#change that is. with or without Harry

[thalthanmadanus]

i like your viewpoint on draco, i really do think his age matters a lot when it comes to the gravity of his actions. specifically in 6th year, people forget draco is literally only a month older than harry and theres was a scene specifically showing how they were the youngest in their year. meaning, before his 6th year he probably was only 15 when a lot of the shit went down and then freshly 16 when handling the task. like, that is YOUNG and i know his actions do have consequences but i really dont know how people can compare him to the lengths of other grown adult characters?

Thank you! I think Draco is easily one of the most relatable characters in the series and the reason probably why some people resent him is that they keep focusing on specific actions he did rather than looking at the whole picture, his whole ass arc from the first book to the last one.

(like wow 6th year and 7th year Draco's characterisations are so delicious and yet... less brought up)

...

I think it's not just about age, my friend. If it were, I’d probably be more forgiving toward James. But that’s not the case for me.

There’s a whole ensemble of reasons why sympathizing with Draco is easier—if you just try, or even want to try. At least for me.

First, His Background:

From the very beginning, we’re introduced to an arrogant child with bigoted views. Views that are, without a doubt, shaped by his parents. You could even argue that lil bro doesn’t fully understand what he’s spouting؟ that he’s just parroting what he’s been taught.

Then this indoctrinated child gets placed in Slytherin, a house that reinforces the same prejudices he was raised with. His “friends” (Crabbe and Goyle) are the children of his father’s friends. His whole entourage is one echo chamber that the school system does nothing to break. This is a 101 textbook example of how a child becomes easily radicalized.

People overlook this, but growing up in an ideologically homogeneous environment is incredibly radicalizing. When everyone around you, especially the people who matter most, shares the same beliefs, it reinforces the idea that they must be right. I mean, why would they be wrong?

Which brings me to my next point.

Draco Was Never Ideologically Challenged.

Throughout the books, we never see anyone truly confront Draco’s views. Sure, he gets insulted, hexed, or beaten up every time he opens his mouth, but we don't ever see anyone (old or young) who actually sits him down and tells him why he’s wrong. No debates, no real pushback—just dismissal or violence.

And that doesn’t change people. If anything, it deepens their resentment. It makes them double down.

(This is not me saying the trio or whoever should have been uwu with Draco.. No. This is me trying to see how Draco came to be the person he is)

(ofc Doylistly speaking I'm asking too much from this series, but this whole rant is from a Watsonian perspective. Bear that in mind please).

I think this is why fifth year Draco is also interesting because, by the end of OoTP, you’d expect Draco to go full-blown Death Eater, to be about that life. The pieces are all in place. He’s angry, humiliated, and has every reason to lean into that path. The dominoes are stacked neatly to be pushed.

Then Half Blood Prince happens.

The entire book revolves around Draco’s struggle with the idea of killing. He hesitates. He breaks down. He panics. And that’s what makes him so compelling.

There’s a quote from a video I love that sums it up perfectly: "Draco is the least equipped character, yet he’s put through the most difficult ethical situations"

Second, Draco as a Person :

His reluctance to kill in HBP isn’t just about him being young, it’s about who he is. Narcissa says, “He’s just a boy,” but it’s more than that. Draco, for all his big talk, is repulsed by real violence. He’s a shit-talker, not a fighter. (at least not in the traditional way?)

Compare him to James. When the Marauders cornered Snape in Snape's worst memory, Snape’s first instinct was to attack—because he knew an attack was coming. But when Draco, Greg, and Goyle cornered Ron in Hogsmeade? Ron just stood there, enduring the insults. The difference in their reactions says a lot about the difference between their bullies.

Draco, compared to James, is non-threatening.

So non-threatening that when Harry saw Snape’s worst memory, he didn’t compare James to Draco—he compared Draco to a possible victim of the twins paralleling the marauders, (although in a negative way)

So non-threatening that Ron and Hermione, who supposedly suffered under Draco’s bullying, laughed at the idea of him being a Death Eater.

So non-threatening that Moaning Myrtle, the ghost who literally cries all the time, pitied him.

Now, don’t get me wrong, Draco can be cruel. But his cruelty is immature, performative, childish. The moment he’s faced with a situation that requires actual, meaningful true to the word cruelty, he hesitates. He fumbles.

He’s naïve, and not just because he’s young but also because he was sheltered. He was loved, protected, raised in comfort.

While most characters were fighting in OoTP, Draco was sulking over missing out on a fake secret weapon/jk

Maybe that’s why he’s non-violent? Maybe it’s because, unlike so many others, he was cared for as a child??

And in the end, that’s what stops the dominoes from falling as expected.

His so-called cowardice? In his case, you could even call it a virtue.

I could go on longer and longer about 7th year Draco but what sums it for me is again a quote from the same video: "Draco is the only character who we're shown self-reflected."

The summary of his arc is basically: immature kid is racist, when confronted by what could be heavily serious consequences of his racism he gets so shooketh he stops being racist. and imo this is so realistic and that why it's easy to sympthize with and relate to.

I mean who from us didn't have problematic views and grows out of it? Are the people harping over 12-year-old Draco being “evil” really trying to say they’ve never been wrong about anything in their lives? or they've neved did anything wrong to anyone and then changed? Especially as children who are known to react more on emotion rather than logic.

Finally, I want to just conclude that for me Draco is sympthetic because he embodied all these points at the same time.

(Age + personality + background)

Take one out and yeah no, I'm not interested anymore.

There are other points but I feel I'm making this longer than necessary.

[zlarirosa]

[ AU ] everything, everywhere, all at once.

[cl0wnstuff]

i love when they dont make draco instantly a good person or a morally correct person yk, because the mischaracterising that would be is wild.

i really like when they don’t gaslight us with that, and give draco his past as an annoying and not-good kid that was following his parents actions and what he was taught. because yes, he wasn’t a good person, but i really think that if you have been taught to be like that all you life, it’s complicated to see that youre doing wrong.

AND THATS WHAT I LIKE, when draco has this debate with himself about what he was taught and the cruel reality of things. he foes through this and at the end of the day he realises that he did really really wrong.

and i think theres a huge difference between making him instantly good and a not-regretting-anything-or-feeling-that-much-guilt person, and making him go through this process of reasoning about what he has done and he DECIDING VOLUNTARILY to change that. and past cant be changed but the guilt he feels after realising all that, and changing those ideas in him is the important part of his redemption arc.

i really like reading this process on draco.

[1tbls]

harry literally does get meaningfully better by the end of the game. does "I'm glad to be me -- an incredibly sensitive instrument" mean nothing to u. "I don't want to be this kind of animal anymore". "In honour of your will, lieutenant-yefreitor. That you kept from falling apart, in the face of sheer terror. Day after day. Second by second."

the end note of disco elysium is not the inevitability of the fall..... the end note of elysium is the long but persistent trek towards the rise.

[tribow]

Sorry to join the tumblr americans that are posting about elections, but I'm tired of seeing people acting like it's the end of the world or some shit because orange man is elected.

Here's a secret: Voting doesn't mean shit. Should you vote? Absolutely, but American culture ensures that the average American is severely un-educated about politics. Most Americans are completely loyal to a specific party. They're politically raised to be sheep.

Your vote matters, yes, but it also matters so little to the cultural zeitgeist. Unless something is done about the average American's political awareness, votes will always be dominated by sheep.

Presidential elections never had to be a "pick between two poisons," our culture simply convinced us that there are no other options and trying to change anything is useless. Sheep.

Now all I see are Americans wallowing in their despair. Waaahh there's nothing that can be done woe is me. Y'all really invested all of your hope in a vote that has such miniscule power because you're falling for the sheep mentality politicians want you to have.

Do you know what the common American citizen can do that's more powerful than voting? You can be an active participant in city council/town hall meetings. You can find out when they happen on your town's website. They are recorded so you can listen to one even if you missed it. Can't show up in person? These meetings are streamed. You can participate in the safety of your own home.

Send mail to the mayor. Speak about the problems you face that are local to where you live. If you have the priviledge being able to speak to townsfolk, bring it up in conversation if they seem comfortable. "Did you see the city council meeting?". Even if you never say anything or send mail to city council meetings, simply being aware is better than the average American.

Being aware puts pressure on your city. Being a person that speaks out about problems locally. This is where the common citizen holds the most power. I'm 100% certain my town would never have attempted to make bike lane and sidewalk plans if the townspeople didn't semi-regularly show up and complain about it every single meeting. We have a huge housing crisis and a bunch of homeless people that 10 people at town meetings constantly speak up for. What if there were more?

And another thing, do you call or mail your Senators and Representatives about any issues? Were you one of the many Americans completely silent about things like the Affordable Connectivity Program dying out? While similar to the miniscule power of voting, this does put at least a little bit of social pressure on those in political standing. Yes, many calls and mail are discarded, but they have to receive them. It gets recorded for data.

Again, the average American participates extremely little and it's not even just because they don't want to. It's because they don't even know they can. The Tumblr populace does not represent the average American in the slightest, in fact, I see people encourage calling Senators and Reps on here fairly often, but maybe do the same about city/town meetings. Push against the cultural zeitgeist of sheep mentality or nothing will change. Stop wallowing in your despair and maybe use that strong emotion towards something that matters even more; doing something about it.

[brick-van-dyke]

As the US election closes in and the final states take to the polls, I want to remind people to turn out and protest.

Yep, protest. Strike, disrupt, be out there on the street regardless of who you voted for or who wins. I expect to see you all out there demanding; access to abortion nation wide, protections against discrimination, free universal healthcare, a free Palestine, anti war, prison abolition, to increase the minimum wage, and for a US free of the electoral college and that counts votes as votes.

Yes, you can say "you should vote for Harris" and do so as much as you like, but do not forget the power you have through your own everyday actions away from the polls and that of protesting. Do not use the excuse that your right to vote means it's somehow more foundational or important than the right to protest. You have the ability to create direct action and that is so so important, please don't just expect a rich representative to stick to their promises every time you vote; you have power too, never forget that.

This system will not change until we, the people, make it. There is NO representative that can ever change the system that allowed them in, and likewise; this system will never allow a candidate that would stop it from continuing and/or ensuring its designated purpose of oppression and subjugation. Resist, regardless of the results.

Long live the resistance.

[gingerswagfreckles]

Gotta love the hordes of people posting about how THIS IS IT THIS IS THE START OF THE CLASS WAR from their couches while glued to their phones. Like. Hm. Is it though? I think maybe actually nothing is going to happen except some rich kid is going to jail.

[camellcat]

@wondlas SAID THE PACK IS TRANSFEM XANDER CODED BC THE ALPHAS OF HYENA CLANS ARE FEMALE AND THAT WAS HIS ROLE. GASPING CHOKING DYING I NEED MTF XANDER NOW!!!!!!!!!

[greenerteacups]

What do you think as Hermione's career would be post battle of Hogwarts? To me her being minister for magic really doesn't make sense. She does not have patience or tact to wade through murky waters of politics 😭😭

So hard to say! The Trio are so, so young when we leave them, I find it almost impossible to project their futures farther than a few years out. The job that suited me at 17 would be radically unsuited to me now. That's why of all the Trio, Ron's ending strikes me as the most realistic — he jumps straight into the save-the-world business again, burns out, realizes he's actually Done The Fuck Enough, Thanks, and pivots into a low-stress career where he gets to see his family a lot. Feels accurate! The others are weirder to me because they do seem to just... pick a lane and stay there.

With Hermione, you could spin her a couple ways. You could say that she leans into her bookish side and does research or teaching, which is not my preference for a couple reasons (namely, I don't think Hermione would like academia as a profession; she finds her classwork interesting and enjoys intellectual validation, but she'd be stifled and wasted in a DPhil program, and she'd be infuriated by the administrative politicking of your average higher-ed faculty). You could say that she gets disaffected with politics and ends up as a barrister or a lobbyist of some kind, but if anything that requires more political finesse, because you don't actually have institutional power, you're just handling the people who make decisions and trying to persuade them of your goals. This is not Hermione's preferred method of influence. She's not even particularly good at persuasion, she just happens to be smart enough (and right often enough) that people take her ideas seriously.

Or you could say her brashness fades with the years into a softened flavor of tell-you-like-it-is honesty, which some politicians actually do successfully trade on; as we see in British politics today, you don't have to be all that charming or clever to get ahead, you just need to be really driven and well-connected (which Hermione completely is; she fought shoulder-to-shoulder with the first postwar Minister and her bestie, the Literal Messiah, runs the Auror Office.) But I don't know if Hermione especially wants to be Minister, after the war. She's just watched years of horrendous bureaucratic incompetence plunge the country into a violent civil conflict. She's had not one, but two Ministers of Magic try to bully or shame her friends into complicity with fascism. Her view of government is... likely extremely dark.

But Hermione also isn't the kind of person who sees her life as a quest for happiness. Babygirl has a savior complex that makes Harry look selfish. (She basically kills her parents — yeah, obliviating is a form of murder, #changemymind — "for their own good," and justifies every batshit, vindictive, mean-spirited move she ever pulls on the grounds that it "helps" one of her friends.) She is a mean, lean, dragon-slaying machine, and she needs a dragon. After Voldemort, the Ministry is the no. 1 threat to muggle-borns and non-wizarding Beings. As a war heroine with basically infinite political capital, I'd be surprised if she didn't try to do something there. That said, Hermione is so vivacious and dynamic that she could potentially grow in a hundred different directions; it's possible that all of this, while true of her at 18, becomes completely inaccurate by 22. That's why I'm not too fussed about any particular fanon interpretation.

[sapphia]

maybe you should pay attention to how the ceasefire talks are going and which president is actually likely to oversee this whole arrangement before you start trying to kneecap the campaign of the new nominee three days in

the simplification of “kamala can just stop bombing palestine if she wants” is exactly why no one on here dares call for pressure to be put on a political candidate opposing facism — because people online can’t hold two competing thoughts in their head apparently, and if you tell them a politician is doing a bad thing, that means they are a bad and irredeemable person who can only be supported ever in the future if they curtail fully to your demands.

Frankly, the reason why I won’t ever call for political non-voting against democrats on this website where I will for my local politicians is because I remember what you did to Hillary’s campaign when Bernie didn’t get the nomination, and I don’t think any “activist” on this site who believes not voting or threatening not to vote will end this genocide needs the encouragement.

[saucy-mesothelioma]

An AroAce Film Fanatic's Dilemma: When Harry Met Sally

Don't get me wrong, I love this movie. When Harry Met Sally is considered one of the staple romcoms, but several people I've talked to have the same problem with it: Harry's comment that people of the opposite sex can't be friends without being in some kind of romantic or sexual relationship. This, of course, is absolutely stupid and a horrible message, and it sort've puts a dampener on the ending for me. I'm incredibly picky when it comes to romance in movies: if I don't find it believable, then you can count me out. Harry and Sally seem utterly horrible for each other at the beginning of the movie. In all honesty, when I started the movie I absolutely hated Harry and Sally. I thought they were both absolutely insufferable and they annoyed me to no end. But as the story progressed and they got to know each other better, I got to know them too. And by the time that they began to like each other, I found myself feeling the same way. Looking back at this revelation, I'm genuinely surprised that my opinions on the main characters changed just as their opinions on each other changed and nearly at the same rate as theirs. I don't believe that's ever happened to me with a movie before, and honestly it really made me love their relationship. It wasn't all at once, it wasn't love at first sight. It took YEARS for them to even get to the point of even being friends and then a few years more for them to realize that they liked each other romantically. For me, it was everything I could hope for in a romance movie because I could BELIEVE it to the point where I was actively ROOTING for them.

But then it all comes back to that "moral".

If it weren't for that one thing, I would be absolutely delighted with them getting together at the end because there were all of the things necessary for the foundation of a well-written romance. But in doing this, it also proves Harry's point "correct" which makes me also wish that they hadn't ended up together at all. This point gives me a lot of conflicting feelings, and it spoils my enjoyment of the movie if I think about it. Having that in mind just makes the whole thing feel just slightly off to the point where I hate thinking about it. A huge part of my identity is not having the need for a romantic relationship, and this message goes in the complete opposite direction on how I (along with so many others) view relationships. I really do like this movie, but that's the reason I can't give it anything higher than like an 8/10. It's an aspect of the movie that you unfortunately CAN'T just ignore, and it really does ruin it a bit for me. It's such a stain on what would otherwise be probably one of my favorite movies, but the fact that you just can't ignore that small thing really kills the vibe.

[catlady48]

I found out that Viktor's VA in Arcane is also Z's VA in Xenoblade Chronicles 3. And he doesn't disappoint in his deliveries, even if Z's lines are occasionally a bit corny or dramatic. I mean, Z is obsessed with theatre so that was bound to happen.

Also Z is such an underrated villain compared to XC2's villains. I mean, unlike the other villains he seemingly doesn't have a motive. He states that his motivation is because it amuses him, but he's also literally a computer virus trying to maintain his existence and for this reason he's become the personification of the concept of fear of change. The ways he preys upon both the vulnerable and the people who would do anything for power in order to maintain the Eternal Now are terrifying. Both him and the other Moebius are much more like certain people in real life than the other Xenoblade villains and antagonists. (I mean, Jin and Malos are amazing characters and philosophically interesting but their entire motivation stems from concepts exclusive to Alrest as a world.) Honestly, this goes for most of Moebius, but Z as their leader is the one who started this all. Also the way he manipulated N into becoming Moebius, because he was both fascinated by him and Mio and knew that they would be his undoing, is intriguing to watch. To me it's just as good as Zanza manipulating Shulk into the events of the first game. All this said, does he do things because it amuses him or because it subconciously amuses people?

"There are two roads set before every individual..."

"Pleasures and sorrows, meetings and partings, their roots are the same... Tolerance of existence is at the heart of them all."

[rosalie-starfall]

Remember, this is a Republican/Conservative majority Supreme court that's decided we aren't worthy of loan forgiveness or aid not Biden or Democrats.

[leajoyrambles]

okay so, for my fic series Without a Compass Rose, I have a character sheet (basically) where I list characters, their aspirations, a generalized personality type (ie "analytical thinker" and "caretaker"), etc etc

one of the things I list is their patronus, though not on all of them. There are now several things I would like to say about patronuses

(yes, I meant for the "several things I would like to say" bit to be read in McGonagall's voice)

-Number One: Percy Weasley's patronus is DEFINITELY a polecat. Direct quote from an article on patronus types ahead:

Despite its name, a polecat isn’t really a cat at all. It’s actually closer to a ferret or a weasel and is known to cripple its prey by piercing its brains with its teeth before storing it, alive, for a later meal.

-Number Two: There's this idea that Fred and George would have the same patronus, and it would reflect some incredibly obvious aspect of their shared personality. I absolutely hate that. What I settled on was very far from R*wling's idea of them having magpie patronuses (I think? going from memory here).

Fred - bloodhound George - ibizan hound

another quote:

Not only are they highly intelligent, but their temperament makes them a true family favorite as well. Your Patronus will never let you down and follow you to the end in any situation. A wizarding myth says that Bloodhound Patronuses have alerted their witch or wizard to the impending arrival of the Dementors, making this a one-of-a-kind Patronus to produce.

and another, this one about ibizan:

This is an intelligent and independent dog but is known to be a clown. For the most part, these dogs are quiet until they need to alert people of danger. They are known escape artists, so this Patronus can get you out of any sticky situation.

So, a few things here.

A bloodhound patronus will "follow you to the end in any situation." Now, I haven't decided whether or not I'm killing off Fred in this series (leaning towards no, but no promises), but either way, this patronus would highlight a non-obvious facet of his personality - him being protective.

An ibizan hound being "a clown" does feel a bit obvious for one of the twins, but the "known escape artists" bit was interesting to me. I like the idea that George is the one who gets them out of trouble, at least when they're actually trying to get out of it.

Essentially, Fred is driven to impulsive action because he's protective to the point of self-sacrifice, and George saves his ass because he knows how to escape, even if by a hair.

I REALLY like the dynamic this sets up. It doesn't have them working as a single mind, always doing the same things because they're so similar, but it rather has them acting as a a team. Fred is the one to take action; George is the one doing damage control. And since they've been doing this song and dance their entire lives, they play off of each other without even realizing it.

George doesn't know that he'd be so much less compassionate without Fred, and Fred doesn't realize how reckless he'd be without George. The only thing that actually reveals this dynamic is their patronuses.

...yeah, okay, moving on.

-Number Three: I don't like that Cho's patronus is a swan. It feels like a reduction of her character (though... her character isn't really treated well to begin with, but that's a whole other issue).

It feels like her patronus being a swan is derived from how other characters perceive her - graceful, emotional, a love interest, etc. Honestly? I think her "hidden self" is mostly that she's... kind of fearless.

Like, yes, on the surface, she's graceful and loving and social and loyal and wears her heart on her sleeve. All of those things are part of her true self, too, and that's great.

I don't know exactly what her patronus should be, but I do like the idea of it being something really, really big. I'm talking elephant big.

(I also just really like the mental image of everyone learning to cast a patronus and then the Room of Requirement suddenly expands to a ridiculous degree and everyone looks up and sees just the most massive patronus ever and when they look for the source it turns out to be this person that most of them have been thinking of as "emotionally fragile" or something and-)

I digress.

-Number Four: I really like the idea of Pansy Parkinson having a hyena patronus.

This isn't meant to be disparaging. I just think it works well for her character. Here's another quote:

Often given a bad reputation, hyenas are cunning hunters and scavengers that know what they have to do to survive in the animal kingdom. They live and hunt in packs/clans and are very social animals. They often communicate with those in their clans by making a variety of noises, including the “laughter” they are so famous for. Hyenas are loyal, creative, and fierce.

Now, I may not totally adhere to fandom-popular characterization, but for Pansy? I definitely like what the fandom has going for her.

She attaches herself to the strongest player in the game. It's always been about survival. She has to be in the best possible social position, no matter what it costs her, and people outside of her circle think of her as annoying and even repulsive.

She often acts out of fear, but that doesn't mean she's a coward - she just doesn't care about being brave.

The idea of her being the kind of person people read wrong, her being that kind of person all the way to her core, and even her patronus being an oft-villainized animal?

Heck yeah.

---

Now, you may have gotten to this point in the post and just sort of thought, "hey, Lea, why tf did you even make this post?"

To which I would answer, "my username has the word 'ramble' in it. Also, I would love to hear other people's opinions on these things."

So, yeah. Any points you disagree on? Anything you strongly agreed with? Anything, like, at all that you just really want to say for some reason or another? Have at it.

[found--family]

they couldn't let cesar and jesse return bc they would've taken one look at dean and cas interacting and known they had it bad for each other

[squireofgeekdom]

Oh no. Don't let me start plotting out a Leverage Redemption / Moon Knight crossover. I don't need more wips. Help.