littlestkoi-n

[littlestkoi-n]

the rage I feel when reading Blood of Olympus chapters 45-56 is almost equivalent in magnitude to the absolute joy I experience when reading The Last Olympian chapters 1-23.

remember when percabeth was good? when they meant the world to each other but had other people they cared about (nico, for one. both of them. so much), other worries and other storylines aside from their romantic plot? and when nico's completed arc wasn't repeated for no reason other than to dump more trauma on the youngest character in the series? when background characters were included in the story not for all the unnecessary last minute romantic subplots but because they were fun and fascinating to learn more about? and were actually friends with main characters? remember when grover was percy and annabeth's best friend forever? and antagonists were actually interesting and intimidating and had compelling goals? and the story revolved around friendship and family and loyalty? and death was definite and loss was palpable and battles were thrilling?

yeah. good times.

[littlestkoi-n]

Reblog if you also think Toph shouldn’t have been a cop.

I want to see how “unpopular” this opinion really is outside cop-worshipping Reddit.

[littlestkoi-n]

ngl no amount of perfectly logical arguments will ever make me believe my girl toph would become a cop. no she wouldn't.

[littlestkoi-n]

being in both atla fandom and hp one is... interesting. we talk a lot about morality in both, but it's weird because atla IS about morality - it's almost the central topic of almost every character's arc and IS undoubtedly the central topic of the overarching plot; while hp is just.... a mess of themes and plots and arcs, never making much sense. atla is so well crafted, curated, perfected to a tee. hp is stretched and morphed into something we want it to be by the fandom. of course it still blooms under our fingertips, but... it's fascinating to see the striking differences between two stories with immense potentials where one succeeded in reaching it in execution while the other didn't. so why do we - the hp fandom - still try to prove something to each other when it comes to shipping and loving certain characters? you know you can love despicable characters as much as good ones, right? the world is never black and white. stop trying to fit fictional worlds in that mold as well. they're never gonna fit.

[littlestkoi-n]

I could talk about Aang and Zuko all day. they're everything and more.

[littlestkoi-n]

now that I've mentioned Remus, Sirius and Severus, I'm itching to talk about their clique in full:

Sirius is 6'3 / 191 cm (as stated above; described as tall many times and as the tallest marauder in their photo; aside from that, I need him to be exactly 10 cm taller than James for some reason)

James is 5'11 / 181 cm (described as tall and the same height as 17yo Harry at 21; and Harry isn't over 6 feet as evident from his Runcorn transformation, making his most probable height 5'11; besides I think he's the type to be totally pissed he didn't grow 2 more cm to reach 6'0 and the thought makes me chuckle)

Remus is 5'9 / 176 cm (as stated above)

Lily is 5'7.5 / 172 cm (described as having to look down on 14yo Harry, who's around 5'5 at the time)

Peter is 5'5 / 165 cm (described as a very short man barely taller than 14yo Hermione and 13yo Harry - both around 5'3 at the time; more than a head shorter than Sirius, so the 10 inches gap works)

then onto Sirius' darling relatives + their lovers:

Bellatrix is 6'1.5 / 187 cm (described as a tall woman; noticeably taller than 17yo Harry, so very tall)

Andromeda is 6'1 / 185 cm (described as having a striking resemblance to Bella, so she must be of similar height)

Regulus is 6'0.5 / 184 cm (described as smaller than Sirius, likely both in muscle and height; still tall cuz all Blacks are)

Lucius is 5'10.5 / 179 cm (not described = average; but Draco is tall, so Lucius is on the taller side of average)

Ted is 5'9 / 175 cm (not described = average)

Narcissa is 5'8 / 173 cm (as stated above; described as a tall woman; slightly shorter than average Severus; the same height as 16yo Harry - around 5'10 - though here I'm going to allow myself to speculate that Narcissa was wearing heels, otherwise Snape would have to be tall and he's not described as such)

bonus: Tonks is 5'5 / 165 cm (not described = average; her height was only ever mentioned when she went undercover as a tall woman, meaning she isn't that tall herself)

and finally golden trio and co, during and post-canon:

Ron is 6'5 / 196 cm (as stated above; was 6'4.5 / 194 cm in DH; full height at 18; grows 2 cm in a few months after the war)

Harry is 6'0.5 / 184 cm (was 5'11 / 180 cm in DH; full height at 19; love the popular headcanon of him finally surpassing James after the war - my vision is that he slowly grows just 4 extra cm in a year and a half, cuz frankly I can't imagine him reaching 6'1+)

Neville is 5'7.5 / 171 cm (full height at 17 by the beginning of DH; described as short but not very short, so I'd put him just below average; I like to think he got his last growth spurt the summer before 7th year, which Harry just didn't notice upon returning to Hogwarts, cuz Neville was still shorter than him)

Hermione is 5'5.5 / 166 cm (full height at 15 by the beginning of OOTP; only ever described as shorter than Harry and taller than Ginny, making her height pretty average; picked this specific number cuz I need Ron to be exactly 30 cm taller, it's fun)

Luna is 5'4.5 / 164 cm (full height at 15 by the beginning of HBP; taller than Ginny but otherwise not described, so she's average)

Ginny is 5'1 / 155 cm (full height at 14 by the end of OOTP; described as noticeably the smallest of the group during department fight; 16yo Harry can look over her head in the kiss scene, so she must be around 8-9 inches shorter than 5'10)

bonus: Draco is 6'1 / 186 cm (full height at 17 by the time of Easter hols in DH; described as slightly taller than 17yo Harry and 6 cm seems fair to me; even without growing after the war remains technically taller than grown Harry, but it's only noticeable cuz he has perfect posture while Harry doesn't)

also Dumbledore is 6'7 / 201 cm (described as taller than every Inferius in HBP and taller than everybody at the Ministry in OOTP)

the main reason I'm an average height Remus truther - aside from this little fact being canon - is simple:

the only "tall, thin and gangling, with big hands and feet, and a long nose" character I advocate for is Ronald Weasley who deserves to tower over each and every authority figure he encounters.

so by 3rd year Ron is 5'11 / 180 cm which is ridiculously tall for a 13 year old boy and makes him slightly taller than all his Professors:

btw UK average adult heights are 5'4-5'6 for women and 5'8-5'10 for men

5'10 / 178 cm McGonagall (described as a tall woman)

5'9.5 / 177 cm Snape (rather shorter than Sirius; slightly taller than Narcissa, who's exactly 5'8 / 173 cm for me)

5'9 / 176 cm Lupin (not described = average)

5'8 / 172 cm Filch (not described = average; not a Prof but Staff)

5'7 / 170 cm Sinistra (not described, but she was on the taller side in the movies so I'll give her that. shorter than Minerva still)

5'6 / 167 cm Trelawney (not described = average)

5'1 / 154 cm Sprout (describes as a squat little woman)

4'5 / 134 cm Flitwick (described as tiny but has distant goblin ancestry so I see him as being 5 inches taller than average goblin)

Dumbledore doesn't count cuz Ron barely stands next to the man and I reckon it's pretty hard to grow over 2 meters at 13. Hagrid is irrelevant cuz half-giant.

then Ron gets kidnapped by the first adult that year who looms over him at 6'3 / 191 cm - no wonder Sirius is terrifying, being that tall.

by the time Sirius dies Ron only grows to 6'2.5 / 189 cm so he never gets to be taller than him... shit now I'm making myself sad.

anyway, when he's done growing Ron is 6'5 / 196 cm, making him the tallest Weasley and probably the tallest man in any room ever.

[littlestkoi-n]

I have been humbled by a wonderful conversation in the reblogs, please read them all if you see this post after the fact!

and to all Albus fans - yes the original post comes across as anti Dumbledore, I'm sorry for not realising it and omitting the proper tag.

do I believe any character's trust in Dumbledore could potentially be broken? yes. have I ever seen anybody write it in ways that make sense for those characters' unique perspectives and personalities? no.

and a lot of times it's still compelling as hell when the most devoted characters start seeing cracks early or when they fight for something else in the first place, not regarding Dumbledore as their guiding light at all. it turns those characters into different people though.

but what strikes me more is the immediate shift of the atmosphere of the first war and everything that happens throughout.

because when I think about the first Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore, my first association is, surprisingly, cult of personality. USSR cults, specifically. they were sort of unique, initially crafted to give more power to the Party instead of the Leader.

Order is similar, in a way. on the surface it's just resistance. an organised war effort. a mishmash of people from different backgrounds uniting to fight for personal reasons. James fights for the greater good and his righteous ideals. and James fights for Lily. Lily fights for herself and those marginalised like her. and Lily fights for her muggle family. Sirius doesn't fight for, but against - against his blood family, against Slytherins, against everybody like them. and Sirius fights with James. those 3 are simple. what about others?

Remus doesn't fight for or against. Remus fights with Dumbledore. because Remus' world revolves around Dumbledore and when he says "go die in a war" - Remus goes, no questions asked. he owes Dumbledore that much. Peter doesn't fight for or against. Peter fights with Dumbledore. because Peter wants to be safe and Peter wants to win. Dumbledore promises a win. Peter believes him until he doesn't.

but James also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore is the greater good personified and shares James' righteous ideals. Lily also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights for marginalised the loudest. Sirius also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights against everybody who's like Sirius' family.

Dumbledore, Dumbledore, Dumbledore. the centre of it all, the bonfire of hope, the beacon of light, the daimon of good. Order is Dumbledore, first and foremost - not Moody, Alice, Frank, Dorcas, Marlene, Prewetts, Caradoc, James, Lily, Sirius, Remus or Peter. not any of the others. it's Albus Dumbledore and the blind, the devoted.

it doesn't fall apart until it's too late. it's only Sirius who gets a chance to notice but he promptly denies it, locked up in a cell for 12 years, carefully tucked away by Dumbledore. he trusts Dumbledore.

he trusts Dumbledore when he escapes, he trusts Dumbledore with Harry, he trusts Dumbledore when he tells Sirius to hide at Lupin's, he trusts Dumbledore when he locks Sirius up in his childhood house of terrors, he trusts Dumbledore when he assembles second Order. he joins Dumbledore, he fights with Dumbledore again, even locked up and angry, and the only time he doesn't trust Dumbledore with either Harry or himself he goes, and fights for Harry, and dies.

others are dead, or tortured, or new, or Remus. Remus who is the blindest and the most devoted. Remus who owes Dumbledore, believes that he owes Dumbledore everything and more. the new don't know any better yet, but Remus does and ignores it. he trusts Dumbledore. trusts him with Harry, and with Sirius, and with himself.

Remus joins Dumbledore, fights with Dumbledore again. sees Dumbledore destroy Sirius - looks the other way, sees Dumbledore destroy himself - deifies him even more in his death, sees Dumbledore's ghost destroy Harry - wants to join him to be destroyed too. because there's nothing left - Dumbledore gifted him his heart at 11, and it died piece by piece in the span of 16 years, and then Dumbledore dies himself, and he can't gift Remus another heart, another life. so Remus blinds himself some more, fights with Dumbledore's ghost and dies. probably for Dumbledore too.

and if all of that can happen when a small group of people simply trusts one mortal man, it's going to take a lot more than a wayward thought in one of those devoted heads to see the cracks. it's going to take a lot of thoughts, a lot of heads, a lot of cracks. a lot of discussions and a fair share of arm-twisting and change of faith. it surely must be a group effort in one way or another, preferably with the help of those who aren't as devoted. if there are any.

because as lovely and as gratifying as it is to read about Remus or Sirius or even Minerva blowing up at Albus - if you don't write them getting to that point after deconstructing their prior canon beliefs... then those characters aren't really Remus, Sirius or Minerva. especially not Remus who was always the most devoted of them all.

[littlestkoi-n]

our fandom is definitely... something lately. I try staying on the roughly canon-compliant outskirts of it, but it's still hard to constantly keep a cool head and see those characters for who they are canonically, what with so much fanon content being pushed forward as "superior" to canon. it's tiring on a good day, so it must be a blessing to not like any of them enough to engage with their fandom. I envy you a little :)

canon Remus has always been a fascinating specimen to me and his relationship with Dumbledore is actually one of my favourite things about him. the idea for my original post was initially to discuss how wildly out of character it is for him to suddenly hate Albus and blame him for anything ever (in fics I've stumbled upon recently), as well as his motivation for joining the Order cuz I love it lots; but it got out of hand and turned into... that.

cuz as much as I enjoyed talking about Remus & Albus throughout this thread (also thank you for prompting me to dive deeper into them in reblogs; the original post is barely cohesive omg), I definitely went into hating Albus territory while mentioning his relationships with some other characters. that was uncalled for, so thank you a lot for this conversation. it very much rings like an anti post now that I think about it. I'll be choosing my words more carefully next time... thank you for making me see reason, truly. and glad you got something out of it as well :)

do I believe any character's trust in Dumbledore could potentially be broken? yes. have I ever seen anybody write it in ways that make sense for those characters' unique perspectives and personalities? no.

and a lot of times it's still compelling as hell when the most devoted characters start seeing cracks early or when they fight for something else in the first place, not regarding Dumbledore as their guiding light at all. it turns those characters into different people though.

but what strikes me more is the immediate shift of the atmosphere of the first war and everything that happens throughout.

because when I think about the first Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore, my first association is, surprisingly, cult of personality. USSR cults, specifically. they were sort of unique, initially crafted to give more power to the Party instead of the Leader.

Order is similar, in a way. on the surface it's just resistance. an organised war effort. a mishmash of people from different backgrounds uniting to fight for personal reasons. James fights for the greater good and his righteous ideals. and James fights for Lily. Lily fights for herself and those marginalised like her. and Lily fights for her muggle family. Sirius doesn't fight for, but against - against his blood family, against Slytherins, against everybody like them. and Sirius fights with James. those 3 are simple. what about others?

Remus doesn't fight for or against. Remus fights with Dumbledore. because Remus' world revolves around Dumbledore and when he says "go die in a war" - Remus goes, no questions asked. he owes Dumbledore that much. Peter doesn't fight for or against. Peter fights with Dumbledore. because Peter wants to be safe and Peter wants to win. Dumbledore promises a win. Peter believes him until he doesn't.

but James also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore is the greater good personified and shares James' righteous ideals. Lily also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights for marginalised the loudest. Sirius also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights against everybody who's like Sirius' family.

Dumbledore, Dumbledore, Dumbledore. the centre of it all, the bonfire of hope, the beacon of light, the daimon of good. Order is Dumbledore, first and foremost - not Moody, Alice, Frank, Dorcas, Marlene, Prewetts, Caradoc, James, Lily, Sirius, Remus or Peter. not any of the others. it's Albus Dumbledore and the blind, the devoted.

it doesn't fall apart until it's too late. it's only Sirius who gets a chance to notice but he promptly denies it, locked up in a cell for 12 years, carefully tucked away by Dumbledore. he trusts Dumbledore.

he trusts Dumbledore when he escapes, he trusts Dumbledore with Harry, he trusts Dumbledore when he tells Sirius to hide at Lupin's, he trusts Dumbledore when he locks Sirius up in his childhood house of terrors, he trusts Dumbledore when he assembles second Order. he joins Dumbledore, he fights with Dumbledore again, even locked up and angry, and the only time he doesn't trust Dumbledore with either Harry or himself he goes, and fights for Harry, and dies.

others are dead, or tortured, or new, or Remus. Remus who is the blindest and the most devoted. Remus who owes Dumbledore, believes that he owes Dumbledore everything and more. the new don't know any better yet, but Remus does and ignores it. he trusts Dumbledore. trusts him with Harry, and with Sirius, and with himself.

Remus joins Dumbledore, fights with Dumbledore again. sees Dumbledore destroy Sirius - looks the other way, sees Dumbledore destroy himself - deifies him even more in his death, sees Dumbledore's ghost destroy Harry - wants to join him to be destroyed too. because there's nothing left - Dumbledore gifted him his heart at 11, and it died piece by piece in the span of 16 years, and then Dumbledore dies himself, and he can't gift Remus another heart, another life. so Remus blinds himself some more, fights with Dumbledore's ghost and dies. probably for Dumbledore too.

and if all of that can happen when a small group of people simply trusts one mortal man, it's going to take a lot more than a wayward thought in one of those devoted heads to see the cracks. it's going to take a lot of thoughts, a lot of heads, a lot of cracks. a lot of discussions and a fair share of arm-twisting and change of faith. it surely must be a group effort in one way or another, preferably with the help of those who aren't as devoted. if there are any.

because as lovely and as gratifying as it is to read about Remus or Sirius or even Minerva blowing up at Albus - if you don't write them getting to that point after deconstructing their prior canon beliefs... then those characters aren't really Remus, Sirius or Minerva. especially not Remus who was always the most devoted of them all.

[littlestkoi-n]

you know what, that makes sense. I didn't think of the significance of Albus' death for the war effort, was always stuck on how devastated and lost it made Harry and co feel instead. you've made great points, thank you for saying all of that!

do I believe any character's trust in Dumbledore could potentially be broken? yes. have I ever seen anybody write it in ways that make sense for those characters' unique perspectives and personalities? no.

and a lot of times it's still compelling as hell when the most devoted characters start seeing cracks early or when they fight for something else in the first place, not regarding Dumbledore as their guiding light at all. it turns those characters into different people though.

but what strikes me more is the immediate shift of the atmosphere of the first war and everything that happens throughout.

because when I think about the first Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore, my first association is, surprisingly, cult of personality. USSR cults, specifically. they were sort of unique, initially crafted to give more power to the Party instead of the Leader.

Order is similar, in a way. on the surface it's just resistance. an organised war effort. a mishmash of people from different backgrounds uniting to fight for personal reasons. James fights for the greater good and his righteous ideals. and James fights for Lily. Lily fights for herself and those marginalised like her. and Lily fights for her muggle family. Sirius doesn't fight for, but against - against his blood family, against Slytherins, against everybody like them. and Sirius fights with James. those 3 are simple. what about others?

Remus doesn't fight for or against. Remus fights with Dumbledore. because Remus' world revolves around Dumbledore and when he says "go die in a war" - Remus goes, no questions asked. he owes Dumbledore that much. Peter doesn't fight for or against. Peter fights with Dumbledore. because Peter wants to be safe and Peter wants to win. Dumbledore promises a win. Peter believes him until he doesn't.

but James also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore is the greater good personified and shares James' righteous ideals. Lily also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights for marginalised the loudest. Sirius also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights against everybody who's like Sirius' family.

Dumbledore, Dumbledore, Dumbledore. the centre of it all, the bonfire of hope, the beacon of light, the daimon of good. Order is Dumbledore, first and foremost - not Moody, Alice, Frank, Dorcas, Marlene, Prewetts, Caradoc, James, Lily, Sirius, Remus or Peter. not any of the others. it's Albus Dumbledore and the blind, the devoted.

it doesn't fall apart until it's too late. it's only Sirius who gets a chance to notice but he promptly denies it, locked up in a cell for 12 years, carefully tucked away by Dumbledore. he trusts Dumbledore.

he trusts Dumbledore when he escapes, he trusts Dumbledore with Harry, he trusts Dumbledore when he tells Sirius to hide at Lupin's, he trusts Dumbledore when he locks Sirius up in his childhood house of terrors, he trusts Dumbledore when he assembles second Order. he joins Dumbledore, he fights with Dumbledore again, even locked up and angry, and the only time he doesn't trust Dumbledore with either Harry or himself he goes, and fights for Harry, and dies.

others are dead, or tortured, or new, or Remus. Remus who is the blindest and the most devoted. Remus who owes Dumbledore, believes that he owes Dumbledore everything and more. the new don't know any better yet, but Remus does and ignores it. he trusts Dumbledore. trusts him with Harry, and with Sirius, and with himself.

Remus joins Dumbledore, fights with Dumbledore again. sees Dumbledore destroy Sirius - looks the other way, sees Dumbledore destroy himself - deifies him even more in his death, sees Dumbledore's ghost destroy Harry - wants to join him to be destroyed too. because there's nothing left - Dumbledore gifted him his heart at 11, and it died piece by piece in the span of 16 years, and then Dumbledore dies himself, and he can't gift Remus another heart, another life. so Remus blinds himself some more, fights with Dumbledore's ghost and dies. probably for Dumbledore too.

and if all of that can happen when a small group of people simply trusts one mortal man, it's going to take a lot more than a wayward thought in one of those devoted heads to see the cracks. it's going to take a lot of thoughts, a lot of heads, a lot of cracks. a lot of discussions and a fair share of arm-twisting and change of faith. it surely must be a group effort in one way or another, preferably with the help of those who aren't as devoted. if there are any.

because as lovely and as gratifying as it is to read about Remus or Sirius or even Minerva blowing up at Albus - if you don't write them getting to that point after deconstructing their prior canon beliefs... then those characters aren't really Remus, Sirius or Minerva. especially not Remus who was always the most devoted of them all.

[littlestkoi-n]

I don't know much about Grindelwald apart from what's written about him in harry potter books, so I'll take your word for it. I never really doubted that he was a better person that Voldemort anyway.

it would do a disservice to characters who canonically don't have their motivation tied to Dumbledore, but Remus is not one of them. not in the sense that "Dumbledore manipulated him yada yada" - no, never - but in the sense that Dumbledore was literally Remus' hero, he loved the man and was immensely grateful for all the opportunities Dumbledore gave him. the fact that Remus felt indebted to him afterwards is entirely on Remus, Dumbledore never used that against him. but you can't argue with it being Remus' canon motivation for fighting both wars. he might try to be kind but he's pretty selfish and cowardly, he wouldn't go against a future dictator just because it's the right thing to do - he'd run away if it weren't for Dumbledore and his closest friends joining the fight.

and I'm sorry you have to deal with so much Dumbledore hate on his tag, it's quite inconsiderate for antis to not tag their posts appropriately.

my paragraph with repetitions of the word "destroy" does sound shitty, I apologise. I was trying to write it as a reflection of how Remus processed those events, not as an objective jab at what Dumbledore was doing, but it turned out shitty and mean, yeah. my main focus here is actually Remus' continued trust and love for the man, not that he "blames" him for anyone's destruction; like I said he even looks the other way whenever Dumbledore does in fact do something imperfect (never evil, but flawed).

for the record, I do think that Dumbledore could have handled the Grimmauld Place situation with Sirius better, because it did destroy Sirius in the end (which still isn't directly Dumbledore's fault at all - but Harry for example blames him); but also Sirius was already fucked up from Azkaban (which is a ridiculous thing to blame Dumbledore for, I've seen those posts and it's bonkers. Dumbledore couldn't do anything about Azkaban and frankly wasn't obligated too) and kept fucking himself up after, so really Grimmauld Place was just a drop in the ocean of his problems. ultimately, people saying Dumbledore "destroyed Sirius' life" are delusional.

the Harry bit. well. here I do think Dumbledore is to blame, at least a little bit. he did kill himself as a result of his greed for power and hastily left all of his grandiose plans for eliminating horcruxes on a 17 year old's shoulders, which resulted in Harry living half-feral for a year, severely traumatised and ultimately suicidal to the point he readily embraces death as a gift. maybe you don't feel the same, but I think it's a pretty heavy burden to put on a minor. and it doesn't matter really that he was preparing Harry for years, I mean that's great and it was very kind of him to ease Harry into it at first, but it doesn't justify 7th book to me. but hey, Harry never blamed him, so everybody has their own view of the situation. and I don't think it makes Dumbledore evil or a bad person, he was himself unprepared for such a drastic change of plans and did what he could to guide the chosen one to end the war. he did pretty good, all thing considered, but could have done much better (but that would have been less impactful and I love flawed characters like Dumbledore all the more for each of their mistakes. makes them real and human).

and uhhh, I used "ghost" not in hp dead silvery soul way, but in a memory, legacy or a trace of him way. just so we're clear. of couse I know that Dumbledore doesn't become a ghost in canon.

do I believe any character's trust in Dumbledore could potentially be broken? yes. have I ever seen anybody write it in ways that make sense for those characters' unique perspectives and personalities? no.

and a lot of times it's still compelling as hell when the most devoted characters start seeing cracks early or when they fight for something else in the first place, not regarding Dumbledore as their guiding light at all. it turns those characters into different people though.

but what strikes me more is the immediate shift of the atmosphere of the first war and everything that happens throughout.

because when I think about the first Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore, my first association is, surprisingly, cult of personality. USSR cults, specifically. they were sort of unique, initially crafted to give more power to the Party instead of the Leader.

Order is similar, in a way. on the surface it's just resistance. an organised war effort. a mishmash of people from different backgrounds uniting to fight for personal reasons. James fights for the greater good and his righteous ideals. and James fights for Lily. Lily fights for herself and those marginalised like her. and Lily fights for her muggle family. Sirius doesn't fight for, but against - against his blood family, against Slytherins, against everybody like them. and Sirius fights with James. those 3 are simple. what about others?

Remus doesn't fight for or against. Remus fights with Dumbledore. because Remus' world revolves around Dumbledore and when he says "go die in a war" - Remus goes, no questions asked. he owes Dumbledore that much. Peter doesn't fight for or against. Peter fights with Dumbledore. because Peter wants to be safe and Peter wants to win. Dumbledore promises a win. Peter believes him until he doesn't.

but James also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore is the greater good personified and shares James' righteous ideals. Lily also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights for marginalised the loudest. Sirius also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights against everybody who's like Sirius' family.

Dumbledore, Dumbledore, Dumbledore. the centre of it all, the bonfire of hope, the beacon of light, the daimon of good. Order is Dumbledore, first and foremost - not Moody, Alice, Frank, Dorcas, Marlene, Prewetts, Caradoc, James, Lily, Sirius, Remus or Peter. not any of the others. it's Albus Dumbledore and the blind, the devoted.

it doesn't fall apart until it's too late. it's only Sirius who gets a chance to notice but he promptly denies it, locked up in a cell for 12 years, carefully tucked away by Dumbledore. he trusts Dumbledore.

he trusts Dumbledore when he escapes, he trusts Dumbledore with Harry, he trusts Dumbledore when he tells Sirius to hide at Lupin's, he trusts Dumbledore when he locks Sirius up in his childhood house of terrors, he trusts Dumbledore when he assembles second Order. he joins Dumbledore, he fights with Dumbledore again, even locked up and angry, and the only time he doesn't trust Dumbledore with either Harry or himself he goes, and fights for Harry, and dies.

others are dead, or tortured, or new, or Remus. Remus who is the blindest and the most devoted. Remus who owes Dumbledore, believes that he owes Dumbledore everything and more. the new don't know any better yet, but Remus does and ignores it. he trusts Dumbledore. trusts him with Harry, and with Sirius, and with himself.

Remus joins Dumbledore, fights with Dumbledore again. sees Dumbledore destroy Sirius - looks the other way, sees Dumbledore destroy himself - deifies him even more in his death, sees Dumbledore's ghost destroy Harry - wants to join him to be destroyed too. because there's nothing left - Dumbledore gifted him his heart at 11, and it died piece by piece in the span of 16 years, and then Dumbledore dies himself, and he can't gift Remus another heart, another life. so Remus blinds himself some more, fights with Dumbledore's ghost and dies. probably for Dumbledore too.

and if all of that can happen when a small group of people simply trusts one mortal man, it's going to take a lot more than a wayward thought in one of those devoted heads to see the cracks. it's going to take a lot of thoughts, a lot of heads, a lot of cracks. a lot of discussions and a fair share of arm-twisting and change of faith. it surely must be a group effort in one way or another, preferably with the help of those who aren't as devoted. if there are any.

because as lovely and as gratifying as it is to read about Remus or Sirius or even Minerva blowing up at Albus - if you don't write them getting to that point after deconstructing their prior canon beliefs... then those characters aren't really Remus, Sirius or Minerva. especially not Remus who was always the most devoted of them all.

[littlestkoi-n]

right. let's talk about "reading comprehension". did my post say anything at all about me being anti Dumbledore? did it say anything about him being "some horrid man"? the comment 'go die in a war' was Remus-specific, not a general statement. it was supposed to convey Remus' willingness to fight and die for Dumbledore's cause, not verbatim of what Dumbledore tells Order members or Remus himself. of course he doesn't say that, of course he never orders anyone around. again, did my post say anything about Dumbledore expecting anyone to join him in that war effort? I'm not taking away anyone's free will - they all made their choices - I only analysed their reasons for doing so. because it's very clear from canon text that they had different reasons. your first point about ministry and fascism - that's James, Lily and partially Sirius' reason. probably a lot of other name-only members too. but not Remus' or Peter's. and I never said that Dumbledore manipulated them into joining him or something. plus Voldemort never wanted to destroy the wizarding world - he wanted to rid it of muggle blood and become immortal as a treat. and now that you gave me a reason to think about my post in more detail, I must confess I didn't find anything in it that contradicts canon text or promotes anti Dumbledore rhetoric. I tend to quite like his character actually, exactly because he's complex and not perfect. hope you have a wonderful day.

do I believe any character's trust in Dumbledore could potentially be broken? yes. have I ever seen anybody write it in ways that make sense for those characters' unique perspectives and personalities? no.

and a lot of times it's still compelling as hell when the most devoted characters start seeing cracks early or when they fight for something else in the first place, not regarding Dumbledore as their guiding light at all. it turns those characters into different people though.

but what strikes me more is the immediate shift of the atmosphere of the first war and everything that happens throughout.

because when I think about the first Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore, my first association is, surprisingly, cult of personality. USSR cults, specifically. they were sort of unique, initially crafted to give more power to the Party instead of the Leader.

Order is similar, in a way. on the surface it's just resistance. an organised war effort. a mishmash of people from different backgrounds uniting to fight for personal reasons. James fights for the greater good and his righteous ideals. and James fights for Lily. Lily fights for herself and those marginalised like her. and Lily fights for her muggle family. Sirius doesn't fight for, but against - against his blood family, against Slytherins, against everybody like them. and Sirius fights with James. those 3 are simple. what about others?

Remus doesn't fight for or against. Remus fights with Dumbledore. because Remus' world revolves around Dumbledore and when he says "go die in a war" - Remus goes, no questions asked. he owes Dumbledore that much. Peter doesn't fight for or against. Peter fights with Dumbledore. because Peter wants to be safe and Peter wants to win. Dumbledore promises a win. Peter believes him until he doesn't.

but James also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore is the greater good personified and shares James' righteous ideals. Lily also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights for marginalised the loudest. Sirius also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights against everybody who's like Sirius' family.

Dumbledore, Dumbledore, Dumbledore. the centre of it all, the bonfire of hope, the beacon of light, the daimon of good. Order is Dumbledore, first and foremost - not Moody, Alice, Frank, Dorcas, Marlene, Prewetts, Caradoc, James, Lily, Sirius, Remus or Peter. not any of the others. it's Albus Dumbledore and the blind, the devoted.

it doesn't fall apart until it's too late. it's only Sirius who gets a chance to notice but he promptly denies it, locked up in a cell for 12 years, carefully tucked away by Dumbledore. he trusts Dumbledore.

he trusts Dumbledore when he escapes, he trusts Dumbledore with Harry, he trusts Dumbledore when he tells Sirius to hide at Lupin's, he trusts Dumbledore when he locks Sirius up in his childhood house of terrors, he trusts Dumbledore when he assembles second Order. he joins Dumbledore, he fights with Dumbledore again, even locked up and angry, and the only time he doesn't trust Dumbledore with either Harry or himself he goes, and fights for Harry, and dies.

others are dead, or tortured, or new, or Remus. Remus who is the blindest and the most devoted. Remus who owes Dumbledore, believes that he owes Dumbledore everything and more. the new don't know any better yet, but Remus does and ignores it. he trusts Dumbledore. trusts him with Harry, and with Sirius, and with himself.

Remus joins Dumbledore, fights with Dumbledore again. sees Dumbledore destroy Sirius - looks the other way, sees Dumbledore destroy himself - deifies him even more in his death, sees Dumbledore's ghost destroy Harry - wants to join him to be destroyed too. because there's nothing left - Dumbledore gifted him his heart at 11, and it died piece by piece in the span of 16 years, and then Dumbledore dies himself, and he can't gift Remus another heart, another life. so Remus blinds himself some more, fights with Dumbledore's ghost and dies. probably for Dumbledore too.

and if all of that can happen when a small group of people simply trusts one mortal man, it's going to take a lot more than a wayward thought in one of those devoted heads to see the cracks. it's going to take a lot of thoughts, a lot of heads, a lot of cracks. a lot of discussions and a fair share of arm-twisting and change of faith. it surely must be a group effort in one way or another, preferably with the help of those who aren't as devoted. if there are any.

because as lovely and as gratifying as it is to read about Remus or Sirius or even Minerva blowing up at Albus - if you don't write them getting to that point after deconstructing their prior canon beliefs... then those characters aren't really Remus, Sirius or Minerva. especially not Remus who was always the most devoted of them all.

[littlestkoi-n]

do I believe any character's trust in Dumbledore could potentially be broken? yes. have I ever seen anybody write it in ways that make sense for those characters' unique perspectives and personalities? no.

and a lot of times it's still compelling as hell when the most devoted characters start seeing cracks early or when they fight for something else in the first place, not regarding Dumbledore as their guiding light at all. it turns those characters into different people though.

but what strikes me more is the immediate shift of the atmosphere of the first war and everything that happens throughout.

because when I think about the first Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore, my first association is, surprisingly, cult of personality. USSR cults, specifically. they were sort of unique, initially crafted to give more power to the Party instead of the Leader.

Order is similar, in a way. on the surface it's just resistance. an organised war effort. a mishmash of people from different backgrounds uniting to fight for personal reasons. James fights for the greater good and his righteous ideals. and James fights for Lily. Lily fights for herself and those marginalised like her. and Lily fights for her muggle family. Sirius doesn't fight for, but against - against his blood family, against Slytherins, against everybody like them. and Sirius fights with James. those 3 are simple. what about others?

Remus doesn't fight for or against. Remus fights with Dumbledore. because Remus' world revolves around Dumbledore and when he says "go die in a war" - Remus goes, no questions asked. he owes Dumbledore that much. Peter doesn't fight for or against. Peter fights with Dumbledore. because Peter wants to be safe and Peter wants to win. Dumbledore promises a win. Peter believes him until he doesn't.

but James also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore is the greater good personified and shares James' righteous ideals. Lily also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights for marginalised the loudest. Sirius also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights against everybody who's like Sirius' family.

Dumbledore, Dumbledore, Dumbledore. the centre of it all, the bonfire of hope, the beacon of light, the daimon of good. Order is Dumbledore, first and foremost - not Moody, Alice, Frank, Dorcas, Marlene, Prewetts, Caradoc, James, Lily, Sirius, Remus or Peter. not any of the others. it's Albus Dumbledore and the blind, the devoted.

it doesn't fall apart until it's too late. it's only Sirius who gets a chance to notice but he promptly denies it, locked up in a cell for 12 years, carefully tucked away by Dumbledore. he trusts Dumbledore.

he trusts Dumbledore when he escapes, he trusts Dumbledore with Harry, he trusts Dumbledore when he tells Sirius to hide at Lupin's, he trusts Dumbledore when he locks Sirius up in his childhood house of terrors, he trusts Dumbledore when he assembles second Order. he joins Dumbledore, he fights with Dumbledore again, even locked up and angry, and the only time he doesn't trust Dumbledore with either Harry or himself he goes, and fights for Harry, and dies.

others are dead, or tortured, or new, or Remus. Remus who is the blindest and the most devoted. Remus who owes Dumbledore, believes that he owes Dumbledore everything and more. the new don't know any better yet, but Remus does and ignores it. he trusts Dumbledore. trusts him with Harry, and with Sirius, and with himself.

Remus joins Dumbledore, fights with Dumbledore again. sees Dumbledore destroy Sirius - looks the other way, sees Dumbledore destroy himself - deifies him even more in his death, sees Dumbledore's ghost destroy Harry - wants to join him to be destroyed too. because there's nothing left - Dumbledore gifted him his heart at 11, and it died piece by piece in the span of 16 years, and then Dumbledore dies himself, and he can't gift Remus another heart, another life. so Remus blinds himself some more, fights with Dumbledore's ghost and dies. probably for Dumbledore too.

and if all of that can happen when a small group of people simply trusts one mortal man, it's going to take a lot more than a wayward thought in one of those devoted heads to see the cracks. it's going to take a lot of thoughts, a lot of heads, a lot of cracks. a lot of discussions and a fair share of arm-twisting and change of faith. it surely must be a group effort in one way or another, preferably with the help of those who aren't as devoted. if there are any.

because as lovely and as gratifying as it is to read about Remus or Sirius or even Minerva blowing up at Albus - if you don't write them getting to that point after deconstructing their prior canon beliefs... then those characters aren't really Remus, Sirius or Minerva. especially not Remus who was always the most devoted of them all.

[littlestkoi-n]

the main reason I'm an average height Remus truther - aside from this little fact being canon - is simple:

the only "tall, thin and gangling, with big hands and feet, and a long nose" character I advocate for is Ronald Weasley who deserves to tower over each and every authority figure he encounters.

so by 3rd year Ron is 5'11 / 180 cm which is ridiculously tall for a 13 year old boy and makes him slightly taller than all his Professors:

btw UK average adult heights are 5'4-5'6 for women and 5'8-5'10 for men

5'10 / 178 cm McGonagall (described as a tall woman)

5'9.5 / 177 cm Snape (rather shorter than Sirius; slightly taller than Narcissa, who's exactly 5'8 / 173 cm for me)

5'9 / 176 cm Lupin (not described = average)

5'8 / 172 cm Filch (not described = average; not a Prof but Staff)

5'7 / 170 cm Sinistra (not described, but she was on the taller side in the movies so I'll give her that. shorter than Minerva still)

5'6 / 167 cm Trelawney (not described = average)

5'1 / 154 cm Sprout (describes as a squat little woman)

4'5 / 134 cm Flitwick (described as tiny but has distant goblin ancestry so I see him as being 5 inches taller than average goblin)

Dumbledore doesn't count cuz Ron barely stands next to the man and I reckon it's pretty hard to grow over 2 meters at 13. Hagrid is irrelevant cuz half-giant.

then Ron gets kidnapped by the first adult that year who looms over him at 6'3 / 191 cm - no wonder Sirius is terrifying, being that tall.

by the time Sirius dies Ron only grows to 6'2.5 / 189 cm so he never gets to be taller than him... shit now I'm making myself sad.

anyway, when he's done growing Ron is 6'5 / 196 cm, making him the tallest Weasley and probably the tallest man in any room ever.

[littlestkoi-n]

the way Percy's friend group is literally -

4 monsters:

half-goat who's technically twice his age

one-eyed brother who's technically half his age

surprisingly lovely giant dog from hell

strangely devoted flying horse who can talk

and an odd assortment of people:

his mama

immortal lesbian who was a tree for a few years

scary buff girl who bullied him a little

autistic kid who radiates death and had a crush on him

nicest demigod ever whom he had a crush on before he... died

allegedly normal girl who now randomly tells the future

autistic girl who tried her absolute hardest to hate him then promptly fell in love with him. now they're soulmates

goddess of hearth

[littlestkoi-n]

your perspective on others' involvement is completely valid, I've thought about it as well. perhaps they'd just want them both a little happier with the war on the doorstep, societal expectations be damned.

and with your personal relation to both Tonks and Remus it makes perfect sense that you'd be emotionally attached to their ship. I can completely understand the need to defend them against the frankly ridiculous amount of hate they always get. it must get pretty tiring now that I think about it, which is why I'm very happy we could have such a sweet interaction despite our differing opinions on the matter!

and your last point... yeah, Remus might be one of my favourite characters in the story exactly because he's a complicated morally grey dude with lots of flaws, but he'd be catching these hands in no time if he was real. even though, like you, I understand and relate to and can justify this behaviour. what a dick, indeed!

I've been thinking about how much I adore Tonks and Remus' dynamic but physically cannot ship them because my brain is being weird about their fucking age gap. this is so frustrating. they would have been so lovely for me if Tonks was like at least 27 in 5th book. Ronks (yeah I'm not calling it Remadora, Tonks hates her birth name ffs) would have been my ride-or-die alongside Jily and Wolfstar for sure.

because literally nothing else that Ronks antis consider deal breakers for them matters to me - not the fumbled way they get together in canon, not them getting married so quickly, not Tonks getting pregnant, not the assumed queer-coding of both characters (which I personally see, don't get me wrong. but it's assumed and who the fuck says they can't be queer4queer anyway?). sure, the nuclear family narrative being pushed so quickly and thoroughly onto them is peculiar but who says they didn't want to make the most of their time during a war? I love wartime drama and they would have been my shit if it weren't for... well. Tonks being 22 and Remus 35 when they meet.

I just can't ship big age gaps unless the youngest character is closer to 30 than 20. which is infuriating, because Ronks is objectively more fascinating because of their gap. my fucking loss, don't you think?

anyway, after thinking of ways I can make Tonks older without hurting the story, I began wondering whether her age is narratively important, and yes, turns out it very much is - for Harry.

Tonks being 22 in order of phoenix makes her the closest of Order members to Harry's age (Weasley twins don't count because they're Ron's brothers first, order members second for Harry) and the one Order member Harry can relate to the most in his youth and desire to fight. She almost perfectly parallels marauders and Lily in first war and represents the fun of the fight, the fire of youth, the confidence of a new recruit, the safety of relatability for Harry. She's one of the biggest inspirations for his newfound dream of becoming an auror. Harry needs Tonks among those older, battle-worn, cautious, secretive adults who don't take him seriously and never look him in the eye, because he wants to be what she is even before realising it and only reflects on it after spending time with her.

all in all, Tonks being 22 matters quite a lot for Harry's story.

now, we have no way of knowing whether Joanne came up with Ronks storyline prior to Tonks' introduction, but it shouldn't matter for their relationship, not in Joanne's opinion - Tonks' youth already fulfilled its narrative role in order of phoenix and stopped being an important asset of her character in half-blood prince.

oh, but unfortunately it still matters in the grand scheme of things, Joanne. you don't just introduce a young adult character (I'm 21 myself and gods, 22/23 is barely more mature), chuck their established age out the window and pair them up with a character in their mid-to-late thirties. and of fucking course it makes sense for a 23 year old to be down bad for some scruffy 36 year old man, it's incredibly realistic! this 36 year old man acting upon such crush is a little questionable, but still realistic (and we know Remus is very flawed, so I'm not surprised). but you know what isn't realistic at all?

Molly - a 46 year old woman, married to her high school sweetheart, mother to 7 children, 3 of which are close to Tonks' age - being extremely supportive of actually engaging in that sort of relationship, going as far as reprimanding Remus for not committing to it. I'm sorry, what? Molly might have some flaws as a mother, but she is nothing if not protective of her kids and those in their age range. She genuinely becomes somewhat of a mother figure for Tonks during their time in the Order, and I just cannot for the life of me understand how Molly could encourage her to pursue Remus and vice-versa, instead of consoling Tonks in her tragic crush and making sure Remus doesn't even look at her like that.

Minerva - an even older woman who taught both Remus and Tonks at Hogwarts, witnessed Remus becoming an adult from his graduation in 1978 up until 1981, then saw an 11 year old Tonks start Hogwarts 3 years later in 1984 - chiding Remus for not being "brave" enough to commit to such relationship. first of all, why the fuck is she involved in that narrative at all? it's none of her business??? she's not in any pseudo parenting role for either of them, unlike Molly, so I never understood why she even has a place to voice her opinion about their romance. second of all, even if it was her business, Minerva - a professor who witnessed both Remus and Tonks grow up so many years apart - would realistically feel pretty weird about such relationship.

those aren't problems with the ship itself, but rather the way Joanne implemented their romance in the story. I think it would be more realistic if Ronks was some kind of fucked up forbidden romance from other characters' perspectives. the way everybody is so instantly supportive of them is quite jarring to me.

interestingly, when I read hp for the first time at 11 I was quite adamant in my belief that Tonks was in love with Molly up until that scene in half-blood prince. a very weird belief for a kid, I know. I just only liked girls at the time and was relating to Tonks quite a bit since her introduction, so I guess I unconsciously decided she was a lesbian even without knowing that term yet. I also had a crush on my teacher in 4th grade and she was quite similar to Molly... yeah, this girl was projecting too much. I didn't pick up on Remus' queer-coding until I fell down the rabbit hole of lgbt discourse at 14, but was pretty shocked to read about Tonks falling for a man at 11. she was so like me until she wasn't :) it's pretty funny to think about now.

in conclusion, I'm hella jealous of those of you who don't have weird brains and can enjoy Ronks to their fullest potential. their canon writing has its issues but they're more interesting for it, truly. I'll stay in my no fun corner, headcanoning them as lavender married, queer-platonic, bisexual besties co-parenting Teddy Alastor Tonks.

[littlestkoi-n]

oh, thank you so much for such an elaborate answer; you've made amazing points all of which I 100% agree with!

it seems to me that I've gone a bit off my initial track in the original post and completely forgot to mention exactly what you did in your reblog. that's the thing - I totally understand that there is little to no power dynamic typical for big age gaps it their relationship, considering - ike you said - Remus' past and personality as well as Tonks' career path and personality. I never really intended to undermine Tonks' maturity (which I guess I did with comparing her to my age, right), my problem with their gap rather lies with Remus really. and not even Remus himself - like I mentioned it the post, as it turns out, my main issue isn't with the ship but with its execution in canon, because despite being less than emotionally mature enough for a 36 year old man - like you explained in amazing detail - Remus still has a body of one. some would say it's even older due to his lycanthropy having a go at him physically. and he lives in a society where people perceive him as a man in his late 30s. which is where my problem with everyone around him thinking their relationship is a-okay mainly comes from.

though, maybe I'm being too harsh on Joanne for not being more realistic about their portrayal, because of all the things you mentioned clearly being true for their dynamic. and maybe it makes sense that people in Remus' closest circle wouldn't really care about his physical age because they'd see his emotional maturity for what it really is at that point.

I guess it really boils down to me being uncomfortable with age gap relationships with one partner in their early 20s and another in their 30s due to my personal trauma and my current proximity to the age of the younger partner in such relationships. it's probably that, then :)

which is an interesting thought, really, because I personally don't see such relationship as immoral or unacceptable in any way - neither in fiction nor in real life (especially). two consenting adults are two consenting adults, no matter their ages. I just wouldn't want to be in one myself and maybe that's why it brings me no particular joy to explore such dynamic in fiction. actually, that's probably the case!

anyway, thank you again for your insightful answer, you made me think a lot deeper about this topic and realise a few important things for myself. cannot thank you enough, now I finally understand why it weirds me out and my mind is finally at peace knowing it's simply not my thing. thank you, thank you, thank you, kind stranger!

I've been thinking about how much I adore Tonks and Remus' dynamic but physically cannot ship them because my brain is being weird about their fucking age gap. this is so frustrating. they would have been so lovely for me if Tonks was like at least 27 in 5th book. Ronks (yeah I'm not calling it Remadora, Tonks hates her birth name ffs) would have been my ride-or-die alongside Jily and Wolfstar for sure.

because literally nothing else that Ronks antis consider deal breakers for them matters to me - not the fumbled way they get together in canon, not them getting married so quickly, not Tonks getting pregnant, not the assumed queer-coding of both characters (which I personally see, don't get me wrong. but it's assumed and who the fuck says they can't be queer4queer anyway?). sure, the nuclear family narrative being pushed so quickly and thoroughly onto them is peculiar but who says they didn't want to make the most of their time during a war? I love wartime drama and they would have been my shit if it weren't for... well. Tonks being 22 and Remus 35 when they meet.

I just can't ship big age gaps unless the youngest character is closer to 30 than 20. which is infuriating, because Ronks is objectively more fascinating because of their gap. my fucking loss, don't you think?

anyway, after thinking of ways I can make Tonks older without hurting the story, I began wondering whether her age is narratively important, and yes, turns out it very much is - for Harry.

Tonks being 22 in order of phoenix makes her the closest of Order members to Harry's age (Weasley twins don't count because they're Ron's brothers first, order members second for Harry) and the one Order member Harry can relate to the most in his youth and desire to fight. She almost perfectly parallels marauders and Lily in first war and represents the fun of the fight, the fire of youth, the confidence of a new recruit, the safety of relatability for Harry. She's one of the biggest inspirations for his newfound dream of becoming an auror. Harry needs Tonks among those older, battle-worn, cautious, secretive adults who don't take him seriously and never look him in the eye, because he wants to be what she is even before realising it and only reflects on it after spending time with her.

all in all, Tonks being 22 matters quite a lot for Harry's story.

now, we have no way of knowing whether Joanne came up with Ronks storyline prior to Tonks' introduction, but it shouldn't matter for their relationship, not in Joanne's opinion - Tonks' youth already fulfilled its narrative role in order of phoenix and stopped being an important asset of her character in half-blood prince.

oh, but unfortunately it still matters in the grand scheme of things, Joanne. you don't just introduce a young adult character (I'm 21 myself and gods, 22/23 is barely more mature), chuck their established age out the window and pair them up with a character in their mid-to-late thirties. and of fucking course it makes sense for a 23 year old to be down bad for some scruffy 36 year old man, it's incredibly realistic! this 36 year old man acting upon such crush is a little questionable, but still realistic (and we know Remus is very flawed, so I'm not surprised). but you know what isn't realistic at all?

Molly - a 46 year old woman, married to her high school sweetheart, mother to 7 children, 3 of which are close to Tonks' age - being extremely supportive of actually engaging in that sort of relationship, going as far as reprimanding Remus for not committing to it. I'm sorry, what? Molly might have some flaws as a mother, but she is nothing if not protective of her kids and those in their age range. She genuinely becomes somewhat of a mother figure for Tonks during their time in the Order, and I just cannot for the life of me understand how Molly could encourage her to pursue Remus and vice-versa, instead of consoling Tonks in her tragic crush and making sure Remus doesn't even look at her like that.

Minerva - an even older woman who taught both Remus and Tonks at Hogwarts, witnessed Remus becoming an adult from his graduation in 1978 up until 1981, then saw an 11 year old Tonks start Hogwarts 3 years later in 1984 - chiding Remus for not being "brave" enough to commit to such relationship. first of all, why the fuck is she involved in that narrative at all? it's none of her business??? she's not in any pseudo parenting role for either of them, unlike Molly, so I never understood why she even has a place to voice her opinion about their romance. second of all, even if it was her business, Minerva - a professor who witnessed both Remus and Tonks grow up so many years apart - would realistically feel pretty weird about such relationship.

those aren't problems with the ship itself, but rather the way Joanne implemented their romance in the story. I think it would be more realistic if Ronks was some kind of fucked up forbidden romance from other characters' perspectives. the way everybody is so instantly supportive of them is quite jarring to me.

interestingly, when I read hp for the first time at 11 I was quite adamant in my belief that Tonks was in love with Molly up until that scene in half-blood prince. a very weird belief for a kid, I know. I just only liked girls at the time and was relating to Tonks quite a bit since her introduction, so I guess I unconsciously decided she was a lesbian even without knowing that term yet. I also had a crush on my teacher in 4th grade and she was quite similar to Molly... yeah, this girl was projecting too much. I didn't pick up on Remus' queer-coding until I fell down the rabbit hole of lgbt discourse at 14, but was pretty shocked to read about Tonks falling for a man at 11. she was so like me until she wasn't :) it's pretty funny to think about now.

in conclusion, I'm hella jealous of those of you who don't have weird brains and can enjoy Ronks to their fullest potential. their canon writing has its issues but they're more interesting for it, truly. I'll stay in my no fun corner, headcanoning them as lavender married, queer-platonic, bisexual besties co-parenting Teddy Alastor Tonks.

[littlestkoi-n]

I've been thinking about how much I adore Tonks and Remus' dynamic but physically cannot ship them because my brain is being weird about their fucking age gap. this is so frustrating. they would have been so lovely for me if Tonks was like at least 27 in 5th book. Ronks (yeah I'm not calling it Remadora, Tonks hates her birth name ffs) would have been my ride-or-die alongside Jily and Wolfstar for sure.

because literally nothing else that Ronks antis consider deal breakers for them matters to me - not the fumbled way they get together in canon, not them getting married so quickly, not Tonks getting pregnant, not the assumed queer-coding of both characters (which I personally see, don't get me wrong. but it's assumed and who the fuck says they can't be queer4queer anyway?). sure, the nuclear family narrative being pushed so quickly and thoroughly onto them is peculiar but who says they didn't want to make the most of their time during a war? I love wartime drama and they would have been my shit if it weren't for... well. Tonks being 22 and Remus 35 when they meet.

I just can't ship big age gaps unless the youngest character is closer to 30 than 20. which is infuriating, because Ronks is objectively more fascinating because of their gap. my fucking loss, don't you think?

anyway, after thinking of ways I can make Tonks older without hurting the story, I began wondering whether her age is narratively important, and yes, turns out it very much is - for Harry.

Tonks being 22 in order of phoenix makes her the closest of Order members to Harry's age (Weasley twins don't count because they're Ron's brothers first, order members second for Harry) and the one Order member Harry can relate to the most in his youth and desire to fight. She almost perfectly parallels marauders and Lily in first war and represents the fun of the fight, the fire of youth, the confidence of a new recruit, the safety of relatability for Harry. She's one of the biggest inspirations for his newfound dream of becoming an auror. Harry needs Tonks among those older, battle-worn, cautious, secretive adults who don't take him seriously and never look him in the eye, because he wants to be what she is even before realising it and only reflects on it after spending time with her.

all in all, Tonks being 22 matters quite a lot for Harry's story.

now, we have no way of knowing whether Joanne came up with Ronks storyline prior to Tonks' introduction, but it shouldn't matter for their relationship, not in Joanne's opinion - Tonks' youth already fulfilled its narrative role in order of phoenix and stopped being an important asset of her character in half-blood prince.

oh, but unfortunately it still matters in the grand scheme of things, Joanne. you don't just introduce a young adult character (I'm 21 myself and gods, 22/23 is barely more mature), chuck their established age out the window and pair them up with a character in their mid-to-late thirties. and of fucking course it makes sense for a 23 year old to be down bad for some scruffy 36 year old man, it's incredibly realistic! this 36 year old man acting upon such crush is a little questionable, but still realistic (and we know Remus is very flawed, so I'm not surprised). but you know what isn't realistic at all?

Molly - a 46 year old woman, married to her high school sweetheart, mother to 7 children, 3 of which are close to Tonks' age - being extremely supportive of actually engaging in that sort of relationship, going as far as reprimanding Remus for not committing to it. I'm sorry, what? Molly might have some flaws as a mother, but she is nothing if not protective of her kids and those in their age range. She genuinely becomes somewhat of a mother figure for Tonks during their time in the Order, and I just cannot for the life of me understand how Molly could encourage her to pursue Remus and vice-versa, instead of consoling Tonks in her tragic crush and making sure Remus doesn't even look at her like that.

Minerva - an even older woman who taught both Remus and Tonks at Hogwarts, witnessed Remus becoming an adult from his graduation in 1978 up until 1981, then saw an 11 year old Tonks start Hogwarts 3 years later in 1984 - chiding Remus for not being "brave" enough to commit to such relationship. first of all, why the fuck is she involved in that narrative at all? it's none of her business??? she's not in any pseudo parenting role for either of them, unlike Molly, so I never understood why she even has a place to voice her opinion about their romance. second of all, even if it was her business, Minerva - a professor who witnessed both Remus and Tonks grow up so many years apart - would realistically feel pretty weird about such relationship.

those aren't problems with the ship itself, but rather the way Joanne implemented their romance in the story. I think it would be more realistic if Ronks was some kind of fucked up forbidden romance from other characters' perspectives. the way everybody is so instantly supportive of them is quite jarring to me.

interestingly, when I read hp for the first time at 11 I was quite adamant in my belief that Tonks was in love with Molly up until that scene in half-blood prince. a very weird belief for a kid, I know. I just only liked girls at the time and was relating to Tonks quite a bit since her introduction, so I guess I unconsciously decided she was a lesbian even without knowing that term yet. I also had a crush on my teacher in 4th grade and she was quite similar to Molly... yeah, this girl was projecting too much. I didn't pick up on Remus' queer-coding until I fell down the rabbit hole of lgbt discourse at 14, but was pretty shocked to read about Tonks falling for a man at 11. she was so like me until she wasn't :) it's pretty funny to think about now.

in conclusion, I'm hella jealous of those of you who don't have weird brains and can enjoy Ronks to their fullest potential. their canon writing has its issues but they're more interesting for it, truly. I'll stay in my no fun corner, headcanoning them as lavender married, queer-platonic, bisexual besties co-parenting Teddy Alastor Tonks.