phantomeo - Tumblr blog

[phantomeo]

Harry and Dumbledore: Crisis of Faith

The Life and Lies of Dumbledore chapter from DH lives rent free in my head, and I would love to get on my soapbox about why. It's no secret that DH is an allegorical tale with Harry as Christ figure and Dumbledore positioned as God figure - often represented by the symbolism of the all-seeing eye. The eye in the mirror (which turns out to Aberforth, who sends Dobby to the rescue), the symbol of Deathly Hallows in Dumbledore's signature.

Eye symbolism:

A flash of brightest blue. Harry froze, his cut finger slipping on the jagged edge of the mirror again. He had imagined it, he must have done... If anything was certain, it was that the bright blue eyes of Albus Dumbledore would never pierce him again.

and

 Above what Harry assumed was the title of the story (being unable to read runes, he could not be sure) , there was a picture of what looked like a triangular eye, its pupil crossed with a vertical line.

The Deathly Hallows or the Gifts of Death is marked by a triangular eye - and it is explicitly seen as God's eye in Christian art and iconography.

So now, back to the chapter, where Harry completely loses faith:

The sun was coming up: The pure, colorless vastness of the sky stretched over him, indifferent to him and his suffering. Harry sat down in the tent entrance and took a deep breath of clean air.

The chapter opens with the smallness of Harry against the vast sky, a bird's eye view shot to really highlight how vulnerable he feels. On the heels of the chapters where he sees himself and his family immortalised in statues and have their bombed home preserved as memorial - a site people take comfort from the legend of Harry, and Harry takes comfort from the graffiti they left behind - it feels especially isolated. The vulnerability is glaring: Harry has lost the protection of the twin cores. The church bells are distant.

His senses had been spiked by the calamity of losing his wand. He looked out over a valley blanketed in snow, distant church bells chiming through the glittering silence.

Harry does not deal with vulnerability, most specifically helplessness very well. As a child raised in an abusive environment - his savior complex is rooted in needing to have agency. We see him grappling with what he perceives as complete abandonment from Dumbledore: 'Dumbledore had left them to grope in the darkness, to wrestle with unknown and undreamed-of terrors, alone and unaided: Nothing was explained, nothing was given freely, they had no sword, and now, Harry had no wand.'

And then, Harry reads the chapter titled Greater Good from Rita Skeeter's book.

So what was Albus doing, if not comforting his wild young brother? The answer, it seems, is ensuring the continued imprisonment of his sister.

This is important, because Harry's feelings about this are made clear in earlier chapters:

Could Dumbledore have let such things happen? Had he been like Dudley, content to watch neglect and abuse as long as it did not affect him? Could he have turned his back on a sister who was being imprisoned and hidden?

Harry is projecting onto Ariana Dumbledore, specifically with his experience of the Dursleys. He had once raged at Dumbledore in OOTP: "People don't like being locked up! You did it to me last summer!"

Harry's grievance with Dumbledore is not just about this exchange, but a specific choice Dumbledore made for his physical safety with blood wards. The narrative comes close to acknowledging it, in OOTP:

“Five years ago you arrived at Hogwarts, Harry, safe and whole, as I had planned and intended. Well — not quite whole. You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle’s doorstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years.” He paused. Harry said nothing.

to

“She doesn’t love me,” said Harry at once. “She doesn’t give a damn — ” “But she took you,” Dumbledore cut across him. “She may have taken you grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. Your mother’s sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I could give you.”

to

He knew one thing, though: unhappy as he felt at the moment, he would greatly miss Hogwarts in a few days' time when he was back at number four, Privet Drive. Even though he now understood exactly why he had to return there every summer, he did not feel any better about it. Indeed, he had never dreaded his return more.

Harry understands it then, so it is striking that the only time he allows himself to get truly angry at the position Dumbledore put him in this chapter, through Ariana:

 “I’m not trying to defend what Dumbledore wrote,” said Hermione. “All that ‘right to rule’ rubbish, it’s ‘Magic Is Might’ all over again. But Harry, his mother had just died, he was stuck alone in the house —”   “Alone? He wasn’t alone! He had his brother and sister for company, his Squib sister he was keeping locked up —”

“I don’t believe it,” said Hermione. She stood up too. “Whatever was wrong with that girl, I don’t think she was a Squib. The Dumbledore we knew would never, ever have allowed —”   “The Dumbledore we thought we knew didn’t want to conquer Muggles by force!” Harry shouted, his voice echoing across the empty hilltop, and several blackbirds rose into the air, squawking and spiraling against the pearly sky.

I am especially struck by the image of Harry's angry shouting making blackbirds fly into the pearly sky, and spiral over him. Blackbirds are associated with mystery, secrets and are seen as messengers to netherworld - this combined with the image of pearly white sky (heavens/God) seems intentional. It is carrying Harry's disillusionment to the heavens.

And then, the quote that pierces my soul, which is the heart of this chapter:

“Maybe I am!” Harry bellowed, and he flung his arms over his head, hardly knowing whether he was trying to hold in his anger or protect himself from the weight of his own disillusionment. “Look what he asked from me, Hermione! Risk your life, Harry! And again! And again! And don’t expect me to explain everything, just trust me blindly, trust that I know what I’m doing, trust me even though I don’t trust you! Never the whole truth! Never!”

It is reminiscent of Snape's "you have used me! I have spied for you, lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you" - basically, "why have you forsaken me?" moment.

 He had trusted Dumbledore, believed him the embodiment of goodness and wisdom. All was ashes: How much more could he lose? 

The chapter being set in whiteness and emptiness, reminiscent of King's Cross chapter where Harry does get his answers from Dumbledore.

And then Hermione, who has modified her parents memories, can confidently assert that "He loved you, I know he loved you", because her love for her parents, for Ron, can also be sacrificed at the altar of greater good, even if it means doing things that would hurt them (not choosing to go with Ron) and dismiss their agency (as is with her parents). It doesn't mean she doesn't love them.

  “I don’t know who he loved, Hermione, but it was never me. This isn’t love, the mess he’s left me in. He shared a damn sight more of what he was really thinking with Gellert Grindelwald than he ever shared with me.”

Harry ends the chapter with seeking comfort from Hermione's touch, brushing his hair - wishing he could believe that Dumbledore really cared. (shoutout to @bluethepineapple meta here about this chapter)

And it is then where Dumbledore's gifts come in motion next chapter: his Deluminator lets Ron find his way back. Snape, effectively Dumbledore's man, sends the doe. Harry counts on what he learned from Dumbledore to destroy the Horcrux - he gives Ron the opportunity to wield the sword:

As certainly as he had known that the doe was benign, he knew that Ron had to be the one to wield the sword. Dumbledore had at least taught Harry something about certain kinds of magic, of the incalculable power of certain acts.

And then by Shell Cottage, Harry accepts Dumbledore's plan as is, and reaffirms his faith in Dumbledore's idea of Greater Good:

Dobby would never be able to tell them who had sent him to the cellar, but Harry knew what he had seen. A piercing blue eye had looked out of the mirror fragment, and then help had come. Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it.

And then Harry chooses to stay on path Dumbledore laid out for him, only wishing now that he simply understood the man:

When Harry had finished speaking (about Voldemort), Ron shook his head.   “You really understand him.”   “Bits of him,” said Harry. “Bits . . . I just wish I’d understood Dumbledore as much. But we’ll see. Come on — Ollivander now.”

And finally, he starts to understand Dumbledore - through his conversation with Aberforth:

"And Albus was free, wasn’t he? Free of the burden of his sister, free to become the greatest wizard of the —”   “He was never free,” said Harry.   “I beg your pardon?” said Aberforth.   “Never,” said Harry. “The night that your brother died, he drank a potion that drove him out of his mind. He started screaming, pleading with someone who wasn’t there. ‘Don’t hurt them, please . . . hurt me instead.’”   “He thought he was back there with you and Grindelwald, I know he did,” said Harry, remembering Dumbledore whimpering, pleading. “He thought he was watching Grindelwald hurting you and Ariana. . . . It was torture to him, if you’d seen him then, you wouldn’t say he was free.”

Finally, he gets his chance to have a conversation with Dumbledore at the crossroads of life and death. TLDR: Deathly Hallows is an allegorical tale and it is best to treat it as such and roll with it, because otherwise it's deux machina galore.

[phantomeo]

What should a society's goals be? Arrow's theorem and the problem of social choice

Social choice theory is the field of study devoted to the question of what society as a whole should have as its goals.

A way to start thinking about this problem is from the point of view of individual preferences. If an individual prefers the world to be in state A over state B, then it can be said that an individual is "better off" in state A over state B. This isn't entirely uncontroversial, we can imagine scenarios where it's at least questionable that an individuals preferences being satisfied doesn't make them better off, (think of alcoholics or other addicts for example. They might prefer to have a drink today, but it's reasonable to question whether that actually makes them better off (economists call phenomena like this discontinuous preferences)), but for the moment we're going to ignore other sources of information aside from individual preferences to determine societal goals. As a way to start to solve the problem of social choice: finding and achieving the state of the world that society most prefers, starting from individual preferences is reasonable. What are a society's preferences but a combination of individual preferences, after all?

To do start doing this we'll first place two basic restrictions on individual preferences. First, when presented between two options, A and B, the individual must prefer one or the other, or be indifferent (call that completeness). Second, if an individual prefers A to B, and B to C, then she will also prefer A to C (call that transitivity). The problem of social choice is about finding the combination of these types of preferences that society most prefers.

The economist Kenneth Arrow in the 1950's had as an objective the discovery of a social choice function, or rule. Something you could feed a specific set of societal preferences into that would produce a ranking of the states of the world for society as a whole. Of course, there's an infinity of possible rules, so what he tried to do first was set up some reasonable conditions that such a rule should have, so as to narrow things down. They are as follows:

universal domain: as long as they're transitive and complete, we don't want to put any other restrictions on the preferences individuals are allowed to have.

non-dictatorship: the rule shouldn't let a single individual impose their preferences on everyone else (you could rephrase the previous condition to include this one, but it's worth separate them for salience)

Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA): If I prefer A to B, the inclusion or removal of another preference C shouldn't change that preference. An example of why this matters: say there's an election and there's 3 candidates, Donald Trump, Joe Biden and Jill Stein, and I prefer Biden over Trump. If IIA holds, then Jill Stein suddenly dying and no longer being an option shouldn't change that preference. If it doesn't, then it can.

Pareto Principle: If at least one individual prefers state A over state B, and no one prefers state B to state A, then the rule should respect that preference. This is about making the rule respect decisions over which society is unanimous.

Finally, the final ranking of societal preference over states of the world that the rule spits out should also be transitive and complete, so as to give a total ordering over all feasible states of the world

Read over each of these conditions individually. They're all pretty reasonable no? None of them are too crazy, and seem to be a good thing for a decision making procedure to have. Sadly, Arrow didn't find a rule that satisfies all those conditions. Couldn't have in fact, due to what he actually ended up finding:

Arrow proved, mathematically, that as long as a society has at least 3 individuals, it is logically impossible to construct a rule that satisfies all five conditions. Can't be done. This result is now known as Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. Any social choice rule you happen to design, must either: A) violate one of the conditions or B) incorporate more information than individual preference rankings.

Are there non controversial ways around this problem?

One possible social choice rule would be to just use the Pareto principle described above: state A is preferred to state B if and only if at least one person prefers state A to state B, and no-one prefers state B to state A. If that's the case, moving to state A makes at least one person better off and no-one worse off; this is called a Pareto improvement. If there are no states that are Pareto improvements on state A, then state A is Pareto efficient. This is based on the unanimous judgement of society, and so is a pretty non-controversial way to try and make social choices. So what's the problem? the pareto principle violates 5) total ordering. There are many possible pareto efficient social outcomes, and this gives us no way to decide which is better. Additionally, some of these possible pareto efficient states clearly aren't desirable. Suppose society can only produce 1 million dollars and that's its limit. If only one person has those million dollars then there's no way to change that outcome without making that individual worse off. The state is pareto efficient sure, but it's dogshit. The pareto principle is thus non controversial and useful, but also very limited and won't take us all that far. There are problems it cannot solve

What about if we make the Pareto principle less strict? This is known as the Kaldor-Hicks criterion: it states that state A is a K-H improvement over state B, if it's to be possible to redistribute goods in state A in such a way that no-one is worse off than in state B. Some people may be worse off in state A than state B, but as long as it would be possible for the people who are better off to give some of their resources to the people who are made worse off and fully compensate them for their loss, A is a Kaldor-Hicks improvement over B. The redistribution of resources from the winners to the losers is called Kaldor-Hicks transfers. We can compare many more social states using the Kaldor-Hicks principle than the Pareto principle, but Kaldor-Hicks still doesn't give us a complete social ordering. Additionally, it has problems when considering non monetary costs, since it makes it so that it's not really possible to truly compensate the losers since they care about different things than the winners "win".

How does voting fare?

Stuff like majority rule, where everyone choses their favorite over a set of preferences, and whoever gets the most votes wins, is in many ways very attractive, but fails transitivity (you can get situations where society prefers A>B>C>A). Plurality rule violates IIA. And so on. Every system has cost. Additionally, voting is not easy in practice to apply, and has limited applicability. While it can occasionally be used, society is faced with too many decisions to have individuals vote over each one.

What if we used more info?

Arrow's theorem relies on the only information available to an individual for use in their social choice rule are individual preference orderings. What if a government relaxes that assumption? We've been assuming so far that a government knows if you prefer A to B, but nothing about the magnitude of such preferences. It can know that I prefer A to B, and that you prefer B to A, but it can't say anything about the strength of such a preference.

If we relax the assumption, if instead we assume that the government knows how much each individual likes each possible state - that they know the "utility" each person gets from each state, as a number (for the more math inclined, this is going from ordinal comparisons to cardinal ones), and can compare that number between people - then it's possible to produce a social choice rule that satisfies all of Arrow's other conditions. There are lots of possible social choice rules of this kind; probably the most commonly used one is a utilitarian rule, where A is preferred to B if the total utility in state A is higher than in state B. But there's no need for the government to only maximize total utility, and it can use any function of the utilities of all the different individuals that it likes. It could instead rank states based on average utility, or a weighted average that puts more weight on worse-off individuals than better-off ones, or more.

This is the approach that economists tend to use, but be aware that it has its problems. For one, the assumption that we can know magnitudes can be quite strong. I know that I prefer strawberries to bananas, but by how much? I don't know if I could put a strict number on it. If it can be hard for me to discern the magnitude of my own preferences, it's even harder to discern the magnitudes of others. How the fuck would I know if my preference for strawberries is stronger than someone else's preference for bananas? Are we really justified in saying the government can do that? Often enough we aren't but still, cardinal utility remains one of the few ways to analyze policy in areas where we need to go beyond pareto improvements (basically any policy that has winners and losers, which is the vast majority).

Most economists use various utilitarian approaches, but that isn't without criticism (though I myself tend to approach these problems in this way). That said, I hope this post at least gives you an idea about why they tend to do that, and the problems alternative approaches should be trying to deal with if you're going to criticize it.

[phantomeo]

quick sketch of the cokeworth duo during my 9am meeting

[phantomeo]

Compulsive repetition and cycle-breaking - the importance of Albus Severus Potter, or: Harry's last and greatest protector

There is a lot of trauma to go around in HP, and tragically (and realistically), it keeps happening.

Harry is repeatedly orphaned, first from his parents, then from Sirius and Dumbledore - his actual appointed parent figure if anything should happen to his parents, and Harry's "last, greatest protector" according to his narration of the funeral.

Dumbledore's formative trauma is his role in his sister's death thanks to dabbling in Dark magic and the subsequent cover-up, and within his attempt to pay his karmic debt and stop another Dark wizard from taking over, he finds himself endangering god knows how many children under his care: Snape nearly died as a student, and many of the children he watched grow up and then recruited into the OOTP died as well. The seemingly incongruent triumphant look in his eyes when Harry tells him about the blood Voldemort took might be the moment his own pattern breaks for the first time - he is still fighting for the Greater Good, but thanks to his machinations over the years, he had given Harry a chance to survive his part in Dumbledore's crusade. I think this arc concludes when he fights for Draco's soul unto death - it serves a strategic purpose to cement Snape's position, yes, but also, he died having saved a child in his care from the fate that had tormented Dumbledore himself even after an actual century.

Snape's traumas are many, but the formative one is catalyzing Lily's death. He then finds himself - again, but worse this time - forced to push the trigger on his only friend's death. The pain this causes him is evident - he wails like a wounded animal in the immediate aftermath and even risks going to Sirius's house to find something that would keep him going.

I'd like to propose that Snape might have known that Harry's best chance at survival - i.e. Snape's best chance at redemption - would be Harry's Lily-like self-sacrificing act.

Pensieve memories are unfalsifiable, but there might have been an element of choice in when to end them, and it's possible Snape always knew he would have to use a Pensieve to persuade Harry to believe him. The conversation that ends in "Always" couldn't actually have ended like that, because nothing is actually resolved: Dumbledore does not convince Snape that Voldemort's defeat is more important than Harry's survival. The height of the conflict between Snape and Dumbledore is the least natural point to end the scene. Tellingly, Dumbledore's eyes are closed throughout the entire explanation of Harry's supposed ultimate fate. Snape and Dumbledore were both legilimenses, and legilimency requires eye contact. I strongly believe closed eyes, then, indicate "there's more".

“Precisely. If there comes a time when Lord Voldemort stops sending that snake forth to do his bidding, but keeps it safe beside him under magical protection, then, I think, it will be safe to tell Harry.” “Tell him what?” Dumbledore took a deep breath and closed his eyes.

This is followed by the explanation, including the dialogue:

“So the boy . . . the boy must die?” asked Snape quite calmly. “And Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential.”

So: Harry must know why he is dying, and it must be done by Voldemort's hand. Harry must also find out, and then sacrifice himself, at a very specific moment. If the only important thing is "dead Harry," this could easily be achieved. The specifics are essential.

Dumbledore opened his eyes. Snape looked horrified.

Snape's admonishment, and the "Always" exchange, follow.

After this conversation occurs, Snape kills Dumbledore, and immediately after that he duels Harry and does not let him come to harm, saying "Potter belongs to the Dark Lord".

In Dark Lord Ascending, we see that Snape made sure Voldemort would know he alone must kill Harry. I posit that it was not merely Voldemort's ego, as he could have sent anyone (and indeed he used Narcissa as a human shield to make sure Harry was truly dead). He is uniquely bad at killing Harry. Yet he says:

"But I know better now. I understand those things that I did not understand before. I must be the one to kill Harry Potter, and I shall be."

This must have come from Dumbledore's spy, then sitting beside Voldemort as his most valuable servant.

Snape is still capable of producing the Doe Patronus, which represents Lily, and he is still serving Dumbledore despite having been used by him for years at that point.

It might mean that Snape understood that his personal quest for redemption is not as important as the entire world, but this insight is already served by his choice to die, sending Voldemort to battle with a wand that won't answer to him.

And anyway, if Harry must die, why is it so important that he sacrifice himself willingly? Why is it so important that Voldemort himself do it? A final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort or one of his cronies would have happened at some point, and Harry would have died, and Voldemort's last vestige would have died with him. Snape was not a stupid man, and not an unquestioning follower. The idea that this is actually rather a strange thing for Dumbledore to insist on must have occurred to him at some point. The self-sacrifice element was Harry's chance to come back, and this was why giving Harry the memories was imperative. Presumably, this knowledge also made it worthwhile to Snape to explain himself and his actions as thoroughly as he had, because really - only a couple of the memories he gave Harry are strategically important.

Snape dies because of the prophecy he had delivered. Lord Voldermort says:

"It cannot be any other way,” said Voldemort. "I must master the wand, Severus. Master the wand, and I master Potter at last."

Snape is why Voldemort is interested in Harry, and he dies for this, and because of this. Voldemort thinks he is due to win at any moment.

But Harry - Harry, who had spared Peter Pettigrew, who had by then amassed so many tragic deaths - can feel pity and mercy, even for Snape. In the shrieking shack, where Harry had proved his mettle once before, Snape is slowly dying and Harry shows his compassion to him, the compassion Snape must have missed so much, lacked so painfully. He gets to look into Lily's eyes knowing that perhaps he might not have failed her.

He dies redeemed, even - especially - to the boy who was his main victim. Snape had both orphaned him and mistreated him as a student, but he was Harry's true latest and greatest protector. His pattern is broken, his trauma is resolved, and Lily's sacrifice is not wasted.

And Harry understands him. Snape's main victim reveres him, symbolically makes Snape a member of his family who is worthy to be mentioned in the same breath as Dumbledore. Harry's cycle is broken in that he has his own family, he commemorates his dead, and he forgives and understands even the man he had once hated as much as he did Voldemort himself. In Harry, Snape and Dumbledore broke their patterns, and in forgiving them and understanding he has always had protectors, imperfect as they were, Harry breaks his own. That is the true end, why the epilogue works, and the way to get from repeated loss and trauma to "all is well."

[phantomeo]

Story time with Snape in the astronomy tower

The cover for @snapecelebration’s 2023 calendar - How to get it

[phantomeo]

He doesn't want anyone to sit next to him.

I draw sometimes :>

[phantomeo]

Hours before my birthday, @thecat-isblogging-blog gives me the BEST GIFT. A group photo with my pieces of my heart - the group of gremlins who kept me sane through the pandemic year. @phantomeo @bluethepineapple @thecat-isblogging-blog, @shes-a-gryffindor , @thedreamermusing , @dragonlordette , Potato (i cant find you on tumblr :O), @urupotter , and @kald-dal-art

Thank you <3

[phantomeo]

If Argentina wins I fully blame you

If Argentina wins the world cup I’ll take my life in front of a kindergarten.

[phantomeo]

In French we don’t say “I’ll die on this hill” we say “Je n’en démordrai pas” which means “I won’t unbite this” and I think it’s beautiful

[phantomeo]

YOUR TOP HARRY MOMENT!

I love how you just screamed this into my inbox XD Since I just talked about it yesterday with @phantomeo , a Harry stan I dearly love, I'm going to name a moment that we both mourned not putting in our top 10 (because we keep forgetting it T_T): Harry as Albert Runcorn letting the Muggleborns escape. From using the reputation of Albert Runcorn against hapless Ministry employees: “We’ve been told to seal all exits and not let anyone — "

“ Are you contradicting me?” Harry blustered. “Would you like me to have your family tree examined, like I had Dirk Cresswell’s?” TO

“Seal the exit! SEAL IT!”

Yaxley had burst out of another lift and was running toward the group beside the fireplaces, into which all of the Muggle-borns but Mrs. Cattermole had now vanished. As the balding wizard lifted his wand, Harry raised an enormous fist and punched him, sending him flying through the air.

“He’s been helping Muggle-borns escape, Yaxley!” Harry shouted. The balding wizard’s colleagues set up an uproar, under cover of which Ron grabbed Mrs. Cattermole, pulled her into the still-open fireplace, and disappeared. LMAO. What an absolute icon, legend. Right up there with getting a mad idea to get on a dragon.

[phantomeo]

fandom approaches male characters from a watsonian perspective and female characters from a doylist perspective

[phantomeo]

What HP character is overrated? (in your opinion please)

Charlie lol

[phantomeo]

What gift would Kyo give Tohru for her birthday? Please :) pspsps

A healthy bouquet of leeks to munch

[phantomeo]

Hermione Reading before Bed by ~Lincevioleta

[phantomeo]

Same

[phantomeo]

Thank you so much both of you

I love you 💕

A @thecatisdrawing creation

This was commissioned by me as a collective gift for @phantomeo 🌟

Cat is super professional, talented and involves you in every step of the way. And she captured our "vibes" like no one else and I really liked looking at ourselves through her eyes and art!

[phantomeo]

I just came across this wonderful post by @ashesandhackles where the following was said about the possibility of reading Chamber of Secrets through Hermione’s perspective:

Hermione reads like a child who comes from privilege - and it will be interesting to see how she grapples with Muggleborn politics. @bluethepineapple had a very interesting insight into Hermione's process in the Polyjuice plan, where she declares threatening Muggleborns (where the dialogue makes it sound like she isn't one of them) is worse than brewing a complicated potion. Here is what Blue had to say:

"Being in a position of vulnerability is brand new and it is really throwing her off. She does not know how to integrate it with her previous position of privilege. So she is in this weird in between place where she is acting on said privilege (ie. the position of protector) while having been inducted to a minority group. At this point in time, being a muggle-born is still something she feels separate from."

Personally, this hits really close to home, and I kind of wanted to talk about it. (Actually getting to read this from Hermione’s perspective would’ve been great!)

For the first few years of my life, despite living in a western country, I didn’t interact with anyone outside of family or family friends and stuff (I wasn’t isolated, but as a little kid, taking me to a family friends’ house or to the mosque was a lot more likely than other public places)

It wasn’t until I started school that I came to the realization that I was actually technically part of a marginalized group. It felt like I was suddenly thrust into a new world where I was looked down on and seen as lesser. I experienced a lot of racism and people judging me based on skin colour or beliefs alone.

But despite that, it took a very long time for me to see myself as a person of colour. Like, yes it’s what I am, but the label always felt weird because it’s just what I was. I didn’t understand why it was something people needed to comment on or why it wasn’t just accepted.

Hearing stories of hate crime and police brutality always angered me because I couldn’t understand how people could be so horrifyingly hateful, and yet I never actually saw myself as someone who could be treated that way, even when I experienced it first hand.

When I would get called certain slurs or told offensive things, I knew it should upset me, but it never bothered me to the extent that other poc talk about, because I was always more confused or alarmed, rather than hurt or angry. (Similar to how Hermione reacts several times to being called a “mud blood”)

I felt separated from other poc despite also eventually experiencing a lot of harassment and racism, and to this day, despite being someone who speaks out against all forms of racism in my personal life and on social media, I still always feel like I’m lying when I say I’m a person of colour.

Even now, this hasn’t completely gone away. Even now when young woman like me who look like me keep being subjected to hatred, or kidnapped, or even killed in my own city that I live in, I still sometimes (not always) struggle with coming to terms with my identity, in a way I get the impression many other poc, don’t.

So yeah…it’s just really interesting to me, that others recognized this in Hermione because it too intrigued me.

Being hit with the sudden realization that I’m part of a minority, where many people don’t think I should be here, or be given rights, or even be allowed to breathe, especially at a young age…it was scary and weird and it definitely wasn’t easy.

That line about Hermione declaring threatening muggleborns is worse than brewing an illegal potion, while not including herself in that statement, feels SO real.

I definitely think (if we’re looking at this realistically and if Rowling had gone into that) that it would’ve taken Hermione until at least Goblet of Fire (and even than, she had to be reminded she was a muggleborn during the World Cup) for her to truly start to understand that she WAS a muggleborn, and it would have taken her even longer to understand all the implications of that. Even so, it wouldn’t have been until Deathly Hallows, and when she’d gotten captured, for it to truly have sunk in. The scar on her arm from Bellatrix especially, would’ve made it clear.

I think this is something that can and should be explored more. I don’t think I’m the only person to have ever felt like this, and in terms of Harry Potter, I’m guessing most muggleborns would experience this in-universe. (Definitely got the impression that Lily went through a similar experience. Likely why her friendship with Snape lasted as long as it did, despite the company he kept)