#I do not think that making a horcrux is inherently more evil than a death curse because it preserves life not ends it

[banannabethchase]

I should not be allowed to watch Um, Actually because so many of their answers are wrong, even the answers that they claim are right. And my autistic ass knows way too much about way too much, and if I have to see somebody poorly draw a chimera ever again, and confidently state that it's correct, I will lose my mind.

[thereisnolumos]

Christian symbolism in harry potter:

Snakes being evil and lions being good:

Snake referencing the devil and the snake from Adam and Eve. The lion in Christianity is a symbol of light and goodness and represents judah.

How all witches and wizards mainly good ones only doing magic with wands. Any form of actual witch craft used by dark or gray characters especially if you think about potions. Harry mainly only using the same spells or a sword or physical strength or bravery. Or pure light magic.

Harry and Deathly Hallows especially: how Harry becomes reborn again is similar to Jesus. The talk of souls and soul splitting and how that is a lot like the talk of Christianity how they talk of an immortal soul. No wonder Horcruxes to jk Rowling seems like such a horrible and dark magic. Yet honestly any magic if you think about it can be used in a dark way. How the more Voldemort splits his soul the less human he becomes and how that is really the sources of his evil to jk Rowling. Not the actual acts of violence he commits.

How there's no grey in Jk Rowlings world and that mentality is a lot like how Christians view the world.

Honestly, I never got any impression of religious influence in any of this things, but I think it’s a valid point of view. And I wouldn’t put it past JKR to include religious hysteria in her books (no, I don’t think that all religions are bad, but too many times in history and nowadays regions had been butchered, twisted and used to justify evil actions of people)

I remember long ago reading a meta on how JKR uses both witch and wizard as if they were synonymous/gender specific terms for the same thing. When in reality, witches are the ones who use mainly nature magic and make potions and all that, and wizards are the ones with wands and light/dark distinction (there were much more to it, I need to dive into it more). It’s actually one of my headcanons and plot pints in the fanfic that lives only in my head for now, that the separation of “light” and “dark” magic isn’t natural and the usage of wands isn’t necessary, and is only enforced because it’s easier to control children’s magic in schools, than to teach them to use magic through their bodies only.

I agree with you, that any spell can be used for good or for evil, and none are inherently one. They learn Incendio pretty early on - you can burn a person alive with it if you want. Same with using Aguamenti to drown someone. I’m actually trying to expand on it with the spells that are considered “dark”, I think it can be argued that Cruciatus could be used to revive a person that is nearly dead/had their heart stopping or something in this regard, Avada is honestly a mercy kill without any changes/expansions to the world building. It’s literally described as painless instant death, whose to say it wasn’t invented during holy inquisition times, to bring peace to those who were tortured/burned at the stakes (I don’t buy the idiotic idea of “they didn’t feel the flames/charmed them not to burn” as if the wands wouldn’t have been the first thing taken away and it was established that they don’t practice wandless magic). Imperius could be intended for controlling animals perhaps, assisting in training them or to collect some ingredients without killing the animal. This one I’m still figuring out

If I recall the books, Harry actually used both Imperius and Cruciatus without any remorse (and I love both instances, especially him using Cruciatus on Amycus, that’s like my favorite scene in Book 7, and it’s definitely in top 10 overall. Will never forgive them for not including it in the film). I don’t know know, whether she intended for us to reprimand Harry in these scenes or something, I only cheered. Also - it makes no sense, that Cruciatus didn’t work on Bellatrix in Book 5. She gonna try and tell me, that Harry didn’t WANT to hurt her for killing Sirius? Is she for real? And I don’t recall other spells requiring SUCH specific intent.

These books have almost zero real world building to them, which is why I’ll never buy into her tale that she “thought everything through in the very beginning”. She’s the epitome of “just going with it”

[theoriginalcarnivorousmuffin]

Yeah, so I read your HP headcanons/analysis and I found it really well put. I was wondering about your thoughts on Dumbledore and who he really was as a person. (It’s okay if you don’t really want to reply :> )

We’re just getting all up into The Carnivorous Muffin headcanon land, aren’t we?

Well, this one’s probably obvious to anyone who reads my work.

I fall on the manipulative Dumbledore side of things and then some. Dumbledore is not only a bastard man but is a raging misogynist and extremely classist (which is funny because I don’t see too many people calling him out for those last two when to me canon all but shouts it at you). 

Basically, what it comes down to, is even taken in very good faith I simply cannot read Dumbledore’s actions as benign in pretty much every single goddamn decision he makes ever.

God, where do I even start here? I guess we can go chronologically.

Well, there was Dumbledore’s Wizard Nazi youth with an oddly Dorian Gray flare to it with Gellert. I think it’s fairly obvious why Dumbledore’s not exactly... good there so I’m going to skip past it. Suffice to say, it took his sister’s death (and maybe murdering his own invalid sister) for Dumbledore to stop planning world domination. Even then it wasn’t so much that world domination was wrong, but because his sister died and he was an asshole.

I’m going to go ahead and include CoG and Fantastic Beasts because I can (CoG, while a terrible movie, actually does entertain me in many ways). Anyways, before the films came out I always considered the younger Dumbledore far more stoic and brooding. He doesn’t get his eccentric persona until after the defeat of Grindelwald and was before then angsty mcangsts and an academic at heart. 

Well, per CoG, apparently he was a budding spy master long before defeating Gellert/Voldemort popped up. We see him manipulating Newt, sending him to Paris as his own agent, WHEN NEWT DOESN’T WANT TO GO AND HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT DUMBLEDORE USED HIM INTHE LAST FILM. Dumbledore writes off having used Newt for his own agenda with a charming smile but none the less it paints a pretty grim picture that Albus has always been... Albus. There has always been a greater good out there somewhere and the man is always using someone as a pawn.

Cut to canon and his treatment of Tom Riddle. Frankly, Dumbledore’s treatment of the young Tom Riddle, and even Tom Riddle just before he came Voldemort, is insane. The thought experiment I like to run is “replace Tom in those scenes with Harry Potter”.

Harry was a poor orphan, whose guardians would more than match what Mrs. Cole said about Tom Riddle, who had spurts of accidental magic now and then and enjoyed when his bully cousin was discomfitted. Now, imagine Dumbledore giving Harry his letter, and then pretending to light all of Harry’s possessions on fire to “teach him a lesson”. What the fuck?

Now, am I saying Tom Riddle wasn’t creepy here and that killing a rabbit was terrible. No. But I am saying Dumbledore had a horrible reaction to it and is proud of it years later. (Also, the fact that he uses this memory to convince Harry of how evil Tom is, is hilarious to me. Dumbledore, you were the shit that lit people’s wardrobes on fire. If I was Tom, I’d be upset too). 

Dumbledore is always like this with Tom Riddle. He thinks the worst of Tom even in points where Tom hasn’t done anything. I’m not talking about later when, yes, Tom did live up to Dumbledore’s fears but when Dumbledore treats him like garbage and actively sabotaged Tom’s career.

Anyways, cut to later when the Marauders are in school. One of the big things is that Dumbledore puts up a guerilla resistance gang OF SCHOOL CHILDREN. While most members are older, James, Lily, Sirius, Remus, and Peter are all only just out of Hogwarts. “Well,” you say, “It’s their choice and they did graduate. Surely Dumbledore wasn’t actually recruiting school children.” I point you towards canon, where Dumbledore convinces three actual school children that the fate of the nation rests on their shoulders and to go fight the good fight. So yes, Dumbledore canonically uses child soldiers and has no regret for doing so.

The other is letting James and Sirius off the hook for the Lupin incident. While Dumbledore talks the talk this showed that he was not willing to walk the walk. True, while getting them into major trouble would have involved outing Lupin (who was innocent in all of this) at the same time they were nearly responsible for the murder of another student. It’s very convenient that Dumbledore lets off the rich son of a lord, two individuals who later end up in the resistance movement (Potter likely funding part of it), and tells the impoverished half blood to sit down and shut up.

And in canon, yes, I believe that Dumbledore absolutely knew what Harry’s home condition was like. While the blood wards are an excuse they aren’t a particularly good one as for most of Harry’s childhood the Death Eaters were all accounted for. Harry was in no extreme danger from them. To not have had an inkling of Harry’s home life (when Harry even hints at it when wanting to stay over the summer, Harry runs away from home in third year, Fred and George see the bars on the window, and he even visits Harry’s home in sixth year) would be such laughable incompetence and stupidity it’s right out.

With that, I absolutely do believe what Snape showed us in the memory, the Dumbledore behind the scenes as it were. That Dumbledore knew fairly early that Harry Potter was a horcrux and began grooming Harry for suicide. Specifically, that’s what sixth year really is. All those memories of Tom Riddle, the pretext to get some memory from Slughorn, it’s an excuse for a smear campaign designed to convince Harry that Tom Riddle is inherently evil and must die at all costs, even Harry’s own life. 

Dumbledore didn’t need that Slughorn memory. Sure, it was useful to know Tom intended to make seven but think about it. How did Dumbledore know there’d be anything remotely useful in there? He doesn’t know that Tom actually drops a number on Slughorn. Even then, he doesn’t know whether Tom actually goes and does it. All of it felt like, “Harry, I have a super secret important mission that only YOU can do. Can you handle it, Harry? Because without this the country is surely doomed” And in that I mean it was an effort to win back Harry’s favor after the previous year meltdown, keep him busy, and start in on the excuse to show Harry some pretty damn innocuous memories of Tom Riddle and go, “See, HE IS EVIL!”

Due to this, I frankly think that the train scene was a hallucination on Harry’s part. Wishful thinking for some gentle explanation of how Dumbledore had not cruelly used him for years and intended his death. 

Well, that and it never made much sense that Dumbledore could predict Harry’s a) becoming the master of death b) miraculous second resurrection.

In the first case, Harry becomes master of death because of wand lore bullshit and happenstance where Harry happens to save Draco’s life. Dumbledore had no idea such a thing would happen. Dumbledore’s plan was for there to be no master of death, as the wand would default to having no owner when Snape defeated Dumbledore on Dumbledore’s orders. That Draco got the wand is a sort of Deus ex Machina. Sorry guys, Dumbledore intended Harry to die.

More, even then, while Dumbledore was very into the occult of these things we leave canon without any idea if these things are even responsible for his resurrection. They’re just relatively nifty objects with a legend behind them. There was nothing concrete to suggest that, should Harry happen to get all of them, he would be able to rise from the dead.

Otherwise onto the misogyny and classism parts.

In terms of misogyny this is from every time Dumbledore talks about Lily Evans or Merope Gaunt. In the case of Lily, she’s this weird Madonna figure whose love for Harry was so powerful it saved his life. That she also happened to make these blood wards Dumbledore cannot reproduce and extended her protection to Harry wherever he went is irrelevant. It’s her love that counts. That feminine, maternal, love purer than all others.

Basically, Dumbledore seems to be of the belief that women are flowers. The best of women are these demure, selfless, brave women who sacrifice themselves for their children. Yikes, Dumbledore.

Merope’s the really bad one though. Merope’s tale is how she drugged and raped a defenseless muggle for months and then he escaped. Dumbledore spins it into this Victorian tale of woe where Tom Riddle Sr. THE KIDNAPPED RAPE VICTIM is the asshole here who abandoned Merope to the merciless cold world. How dare he. 

It’s very clear that Dumbledore doesn’t see Merope, or women in general, as people. Instead these weird Victorian ideals who can be tragic victims of circumstance.

As for the classism.

While Dumbledore’s very against the pureblood culture we see in the Malfoys a lot of his treatment of Tom Riddle feels very... classist. The big one, which is a little tangential but I say it counts, is Dumbledore’s theory that children of rape are incapable of love. Granted, he’s saying this while convincing Harry to kill himself for the good of the cause and there is a real world parallel in that alcohol/drugs while pregnant is a very bad idea that can lead to extreme mental and physical health disorders. That said, we’re talking love potions at conception, and it always read more as “rape babies” vs. specific drugs. And that is... just yikes on so many levels.

Now, do I agree with manipulative Dumbledore we see in many fics? No, because Dumbledore’s not that stupid.

He doesn’t need to borrow money from Harry’s vault, he doesn’t need to pay off Hermione and Ron to be Harry’s friends, he doesn’t need to choose Harry’s friends for him, he doesn’t need to manipulate Harry’s memories directly. He doesn’t need to do any of this because he got what he wanted just fine in canon.

Dumbledore is one of the smartest characters in canon, far smarter than Harry, and he doesn’t have to stoop to such outrageous schemes to get what he wants. Poorly concealed smear campaigns convincing Harry to commit suicide are more than enough.

[r0sequarks]

Dumbledore is totally not a Gryffindor and I spent an hour writing an essay about it because i am a giant nerd so check under the cut if you want to read my really well thought out conspiracy theory 

Dumbledore is not a Gryffindor. While he does have courage and bravery, so does he he value hard work and loyalty, and is intelligent and witty - having the traits does not define being part of a house, as seen by Hermione Granger being the smartest witch of her age but still a Gryffindor - no, it is what drives you, and what is at the core of your being, and Dumbledore shows no signs of being driven by bravery. While he does frequently fight, he prefers to take a more passive role, manipulating others into fighting for him, acting as a leader over others. Throughout the series, he takes the role of a chessmaster, placing Harry so that he can develop as the means to kill Voldemort, even though theoretically it may be within Dumbledore's means to slay the man himself. Above all else, he is not brave, but smart - and not smart in a studious manner, but 'street smart', although he certainly is well-learned. His primary intelligence lies in manipulation, in resourcefulness, leadership, cunning, ambition. Albus Dumbledore is undoubtedly a Slytherin based on his actions, which leads to the question - why does his Chocolate Frog card say he is in Gryffindor.

Dumbledore is undoubtedly in a position of power, especially within Hogwarts. At the time we discover he was allegedly in Gryffindor, he has been headmaster for twenty years, and has been teaching at Hogwarts for over seventy. He is one of the most well known and respected wizards, and one of the older, and given that two world wars and one wizarding war have passed since he was at Hogwarts, it is likely few remain who remember his actually attending the school. It is well within his means to change records, and to claim that he was in Gryffindor, and unlikely anyone would say otherwise, as his house in school is ultimately a minor matter for anyone who doesn't currently attend Hogwarts. From there comes the question of why - why would Dumbledore lie about his house? Well, from there, we look to none other than Dolores Umbridge.

Dolores Umbridge is the most hated character in the entire series. Everyone despises her. When faced with the question of who is worse - Voldemort, who is trying to commit genocide, and Umbridge, who while incredibly abusive is not a murderer, most need a moment to think about it. That's because evil on the scale of Voldemort is difficult to comprehend, while a bad teacher and abuse are something most everyone can understand and relate to. It is hard to know what to do, against massive evil - it is the minor evils that draw our attention. When we focus on systemic oppression, most often we focus on acts, and even better, individuals. So, to draw the focus on to a group like the Death Eaters, it can be easier to use a smaller, more relateable target - like school bullies. There is a mental association commonly present that Slytherin is Evil, and Gryffindor good - that Slytherin are junior Death Eaters. This connects simple school bullies to the massive, unimaginable evil - and draws the students, especially Gryffindor students, in to the mindset of child soldiers early on.

This also has the opposite effect - framing Slytherin students as evil gets rid of their chance to escape their families, and furthers the push of these students in to the ranks of the Death Eaters. If this was done purposefully, then Dumbledore must have willingly been able to sacrifice the minds and even the lives of children, to turn other children in to soldiers, all in an attempt to bring down Voldemort. This Machiavellian scheme seems unfitting to a man who plays the role of kind mentor, and who impresses the point of the power of love, but it is not without more prescient canonical evidence. Dumbledore leaves the young Harry with his Aunt and Uncle, despite the fact he could quite easily place him anywhere without question. Following that, he repeatedly sends Harry back to live with them, even knowing that it is an incredibly abusive environment. The argument can be made for the protective spell - but Hogwarts is just as protected. Dumbledore made the choice, to send Harry back instead of keeping him in Hogwarts, because he believed that it was necessary. Dumbledore has been shown to put the greater good over the safety of a child, and so these actions fit entirely within precedent.

It is of course possible that none of this is true - that he was a Gryffindor, that the Slutherin/Gryffindor divide is perfectly natural, and that there was no master plan. After all, we only truly see Dumbledore late in life, and the hat sees the present, not the future. Manipulation can be learned, and bravery and courage can take way to reason, especially over a century. The theory is based on the fact that DUmbledore was a Slytherin in his school years, after all, and not that he is one now. It all comes down to one phrase - the greater good.

Inscribed on the gates of Nurmengard, the prison which Gellert Grindelwald built and later inhabited, is the phrase, for the greater good. It is a phrase which defines Grindelwald's philosophy - to do evil for the greater good of the world - and one which Dumbledore himself coined. The Dumbledore we see glimpses of in an early life is decidedly even more of a Slytherin than the modern man, because he is defined by his ambition. While some say it is the fault of his infatuation with Grindelwald, Dumbledore readily plans out an attempt to overthrow the Wizarding World and form a benevolent dictatorship over the world - admittedly, for the greater good. This is an undeniable sign of his Slytherin nature, and provides even more evidence for the cover up - Dumbledore doesn't want anyone to know that he was friends with Grindelwald, how close he became to being a dark lord himself, as it would discredit him as the savior of the wizarding world and as a mentor to Harry. The friendship is one of Dumbledore's best kept secrets, as shown by the book Skeeter released following his death, revealing their relationship, something that few of Dumbledore's allies were able to believe, and that Harry only bought given evidence. The life and lies indeed.

Slytherin becomes Gryffindor, and the history books of the modern age become much cleaner - the grand hero who defeated Grindelwald was not his friend, and it is Gryffindors who save the day against the evils of Slytherin. Dumbledore, ever the Slytherin, is nothing but not resourceful. The lie protects him, forges Gryffindor in to a receptacle of young soldiers to be in the war, and even gives cover for his spies in the Death Eaters. The view of Slytherin as evil becomes effectively true - not by any inherent nature, but because people fill the roles in which they have been cast. Continuing on with this belief does nothing but further Dumbledore's manipulations of events.

Dumbledore is not the villain - and the revelation that he was a Slytherin, and the extent of his manipulations, doesn't change that fact. But, then again, neither is he the hero. The problems that are faced in the series are, inevitably, his fault - and it is only through him that they are fixed. This simplifies things, and removes the extent of certain actors agencies, but it is not entirely inaccurate. The similarities between Tom Riddle and Harry Potter extend well beyond sharing part of a soul. They are both orphans, raised in abusive muggle environments, who suddenly find themselves to be wizards. While it is not stated, it is most likely that Riddle was not sent back to the orphanage over the summer - in fact, given his in depth knowledge of the castle and its secrets, it's probable he stayed at Hogwarts for these vacations. What makes Riddle a villain is not, as what can be claimed, that he was a child of rape, but that he was someone with no power who quite suddenly became one of the most powerful in the world. With nothing to grant him humility, his arrogance grew, leading to his seeking more power, through the Horcruxes. It is not to say that Harry would have gone the same road - but it so easily could be. In the end, Harry is a pureblood, and he is a very wealthy one at that. He has immense power, and as they say - power corrupts. There are two factors that are the most prevelant at seperating Harry from power - the fact he lives with the Dursleys, and the fact he is a Gryffindor. The Dursleys, through their abuse, remind Harry of suffering, of what it is like to not be on top, something key in the development of empathy. And the reason he stressed that he wasn't a Slytherin? Because Slytherin is evil, and Gryffindor good.

That is not to say that without Dumbledore, Harry would have turned in to a second Voldemort. That is an unreasonable extreme. More likely, however, is that he would have turned in to a second James. James Potter was, ultimately, a good person, but he was also an arrogant bully, and it was only trying to win the love of Lily Evans that reversed that. A Harry more like James may have died at Voldemort's hands, too self confident, or not nearly as versed in the powers of love. Or, perhaps, he could have defeated Voldemort, but become corrupted by the power and fame. This isn't an apocalyptic ending, but it's an ending that ensures the status quo remains in place, whereas the Harry that we know, given that power and attention, is undoubtedly trying to change and fix the world.

Is it worth it? Is it worth putting a child through such pain, to better ensure his survival when he is pit against a genocidal maniac, and ultimately, to change the world? It is not something a Gryffindor would ever be able to do. But, the world needs Slytherins for a reason - for the Greater Good.

[writingfulfillment]

Five Headcanons That Will Change How You View Harry Potter

1. Black Hermione

When reading the books for the first time, some fans imagined Hermione as a black girl while others pictured her as white. The movies came out before I was old enough to read the books, so I imagined her as she was cast: a white girl. However, I think that the idea fits very well as do many other fans. Some prefer the other version, it just depends on how you pictured her. On twitter, Rowling said that she loved the idea of a black Hermione. I’ve read the whole series twice since hearing about this and there is no mention of her skin tone. Only that she had prominent teeth, curly/frizzy hair and was extremely intelligent. There is a lot more meaning behind her persecution as a Muggle-born when you imagine her as black. Her main bully in this area is Draco Malfoy; a rich, white boy from an ancient family. He frequently makes snide comments about her appearance and calls her “Mudblood”. This then implies that the Malfoy’s were racist. Knowing all of the other terrible things that they’ve done and believe in, it’s not much of a stretch.

In the fourth book at the Yule Ball, Hermione is literally unrecognizable, even to her two best friends. She straightens her hair and has shrunk down her front teeth noticeably. And for the first time, Harry realizes that she’s beautiful. In this world we’ve been brought up to believe that European standards of beauty are the only ones. They treasure light skin and straight hair; opposite to what people of African descent possess. It is sad but true to say that many Black women strive to adhere to these standards that exclude them entirely. It makes a lot of sense that a young black Hermione striving to look beautiful would spend hours painstakingly straightening her hair. And why almost no one recognized her when she had finished. She later states that it was fun for a special occasion, but way too much work for an everyday practice. I love her even more for embracing her wild but beautiful hair and her suggested ethnicity.  

2. House Elves Are A Metaphor For Oppressed Women

Some fans hypothesize that the House Elves in Harry Potter are a metaphor for the social limitations of Women. The House Elves are considered to be lesser beings, even though they posses a similar kind of magic to wizards. They are enslaved and receive no pay, let alone benefits or health care. They are meant to stay in the Wizard’s home and perform their domestic duty. This sounds too close for comfort to the job description of women in our society. Fortunately, we’ve gotten past the point of considering women as property of their husbands and fathers, so it’s not subtle slavery any more. But it’s still semi-acceptable for a man to discipline his wife when she displeases him. House Elves are severely punished when they make mistakes. But the issue of equal pay is still very pertinent today. The Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by Suffragette Alice Paul in 1923, but it was not passed by congress or ratified until 1972. This granted Women all of the same civil rights as men. And yet, in 2013 women earned only 78 cents for every dollar that a man working the same job earned.

By the fourth book there is however, there is one payed House Elf; Dumbledore employs Dobby at Hogwarts. This leads to the discovery that all of the food, fires and laundry are taken care of by the House Elves. This horrifies Hermione and she refuses to eat for a while before deciding to organize the Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare. Their goals are to secure wages and sick leave for the House Elves for a start, but she has larger plans for the future which involve changing the laws about the magic that House Elves are allowed to use. I don’t think that it was mistake that J.K. made the proprietor of this organization a woman, even though, it was Harry who freed Dobby. J.K. was a single mother and she struggled to get welfare and a job for many years. She is very familiar with the struggles of modern women and she advocates their rights.

One unexpected struggle that Hermione faced was that she not only needed to convert her fellow wizards and witches to S.P.E.W., but most of the House Elves did not want to be freed. Some women vehemently argued against the Suffrage movement and still today, some women are still against their own rights. For example the women who are against Feminism. (Not the extreme version, just the belief that women are entirely equal to men and are entitled to all of the same things.) The Elves were content with the way that they were living and they did not want to change. Largely for fear of being ostracized. The way that you appear socially is often very important to women, as well as tradition. The House Elves felt very loyal to their masters and had no desire to desert them. Some women feel that they have a duty to their husbands and they are afraid to disappoint or leave them. Rowling also has personal experience with this as her first husband was abusive.

3. The Room of Requirement Was Made By Hufflepuff

The origin of the Room of Requirement is very debatable. Some speculate that it is the collective magical conscious of Hogwarts itself manifested in a room. My favorite theory is that it was created by Helga Hufflepuff. If Slytherin created a secret chamber, who’s to say that the other founders didn’t? It provides the seeker with all that they might be seeking, except for perishable items, and even then it created a passage to Hogsmeade for Neville. It has housed several secret gatherings that we know about and many that we don’t. One thing is for sure, it has been used by teachers and students alike for generations both when they knew what it was, and when they didn’t. This doesn’t fit Ravenclaw’s or Gryffindor’s MO. If Rowena had made a secret room, it would have been full of books. If Godric had made one, it would have probably been full of dangerous things and likely would’ve had a dragon.

All of the founders had criteria for what sort of students they would accept into their house. But Helga just said that she would take all the rest. I have feeling that she was a very maternal character and that she just wanted a wholesome environment for the children to learn in. The fluid nature of the Room of Requirement fits in with this. It  adapts to the needs of the user and can accommodate for almost anything. I also feel that Hufflepuff is a very undervalued house and that Helga was much cleverer than most people give her credit for. She was the peacemaker, the glue of the original four, she was both powerful and peaceful. It make a lot of sense that she would have created the Room of Requirement because it embodies her fluid and caregiving nature.

4. No One Has Only One House.

In the series, everyone is placed in a house and they remain there forever. In the Deathly Hallows, Dumbledore says to Snape, “You know, I sometimes think that we sort too soon.” And I am fervently with him. All you can amount to as a person is not determined by 11 years old. I also think that only having four houses is too limited. There are very few people who can qualify as a true Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff or Slytherin. I theorize that most people have a primary and a secondary house and that there is a way to easily get into Gryffindor. The original trio is a prime example of this. In my opinion, Harry’s secondary house is Slytherin. He is cunning, determined and ambitious. (Gryfferin) All things that Slytherin prizes and are not inherently evil. Hermione’s is clearly Ravenclaw. She loves books and holds the pursuit of knowledge to be the most worthy act. (Gryffinclaw) Ron’s is Hufflepuff. He doesn't really fit into the other two, and he’s a sweetheart.(Gryffinpuff) (House Names*)

The reason that they are all in Gryffindor is because they asked. And that’s a very brave thing for an 11 year old to do. Harry asked because he was afraid that he would be in Slytherin. Hermione asked because she had already decided that it was the best for her. (She says so in the Great Hall.) And Ron, although he didn’t always get along with them, wanted to be with his family.Because of these choices, they made the path that they wanted to take. And they all would’ve had very different stories if they hadn’t been in Gryffindor together. They had some innate qualities already embedded in them as children, but they could have changed given the circumstances. I think that Neville is a great example of this. He chose Gryffindor not because he was brave, but because he wanted to be. In choosing this, he set his path and eventually he was brave. He became a true Gryffindor. He fought alongside Harry in the Department of Mysteries, he lead on Dumbledore’s Army and he pulled out Godric Gryffindor’s sword out of the sorting hat and destroyed the final Horcrux. All because of a choice. A desire, some potential that a little boy had.

But this sorting does not stop these children from changing their decision or their characteristics later. There are two excellent examples of this in the Slytherin House. Regulus Black became a Death Eater and made many poor choices in his youth. But he later decided that he had been wrong and he died trying to correct his mistake. Tell me, does that not sound like something a Gryffindor would do? Another is of course Severus Snape, the bravest man that Harry Potter ever knew. And he was a proud Slytherin. His choices in his youth also could have derailed his life, but he had a good heart that even he didn’t realize was there. He fought and died for the son of the woman that he loved unrequitedly. Again, this level of bravery and loyalty is that of a Gryffindor. The sorting can capture much of these young wizards’ and witches’ essential characteristics, but it cannot, however, account for the nature of their hearts and the change that can be wrought in them.

5. Peter Pettigrew v.s. Neville Longbottom

There are two characters that are completely vital to the story that are incredibly undervalued. These two mirror each other in a curious way, as do their choices. Peter Pettigrew and Neville Longbottom had very similar beginnings. A small, round boy with no particular talents with friends much greater than himself. Who chose Gryffindor House because it was what he aspired to be. This description perfectly fits both of them. Like Harry and Voldemort, what made the difference was not what they were given, but what they did with it. Their choices showed who the truly were. Peter’s case is much sadder than Neville’s. He made many wrong choices. He more fear in his heart and lust for power than Neville did. The reason that Neville didn’t given in was because of his parents. Even though they couldn’t raise him anymore after their torture, they still had a great impact on his life. Voldemort himself offered for Neville to join him, but he vehemently denied him, because of his parents.

Peter always like to be next to the greats (such as James, Sirius and Remus) because he knew that he wasn’t one. When Voldemort’s rise began, he saw it the same way. He was beyond selfish and he gave up the lives of his friends to the favor of his new great. Neville always knew that he wasn’t great, but he aspired to be. He worked incredibly hard to try and make his parents proud. He knew that he had to be good and try to save as many lives as possible because of the lives that were as good as lost. Both of these boys were put in Gryffindor because they asked, although neither embodied the qualities that Godric prized. And one of them grew into a true Gryffindor and other waned into nothing.

Peter Pettigrew was important because he brought Voldemort back and allowed Harry to escape the Malfoy’s Manor. Neville could have been the prophecy child and he raised an army and slew Nagini. Both of these boys choices made them into what they were; although they could have turned out very differently. The one that lusted after fame died in ambiguity, the one who just wanted to be brave lived on as a hero.

*Primary + Secondary = Name

Gryffindor+Ravenclaw= Gryffinclaw

Gryffindor+Hufflepuff= Gryffinpuff

Gryffindor+Slytherin= Gryfferin

Ravenclaw+Gryffindor= Ravendor

Ravenclaw+Hufflepuff= Ravenpuff

Ravenclaw+Slytherin= Raverin

Hufflepuff+Gryffindor= Huffledor

Hufflepuff+Ravenclaw= Huffleclaw

Hufflepuff+Slytherin= Hufflerin

Slytherin+Gryffindor= Slytherdor

Slytherin+Ravenclaw= Slytherclaw

Slytherin+Hufflepuff= Slytherpuff

(If you were wondering, I’m a Gryffinclaw. Comment down below which of these houses you identify with.)

[promptsblog]

Hey, Im planning a fantasy Novel and I need a bit of a hand in one area, if you don't mind. There is this one thing (object/person/idea/whatever) that has been protected by one family for generations, and they've gone to extreme measures to protect it. But... I dont know what it is... I dont want it to be obvious like "the most powerful thing ever" or "the thing that gives you immortality", I want to be different. I was thinking either something dangerous, valuable, or secret. Any ideas, please?

So, for this one I kind of want to talk about some examples from fictionbecause this is a plot device that you can do a lot with, as evidenced by thefact that there are a lot of cool examples. Spoilers ahead.

There are two really good ones in Charmed: TheBook of Shadows and the Halliwell Manor. 

Let’s start withthe book.

Books are a goodchoice because they contain knowledge and information rather than inherentpower. Yes, the demons and warlocks are always going after the book because itcan help them become more powerful, and the book itself is enchanted so thatonly a Halliwell can access it, but the real power of the book is what theirancestors have collected, the spells and creatures they have encountered andcollated over the years.

Now, onto the Manor.

Ok, so my memory ofthis is a little rusty, but basically, the manor is located on top of aspiritual nexus, which means it is very powerful. People born in the house(Wyatt and Phoebe) are capable of swinging either way, good or evil, and bothdo turn evil at different points.

Going back to thewritten idea, in the Swan Princess films,the bad guys are always practitioners of the forbidden arts.

 The spells to activate and harnessthe power to create, change and destroy are written on pieces of paper. Derek,thinking that the forbidden arts could be used for good (???), keeps the spellsbut rips of the bottom corner of the final piece so that it can’t be used todestroy if it ever got in the wrong hands. So that’s another cool way to havean object like that, to have the last piece missing and your protagonists (orantagonists) go on a search to find it.

Then there’s The Key from Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Dawn herself hasabsolutely no power. Seriously, she’s just a teenage girl. But the energy usedto create Dawn is one of the most powerful things in the multiverse. It’s a keythat open’s a portal to a hell dimension, ad once it’s open, thedimensions bleed into each other. Hell on earth, basically. You see, thesemonks thought they could use the Key for good (Seriously, what is up withthat?) so instead of destroying it, they hid it in a teenage girl they createdfrom the blood of the slayer, and built entire memories and essentially a newuniverse that Buffy and everyone else would think Dawn was her sister, so thatshe would protect the key.

By making theobject a person, there is a lot of potential for interesting character andrelationship development. Ok, moving onto Harry Potter.

Alright, there areway too many to go into all of them  into here. I’ll just go through thehighlights:

The Deathly Hallows

First, you have theInvisibility Cloak that protects you and others. Then you have the resurrectionstone which have the ability to bring back the dead. Finally, there is theElder Wand, known as the unbeatable wand. Of course, the Invisibility Cloakwon’t actually stop you from dying. The resurrections stone doesn’t actuallybring back the dead, merely an echo of their personalities. And the Elder Wandisn’t unbeatable or else there would be no way to claim mastership of it. 

The moral of HarryPotter and The Deathly Hallows - one of many of the whole series, really - isthat the only way to become the master of death is to accept your own death.Death can’t hurt you if you’re not afraid of it. It’s just a part of life. Andso here we have the opportunity to convey your message or theme through yourobjects.

Voldies’s Horcuxes

Similar to the waydawn was created to hide the key, Voldemort uses already existing objects inwhich to encase his soul. The most interesting of thee (Harry isn’t technicallya horcrux before you butt in, merely an accidental vessel for a piece ofVoldemort’s soul) is the first we encounter: Tom RIddle’s Diary. Through thediary, the piece of Voldemort’s soul is able to communicate to anyone who writesin it and even possess them. Yeah, it’s pretty cool.

There are so manymore like the hat and the sword of Gryffindor and others but this gives you ageneral gist and you can always read the books to get more ideas

Some more tips

If this object is the thing thathelps/allows the characters to get out of a tough spot, or resolves a major conflictin the story, you need to establish what the object can do earlier in thestory.

The main advantage of selecting a  seemingly mundane, every-day looking objectto actually be this secretly powerful thing is that it can hide in plain sight.The disadvantage is that anyone could just pick it up with dire consequences.This gives the potential for suspense and tension in your story.

Think about making the object appeardifferently to different people

Remember that no matter how powerful orawesome your object is, that this is a story about people. Write interestingcharacters, with strong motivations who care about protecting the object, notbecause of the object but because of some trait or quality within them (eggreed, thirst for power, grief, love, fear, etc)

[hogwartswelcomesyou]

For all the mods, but especially the Slytherins, how do you feel about the animosity towards Slytherins?And why was it there in the first place? What do you find to be the worst part of the Snake Hate?

Tori (Ravenclaw Mod): ooo nothing’s gonna get me heated more than this. I absolutely love JK and her writing style, but I think she let the HP series fall victim to the far-too easy trope of a completely black and white story in some aspects. In order to have a black/white story of good and bad, you have to have someone/something/a group to demonize. For HP, it was the Slytherins. Her interpretation, I’m guessing, is that ambition leads to corruption which leads to evilllll. While I don’t agree with this at all, I do think this is what she did for the Slytherin characters for the majority of the series. With nearly every character we saw their desire for power overcome their moral senses, which I don’t think is fair. I think Slytherins get an unfair reputation bc people like to paint them as the villains. I think the worst part is how LITERALLY EVERY BAD GUY gets sorted Slytherin. There are so many different motivators that cause someone to turn dark, not just power. Do better. (@ everyone who thinks If someone’s evil they gotta b a snake)

Jinxy (Hufflepuff Mod): (This is more of an analysis of the fandom’s role in the problem instead of the author’s role…I’m sorry if I hurt any feelings! That is not my intention.)

I hate the animosity towards Slytherins. It’s very unfair and very unjustified. A lot of people feel that there needs to be some sort of villain whenever they read a book/watch a tv show/watch a movie/e.t.c. so that they can have a place to vent their angers and frustrations. In the Harry Potter fandom, a lot of people have decided Slytherin house is that villain (despite the plethora of clear villains like Umbridge, Voldemort, or Rita Skeeter that they could go after instead.) Slytherin is treated poorly because people need a place to show their anger/annoyance/misgivings/whatever, and they think that Slytherin is the perfect place to do so (“Hey,” they think, “Someone else is being hateful to Slytherin. That means that I can too!”)

I think that this is ridiculous because, though a group of people can be villains, there is no reason for all of Slytherin to be treated as such. Yes, there were some villains in Slytherin. Yes, the main villain of the series was a Slytherin. But guess what? So was Peter Pettigrew, and without him, Harry’s parents never would have died. Peter was a villain, and he was a Gryffindor…but you never see Gryffindor getting the hate. Plenty of Slytherins were good guys, but they’re always overlooked. The worst part about this hate (besides everything that I’ve already mentioned) is the way that many people seem to think that Slytherin is dark, edgy, and nothing more. This alienates Slytherin from the other houses, who are often portrayed in nicer lights: as being calm, and warm, and flowery. I want Slytherins who dance in pretty flowy skirts, Slytherins who pick flowers, Slytherins who name their cats after food items. I want people to stop treating them like villains and instead write sweet aesthetic posts about how Slytherins smell like citrus and lilac, decorate skinned knees with too many bandaids, and like to read mystery novels late into the night.

Tory (Slytherin Mod): I think Jinxy and Tori have tackled the wrongness of Slytherin’s reputation pretty well, so I think I’m just going to put forward my own theory as to why it is there, at least partially.

Harry, our POV character, is a Gryffindor…and so is J.K. She’s said this on record. Therefore we have a Gryffindor writing mainly about Gryffindors – yes, J.K. created the whole universe and its rules and houses, but she will still clearly and perhaps involuntarily have the most favorable view of characters like her. When you have a writing perspective that’s this narrow, it is almost inevitable that things will be seen in a slanted, narrow way. It’s the same reason why it is often discouraged to write “self-insert” characters in fiction – because not only does it make it harder for you as an author to write this character as being in the wrong, but you are less likely to see opposing points of view with clarity and show good counterarguments, thus you will never be a truly omniscient narrator. This is not an inherently bad thing, but it can make for, in Tori’s words, a very black-and-white approach…which is tragic, because the books themselves embrace shades of gray with characters like Dumbledore, Sirius Black, and Remus Lupin!

So, honestly, it’s no surprise that J.K., in the beginning, showed little interest in exploring Slytherin characters (or Hufflepuff/Ravenclaw characters, tbh) – she was most attached to and interested in characters that were like her. As the book series went on, I would argue she suddenly realized how negatively the Slytherins had been depicted and tried to throw some bread crumbs our way (”See? Regulus found Voldemort’s Horcrux! And then died before we could actually meet him in canon…”, “See, Andromeda’s cool! Even though we barely see her…”, ”See, Snape was the bravest man Harry ever knew and named his son after him! Even though he was also a petty, immature bully who tormented Neville for years and loathed his one true love’s child because it resembled the other parent…”). But even in the case of “good Slytherins,” there can still be some shade thrown; Dumbledore comments that perhaps they Sorted Snape too early (because CLEARLY if he’s brave he can’t be in Slytherin, and if he’d be Sorted now he’d be in Gryffindor, the “RIGHT” house). Yes, this could hint to bias on Dumbledore’s part as he’s also a Gryffindor, but it’s not framed that way, as we never get a counterargument to the sentiment.

I don’t think anyone can deny J.K.’s disapproving attitude of Slytherin is all over the books and especially her Pottermore quiz (almost all the “negative” answers give you Slytherin points, for Christ sake) – and I wholeheartedly point to the fact that it can be very, very difficult to jump into another person’s shoes. J.K. is not a Slytherin, and as a Gryffindor (a house that can be known for solely looking inward for their code of honor and seeing things in a very black-and-white manner), it’s unsurprising that she might look at Slytherin‘s values – which in some ways are opposite to Gryffindor’s – and see them as at best  “not as important” and at worst somehow “incorrect.”

As much as we can debate Slytherin’s reputation in the books, though, I think the thing that irritates me the most is when HP fans insult and degrade RL Slytherins by comparing them to the Slytherins in the books. Guys: just because someone was sorted into Slytherin on Pottermore DOES NOT MAKE THEM RACISTS OR DEATH EATERS OR WHATEVER ELSE. Seriously. Even just being aligned with Slytherin does not mean that the person is aligning himself/herself with Death Eaters. If they’re wearing Dark Marks and crud, that’s one thing…but Slytherins =/= Death Eaters. There may be some overlap and correlation, but they are not and have never been synonyms.

Star (Hufflepuff Mod): Just gonna put it out there, Tory, one of the Slytherin mods, was my first (and one of my best) friends on tumblr. She defended me after I made a confession to a Disney blog saying I didn’t like the Lion King, and after loads of attacks from people, she told them all to shut up, and offered me her friendship. I took it, and we’ve been tight ever since. She has bought some merch from Disneyland on my behalf (and sent it to Australia!!) and I’ve bought her some Slytherin shoes! I have met and know some awful Slytherins (my cousins are mostly snakes and they’re awful people, though it’s not because they are from the snake house), but I’ve also met a couple rude and awful Hufflepuffs. Every house has its bad eggs, and JK definitely didn’t do Slytherin any favours by putting most of the bad people in it, but not every bad person is in Slytherin.

Abigail (Ravenclaw Mod): Since I sorta feel like my opinion has already been spoken by Tori, Jinxy and Tory, I just wanna say that any house can become evil, not just Slytherin. I’ve known Gryffindors that are absolutely terrible human beings, extremely mean Hufflepuffs, and Ravenclaws that I just do not enjoy the company of. I have also met Slytherins who have become my best friends and are some of the nicest people I’ve ever met. So it can go all around, your house doesn’t mean you’re mean or evil: it’s the person.