he did it because he felt like it! he’s simply just Not A Good Guy!! and whilst barty senior might also not be a good guy, it makes much less narrative sense for him to be the one assigned the role of ‘villain’.

yeah, he kept his son under imperio control for years, but who can really blame him? the dude was an absolute menace. and even if we do acknowledge his actions as morally wrong, surely the logic that barty joined the death eaters and committed horrible crimes because of things that happened to him in childhood, surely that logic can also be applied to barty senior? let’s say he controlled his son BECAUSE of the things that happened to him- barty betrayed him, turned out to be a monster, destroyed absolutely everything in his life. the trauma of that is surely enough to justify imperio.

i’m rambling on now, and so. to conclude. barty crouch junior as a much more two dimensional Bad Guy, and his father as the unsuspecting victim of his son’s betrayal, reprehensible actions, and complete heartlessness, makes BOTH of them more interesting. argue with the wall!!

[redbronsonaction]

History is usually taught from ancient times to modern days. It thus logically follows that Hogwarts students would spend several years learning about Sicilian mages feuding this and witches not burning that - which may be interesting if you have an inclination for it, but otherwise bears very little relevance for them. Harry and friends might have heard something actually relevant in their seventh year, but that would require them to stay at school and not drop History after the 5th year. Furthermore, the era of the most practical import - Voldemort's rise and the first war - is still a matter of such a dread that people fear to mention Voldemort's name more than a decade later. I doubt there would be many brave historians who would risk penning a proper historical treatise on the period. So naturally, kids learn about things like Death Eaters and Voldemort's terror from the adults speaking in hushed tones. As for "Hogwarts, a history" - why would anyone read it? It's a very niche topic and even our intrepid heroes have gotten 2 (two) pieces of somewhat relevant information out of it. The Chamber fluff (of dubious import) and non-apparation rule (which should be a common knowledge by its self-evident nature). Unless you are really, really into the history of this one school, there is little reason to pick this particular book.

The fact that History of Magic could have been an easy and natural way to introduce world-building to the reader, but JKR made it a joke class instead, is such a missed opportunity. Poor 15-year-old Harry didn’t even know what the Wizengamot was.

It’s frustrating that she wrote an entire series about a political war but barely thought about how the government functioned or what the actual opposing forces in the political structure were.