#hp fandom critical

[pangaeaseas]

Lily marrying James isn’t a betrayal. It was, however, completely incomprehensible to me as a child reading for the first time and honestly still is after gaining life experience. Why would anyone get with somebody they witness violently abusing others for kicks, even if a mere year or two later they claim to have cleaned up their act - that was still a core part of their character?! He might’ve been charming and confident and good to people he likes, but he also sexually assaults somebody with considerably less privilege in public, which should’ve been enough of a crime to put any girl off for good even if the victim was now somebody she had cause to hate. I’d have been totally behind it if it had been a purely strategic decision to take a pureblood name in wartime! That’s pragmatism, it makes sense! But it’s written as true love, and tbh it’s never sat well with me what that says about Lily’s character, and what it says about JKR’s attitude towards the awful idea that the love of a good woman can fix abusive men.

Thanks for leaving me a reasonable response, I was a little afraid I would get people with utterly wild takes screaming at me in my inbox for that post!

Yeah, I don't think Lily marrying James is a betrayal, I'm glad we agree on that.

A lot of how we interpret J*ly depends on how we interpret James and Lily based on the very, *very* limited and biased information we receive about them. The reader can never know the full truth about them and truly know them as people, because they died pre-story and Harry will forever be learning out of context things about his dead parents without ever truly knowing them. Which, to veer a little off the main subject of the ask, is honestly a choice that really works for me as someone who lost a parent young. Receiving biased information and trying to judge based off of that while having to accept you can never form your own opinion is just how it is, for Harry and for anyone else in his position.

The thing is, the reader is placed in Harry's position. James and Lily are characters we can make extrapolations about, yes, but we don't have enough information to fully understand them. You cannot really do the same kind of deep dives on them you can do with a character like Snape, Lupin, or Sirius, because there isn't very much material there. So any argument about James and Lily will by its very nature involve a hell of a lot of speculation.

What we get about James doesn't look very good. I don't want to minimize James's terrible actions in that scene. His interaction with Lily there is a really bad way to treat her and it doesn't speak well of the future of their relationship. (And he is also terrible to Snape, obviously, but the rest of this ask isn't about Snape so I won't go more into that). To be quite honest I think some of it is JKR trying to write a rom-com bickering enemies to lovers dynamic between them but for many readers it falls flat as the implications of him trying to get her to go out with him in exchange for releasing Snape are pretty terrible. And most positive information about James we receive is through biased sources like his best friends, though I don't think we should totally discard the fact that he was a good friend to Sirius and Remus and devoted his life to fighting against the Death Eaters--potentially good qualities Lily might have liked about him. Also, in SWM, he makes a point of NOT calling Lily a Mudblood and condemning the slur, which...you are really not the moral authority here, James, but at least you are trying not to be blood supremacist--and that would be a stark contrast to someone Lily trusted suddenly calling her it. We just..don't know all that much about him, so we can either take only his bad traits or try to extrapolate some good ones (or draw out the good traits he does have canonically), depending on what you personally want to do with him.

You say that 'any girl' would be put off by James, but, well, there are a lot of reasons people are attracted to each other. People have been attracted to more terrible people all the time. Whether or not James and Lily's relationship was abusive, people stay with their abusers for all sorts of complex reasons and it feels somewhat dismissive to say 'oh, I wouldn't do that'...you're not in that position. Just because you personally wouldn't do something doesn't make it an impossible decision for someone.

And there is evidence that James matured as a person, though you can feel free to be unconvinced by it. We don't know what Lily saw in James. We can feel free to imagine it how we want to, as a fandom. I just don't think we should really be critiquing her for something largely speculative, and we especially shouldn't be using her dating James as a reason to bash her for ending her friendship with Snape. Lily is allowed to date James without it being about Snape, because she is an autonomous person with her own wants, needs, and desires. Of course, these are my interpretations influenced by my subjective reading of the text.

The final point you make is, I think, a really good one. I have a lot of problems with how J*ly is written in the books! And I do think it is absolutely influenced by the trope of a Good Woman redeeming a Bad Man. That doesn't mean said trope is the only way J*ly can be written in fic and understood in the fandom. But yeah, Lily is written in some very troubling ways...fandom discourse about her just often becomes even more troubling. My ultimate problem with the 'Lily is a bad friend' line of argument is honestly a critique of the exact same trope: the idea that Lily's purpose as a character is entirely to redeem Snape, that she was responsible for fixing him and saving him. Saying that Lily was a bad friend to Snape for not forgiving him for calling her a racial slur and specifically demeaning the help she offered him--and for not preventing him from joining the Death Eaters, even though it was his choice to do so, is misogynistic! The text is obviously not free of misogyny but fandom isn't either, which is why the Bad Friend Lily take gets me so mad because it plays into a misogynistic trope!(Thinking about it, I do wonder if the framing of Lily 'saving' James in the text is why people want her to 'save' Snape...)

Anyway, I hope this doesn't come off as condescending or rude, it's an interesting subject to discuss and it's not my intention to attack you at all. Thanks for the ask!

[forestdeath1]

I absolutely agree with you re: not all pureblood families are rich, the situation is much more complicated than that, and also we have the rich "good guys" but also what I have noticed is that Slytherin house as a whole gets this "old money dark academia" treatment and that is what many people find so cool in them you know? Fanon Regulus is perfect example of this because he is this good looking rich French speaking snarky academic smart boy. 😄

Yes, as I said I agree that in the fandom this is often just jerking off to the muggle aristocracy and Tik Tok old money aesthetic, including the Blacks speaking French lmao

And this is the result of kids who think Slytherin means IMMENCE wealth and muggle-land-linked aRiSTocrAcY. 💅🏻🧛🏻‍♀️✨ And all those inherited seats in the Wizengamot, like the House of Lords... Lord Potter Black Percival Peverell Gaunt Gryffindor Slytherin at your service.

I have nothing against this aesthetic if it’s well-written and drawn. I like the imagined dark academia and old money look with the Blacks, which doesn’t exist anywhere except on TikTok. It's just a fantasy inspired by gothic novels. Nothing more. Gothic novels have always been among the most beloved by people.

But I don’t get why they do this with Slytherin in general. There's no justification for Slytherin, and that house should be closed, but it’s not only about money and this old money vibe.

Let the Slytherins be in debt, let them hate businessmen because business is "Muggle-like," let them be proud of their poverty as long as they are "pure-blood," and so on. In canon we have the Gaunts, the purest of the pure-bloods. A very old money aesthetic, indeed. 💅🏻 Make them the ones who went to war against Muggle-borns, in part because Voldemort successfully used propaganda to convince them that Muggle-borns were taking their jobs. This aligns more with the canon than the whole idea that the Sacred 28 are immensely wealthy.

[the-god-az]

Estoy harto de Drarry/Harco.

Entiendo que les encante esa mierda porque "oh Merlin, Slytherin/Gryffindor es tan hot" cállate, es jodidamente aburrido cuando todo el tiempo siempre es ese ship de mierda.

Lo peor es que NUNCA SON COMO EN LOS LIBROS/PELÍCULAS, siempre hacen a uno santo y al otro un hijo de perra.

Al menos no caigan en los jodidos estereotipos de mierda de siempre, ninguno es femenino o sumiso, y mucho menos un estúpido twink.

[pangaeaseas]

this is a really excellent essay that everyone who ever says anything about lily Evans on the internet should be required to read.

lily evans potter: womanhood, motherhood & morality

lily as the dream girl in canon and fan spaces

i want to talk about this while there isn't a current upsurge in the discourse

Lily Evans Potter is introduced to us as Lily Potter, the dead mother of Harry Potter. Lily and James potter, dead, leaving their poor, miraculous son to live with the dull, horrible Durselys. We only ever see her through, with the exception of her sister, the memory of men.

I've said before that I believe James and Lily are the ideal masculine and ideal feminine, both to Harry and in a metatextual way. parents are our introduction into gender roles, the "correct" way to be a man and woman. since Lily is dead she cannot disappoint Harry. she can be imagined as the perfect woman, which is, of course, a wife and mother. the dream girl!

Lily's death makes her a silent, ever-loving, beautiful young mother, for both Harry and the reader. James is slightly deconstructed in SWM, but Lily is not. She is a fierce protector, brave, clever, and only emotional (angry) once James, her future husband, provokes her enough.

in the text Lily is not truly presented as flawed in a meaningful way. the moral choices she makes: to build a relationship with Severus, to defend Severus, to break their relationship when he refuses to reject bigotry, to join the Order, to die for her child, are all the correct moral choices. these are the choices the narrative is telling us to respect.

women have, for the past 200 years or so, been conceived of as the moral center of the family.* Lily Evans Potter is the moral center of the series. her choice to die is mirrored by the main character, Harry, and sparks the beginning of victory. Harry's sacrifice is enabled by another mother, Narcissa, making the correct moral choice because the power of her maternal love urges her to this choice. finally, Voldemort's most powerful follower, Bellatrix, is killed by a housewife and mother, Molly, in a maternal rage at the idea of her daughter being murdered.

Lily's sacrifice and the emotions behind it are mirrored multiple times in the final battle because it and she are the moral center of the series.

that Harry is frequently told he has his mother's eyes, and that Dumbledore points out how his essential nature mirrors his mother's, further highlights Lily's character and her choices as implicitly good.

women, especially mothers, as our moral authorities, is an unconscious cultural belief we can see play out in the fandom and subfandoms that Lily is discussed in. we can all recall the characterization of Lily as the goody-two shoes that James has to change for, the characterization of Lily as "not like other girls", the BAMF characterization, the current near mommy dom to James characterization.

the characterization of Lily changes with our view of the best kind of woman. but she is, always, demonstrating a most "correct" way to be. maybe it's 2007 and she's telling James off—not fun, but right. or it's 2012 and she's not preoccupied with boys like her classmates. or it's 2019 and she always knows the right thing to say to Remus when he's down on himself. or it's 2025 and James is trailing after her like a puppy while she contemplates what size strap to use on him after she beats up a bigot.

We don't see a lot of moderate views on Lily. Above, I've discussed how Lily lovers tend to portray her. Lily haters, a smaller group from what I can tell, do not utilize these common fanon characterizations. They disparage her as an immoral, selfish, bad woman. The wholesale rejection of Lily as the moral center based on her perceived immorality is the other side of the coin.

I'll refer to people with this perspective as "Lily haters" though I am aware there are people who dislike her outside of the topics I'm discussing.

I rarely engage with Lily haters, though I am aware of their arguments that Lily was a bad friend to Severus, a social climber, a gold digger, or boring. All grave sins for the woman who's supposed to save everyone.

This perspective doesn't reject Lily as the moral center or the perfect woman, it is an argument that she's not fulfilling her role correctly. Her unwillingness to give Severus more chances is selfish, stuck-up, classist. Her desire for James is an further betrayal of Severus.

She's supposed to be the Madonna, why is she being a whore?

I believe Lily hate comes from a belief she failed at being the perfect woman/mother, and therefore she is worthless. A bitch. Weak willed. Oversexed. even by haters her role as the moral center is not questioned.

in both the og text and in the fandom supertext Lily is the moral center because of her role as mother. her status as the moral center is inextricably tied to her motherhood. since Lily being a mother is the point of her character, divorcing her from her motherhood often changes the foundation of her character.**

when her literal motherhood is removed from a depiction of her character, her metaphorical status as the perfect woman/mother is often still intact. this is seen in the characterizations I described earlier, and, I argue, in the belief that she's too good for James when it is used as a "justification" for shipping James with someone else.*** thereby, she is further purified, not even having been touched by a man. she's put on a pedestal, where she can't be touched, and is rarely noticed.

it is also frequently seen when she is written as a side character in a relationship with James, and the pair become the dual moral guides for the main couple.

this reflects James and Lily as the ideal masculine and feminine, as they are a perfectly harmonious couple when a side pairing. their implicit canonical roles are subconsciously reflected in fanon with little critique or commentary on the canon text.

Lily's entire character is crafted to be The Perfect Mother™️. whether she is literally a mother in her fanon depiction or not, she is still The Perfect Woman™️—and is still affected by the biases our culture has towards women and mothers.

thus, Lily is the dream girl in the text, the moral center only seen through a nostalgic veil, and a dream girl in fan spaces, as the moral guide for the men in her life who pegs her husband or is too pure for the touch of a man.

for more on gender in the wizarding world, based on gender in early modern england (pre the cult of domesticity) see this post

*see the cult of domesticity if you'd rather not read the article

**please like fucking do not fucking act like I'm saying you cannot do this. I swear to fucking god

***you don't need to justify your ships

[velvet4510]

It’s really a rite of passage for anyone who ever falls into a Harry Potter hyperfixation to realize that the whole book series itself is a tapestry of untapped potential full of (plot) holes, and that only fanfiction actually does that world and those characters justice.

[arkadijxpancakes]

Yes. The Weasleys had too many kids. An analysis. (Part 1 of 2)

Everyone who read Harry Potter read about the prejudices regarding the Weasleys: They all have red hair, are poor and have more kids than they can afford. Insert a sneering Malfoy here.

The books were adamant that that was not the case. The Weasleys are depicted as the best family in the books. (Just look at the others. The Dursleys were narrow-minded, bigoted and abusive. The Malfoys were bigoted terrorists. The Lovegoods were weird. Let’s not even start about Merope and Riddle.)

However, if you look closer, the prejudices have some truth to them: They had more kids than they could afford. However, money isn’t the issue here, not really.

Yes, the Weasleys are clearly depicted as members of the working class. They don’t have much money and fall back on second-hand stuff a lot of the time. Ron in particular is shown to be using hand-me-downs in book one.

However, they don’t live in abject poverty. The family owns their own home on their own land. They have a garden to grow their own vegetables and they have chickens. This means that food scarcity shouldn’t be a big issue for them, because they can produce a lot of it on their own. (Magic should make this even easier, because they can use it for the gardening stuff. And if we assume that you can duplicate food, this should keep everyone well-fed.)

The main issue when it comes to money isn’t that they don’t have anything. They have clearly enough money to stay comfortably over water. They just don’t have enough money to buy all the fancy shit the wizarding world uses as status symbols. (Like racing brooms and dress robes.)

Could things be better, money-wise? Sure. But one can have a loving, comfortable childhood, even with second-hand clothes and working class food. So no. It’s not about the money.

It’s about time. 

And it's also about how the parents divide that time (and the work that comes along with it.)

The Weasleys follow a family structure one would expect from a muggle family of their time (the second half of the 20th century): Arthur is the one who goes out to work and earns money, while his wife Molly is a stay-at-home-mother who takes care of their home and kids. It’s also just their nuclear family that lives in the burrow. There are no other relatives (no grandparents and no aunts or uncles, either) living there.

I find this a little bit weird, tbh. The nuclear family (parents and kids) living alone, without any other relatives and with the father as the sole breadwinner, is a pretty new development. The practice only really established itself after the Statute of Secrecy went into effect. It developed first in the upper classes (who used this to flaunt their wealth) and in urban centers (where there was no space to live together with your extended family.) Before this, living with one's extended family was very common, especially in rural areas, where it was beneficial to stick together. The Weasley’s don’t really have a reason to live as a nuclear family. There is no need for wizards to follow the Muggle trend, and things were different before the statute. Living with other, adult family members would also be beneficial, especially for Molly. And the books do suggest that the extended family is quite large, so “They don’t live with other relatives, because they don’t have any” doesn’t fit their situation either.

This is a common theme for Rowling, by the way. She tends to ignore the extended families of her characters, whenever it is possible. The numbers of grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins that get mentioned in the book is incredibly low. (The only character who seems to have close connections to his extended family is Neville – and that’s because the other members of his nuclear family are completely absent because of health reasons.)

Anyway. When we look back at the Weasleys, this leaves Molly basically as a tradwife. (Minus the religious baggage.) But let's start at the beginning. 

(Note: I will focus on the books in this. I don’t consider the games canon and will not use them as a source.) Arthur and Molly were born around 1950. We know that he went to Hogwarts from 1961 to 1968. They were close enough in age to start a relationship while still at Hogwarts, and they married shortly after graduating. For this to work, she must have been in his year or maybe the year below or above.

Bill was born in 1970 and was followed by six siblings, the last who was born in 1981. So from the age of ca. 20 to the age of ca. 33 Molly was either pregnant or nursing at least one baby at any given time. (There might have been a short break in that pattern between Charlie and Percy, but it only got worse after that.)

As I said before, Molly and Arthur seem to have a very traditional division of labor between them: He works at the ministry and earns money, she takes care of their home and kids. This means that Molly has drawn the short end of the stick.

While Arthur is working one job 9-5, Molly has to work three jobs and at least one of them is 24/7. Let’s pick them apart:

Her first job is to take care of the home. Molly cleans the house and does the laundry. It is also very likely that she is not only responsible for cooking, but for food production in general. This means that she takes care of the garden and chickens. This would be pretty exhausting, if not for her magic. She can likely cut down on time and effort by using magic for most of those tasks.

On top of this, she is also producing at least some of the clothing her family wears. We don't see her sewing, but she knits a lot. She is using magic for that, too.

Her second job is to raise their kids. Molly is their primary caregiver and does most of the parenting. This is a difficult job to begin with, but there are seven of them. This is where her workload starts to stretch her thin. It can’t be easy to do the laundry, while Ginny needs to be fed, Bill and Charlie are arguing in the backyard, and the twins have just vanished. Magic is less helpful here, because a lot of the work requires her to interact with her kids. She can’t really flick her wand to speed that up.

On top of that - and this is where things get even worse - there doesn't seem to be any kind of elementary school in Wizarding Great Britain. At the very least, the books do not mention any form of primary education and Hogwarts seems to be Ron’s first school. But Hogwarts still requires its students to be able to read, write and do math. Having some education about the Wizarding World couldn’t hurt, either.

However, someone has to teach the kids. And this someone is probably Molly, because Arthur is at work, and they don’t have the money for a private tutor. They cant sent their kids to an elementary school, because there is none. (And they obviously did not send them to a muggle school.) 

So this is her third job. This is another job she can’t really speed up with magic, because she can’t hex the knowledge into her kids’ brains. (Or at least I hope she can’t, because everything else would be disturbing.)

This means Molly has to take care of their home, produce their food, take care of their kids and teach them elementary school-stuff. All while being pregnant and/or nursing for circa 13 years straight.

Her workload just isn’t doable for a single person. It might have started off okay, when she only had Bill and Charlie, and it probably got better once most kids had left the house to study at Hogwarts. But the years in between must have been hell. And she did not really have any help to do it.

Arthur was off to work most days and seems to spend quite a lot of time on his hobby. Additionally, he just doesn’t seem to be all that involved as a father and seems to take care mostly of the fun stuff. 

His parenting style is much more relaxed than Molly’s, too. He’s probably the parent the kids go to when they want to do something their mother would say no to. This, of course, makes parenting even harder for her, because she doesn’t just have to deal with the kids, but also with Arthur’s parenting decisions. There are no other adult family members around to help her, either. They also don’t have the money to hire help. (No wonder Molly dreamed of having her own slave house elf. It would have allowed her to drastically reduce her workload. It’s a really disgusting wish, but I understand where it comes from.)

This is where the family dynamics probably took their first severe hit: It’s very likely that Molly’s workload left her with more work than she was able to do consistently. Whether Arthur pulled his weight in that regard is questionable (and he was at work for most of the day anyway.) She also had no other adults to help her, so she probably offloaded her workload elsewhere: her kids.

Yes. I think it is very likely that the Weasleys parentified their kids, especially Bill, Charlie and Percy. We don’t see it with Bill and Charlie, probably because they had already left the house when Harry meets the family. Still, it’s a little weird that both of them went to live so far away from home. Yes, sure, exploring tombs in Egypt and taming dragons in Romania is fun and exciting in and off itself – but being so far away from home that mom can’t rope you into household chores and babysitting duty is probably a really nice bonus. It would also relax their familial relationships quite a bit, because moving away gives them control over when and how they want to engage. (And it’s probably easier to be the fun big brother to your younger siblings when you aren’t required to watch and control them every day.)

We do see it with Percy, however. He looks after and take responsibility for his younger siblings a lot, especially at Hogwarts. You can see it in the way he looks after Ginny and how he’s constantly at odds with Fred and George because they refuse to follow any rules.

Fuck, he still does this after the big row with his father. Yes, the letter he sends to Ron is pretty obnoxious, but he still wrote it. He did not need to. At that point he had cut all contact, after all. He clearly cared for his younger brother and wanted to look out for him, even if he did it in the most annoying way possible. It would be interesting to know whether he also wrote to Ginny or the twins or not.

Also, did I mention that the Weasleys have too many kids?

They have too many kids.

It’s a numbers game, really. The more kids you have, the more time you have to use for household chores (you need to clean more, wash more, cook more, etc.) You also have less time to spend time with each kid individually. This is especially true for quality time – so time that isn’t spent on chores or education. Time that is spent playing and talking with each other, just to enjoy each other's company.

Molly is already working three jobs. She doesn’t really have any opportunity to spend time with her kids equally. She’s too busy looking after the home and teaching the older ones, while watching the younger ones and making sure the twins don’t burn the house down. 

I just don’t see her spending quality time with her kids regularly, because of this. It’s just difficult to talk with Charlie about his favorite dragons or read something to Percy or to play with Ron, when there is always someone else who needs her more. Full diapers. Empty stomachs. Unyielding stains of unknown origin on Arthur's work robes. A sudden explosion on the second floor. And probably everything at the same time and all the time.

So yeah. Chances are that her attention and her affection can be pretty hard to come by at times. (To a certain degree, this also applies to Arthur, because he is away from home so much.)

Let’s look at the timeline.

It probably starts pretty harmless:

1970 - Bill is born, and he’s the only kid for two years. Yeah, it’s Molly’s first child, and she is a really young mother, but she is a stay-at-home-mum, and it’s just one kid. It’s mostly her and Bill who are at home, and her workload isn’t all that big, because she can use magic for most stuff. The war has started, but it probably hasn’t kicked into overdrive just yet, so this shouldn’t affect her too much either.

1972 – Charlie is born. Molly’s workload is expanding, but things should still be pretty manageable. Also, they don’t have another kid for almost four years. This allows Molly to adjust to caring for two kids. She can also relax from both pregnancies and births. If it wasn’t for the war, this might be her favorite years as a mother.

When Arthur is involved in parenting Bill and Charlie, it’s probably on the weekends. I can imagine him taking them out to do fun stuff, so their mother can get some rest. It’s probably a great time for him, because he can bond with his boys. I can’t see him do much more than that, though. Molly has a handle on things, and interfering could be seen as overstepping.

1976 – Percy is born. This is probably the moment, where the attention-distribution in the family gets a little bit wonky. Molly has three kids now, and it’s the middle of the war. Bill is almost six, which means that she has to start teaching him, while simultaneously nursing Percy and keeping Charlie entertained/away from trouble. This is probably still manageable. She can wait a little longer with teaching Bill, so she can teach him and Charlie together. She can also hand him (and maybe Charlie) over to Arthur, so he can teach him/them on weekends.

Additionally, Arthur is probably still taking Bill and Charlie out for some bonding-fun-time. However, the war is in full swing now, so leaving the house gets increasingly dangerous. Their trips will get shorter and stay closer to home. They will happen less frequently, too. He will also end up working more because of the war, doing overtime much more frequently. When he is home, he is going to be exhausted, as a result.

1978 – Fred and George are born. The attention-distribution in the family falls off a cliff.

This is when Molly's workload starts to become overwhelming. Charlie will be 6 at the end of the year, Bill will be 8. She has to start teaching them, if she hasn’t already. Otherwise, Bill will not be ready when he starts Hogwarts.

And on top of everything, Molly has to take care of the twins. She has to do everything that needs to be done for a newborn – times two.

So her workload explodes. Molly is raising five kids, now. She needs to educate Bill and Charlie, nurse Fred and George, and has to make sure Percy doesn’t fall to the wayside completely. She also has her household chores that aren’t related to her kids. The war is still raging on. Arthur is probably tied up at work most of the time, and when he is home, he’s exhausted. And Molly will be pregnant again in a year. (Really, why do they have so many kids during a war? One or two, I would understand, but this is getting irresponsible.)

This is probably the time when Bill has to take over at least some chores, not just to learn how to do them, but to take some pressure off of his mother. This might not be parentification yet, but it will get worse over time. I assume he has to look after his younger brothers a lot.

On top of all that, it is increasingly hard to shield the kids from the war. At least Bill and Charlie are old enough to understand that things are really, really wrong and scary. And there is not much Molly can do about it.

1980 - Ron is born. The twins are already old enough to open cupboards. Molly is not having a great time. She probably hands over Percy to Bill and Charlie (“Go, play with your little brother!”), so she can take care of baby Ron while keeping an eye on the twin shaped chaos that is growing by the day. She will be pregnant again in a couple of months.

Bill (who will be 10 at the end of the year) and Charlie (8) still require teaching. Percy (4) isn’t old enough just yet, but he will be, soon. (And, let’s face it: It’s Percy. Chances are that he wants to learn, even now.)

The war is still in full swing. Arthur is still overworked and underpaid. Everyone is tired and scared. This also affects the kids. There is probably a lot of pressure on Bill as the oldest brother to watch over his younger siblings, to make sure all of them stay safe. They don’t spend much time outside their home, because it’s just too dangerous to do so.

Around 1980/81 is also the time when Molly’s brothers Fabian and Gideon die. (Gideon can be seen in the photograph that was taken of the Order before James and Lily went into hiding, so he was still alive back then. But we know that he dies soon after the photograph was taken.) Molly never talks about her brothers in canon, but this must have been horrible for her.

1981 – Ginny is born. They are seven kids now. Fabian and Gideon will be dead by the end of the year (if they aren’t already.) Molly’s workload is at its peak, while her ability to pay equal amounts of attention to her kids is at an all-time low. She’s grieving, the rest of her family is in danger, and Arthur is stuck at the ministry. This means that she will likely lean on Bill’s support even more. As Charlie is 8 now (and will be 9 at the end of the year), Molly might consider him old enough to help, so he might see an increase in responsibility, too. At this point, we are in parentification-territory.

With each day, the twins grow more into the troublemakers we see in canon. This sucks away attention and affection from their siblings (simply because they need to be watched and disciplined).

I think the following years are very formative for the family dynamics between the kids. It’s probably less pronounced for Bill and Charlie (who are stuck with chores and babysitting-duty and will leave for Hogwarts soon-ish) and Ginny (who gets more attention because she is the youngest child and only girl). It’s worse for the others. Percy, Fred, George and Ron are basically in direct competition for their mother's attention. I think the dynamic develops as follows:

Fred and George are active and pretty extroverted. They explore a lot and start to play pranks on their family members. This is overall harmless, but Molly has to pay attention to them, to make sure that no one accidentally gets hurt. From this, the twins learn that they can get Molly’s attention by causing trouble, so they will lean into it even more.

This sucks away attention from Percy and Ron. It causes Percy to veer hard into the opposite direction: He tries to gain Molly’s attention by following all her rules and fulfilling her wishes. This earns him her affection and will turn him into her golden child in the long run. It will also put a strain on his relationship with the twins, because Molly compares them a lot, especially when angry. This will cause Percy to perform the “Good boy”-role even harder (because he doesn’t want to be treated like the twins), while they start to resent him on some level.

Ron on the other hand is still too young to affect the family dynamic on his own. He internalizes that his mother cares more about his siblings and that there is nothing he can do about it.

The only good news: At the end of the year, the war ends. This will bring a lot of relief. (It’s short term relief for now, things will need some time to go back to normal.)

However, the end of the war also means, that Percy gets a pet. Either late in 1981 or early in 1982 he (or another member of the family) finds a rat that is missing a finger on its front paw. Percy keeps him and calls him Scabbers.

We all know who Scabbers is, of course. I just want to highlight how fucked up this situation is. Percy is 5, when he adopts him. Because he was a little kid, he probably took him everywhere without a second thought – into the bathroom, into his bed, you know, everywhere. There is probably no part of Percy’s body Scabbers hasn’t seen. Percy probably told him everything, too, all his worries, all of his fears. It’s just creepy.

And keep in mind, Scabbers – Peter – is not just a random wizard. He is a Death Eater and mass murderer. We don’t know if he ever hurt Percy (there are fanfics that do explore that possibility). He probably didn’t, but the idea alone is nightmare fuel.

To get this back on track: This could have impacted the sibling-relationship, too. It depends on whether the other kids were allowed to keep pets.

With that, we are done with the war and with Molly’s time being pregnant. The family dynamic is already fucked up – and it will get worse, as the kids get older. However, this post is long enough, already. So we’ll take a break here. Next time, we will look at how the dynamics shift, once the kids start to go to Hogwarts. See ya!

[wisteria-lodge]

So when I look at Harry Potter, my goal is to separate what I think the books are intending to say, from what they actually say, from what the movies say… and what the common fan interpretation is. So today I’m interested in Dumbledore, and specifically in the common headcanon of  Manipulative/Morally Gray Dumbledore. Is that (intentionally or unintentionally) supported by the text?

PART I:  Omniscient Dumbledore

“I think he knows more or less everything that goes on here”

In Book 1, yes Dumbledore honestly does seem to know everything. He 100% arranged for Harry to find the Mirror of Erised, publicly left Hogwarts in order to nudge Quirrell into going after the Stone, and knew what Quirrell was doing the whole time. It is absolutely not a stretch, and kind of heavily implied, that the reason the Stone’s protections feel like a little-end-of-the-year exam designed to put Harry through his paces… is because they are. As the series goes on this interpretation only gets more plausible, when we see the kind of protections people can put up when they don’t want anyone getting through. 

Book 1 Dumbledore knows everything… but what he’s actually going to do about it is anyone’s guess. One of the first things we learn is that some of Dumbledore’s calls can be… questionable. McGonagall questions his choice to leave Harry with the Dursleys, Hermione questions his choice to give Harry the Cloak and let him go after the Stone, Percy and Ron both matter-of-factly call him “mad.” The “nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak” speech is a joke where Dumbledore says he’s going to say a few words, then literally does say a few (weird) words. I know there are theories that those particular words are supposed to be insulting the four houses, or referencing the Hogwarts house stereotypes, or that they’re some kind of warning. But within the text, this is pure Lewis Carroll British Nonsense Verse stuff (and people came up with answers to the impossible Alice in Wonderland “why is a raven like a writing desk” riddle too.) 

This characterization also explains a lot of Dumbledore’s decisions about how to run a school, locked in during Book 1. Presumably Binns, Peeves, Filch, Snape are all there because Dumbledore finds them funny, atmospheric, and/or character building. He's just kind of a weird guy.  He absolutely knew that Lockhart was a fraud in Book 2 (with that whole “Impaled upon your own sword, Gilderoy?” thing after Lockhart oblivates himself. ) So maybe he is also there to be funny/atmospheric/character building, or to teach Harry a lesson about fame, or because Dumbledore is using the cursed position to bump off people he doesn’t like. Who knows.

(I actually don’t think JKR had locked in “the DADA position is literally cursed by Voldemort” until Book 6. )

Dumbledore absolutely knows that Harry is listening in when Lucius Malfoy comes to take Hagrid to Azkaban, and it’s fun to speculate that maybe he let himself get fired in Book 2 as part of a larger plan to boot Lucius off the Board of Governors. So far, that’s the sort of thing he’d do.  But in Books 3 and 4, we are confronted with a number of important things that Dumbledore just missed. He doesn’t know any of the Marauders were animagi, he doesn’t know what really happened with the Potter’s Secret Keeper, doesn’t know Moody is Crouch, and doesn’t know the Marauders Map even exists. But in Books 5 and 6, his omniscience does seem to come back online. (In a flashback, Voldemort even comments that he is "omniscient as ever” when Dumbledore lists the specific Death Eaters he has in Hogsmeade as backup.) Dumbledore knows exactly what Draco and Voldemort are planning, and his word is taken as objective truth by the entire Order of the Phoenix - who apparently only tolerate Snape because Dumbledore vouches for him:

“Snape,” repeated McGonagall faintly, falling into the chair. “We all wondered . . . but he trusted . . . always . . . Snape . . . I can’t believe it. . . .”  “Snape was a highly accomplished Occlumens,” said Lupin, his voice uncharacteristically harsh. “We always knew that.”  “But Dumbledore swore he was on our side!” whispered Tonks. “I always thought Dumbledore must know something about Snape that we didn’t. . . .”  “He always hinted that he had an ironclad reason for trusting Snape,” muttered Professor McGonagall (...) “Wouldn’t hear a word against him!”

McGonagall questions Dumbledore about the Dursleys, but not about Snape. I see this as part of the larger trend of basically Dumbledore’s deification. In the beginning of the series, he’s treated as a clever, weird dude. By the end, he’s treated like a god. 

PART II: Chessmaster Dumbledore

“I prefer not to keep all my secrets in one basket.”

When Dumbledore solves problems, he likes to go very hands-off. He didn’t directly teach Harry about the Mirror of Erised - he gave him the Cloak, knew he would wander, and moved the Mirror so it would be in his path. He sends Snape to deal with Quirrell and Draco, rather than do it himself. He (or his portrait) tells Snape to confund Mundungus Fletcher and get him to suggest the Seven Potters strategy. He puts Mrs. Figg in place to watch Harry, then ups the protection in Book 5 - all without informing Harry. The situation with Slughorn is kind of a Dumbledore-manipulation master class - even the way he deliberately disappears into the bathroom so Harry will have enough solo time to charm Slughorn. Of course he only wants Slughorn under his roof in the first place to pick his brain about Voldemort… but again, instead of doing that himself, he gets Harry to do it for him. 

Dumbledore has a moment during Harry’s hearing in Book 5 (which he fakes evidence for) where he informs Fudge that Harry is not under the Ministry’s jurisdiction while at Hogwarts. Which has insane implications. It’s never explicitly stated, but as the story goes on, it at least makes sense that Dumbledore is deliberately obscuring how powerful he is, and how much influence he really has, by getting other people to do things for him. But the problem with that is because he is so powerful, it become really easy for a reader to look back after they get more information and say… well if Dumbledore was controlling the situation… why couldn’t he have done XYZ. Here are two easy examples from Harry’s time spent with the Dursleys:

1. Mrs. Figg is watching over Harry from day one, but she can’t tell him she’s a squib and also she has to keep him miserable on purpose:

“Dumbledore’s orders. I was to keep an eye on you but not say anything, you were too young. I’m sorry I gave you such a miserable time, but the Dursleys would never have let you come if they’d thought you enjoyed it. It wasn’t easy, you know…”

It’s pretty intense to think of Dumbledore saying “oh yes, invite this little child over and keep him unhappy on purpose.” But okay. It’s important to keep Harry ignorant of the magical world and vice versa. fine. But once he goes to Hogwarts… that doesn’t apply anymore?  I’m sure when Harry thinks he’s going to be imprisoned permanently in his bedroom during Book 2, it would’ve been comforting to know that Dumbledore was sending around someone to check on him. And when he literally runs away from home in Book 3… having the address of a trusted adult that he could easily get to would have been great for everybody. 

2. When Vernon is about to actually kick Harry out during Book 5, Dumbledore sends a howler which intimidates Petunia into insisting that Harry has to stay. Vernon folds and does exactly what she says. If Dumbledore could intimidate Petunia into doing this, then why couldn’t he intimidate her into, say - giving Harry the second bedroom instead of a cupboard. Or fixing Harry’s glasses. In Book 1, the Dursleys don’t bother Harry during the entire month of August because Hagrid gives Dudley a pig’s tail. In the summer between third and fourth year, the Dursleys back off because Harry is in correspondence with Sirius (a person they fear.) But the Dursleys are afraid of all wizards. Like at this point it doesn’t seem that hard to intimidate them into acting decently to Harry. 

PART III: Dumbledore and the Dursleys 

“Not a pampered little prince”

JKR wanted two contradictory things. She wanted Dumbledore to be a fundamentally good guy: a wise, if eccentric mentor figure. But she also wanted Harry to have a comedically horrible childhood being locked in a cupboard, denied food, given broken glasses and ill fitting/embarrassing clothes, and generally made into a little Cinderella. Then, it’s a bigger contrast when he goes to Hogwarts and expulsion can be used as an easy threat. (Although the only person we ever see expelled is Hagrid, and that was for murder.)

So, there are a couple of tricks she uses to make it okay that Dumbledore left Harry at the Dursleys.’ The first is that once Harry leaves…  nothing that happens there is given emotional weight. When he’s in the Wizarding World, he barely talks about Dursleys, barely thinks about them. They almost never come up in the narration (unless Harry’s worried about being expelled, or they’re sending him comedically awful presents.) They are completely cut from movies 4, 6, and 7 part 2 - and you do not notice. 

The second trick… is that Dumbledore himself clearly doesn’t think that the Dursleys are that bad. During the King’s Cross vision-quest, he describes 11-year-old Harry as “alive and healthy (...) as normal a boy as I could have hoped under the circumstances. Thus far, my plan was working well.”  

Now, this could have been really interesting. Like in a psychological way, I get it. Dumbledore had a rocky home life. Dad in prison, mom spending all her time taking care of his volatile and dangerous sister. Aberforth seems to have reacted to the situation by running completely wild, it’s implied that he never even had formal schooling… and Albus doubled down on being the Golden Child, making the family look good from the outside, and finding every means possible to escape. I would have believed it if Molly or Kingsley had a beat of being horrified by the way the Dursleys are treating Harry… but Dumbledore treats it as like, whatever. Business as usual. 

But that isn’t the framing that the books use. Dumbledore is correct that the Dursleys aren’t that bad, and I think it’s because JKR fundamentally does not take the Dursleys seriously as threats. I also think she has a fairly deeply held belief that suffering creates goodness, so possibly Harry suffering at the hands of the Dursleys… was necessary? To make him good? Dumbledore himself has an arc of ‘long period of suffering = increased goodness.’ So does Severus Snape, Dudley‘s experience with the Dementor kickstarts his character growth, etc. It’s a trope she likes.

It’s only in The Cursed Child that the Dursleys are given any kind of weight when it comes to Harry’s psyche. This is one of the things that makes me say Jack Thorne wrote that play, because it’s just not consistent with how JKR likes to write the Dursleys. It’s consistent with the way fanfiction likes to write the Dursleys. And look, The Cursed Child is fascinatingly bad, I have so many problems with it, but it does seem to be doing like … a dark reinterpretation of Harry Potter? And it’s interested in saying something about cycles of abuse. I can absolutely see how the way the play handles things is flattering to JKR. It retroactively frames the Dursleys’ abuse in a more negative way, and maybe that’s something she wanted after criticism that the Harry Potter books treat physical abuse kind of lightly. (i.e.  Harry at the hands of the Dursleys, and house-elves at the hands of everybody. Even Molly Weasley “wallops” Fred with a broomstick.) 

PART IV: Dumbledore and Harry

“The whole Potter–Dumbledore relationship. It’s been called unhealthy, even sinister”

So whenever Harry feels betrayed by Dumbledore in the books - and he absolutely does, it’s some of JKR’s best writing  - it’s not because he left him with the Dursleys. It’s because Dumbledore kept secrets from him, or lied to him, or didn’t confide in him on a personal level. 

“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!” (...) 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.”

Eventually though, Harry falls in line with the rest of the Order, and treats Dumbledore as an all-knowing God. And this decision comes so close to being critiqued…  but the series never quite commits. Rufus Scrimgeour comments that, “Well, it is clear to me that [Dumbledore] has done a very good job on you” - implying that Harry is a product of a deliberate manipulation,  and that the way Harry feels about Dumbledore is a direct result of how he's been controlling the situation (and Harry.)  But Harry responds to “[You are] Dumbledore’s man through and through, aren’t you, Potter?” with “Yeah, I am. Glad we straightened that out,” and it’s treated as a badass, mic drop line. 

Ron goes on to say that Harry maybe shouldn’t be trusting Dumbledore and maybe his plan isn’t that great… but then he abandons his friends, regrets what he did, and is only able to come back because Dumbledore knew he would react this way? So that whole thing only makes Dumbledore seem more powerful? Aberforth  tells Harry (correctly) that Dumbledore is expecting too much of him and he’s not interested in making sure that he survives:

“How can you be sure, Potter, that my brother wasn’t more interested in the greater good than in you? How can you be sure you aren’t dispensable (...) Why didn’t he say… ‘Take care of yourself, here’s how to survive’? (...) You’re seventeen, boy!”

But, Aberforth is treated as this Hamish Abernathy type who has given up, and needs Harry to ignite his spark again. There’s a pretty dark line in the script of Deathly Hallows Part 2:

Which at least shows this was a possible  interpretation the creative team had in their heads… but then of course it isn’t actually in the movie. 

So in the end, insane trust in Dumbledore is only ever treated as proper and good. Then in Cursed Child they start using “Dumbledore” as an oath instead of “Merlin” and it’s weird and I don’t like it.

PART V: Dumbledore and his Strays

“I have known, for some time now, that you are the better man.”

So Dumbledore has this weird relationship pattern. He has a handful of people he pulled out of the fire at some point and (as a result) these people are insanely loyal to him.  They do his dirty work, and he completely controls them. This is an interesting pattern, because I think it helps explain why so many fans read Dumbledore’s relationship with Snape (and with Harry) as sinister. 

Let’s start with the first of Dumbledore’s “strays.” Dumbledore saves Hagrid's livelihood and probably life after he is accused of opening the Chamber of Secrets - and then he uses Hagrid to disappear Harry after the Potters' death, gets him to transport the Philosopher’s Stone, and he’s the one who he trusts to be Harry’s first point of contact with the Wizarding World.  Also, Hagrid's situation doesn’t change? Even after he is cleared of opening the Chamber of Secrets, he keeps using that pink flowered umbrella with his broken wand inside, a secret that he and Dumbledore seem to share. He could get a legal wand, he could continue his education. But he doesn’t seem to, and I don’t know why. 

So, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality is a well known fix-it fic that basically asks “What if Harry Potter was a machiavellian little super genius who solves the plot in a year?” I enjoyed it when it was coming out, but the only thing I would call a cheat is the way McGonagall brings Harry to Diagon Alley instead of Hagrid. Because a Harry Potter who has spent a couple of days with McGonagall is going to be much better informed, better equipped and therefore more powerful than a Harry spending the same amount of time with Hagrid. McGonagall is both a lot more knowledgeable and a lot less loyal to Dumbledore. She is loyal, obviously, but she also questions his choices in a way that Hagrid never does. And as a result, Dumbledore does not trust her with the same kind of delicate jobs he trusts to Hagrid.

Mrs. Figg is another one of Dumbledore’s strays. She’s a squib, so we can imagine that she doesn’t really have a lot of other options, and he sets her up to keep tabs on (and be unpleasant to) little Harry. He also has her lie to the entire Wizangamot, which has got to present some risk. Within this framework, Snape is another very clear stray. Dumbledore kept him out of Azkaban, and is the only reason that the Order trusts him. He gets sent on on dangerous double-agent missions… but before that he’s sort of kept on hand, even though he’s clearly miserable at Hogwarts. Firenze is definitely a stray - he can't go back to the centaurs, and who other than Dumbledore is going to hire him? And I do wonder about Trelawney. We don’t know much about her relationship with Dumbledore, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she was a stray as well.

I think there was an attempt to turn Lupin into a stray that didn’t… quite work. He is clearly grateful to Dumbledore for letting him attend Hogwarts and then for hiring him, but Lupin doesn’t really hit that necessary level of trustworthy that the others do. Most of what Dumbledore doesn’t know in Book 3 are things that Lupin could have told him, and didn’t. If had to think of a Watsonsian reason why Remus is given all these solo missions away from the other Order members (that never end up mattering…) it’s because I don’t think Dumbledore trusts him that much. Lupin doubts him too much. 

“Dumbledore believed that?” said Lupin incredulously. “Dumbledore believed Snape was sorry James was dead? Snape hated James. . . .”

 We also see Dumbledore start the process of making Draco into a stray by promising to protect him and his parents. And with all of that… it’s kind of easy to see how Harry fits the profile. He has a very bleak existence (which Dumbledore knows about.) He is pulled out of it by Dumbledore’s proxies. It’s not surprising that Harry develops a Hagrid-level loyalty, especially after Dumbledore saves him from Barty, from his Ministry hearing, and then from Voldemort. Harry walks to his death because Dumbledore told him too. 

Just to be clear, I don’t think this pattern is deliberate. I think this is a side effect of JKR wanting to write Dumbledore as a nice guy, and specifically as a protector of the little guy. But Dumbledore doing that while also being so powerful creates a weird power dynamic, gives him a weird edit. It’s part of the reason people are happy to go one step farther and say that the Dursleys were mean to Harry… because Dumbledore actively wanted it that way.  I don’t think that’s true. I think Dumbledore loves his strays and if anything, the text supports the idea that he is collecting good people, because protecting them and observing them serves some psychological function for him. Dumbledore does not believe himself to be an intrinsically good person, or trustworthy when it comes to power. So, of course someone like that would be fascinated by how powerless people operate in the world, and by people like Hagrid and Lupin and Harry, who seem so intrinsically good. 

PART VI - Dumbledore and Grindelwald

“I was in love with you.” 

I honestly see “17-year-old Dumbledore was enamored with Grindelwald” as a smokescreen distracting from the actual moral grayness of the guy. He wrote some edgy letters when he was a teenager, at least partly because he thought his neighbor was hot. He thought he could move Ariana, but couldn’t - which led to the chaotic three-way duel that killed her. 

One thing I think J. K. Rowling does understand pretty well, and introduces into her books on purpose, is the concept of re-traumatization. Sirius in Book 5 is very obviously being re-traumatized by being in his childhood home and hearing the portrait of his mother screaming. It’s why he acts out, regresses, and does a number of unadvisable things. I think it’s also deliberate that Petunia’s unpleasant childhood is basically being re-created: her normal son next to her sister’s magical son. It's making her worse, or at the very least preventing her from getting better. We learn that Petunia has this sublimated interest in the magical world, and can even pull out vocab like “Azkaban” and “Dementor” when she needs to.   She wrote Dumbledore asking to go to Hogwarts, and I could see that in a universe where Petunia didn’t have to literally raise Harry, she wouldn’t be as psychotically into normalness, cleanliness, and order as she is when we meet her in the books. After all, JKR doesn’t like to write evil mothers. She will be bend over backwards so her mothers are never really framed as bad.

And I honestly think it’s possible that J. K. Rowling was playing with the concept of re-traumatiziation when she was fleshing out Dumbledore in Book 7. We learn all this backstory, that… honestly isn’t super necessary? All I’m saying is that the three-way duel at the top of the Astronomy Tower lines up really well with the three-way duel that killed Ariana. Harry is Ariana, helpless in the middle. Draco is Aberforth, well intentioned and protective of his family - but kind of useless, and kind of a liability. Severus is Grindelwald, dark and brilliant, and one of the closest relationships Dumbledore has. If this was intentional, it was probably only for reasons of narrative symmetry… but I think it's cool in a Gus Fring of Breaking Bad sort of way, that Dumbledore (either consciously or unconsciously) has been trying to re-create this one horrible moment in his life where he felt entirely out of control. But the second time it plays out… he can give it what he sees as the correct outcome. Grindelwald kills him and everyone else lives. That is how you solve the puzzle.

If you read between the lines, Dumbledore/Grindelwald is a fascinating love story. I like the detail that after Ariana’s death, Dumbledore returns to Hogwarts because it’s a place to hide and because he doesn’t feel like he can be trusted with power. I like that he sits there, refusing promotions, refusing requests to be the new Minister of Magic, refusing to go deal with the growing Grindelwald threat until he absolutely can’t hide anymore, at which point he defeats him (somehow.) I like reading his elaborate plan to break Elder Wand’s power as both a screw-you to Grindelwald, the wand’s previous master, but also as a weirdly romantic gesture. In Albus Dumbledore’s mind, there is only Grindelwald. Voldemort can’t even begin to compare. I like the detail that Grindelwald won’t give up Dumbledore, even under torture. And, Dumbledore doesn’t put him in Azkaban. He put him in this other separate prison, which always makes it seem like he’s there under Dumbledore authority specifically.  Maybe Dumbledore thinks that if he had died that day instead of Ariana…he wouldn’t have had to spend the rest of his life fighting and imprisoning the man he loves.

And then of course, Crimes of Grindelwald decided to take away Dumbledore's greatest weakness and say that no, actually he was a really good guy who never did anything wrong ever.  He went all that time without fighting Grindelwald because they made a magical friendship no-fight bracelet. Dumbledore is randomly grabbing Lupin’s iconography (his fashion sense, his lesson plans, his job) in order to feel more soft and gentle than the person the books have created. Now Dumbledore knows about the Room Requirement, even though in the books it’s a plot point that he's too much of a goody-two-shoes to have ever found it himself. He loved Grindelwald (past tense.) And Secrets of Dumbledore is mostly about him being an omniscient mastermind so that a magical deer can tell him that he was a super good and worthy guy, and any doubt that he’s ever felt about himself is just objectively wrong and incorrect. Also now Aberforth has a neglected son, so he’s reframed as a bit of a hypocrite for getting on his brother’s case for not protecting Harry. 

So to summarize, I think Dumbledore began the series as this very eccentric, unpredictable mentor, whose abilities took a hit in Books 3 and 4 in order to make the plot happen. He teetered on the edge of a ‘dark’ framing for like a second… but at the the end of the series he's written as basically infallible and godlike. I’ve heard people say that JKR’s  increased fame was the reason she added the Rita Skeeter plot line, and I don’t think that’s true. But I do think her fame may have affected the way she wrote Dumbledore. Because Dumbledore is JKR’s comment on power, and by Book 5 she had so much power. In her head, I don’t think that Dumbledore is handing off jobs in a manipulative way. She sees him as empowering other less powerful people. That is his job as someone in power (because remember - people who desire power shouldn't wield it.)

Dumbledore’s power makes him emotionally disconnected from the people in his life, it makes him disliked and distrusted by the Ministry, but it doesn’t make him wrong. That’s important. Dumbledore is never wrong. Dumbledore is always good. That’s why we get the Blood Pact that means he was never weak or procrastinating. That’s why we get the qilin saying he was a good person. It’s why we get the tragic backstory (because giving Snape a tragic backstory worked wonders when it came to rehabilitating him.) And that is why Harry names his son Albus Severus in the epilogue, to make us readers absolutely crystal clear that these two are good men. 

(art credit to @fafodill for the amazing banner.)

[mayleneblaze]

Since it's posted by someone who ships Jegulus, Regulus as in a canon OC, no wonder the posts as well as op's lacking brain cells, are clearly indicated by the loosely strewn facts that they submitted here as canon evidence that they probably read in fics.

What about the 'sexual assault' incident that occured in Snape's worst memory that James was clearly excited to remove his underpants in front of the entire people gathered there. Very convenient to leave those details out from the list of bad stuff that James has done.

I seriously wonder do you guys even love James as claim to be. Like as much as you claim you love him as a character but you feel the need to change every aspect of his character then you don't love that character.

You love an OC you created that happens to share the same name with a canon character since you can't handle the fact that the character you love has nuances that you can't woobi-fy.

“but james potter was a bully””he bullied snape!!!” ok? someone had to do it.

🙄

~Here’s a list of good and shitty things Snape did canonically:

Bad:

•Snape was a blood supremacist who called lily a slur.

•invented a curse for enemies (marauders)

I don’t think a good person would make up a curse which mutilates someone terribly. That too, during his time in Hogwarts.

•oh yeah later on he became a death eater 😋 (the main goal of the death eaters wasto eliminate all muggle-borns in the wizarding world and establish voldemort as its ruler)(magical nazis basically).

Plus when voldy was going to kill lily, Snape was like yk what you can kill the husband and the INFANT just don’t hurt my lily flower teehee like okay james bullied him so him not caring about james made sense but harry was a child bro

•BULLIED CHILDREN DURING HIS TIME AS A PROFESSOR????? he was literally neville’s bogart ffs and not because “some teachers are just scary okay Neville was afraid of almost everything!!!” but because Snape bullied neville on a daily basis plus threatened to kill his pet after a failed potion thingy. plus he made fun hermione’s physical appearance (when draco made her teeth all big and Snape was like hah it’s the same there’s no difference) and he bullied for BEING GOOD AT ACADEMICS LIKE 😭😭😭???? He bullied almost everyone in Hogwarts I just know it.

•sectumsempra’d George’s year off.

•tried to out Remus Lupin as a werewolf for NO reason other than his childish misdemeanour.

Good:

•called Sirius and Remus an old married couple.

•saves Katie bell from a cursed necklace

•saves draco malfoy from a terrible curse that could’ve killed him by the counter charm “vulnera saneteur”

can someone guess which curse Snape saved draco from??? You’re right! It was sectumsempra!

•switched sides or smth

~Here’s a list of good and shitty things james did canonically:

Bad:

•called Snape snivellus (was funny ngl)

•bully snape

Good:

•turned into an illegal animagus at the age of 15 so his werewolf friend (Remus) has company during his transformations.

•took sirius black in after he ran away from an abusive hoursehold.

•SAVED FUCKING SNAPE FROM REMUS IN HIS WEREWOLF FORM AFTER SIRIUS SENT HIM THERE.

JAMES SAVED SNAPE.

•literally died trying to stall Voldemort so Lily and Harry have some time to escape or just live in general.

So my point is canon james was a bit of an asshole but he still did way more good deeds than Snape even though Snape was in all the seven books like one of the good things he did was literally the consequences of his own actions (healing draco).

All of this is canon btw. NONE of it is fanon.

sincerely keep my wife’s name out of your fucking mouth he did what should have been done.

cutie

[mrstellmeafuckingsecret]

"remus lupin isn't for the bookworms, he's-" just because you can't read a book that isn't 80% porn doesn't mean he can't. he IS for the bookworms. he's for the girlfailures and self diagnosed freaks and he is not for the sex addicted booktok biketok teenage girls

[fannedandflawless]

From Student to Staff: The Adults Who Watched Him Break, Then Welcomed Him Back

Severus Snape didn’t just return to Hogwarts as a professor. He returned to a castle full of ghosts—not the ones who drifted through walls, but the ones who once looked through him. The ones who had titles, robes, and responsibilities. And Merlin, the way they smiled when he came back.

These weren’t strangers. These were his former teachers. The ones who watched him unravel—slowly, painfully, obviously. They saw the weight—emotional bruises no child his age should have been burdened with. They noticed the robes that hung too loose, the way his voice softened into nothing, the eyes that dulled year by year. And then, as if memory had been Obliviated, they greeted him with polite nods and teacups.

Let’s name them. Let’s drag the velvet curtain back. Let’s ask what they refused to.

🧙‍♂️ Albus Dumbledore — The Grand Strategist of Silence

He saw everything. The twinkle in his eye? That was calculation. Dumbledore knew Severus’ pain. Knew his background. Knew the Marauders were brutal, and knew exactly how Hogwarts worked for boys who didn’t shine the right way.

And what did he do? Nothing.

Not until the prophecy.

Not until Severus—broken and desperate—came crawling with regret.

Only then did Dumbledore offer protection. And even then, it wasn’t mercy. It was strategy. It was cost-benefit arithmetic.

He kept Severus close, yes—but not out of trust. Out of necessity. And in that same chessboard logic, he raised Harry the same way. A pawn to be protected, yes, but only until it was time to be sacrificed.

Severus recognised it all too well. The same cold detachment Dumbledore had shown him as a man—keeping him close, not out of care, but for utility—was now being applied to Harry. Despite the tangled mess of resentment and reluctant protection he felt toward the boy—born of Lily, shaped by James—Severus could see the pattern. He could see the purpose.

He saw through it: "You've kept him alive so that he can die at the proper moment. You've been raising him like a pig for slaughter!"

Two lives. One broken young, the other burdened late. Both groomed to serve, both shaped for sacrifice—and in the end, perhaps, both meant to die on cue.

And when the war ended, Dumbledore offered Severus a position—not because he sought to make amends, but because it served a purpose. Severus had returned to spy, initially under orders, a reluctant shadow caught between masters. And once the mask was worn long enough, Dumbledore simply let it stay.

As if a professorship could heal years of sanctioned cruelty. As if being called "Professor" would cleanse the memory of being a punchline in the corridor.

⸻

🧪 Horace Slughorn — The Collector of Potential

He loved talent. But only when it glittered.

Slughorn praised Severus’ brilliance in Potions—called him promising, sharp. But he never once shielded him.

He didn’t invite him to the Slug Club. Not until Severus’ name meant something. Not until his mind could decorate a shelf.

Slughorn’s affection was conditional. You had to be charming. Presentable. A legacy. And Severus? He was none of those things. Just a poor boy with a hungry mind and no surname to flaunt.

And perhaps that is why, years later, Severus held nothing but quiet disdain for him. Because if anyone should have noticed what was happening in the shadows of Slytherin House, it should have been its Head. Not McGonagall. Not Dumbledore. Slughorn.

He should have seen it first. And yet—he didn’t.

Slughorn used him on parchment, but never sat beside him in reality.

⸻

🐈‍⬛ Minerva McGonagall — Sharp-Eyed and Selectively Blind

Minerva loved her lions. James Potter was golden in her eyes—brave, brilliant, bold.

She watched him torment Severus in broad daylight. She called it mischief. At best, she scolded. At worst, she said nothing.

She taught Severus Transfiguration. She saw his talent. But she never once stepped in when he was dangling upside down in a public corridor.

And years later? She called him Severus. Perhaps it was meant as respect. Perhaps it was all she had left to give. But even that name, spoken in her steady voice, must have tasted hollow.

Because if I were Severus, I don’t know what I would feel beneath the careful nods and professional courtesy. Not really.

Respect? Yes. She was formidable, fair—in her own way. But also a bystander. A witness to pain who never raised her wand.

The bitterness would have settled in strange places. Not hatred. Not fury. Just that sharp ache that lingers when someone could have helped—and chose not to.

As if calling him by name could erase the silence that came before it.

⸻

📚 Filius Flitwick — Gentle, Brilliant, Absent

Flitwick was kind. Clever. Charms master of immense skill. The sort of professor whose praise felt like sunlight.

And yet—he kept to his corner. He didn’t speak up.

Severus wasn’t just a good student. He was exceptional. The sort of student whose talent should have lit up the classroom like a Lumos Maxima—quiet, focused, effortlessly precise. The kind of brilliance that doesn’t need to shout because it radiates.

He invented spells. Created incantations from scratch. If anyone in Charms class should’ve stood out like a blinking sign under a spotlight—radiating silent brilliance from the back of the room—it was him. You didn’t need him to speak to notice. You just had to be looking.

Surely Flitwick noticed. How could he not?

But maybe noticing brilliance wasn’t the same as seeing pain. Maybe house loyalty got in the way. Maybe the politics of Slytherin versus Gryffindor made it easier to stay silent.

Perhaps he thought it wasn’t his place. Perhaps no one ever taught the professors how to reach past a student's wandwork and into their wounds.

And so, in the silence between spells, a boy learned that even kindness could be hollow.

⸻

🌿 Pomona Sprout — The Kind Bystander

Warm, earthy, nurturing. That was Sprout’s image. A Hufflepuff’s dream.

But she, too, looked away.

Maybe she frowned at what she saw. Maybe she clucked disapproval over tea. But she never interrupted the hierarchy.

Not when Severus slouched through corridors like a shadow. Not when he withered a little more each autumn.

She believed in fairness—but not enough to fight for it.

⸻

🏥 Madam Pomfrey — The Healer Who Didn’t See

Out of all the professors, Madam Pomfrey may be the one I find myself most curious about. Not because she was cruel—she wasn’t. Not because she was blind—she couldn’t have been. But because if anyone should have noticed—it was her.

She could spot a fractured rib with a glance. She healed Quidditch injuries between spoonfuls of broth. Her hands were warm, her wards comforting.

And yet… she didn’t notice Severus returning each term thinner, paler, greyer?

No trace of curiosity when he flinched at loud spells? No quiet pause when he walked too carefully, too lightly—as if even the castle floors might punish him?

Did she not see the hex marks? The magical burns? Did she really miss the boy who never sought help unless he was near collapse?

Or perhaps... he hid it too well. Perhaps he wore silence like a second robe. Perhaps he'd already learned that pain, when visible, only made you more vulnerable. That vulnerability made you expendable.

But still—she was a healer. She would have known the signs. Malnutrition. Exhaustion. The long-term magical residue that clings to a child who’s been hexed too often.

Pomfrey, as matron, was in a position to notice it all—if he had come to her. But maybe he didn’t. Maybe he couldn’t. Maybe he knew better than to hope.

We know his home life wasn’t gentle. Tobias Snape, his father, was a drunk—furious, unkind, loud enough to silence the whole house. We weren’t shown every bruise or every scream, but we were shown the aftermath.

So when Severus came back each September—robes loose, eyes dimmed, voice flat—surely, surely she must have seen something. Anything. A flicker of concern. A whisper of doubt.

To be fair, we cannot fully blame her. Hundreds of students passed through her care. She healed what was asked, tended what was brought. Perhaps she was simply overwhelmed. Perhaps she assumed someone else would act.

But still… I can’t help but wonder.

She offered pepperup potions to those with sniffles. She wrapped bandages around bruised Gryffindors.

But Severus? The boy who never asked, who needed most?

She offered rest to others.

But not to him.

⸻

They all had eyes. They all had wands. They all had duty—but they wore it like a decorative cloak, not a vow.

And oh, how one wonders. How could they not see the bruises? The shoulders pulled too tight? The voice too low?

How could a castle brimming with portraits, portraits that whispered and staircases that listened, miss the slow crumbling of a child?

Perhaps they did see. Perhaps that’s what makes it worse.

Because silence isn’t always ignorance. Sometimes, it’s a choice. Sometimes, it’s self-preservation masquerading as neutrality. Sometimes, it’s indifference dressed as decorum.

And still—they looked away.

Severus Snape returned to Hogwarts as a man.

But once, he was the boy they failed.

And they seated him at their table as if none of it ever happened.

[pangaeaseas]

I don’t think she was a particularly good friend at all, though she was certainly the best he ever had (which is pretty tragic, really). But that’s not due to any deficiencies in Lily’s character, but just because this is how childhood friendships between two very different people based on nothing but proximity often go. Lily doesn’t try to understand Severus as a person one bit beyond him being the one to tell her she was magic. Severus equally doesn’t understand Lily one bit beyond her being the one who made him feel important by listening to him tell her about magic. It’s self centred on both parts, but they’re children. Friendships like these usually hang together by nostalgia for a while but inevitably drift apart. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t important or transformative.

I do think she displayed a degree of classism regarding Severus as early as the train platform though. I also read the Evanses as upper working/lower middle class at best, but they live in a house with three bedrooms (because Petunia has her own room) in an area safe enough for the children to play in a well maintained playground without adult supervision. The Snapes are coded as living in truly Dickensian poverty, not just working class but underclass, in a 2 up 2 down, no indoor toilet, bath in a tin with shared water once a week kind of slum housing, and I’ll say as a Brit that nobody disdains the underclasses quite like the respectable working-but-not-on-benefits classes, because they think they’re feckless and give them all a bad name. Petunia got her attitudes from the same parents who raised Lily. There’s still a disparity there even if Lily isn’t *that* much higher on the ladder. Most of this slum housing is gone now except a few relics in the North, but it was poverty beyond belief. But where he’s really lacking compared to her is parental love and protection and the security in identity that comes with that. She doesn’t understand this in the slightest, but no sheltered child could, and it’s not on her to try at the expense of her safety because just as she doesn’t get how his poverty is limiting, he doesn’t get how her marginalisation is terrifying her.

For me, it’s a tragedy because they were two kids who never stood a chance, not a story of one irredeemable kid who threw away a truly wonderful friend.

Again, thanks for being reasonable and not leaving wild takes or personal attacks in my inbox.

The post this was in response to was specifically about the idea that Lily was a bad friend for ending her relationship with Snape after the Mudblood incident (and implicitly for not 'saving' him from joining the Death Eater. A choice he made as a fully autonomous person). I don't think you're saying that here, though---I'm fine with the interpretation that they both had trouble fully seeing each other as people and that their friendship was dysfunctional and would have ended anyway. There are a lot of ways to interpret Lily! I just think that blaming her for ending the friendship when she did is uhhh kinda misogynist (to be clear I don't think YOU are doing that at all, I think your interpretation is actually quite interesting. The one point I would take issue with is addressed later in this response)

I appreciate your insights on the class system, Snape and Lily's relative class positions and how that might have influenced their relationship. I agree that while they come from the working class, Snape is definitely worse off, and that Lily potentially held some prejudice against him (Petunia definitely does). Having gone back and reread the Prince's Tale, I don't see her doing this on the page (I have no idea how the train platform is meant to be read as classism but I may be missing some nuance), (excepting 'Snivelly', which is the one instance of her being classist towards him I think happens on page, and I don't blame her for that lol considering) and from what I've read I don't see her as a bad friend at all, but we don't see too much of their friendship and what we do see is subjective and also dependent on how we interpret the wider political situation, so I think you can validly headcanon she was an imperfect friend and her class prejudices MAY have influenced her relationship with him (though personally I think his growing alignment with Death Eaters was uhhh a good deal worse than any hypothetical classism on her part). I do think Snape's halfblood status and connection to the Death Eaters (established pre SWM) means that by SWM he had a more privileged position in broader wizarding society than Lily. I'm not British, though, and I really don't want to say much about class positions when I am not an expert!

What we do see in the Prince's Tale is Lily being more and more concerned about, y'now, the growing hate group that wants her and people like her dead. We never see Lily making disparaging comments about his background, and 'disparaging comments' is not even the same as 'actively trying to disenfranchise and possibly kill her' (as the Death Eaters he, yes, in part due to his insecure social situation and bullying by the Marauders, is well on his way to joining pre SWM). So I think there's something of a false equivalency you are drawing. She cannot fully understnad his abusive upbringing and complete lack of financial security, yes, but she isn't joining a hate group saying people like him shouldn't exist. Especially given joining the Death Eaters is not a sensible or justifiable response to poverty and abuse. It's understandable, but not justifiable. He had other options!

A lot of my read of Snape and Lily's friendship is influenced by the fact that I think our information about James and Lily is purposefully limited to mimic the experience of a child having to accept they can never truly know a dead parent, so I don't think we have complete information to judge either James or Lily by. From what we do see, I personally think she was a good friend to him, but I don't think there is only one valid interpretation. I do think from what we do see we are meant to see her as a good friend driven away by Snape's turn towards hate but part of the dilemma of Harry Potter is that we can never truly know her!

Feel free to interpret the Snape/Lily friendship how you want, just don't go implying he was Lily's responsibility to save (that's a general message, not to anon specifically)

[forestdeath1]

A usual day on Tumblr:

First, they’ll accuse you of misogyny because you “don’t like female characters”,

then when you say you do like them, they’ll accuse you of liking the wrong female characters;

or of liking them the wrong way.

Welcome.

[paulie-lombardos-boy-toy]

Imagine claiming you’re still indie, but really, your greed made you another concubine of Amazon, who can take away your prestige if the higher ups feel like the show’s a net loss, not that she isn’t already loosing her fanbase.

This dumbfuck, this absolute greedy manifestation of Mammon himself, probably fucked herself over so so bad with property rights and it’s funny in a cosmic sorta way, ya know.

Imagine having two shows so mid, filled with nothing but pandering garbage, not reaching it’s old levels of relevance, that you sell your soul to one of the most soul crushing and dystopian companies the modern day has ever seen.

If anything, I feel so bad for the animators, VA’s, storyboard artists, etc and I’m glad Ke$ha dipped when she did cause even in her debut Queen Bee, I could tell that Ke$ha really wasn’t into it. Bee’s voice sounded like one of those girls that pretends to be interested in the weird girl’s fantasies, but genuinely does not care since I haven’t seen Ke$ha publicly promote the episode or even talk about it, unless someone in the critical community has links.

I just….. As my dad would always say “Don’t stress yourself out over bullshit. The universe and Lady Karma is never late with retribution and they give their targets multiple warning and signs and it’s up to them to change or heed them.”

At this point, I’ve stopped getting myself worked up over idiots cause as someone who’s been in fandom since childhood, I know the cycle and eventually, the diseases bud will be nipped and stability will come back, even if it’s never the same as it was before.

[hollowed-theory-hall]

Hello! How are you?

Basically, I have seen this in many spaces where people are anti hp (the series and the mc), they bring up the fact that harry isn't a great mc because by the end of the series he made/brought no changes in the wizarding world. He didn't change the system, didn't do anything about the house elf slavery, (they mention the fact that after the war harry contemplates asking kreacher to bring him a sandwich!! and that he wasn't as passionate about freeing them as Hermione was), and so on, I don't remember everything.

Mostly, they mention that he becomes a ministry lapdog and ended up joining the same system which oppressed him (like you, i hate that he becomes an auror btw) and by the end of the series everything is the same and he didn't bring any monumental change like he doesn't have the power or interest to do so.

So, my questions to you are - what are your thoughts on these opinions?? Do you think it's poor writing by jkr?? Or it wasn't relevant to the core plot?

I don't really like speculating what JKR was thinking when she wrote something, because I have no way of actually knowing, but book 7, in certain parts, always felt to me like she was ready to move on and wanted to be done with it.

I think by the time she got to writing book 7, she just kinda wanted the writing process to be over already. So, book 7 has always been a mixed bag for me — when it's good, it's really good, but it also has moments that drag and are utter stupidity.

I think the epilogue is a bit of that race to be done with it already.

Like, there is a fan theory she wrote the epilogue before the book, and honestly, I can belive that.

But, I think the Harry becoming an auror isn't bad writing in the books — it's bad writing post-books. Sure, the epilogue implies the system didn't change as much as it should have (Albus worrying about being sorted into Slytherin, Ron confounding muggles with no consequences, Percy's treatment, etc.), but I think it wouldn't have been as egregious and offensive as it is to most fans who dislike it if it wasn’t for a lot of JKR's periphery canon she wrote that added a lot of details about the characters' futures that just made everything worse (plus the CC play).

Without the epilogue, the ending of DH doesn't say anything about what Harry would do. Yes, he isn't passionate about freeing house elves, but this isn't new and is true to his character. He isn't perfect, and that's not bad writing, it's staying consistent with his characterization up to this point. The ending without the epilogue leaves the reader off with plenty of potential to work with for their imagination and write fic about Harry's future. I actually like the end note of the series pre-epilogue because it fits. It works with Harry as a character who just wants something simple to eat and go to bed. He isn't concerned with instating new policies and shit, because it would be out of character for him to concern himself over these things in that moment. Harry is not a politician and he never wanted to be one. I feel like the fandom expects a lot from Harry that would be out of character for him to do without external factors pushing him into a political role. (Don't get me wrong, he'd be a decent politician, but that would be because he won't play the same game as everyone else. And he'd never choose to be a politician without being forced/pressured/otherwise convinced into the position).

The epilogue itself, while, closing off some options and proving the wizarding world still has many many issues, doesn't actually mention the Golden Trio's (or Ginny's) professions and still leaves us with a lot of open room for interpretation. Harry isn't stated to be an auror in the epilogue — it's JKR's writings after the books that made him an auror and Hermione a minister and kinda butchered Ron altogether (book 7 started the job of butchering Ron's character, though...). Even if the epilogue doesn't paint the best picture of the future of the WW, it's still open enough to work with if you really want to. It's the stuff she published after the books that made everything about the wizarding world's (and Harry's) future so much worse for me.

I do think, the epilogue is bad writing in that it doesn't add to the story and I think makes book 7 (and the whole series) worse overall, but I would've hated it less if it wasn't for all the information she added in after the fact (that didn't actually add anything, just ruin and destroy).

And a lot of her periphery canon writing show how much she doesn't remember from her books. I talked about it when it comes to fahion and the term "warlock", but she tends to, not really know her own world building and she contradicts herself a lot. This tendency is at it's worst with book 7 Wandlore, a lot of her Pottermore articles, and, of course, the Fantastic Beasts films and CC (some of her commentary in the Hogwarts Library books collection as well). So, I take any periphery canon stuff as additional to the books and optional depending on if they make sense with the books' canon or not.

So, I'd say, the problems for me are more with post-books stuff, and not the content of the books themselves. Becouse yeah, Harry mentioned wanting to be an auror in years 5 and 6, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't change his mind once he realizes what it entails

15-16 year old Harry talking about wanting to be an auror actually fits his character. Not because I think the job would be great for him, but because of his low self-worth. Moody/Barty told him he has the talent to be an auror and Harry is ridiculously insecure in himself. When one of the first adults to tell him he is talented and good at things to his face told him he'd make a good auror — of course that's what Harry would focus on!

Even if Moody/Barty was discovered to be a Death Eater later, he was still someone Harry looked up to. Harry who thinks he isn't particularly good at anything:

“Well, I’m not going to tell you,” said Moody gruffly. “I don’t show favoritism, me. I’m just going to give you some good, general advice. And the first bit is — play to your strengths.” “I haven’t got any,” said Harry, before he could stop himself. “Excuse me,” growled Moody, “you’ve got strengths if I say you’ve got them. Think now. What are you best at?”

(GoF, Ch20)

Was told he'd be good at something (being an auror) — so it makes sense he'd want to pursue it initially. I think Harry is likely to not want to stay as an auror though. I love to headcanon him as an auror program dropout, honestly. That he starts and then leaves. Which is possible with book 7 canon (including the epilogue).

The books actually don't contradict some changes or changes-in-progress in the WW (including the epilogue). It's just been 19 years, not even a whole generation, big systematic changes rarely happen this quickly, so while some of the patterns are worrying, you can work with it, I think the epilogue is bad, but it's not the worst that happened to HP books.

The worse problem is that JKR kept writing contradictory things instead of leaving the books be once they were done.

(Not that the books don't have their moments of contradicting themselves, they do. There are plot contrivances, stuff that makes zero sense, and plenty of plot holes, but when it comes to Harry's future and the WW's future as a whole, the books are not the main culprit here, the epilogue was a witness that did nothing to help at the scene of the crime at best).

[thepulsatingflapper]

It's really telling how much JKR romanticizes child abuse.

The Dursleys abuse Harry by keeping him in a cupboard and making him do labor. Sure we're supposed to know it's wrong but who just sits around fantasizing about child abuse (hint: JKR).

The Weasleys abused their children by yelling at them, not being able to tell apart Fred and George, and disowning them (Percy). And we're supposed to think The Weasleys are "ideal parents" according to JKR.

Sirius's parents are heavily implied to be abusive, in fact Walburga's portrait yells and insulted him constantly. He hates being in her house which speaks a lot to how abusive his family was.

James was shown to be abusive to Snape and Lily in Snape's Wormst Memory, which means he could have easily been abusive as a parent too, which JKR never bothered to describe because she thought other things were more interesting.

The Malfoys were clearly not great parents considered they allowed literal Voldemort into their house and put Draco in lots of danger.

In Harry's first year he has to go to detention in the forbidden forest which was extremeley dangerous, and the teachers all endorsed it.

Snape was obviously an abusive teacher and yet JKR clearly forgave him by the end of the story, as if we weren't meant to see him as bad at all. First he was bad, then he was suddenly good? You can't just ignore when someone is an abuser. Idk if she's an abuse apologist or just a bad writer but either way.

Abuse of house elfs including Dobby which is an allegory for child abuse since elfs are small and under the owndership of their families.

Harry named his OWN CHILD after Severus Snape, a literal Nazi. If that isn't child abuse I don't know what is.

Were in the series did JKR bother to condemn any of this? Nowhere. It's clear she doesn't consider the abuse of children something worth speaking out against. Particularly the elfs she just didn't condemn it at all in fact the whole narrative around them seems to condone their violent treatment.

~The Pulsating Flapper~

[velvet4510]

Regulus Black died after defecting from the Death Eaters and trying to destroy a Horcrux in 1979 - and his cousin Draco Malfoy was born in 1980. If you believe in reincarnation, then Draco could be Regulus reborn. If you don’t, then Draco still came into the world a mere year after Regulus left it - as if destined to finish what he started. And he would have, if JKR was a good writer who cared about his development. This is why ‘Draco joining the Horcrux hunt’ is one of the best fanfic subjects - it explores the full potential of a canon-based parallel.