Book Analysis - Tumblr Posts

Google Docs

Wanted, Wanted, Dolores Haze

Leah Gasperoni World Lit H 06 June 2023 Wanted, Wanted, Dolores Haze In 1955, Russian-born author Vladimir Nabokov published what is widely

here is the link to my paper :) thank you so much for your interest everyone!

in it i talk about the book, both films, several other films influenced by the book and the concept of the “lolita complex” and it’s effect on young girls :)

i wrote a paper on lolita and the objectification of young girls in modern media if anyone would be interested in reading it :)

I ❤️ the perks of being a wallflower!

tw; me talking about tpobaw, molestation, abuse, sa, spoilers!

“It’ll be our little secret” — aunt Helen

“I need you to promise that you’re not going to say anything to anyone about me and Brad. Okay? this has to be our little secret” — Patrick

I can’t help but think about the parallel daily! I’m aware that Patrick and aunt Helen are totally different, I’m just talking about the words and god, omg THE SECRECY!

Like I can’t even imagine how that must’ve felt even though Charlie at that time still had suppressed the memories and pushed it away from his conscious! Like it just causes my heart to ache!

It’s so scary too because it seems like that Charlie never saw Aunt Helen as anything other than his favorite aunt! I imagine that the subtlety n secrecy surrounding the sexual abuse in the book was meant to replicate how victims of sexual abuse often forget n repress memories related to their childhood traumas.

I think because Charlie trauma, he has difficulty opening up romantically to Sam or have sex w her at first because of that. At times he talks about his aunt as in sorrow way and other in times, he feels angry at her

We also see what happens because aunt Helen doesn’t resolve her own trauma and therefore the cycle continues. The abused becomes the abuser.

It’s really sad because her story repeats itself. Growing up she was molested by a family friend and when she told her parents they didn’t believe her. They did nothing to stop it, and continue inviting the man into their home and as she grew up and got away,— the trauma still stayed with her.

Geralt and his mommy issues

Geralt was abandoned by his mom when he was just a child, leaving him with deep emotional scars. In the books, there are subtle yet significant references to how this abandonment shaped him, particularly his subconscious search for maternal warmth.

SoD:

"She treats you entirely like an object [...] and what you feel is a projection of her emotions, the interest she shows in you. By all the demons of the Netherworld, Geralt, you aren't a child [...] You trail after Yenna like a child, enjoying the momentary affection she shows you." - Istredd

BoE:

"Always on his side, aren't you, Nenneke? Always worrying about him. Like the mother he never had." - Yennefer

Tlotl:

"He maintained the appearance of secretiveness and pride. But at night he was completely in my power. He told me everything. He paid homage to my femininity, which considering his age was extremely generous, I must admit. And then he fell asleep. In my arms, with his mouth on my bosom. Searching for a surrogate for the maternal love he never experienced. Completely in my power." - Fringilla

This passage vividly illustrates Geralt's deep-seated need for maternal care, seeking comfort in a way that echoes the bond between a child and a mother 🥹

SoD:

"'Do you hate that woman, Geralt?' 'My mother? No, Calanthe. A choice should be respected, for it is the holy and irrefutable right of every woman.'"

Geralt’s response shows his complex feelings toward his mother, acknowledging her choice abt wanting to have a child or not, while also - what seems to me - revealing a deep, unresolved pain.

ToC:

"Listen to what?" shouted the Witcher, before his voice suddenly faltered. "I can't leave—I can't just leave her to her fate. She's completely alone... She cannot be left alone, Dandelion. You'll never understand that. No one will ever understand that, but I know. If she remains alone, the same thing will happen to her as once happened to me... You'll never understand that..." - Geralt about Ciri

Geralt’s fierce protectiveness over Ciri stems from his own experiences of abandonment. He is determined to shield her from the pain he endured.

Geralt and red heads:

Several times it's subtly hinted that Geralt has an inexplicable inclination toward redheads, that perhaps ties back to his unresolved issues with his mother.

SoS:

"Geralt felt an anxiety, forgotten and dormant, suddenly awaking somewhere deep inside him. He had a strange and inexplicable inclination towards redheads in his nature, and several times that particular colouring had made him do stupid things. Thus he ought to be on his guard, and the Witcher made a firm resolution in that regard. His task was actually made easier. It was almost a year since he'd stopped being tempted by that kind of stupid mistake."

Note what he felt when he encountered his mother before in SoD who has red hair:

"He looked again, making the most of the light. Her hair was tied back with a snakeskin band. Her hair... A suffocating pain in his throat and sternum. Hands tightly clenched into fists. Her hair was red, flame-red, and when lit by the glow of the bonfire seemed as red as vermilion."

The vivid description of his mother's flame-red hair and the intense emotional reaction it evokes in Geralt suggest that his attraction to redheads might be more than just a superficial preference. It could be a subconscious connection to the unresolved feelings of abandonment and longing for maternal warmth, linking his "inexplicable inclination" to deeper psychological roots.

What do you guys think?

In my book I want people to possibly get mad and or realize how insane the character and the world the character lives in is actual insane.

By this I mean that when writing my book I’ll rarely use big words and at time by past some horrify things while downplaying the situation like it’s as common as rain.

I got the idea for this when thinking of how I’d like to start working on my book over break since I’d like to work on one of them- though I specifically got the idea for this form of writing due to a song called ‘blue’ from the heathers musical.

In the heathers musical and the movie there are plenty of dark themes that get slightly to immensely worked over due to people just vibing along to the music.

Meanwhile, the entire song is quite literally just a scared highschool girl being baited and gaslit by two larger highschool boys that would and probably have raped other girls and would do the same to her, while she fights for her dignity, and possibly life.

This scenario in itself isn’t even a new one- possibly another reason on why it gets looked over,- as we all know that things happen. Seniors happen to freshman. And senior boys and or any boy in highschool will ultimately happen to a girl near them.

Still, no one digs deep into analyzing the song, and instead just bobs there head and sings the almost-rapist parts proudly and loudly.

“Once you were geeky and nerdy, now you’re flirty freaky and dirty.”

P. S. The only ‘dirty’ thing about her was that she wore a damn skirt. Men. Ugh.

The Hunger Games, Actual Teen style!

On the left, 15-year-old Josh Hutcherson.

On the right, 16-year-old Jennifer Lawrence.

Think how much creepier it would be to see them killing other kids when they look so squishy-cheeked and little.

Perhaps a lighter way of understanding this concept is through crack fics or romance fics where misunderstanding is one of the key foundations in the story.

With much of the nature of these fics being rooted in dramatic irony, it’s maybe the most blatant demonstration of logical fallacy and inconsistencies between characters’ thoughts, words, and actions, as well as the difference between what the characters know and what the author knows.

In these cases, the author usually highlights the points mentioned by op (esp if it’s a shorter crack fic where the author really needs to be concise), so consider it a starter course to work up to the more subtle (?) differences in other works :)

Basic rules for analysing fiction, an incomprehensive list jotted down in a hurry:

The protagonist isn’t always right

The protagonist isn’t always good

The protagonist isn’t always written to be relatable or likeable

The narrator isn’t always right

The narrator isn’t always good

The narrator isn’t always telling the truth

The narrator isn’t always the author

The protagonist’s moral compass, the narrator’s moral compass and the author’s moral compass are three entirely different things that only occasionally overlap

Pay attention to what characters do and not just what they say

Pay special attention when what the characters do is at odds with what they say

A lot of the time the curtains are blue for a reason. If they aren’t, you should read better books

I think the Hunger Games series sits in a similar literary position to The Lord of the Rings, as a piece of literature (by a Catholic author) that sparked a whole new subgenre and then gets blamed for flaws that exist in the copycat books and aren’t actually part of the original.

Like, despite what parodies might say, Katniss is nowhere near the stereotypical “unqualified teenager chosen to lead a rebellion for no good reason”.  The entire point is that she’s not leading the rebellion. She’s a traumatized teenager who has emotional reactions to the horrors in her society, and is constantly being reined in by more experienced adults who have to tell her, “No, this is not how you fight the government, you are going to get people killed.” She’s not the upstart teenager showing the brainless adults what to do–she’s a teenager being manipulated by smarter and more experienced adults. She has no power in the rebellion except as a useful piece of propaganda, and the entire trilogy is her straining against that role. It’s much more realistic and far more nuanced than anyone who dismisses it as “stereotypical YA dystopian” gives it credit for.

And the misconceptions don’t end there. The Hunger Games has no “stereotypical YA love triangle”–yes, there are two potential love interests, but the romance is so not the point. There’s a war going on! Katniss has more important things to worry about than boys! The romance was never about her choosing between two hot boys–it’s about choosing between two diametrically opposed worldviews. Will she choose anger and war, or compassion and peace? Of course a trilogy filled with the horrors of war ends with her marriage to the peace-loving Peeta. Unlike some of the YA dystopian copycats, the romance here is part of the message, not just something to pacify readers who expect “hot love triangles” in their YA. 

The worldbuilding in the Hunger Games trilogy is simplistic and not realistic, but unlike some of her imitators, Collins does this because she has something to say, not because she’s cobbling together a grim and gritty dystopia that’s “similar to the Hunger Games”. The worldbuilding has an allegorical function, kept simple so we can see beyond it to what Collins is really saying–and it’s nothing so comforting as “we need to fight the evil people who are ruining society”. The Capitol’s not just the powerful, greedy bad guys–the Capitol is us, First World America, living in luxury while we ignore the problems of the rest of the world, and thinking of other nations largely in terms of what resources we can get from them. This simplistic world is a sparsely set stage that lets us explore the larger themes about exploitation and war and the horrors people will commit for the sake of their bread and circuses, meant to make us think deeper about what separates a hero from a villain.

There’s a reason these books became a literary phenomenon. There’s a reason that dozens upon dozens of authors attempted to imitate them. But these imitators can’t capture that same genius, largely because they’re trying to imitate the trappings of another book, and failing to capture the larger and more meaningful message underneath. Make a copy of a copy of a copy, and you’ll wind up with something far removed from the original masterpiece. But we shouldn’t make the mistake of blaming those flaws on the original work.

where is the haterly review of legends and lattes i need to bask in its light

One thing I really did enjoy about the Dead Poets Society book (even if I still don't like it more than the movie) is the emotion in it. The first scene with Neil's father feels uncomfortable in the book and its compelling. The anger, Todd's inability to comfort him, especially the early on mention of Neil hurting himself when upset. Then later on in the book, with the deskset scene, how helpless it feels. Neil wasn't a boy who could make everyone feel alright again, and I admire that about the book. (Because its more relatable) He was just a kid struggling to regulate his emotions. To explain them would have been impossible. The sudden bond between Todd and Neil also makes much more sense in the book because Todd is the only one who recognizes it. They were both so neglected it shaped them as people, even if it was different for both of them.

Also rip Neil Perry you would've loved gay marriage and therapy

Lockwood/Kipps rivalry analysis:

In the show and the books Kipps mentions something along the lines of how “everyone leaves him in the end”. In the books we get the added note of Lucy hearing something in his tone that she “couldn’t quite understand” or something like that. As well as in the show Kipps’ comment about Lockwood in that “big empty house”.

I think they were close as kids, but given that he was closer in age to Jessica he was probably closer with her. Maybe they were dating. Regardless, I bet Kipps was on good terms with all the Lockwood’s. Anthony Lockwood probably even looked up to him. He might have even wanted to join Fittes because of him.

So (spoilers), when Jessica died although he was older, Kipps was still a kid himself. Again, if Jessica and Kipps were dating, I doubt they broke up. Not that I know what it’s like, but not being in a relationship anymore, not because of anything you or the other person decided, but because one of them died, well, I’m sure that sucks.

Basically in his grief I don’t think Kipps knew how to handle everything. Especially his anger. So he took his misplaced anger and directed it on Lockwood. Kind of messed up, but people are like that sometimes.

As for Lockwood I’m sure he didn’t know how to handle it either. What could he do?

But I’m sure what makes it hurt even more is that after losing his parents and now his sister what would probably have been good for him is having someone to talk to. Or check up on him.

That could have been Kipps. They both lost someone, but grief isn’t fair. And if Kipps was there for Lockwood, who would be there for Kipps? They could lean on each other for support, but given the age difference it would be on Kipps to be the strong one. But that didn’t happen. And the way they both handled it probably made them hurt more.

I imagine that over time, Lockwood started to feel angry towards Kipps too. That he felt like death took his family from him, but Kipps just left.

So when Kipps shows up in the library and says “everyone leaves him in the end.” I think that if Lockwood was a different type of angry he could’ve said “what? Like you?” Cause he was the only one who actually left. Everyone else died.

I think over time they worked through it on their own and maybe they have yet to have a proper conversation about it, but I think they’re doing better with room for growth.

I also think their rivalry has nothing to do with Lockwood poking Kipps in the butt with a rapier.

Love this analysis and that I helped inspire it

Ok, saw a post by @hernameslucy, and it activated alll the Kipps brainworms. Turns out that I have a loooot of thoughts about the idea that Kipps had a relationship with the Lockwoods/Jessica and at least in part blamed Lockwood for Jessica's death. I find it compelling, but also when you draw out all of the implications it is so incredibly, utterly devastating. Anyway here's my very long analysis of how the Lockwood and Kipps rivalry might have come about (in addition to the cannon poke to the bum with a fencing foil...). After Jessica's death, I could see Kipps in the moment as a grieving teenager blaming Lockwood, and that would be painful for Lockwood on multiple levels. He’s losing out on whatever support Kipps might have offered him otherwise, and it reinforces Lockwood’s own shame around his culpability in Jessica's death. That brings this really complicated edge to Lockwood’s feelings towards Kipps because you have both a very real and very deep grievance (he would be very rightfully angry at Kipps for blaming him for something that really wasn't in his control) and also a reminder of his biggest regret (not being present when Jessica broke the vase).

This second point is where you have Lockwood projecting some of his own emotions onto Kipps. At the beginning of the series Lockwood does blame himself, and he's also very much running away from that feeling. When he finally shows Jessica's room to Lucy and George he lies about where exactly he was at the time because he's not ready to confront that shame, and there's likely a small part of him that is convinced that they will blame him as well (since there's a part of him that believes they rightfully should). Before Lockwood tells Lucy his full account of the day and in part acknowledges his own feelings of culpability, he's still very much trying to bury and push away those emotions. If Kipps really did blame him, that would make Kipps a very difficult person to be around because his very presence reminds Lockwood of the shame he's been avoiding.

On top of that, I think at that point in Lockwood's emotional arc there's likely a part of him that sees Kipps as the person that has the most clear-eyed view of him. The fact that Lockwood blames himself for Jessica's death and has acknowledged that fact to no-one would likely leave him with this feeling that he's actually lying to the important people in his life (among other things, this is supported in the show by Lockwood's line to Lucy that "there are things that I haven't told you about myself that are probably for your own good").

With Kipps being the only person who knows what Lockwood believes to be a terrible truth about himself, he could very easily become a place for Lockwood to externalize his own shame. Any attempts to prove Kipps wrong could be read as just as much an attempt to prove wrong his own worst judgments of himself. As for Kipps, I think an initial response of anger towards Lockwood is difficult to take but understandable. What's harder for me to reconcile is that over the years Kipps would continue to hold onto the belief that Lockwood really was at fault for Jessica's death. He's enough older that I think after the initial intensity of the grief passed, he would likely feel a bit ashamed for having blamed a child for something so clearly out of their control. As for why he would continue to antagonize Lockwood years later, I can think of a few possibilities.

The saddest of them is that he simply allowed his shame to curdle. Instead of acknowledging his fault, he doubled down on externalizing his emotions onto Lockwood. Clearly Lockwood had to be at fault because otherwise Kipps would need to fully acknowledge what he had done in placing the weight of blame onto a grieving child. I don't like this explanation as much because 1. I think Kipps is more compassionate than that even from the beginning (we stan one (1) Quill Kipps in this house) and 2. I don't think that this is a kind of hurt that could just be gradually smoothed over without some kind of reckoning between the two of them.

I think what's more likely is that sometime before the events of the series, Kipps did try to repair his wrong and Lockwood lashed out at him. Again, I think that Kipps would still be in the wrong in this situation both as the older of the two and as the party that added insult to injury. However, Kipps is also still a grieving teenager too, and in this instance he's coming to Lockwood with some vulnerability, admitting wrong and also likely seeking out company and commiseration in his grief. He's doing a difficult thing while also nursing his own grief, and he's met with coldness and anger. That would be hard to take.

This kind of hurt I could see slowly fading over time as they develop a relationship, since it places them on something closer to level footing. I still think they would have to acknowledge it at some point, but it also seems possible that that's just something Lucy was never privy to.

no but really I can't stop thinking about it. Holly losing her entire team. Lucy losing hers. Flo being apprenticed by people probably only a bit older than her and losing them as well. the three-way venn diagram of Holly/Lucy/Flo where you have Lucy and Holly falling through windows and Holly and Flo stranded alone beside their dead friends throughout the night and all three of them as sole survivors of their teams. the way this is almost a normal thing in this world. these three girls who are so, so different but so, so the same because they're wounded in the same ways and just reacted to it differently. Flo broke completely and had to build herself back up from the rubble. Holly turned to taking support roles, lacking in the connections she used to have. Lucy got angrier and more reckless and isolated herself so she wouldn't be the cause of more people dying. all three of them are alone-ish when we meet them and all three of them are in different stages of their character arcs with their survivor identifies as the inciting cause of those arcs. and by the end they're not alone anymore. and they're not afraid of the connection any longer, to each other, or to others.

TW: Spoilers for The Outsiders By S.E.Hinton, Talking about death, Alcohol and Suicide 

If you're familiar with S.E. Hinton's classic novel "The Outsiders," then you probably know all about Dallas “Dally” Winston, the quintessential bad boy of Tulsa who's always causing trouble and ending up in the cooler (jail). He's a complex character pivotal to the book's plot development. Recently, while listening to music and contemplating the parallels between Dallas Winston and to the songs I was listening to, I noticed a striking correlation. Specifically, McCafferty's songs "Trees," "Bottom," and "Beachboy" encapsulate the essence of Dallas Winston's character archetype This observation compelled me to write this essay, which delves into the thematic connections between McCafferty's music and the portrayal of Dallas Winston in "The Outsiders." 

The First song I will be covering is the song ‘Beachboy’ Which is track 6 off of the 2014 Album Beachboy This song was the song that made me initially link Dallas Winston to the band. This song could be confusing and have a lot of different meanings but the interpretation I am going with is put best by the authors at Songtell “is about accepting change and making the best of the situation. It speaks to the idea of growing up and taking on responsibilities, even when it is difficult or uncomfortable to do so.” (Songtell) Overall the song has the vibe of an angst-filled teenager who you gave access to a guitar and a music editing software, but a few parts of the song stuck out to me in particular when I heard the song with the idea of it representing Dallas. The first quote that represents Dallas Winston is “She says, ‘Your lips tasted like they did way back in July’/ Headaches and overdose I Hope that we never die”. While it's never fully stated where Dallas lives. Lots - if not all of fan theories and fan fiction - believe that he lives at Buck Merrill's Barin a spare bedroom when he isn't crashing on Curtis’s couch. Buck, is stated to be a shifty character “Buck Merril was Dally's rodeo partner…and made most of his money on fixed races and a little bootlegging” (Hinton 52) Buck along with earning money dishonestly was a troublemaker similar to Dallas, stated in the same paragraph “he used to be bucktoothed before he had the front two knocked out in a fight.” Buck Merril was also known for throwing parties and all around not being a safe individual so much so that The main character of the book Ponyboy was instructed by both of his older brothers to not be caught WIthin the proximity of his Barand he was happy to abide “I was under strict orders from both Darry and Soda not to get caught within ten miles of his place, which was dandy with me”(Hinton 52). Ponyboy notes that some of the events at Buck's parties leaned to the more adult sides of things “I was remembering what usually went on in the bedrooms at Buck's parties…” (Hinton 52). It should also be stated that in Pre-Book events Dallas had a girlfriend named Sylvia. Sylvia was Dallas's girlfriend but while Dallas was in Jail for one of many reasons she cheated on him. Dallas says this Himself to Steve on page 13 of the book “‘You break up with Sylvia again?" ‘Yeah, and this time it's for good. That little broad was two-timin' me again while I was in jail.’”(Hinton 13) Knowing where Dallas stays his past relations with Sylvia and potential future relations with Cherry Valance and any other girl that Dallas will flirt with You can assume that he has taken at least Sylvia to Buck's place to party, this relates to the song Beachboy By McCafferty because the second paragraph has the line “She says, ‘Your lips tasted like they did way back in July’/ Headaches and overdose I Hope that we never die” The ‘She’ in this scenario could be Sylvia because Dallas has been thrown in jail so many times one could infer that they go long periods without seeing each other which explains why she cheated on him and could explain the line “Like they did way back in July” following up with that, knowing buck is a shady character known throwing parties you could also make the argument that “headaches and overdose” could be hangovers and poor decisions being made while hanging out with Buck and Sylvia.

The next set of lines off of Beach Boy that describe Dallas are the lines “And I know that you think that I don't care / About all the friends I left behind” which would make sense,If there is two words to describe Dallas winston it would be Cold and callous, Ponyboy makes that Exceptionally clear when describing him even if not those word exactly anytime Dallas is described in the book it is always made clear about his bitterness and hatred towards the world one example being “His eyes were blue, blazing ice, cold with a hatred of the whole world.” (Hinton 10) and then in the same paragraph “the warfare is between the social classes… Maybe that was why Dallas was so bitter.”(Hinton 10) with descriptions like that anyone would assume Dallas Winston is some Unbridaled hate machine, another example being “One time, in a dime store, a guy told him to move over at the candy counter. Dally had turned around and belted him so hard it knocked a tooth loose. A complete stranger, too” (Hinton 22) Dallas is willing to hit a *STRANGER* so hard it knocks a tooth out However, it's stated that Dallas has a soft spot for Johnny Cade over any of the other members of the gang this is made clear after Johnny Scolded Dallas for harassing Cherry Valance and Marcia At the drive in “Dallas scowled for a second. If it had been me, or Two-Bit, or Soda or Steve, or anyone but Johnny, Dally would have flattened him without a moment's hesitation. You just didn't tell Dally Winston what to do … But Johnny was the gang's pet, and Dally just couldn't hit him. He was Dally's pet, too.”(Hinton 22) All of this is to say that Dallas reminds me of this set of lines because Dallas goes even further to protect his friends than just not hitting them, Dallas is seen as a hardened criminal by the group, due to his time spent in the “Wild side of New York'' and his character all around, after Johnny Kills Bob the Soc Johnny and Ponyboy Run to Bucks bar to go to Dallas for help and without a second thought he helps them, Giving them a loaded gun and 50$ cash to buy groceries, on page 53 “Dally appeared after a minute. He carefully shut the door. "Here"--- he handed us a gun and a roll of bills--- "the gun's loaded. For Pete's sake, Johnny, don't point the thing at me. Here's fifty bucks. That's all I could get out of Merril tonight He's blowin' his loot from that last race."(Hinton 53) This is Major enough Dallas also gives Johnny and Ponyboy the location of an old church to hide out in Windrixville and on top of all of this Dallas lies to the police on their behalf to keep the cops from looking for them In Tulsa, or Windrixville Oklahoma “‘The fuzz won't be lookin' for you around here," Dally said, lighting up. "They think you've lit out for Texas…”(69) Now Dallas has had his fair run share of run-ins with the police before, and Johnny didn't Just pull some small-time thievery he killed a man, Dallas knew how much trouble he could get in for helping Johnny and Ponyboy out here, He was now an accessory to a crime but he still did it for them because he cared about them. While Dallas may have left the rest of the gang behind, literally when he killed himself via cop shoot-out at the end of the book he died caring for them he died because Johnny was the only thing keeping him afloat, he is also shown caring up until the end with his last words being “Ponyboy” He Died angry at the world yet in the same vein he died caring about his friends until his last moments. (1/3)

The second McCafferty song that represents Dallas Winston is Bottom, The 7th track off of the 2014 Beach Boy Album while the actual storyline of the song is about an unrequited love and is an an unofficial tribute song to another band of the same genre called "The Front Bottoms" there were two segments in the song that stuck out to me.The first lines that stuck out to me are the lines “I love the way your skin feels on my collar bones I know I stole that line” Along with being a general troublemaker Dallas is also known for going to the drive-in theater with the intent of flirting with girls there, we learn this early on in chapter one where he says "Speaking' of movies…I'm walkin' over to the Nightly Double tomorrow night. Anybody want to come and hunt some action?" (Hinton 13) after being declined by Sodapop Curtis and Two-Bit Mathews because they had other plans and Dallas makes his way around the gang until landing on Ponyboy and Johnny to go with him, though it is implied that Dallas will go to the Drive-in regardless if the guys are going with him. This line relates to Dallas because he is going to the Drive-in to flirt with what we can assume is malicious intent, we can also tell that he is super unoriginal with how he is trying to pick up cherry in the movie by saying “Are you a real Redhead… Are you real?” Not only can we interpret this line of the song as Dallas being at the drive-in attempting to make a cheeky remark but also blaming a failed pick-up line on the fact that he stole it from someone else most presumably to save face. (2/3)

.The Next Segment of lines in Bottom is "Can you pay for overtime?/Can you pay to keep my secrets safe?/Can you break my legs tonight?/Can you help me take away the pain?”This segment of lines needs to be broken down line by line, but I believe is the most impactful to Dallas’s character. The first line "Can you pay for overtime?” This line by itself may not mean much until you realize how many things in Dallas's life were cut short, either by his own will or the work of some higher power, overtime here could be interpreted as just more time with his friends in the gang, and Johnny specifically. While Dallas may not have any secrets that are talked about in the book the line “Can you keep my secret safe” can be equally impactful when you take into consideration that Dallas doesn't have a good relationship with his father and his mother is never mentioned, while it may not be an actual secret Dallas, just like everyone else has emotions and the “secret” here is more implicative of his emotions of wanting to feel comforted, cared about and even loved, but these wants have to be kept secret from the rest of the greaser gang because it isn't tough or “Tuff” to be emotional, especially as a male greaser.Moving on to the third part of this Lyric, "Can you break my legs tonight?” When it was written it was meant as an Innuendo, however, if we look at this line compared to The Outsiders We can clearly see that “Breaking legs” can be used for a second meaning, Dallas as stated previously is a violent young man, and would constantly get into fights that were just part of who he was even before he moved to Tulsa “In New York, Dally blew off steam in gang fights, but here, organized gangs are rarities–”(10)This was one of the many reasons Dallas would get hauled off to jail. But instead of Gang fights in Tulsa, they had Rumbles and Dallas wouldn't miss one of those for the world for example After being in the hospital for being minorly burned during the Scene where the church burns down, Dallas asks for Two-Bits knife, later says that he threatened a nurse to leave so he could be a part of it “Talked the nurse into it with Two-Bit's switch. Don't you know a rumble ain't a rumble unless I'm in it?" (Hinton 122)Dallas left a hospital using the potentially violent option against medical advice to join in an all-out brawl because he knows that's where the action is the line “Can you break my legs tonight” is also repeated more throughout the song then the rest of them, being repeated a total of 10 times in the 3 minutes and 45-second song, the repeating of these two line along with the line “Can you pay to keep my secrets safe?”Is the embodiment of Dallas just wanting to be seen and loved, but you can take this one step further, with the last line of the verse “Can you help me take away the pain?” This line is the cherry on top. This last line looking at it through the song is the equivalent of asking for something you really want more subtly “Can you pay for overtime?/Can you pay to keep my secrets safe?/Can you break my legs tonight?” He’s asking, "Can you make me feel better? Can you show me time and emotion” but then the last line is giving up and just asking bluntly for the thing you wanted to begin with “Can you help me take away the pain?” Dallas was just being a troubled kid, with a rough past who had a rough future ahead of him if he chose to keep going.

The last McCafferty lyric that represents Dallas Winston is the line “My dad is an alchie/I bet that he kills me” From the song Trees off of the Forest Life EP released in 2017 by McCafferty while this song represents Dallas the least While it does talk about The singer's father being potentially abusive it also talks about Religion and his mother in a lot of ways that aren't applicable due to the fact we don't learn anything about Mrs. Winston in the book However McCafferty's music is very similar to Dallas Winston in the way that you have to be in the mood to deal with it, for example, Dallas’s character is hotheaded and troublesome and most of not all of McCafferty’s songs On the slower and more depressed side of things 

or movie, With that being said We do know about Dallas’s father in a smaller way, Similar to Sylvia, Mr.Winston is mentioned only on one occasion but it is in an extremely negative light. On page 75 Dallas states proudly “'Shoot, my old man don't give a hang whether I'm dead in jail or dead in a car wreck or drunk in the gutter'” (75).  This is the final piece we need to understand Dallas Winston's character as a whole. understanding that he lived on the rough streets of New York is one thing and caring for your friends is just a natural part of life, however understanding that his poor home life was one of the main reasons to cause him to go down this path it's important. Ponyboy goes on to say “For Dally. He meant it when he said he didn’t care about his parents…Dally was of the breed that could take anything, because he was hard and tough, and when he wasn't, he could turn hard and tough. ” (Hinton 75)Dallas growing up in an unsteady home has to lead him to be able to lock into a state of high adrenaline and coldness because he had been hurt too many times before that, by what we assume is father, by Sylvia, by johnny being ripped away from him prematurely, Dallas has been betrayed by anyone and everyone causing him to be calloused.

In conclusion, delving into McCafferty's songs "Beachboy," "Bottom," and "Trees" alongside the character of Dallas Winston from S.E. Hinton's "The Outsiders" provides a profound insight into Dallas's essence. McCafferty's music remarkably mirrors Dallas's life, capturing his rough upbringing, rebellious nature, and the universal themes of feeling misunderstood and searching for meaning and acceptance. Ultimately, this exploration demonstrates how literature and music intersect to address timeless themes that resonate with all of us, enriching our understanding of life on a deeper level. (3/3)

I could talk about it anytime

I wanted to make an analyses about Six of Crows and neoliberalist policies and how it's perfectly portrayed in Ketterdam, anyone interested in reading it?

SOC and Neoliberlism

So, as promised, here it is my analysis of Six of Crows and how neoliberalism is amazingly portrayed in Ketterdam, and how the city is an example of what happens in a community that is not provided for.

Before we begin, I wanted to say that English is not my first language, and, considering I read SOC in Brazilian Portuguese, I might translate some names literally or differently from the English version but I think it's manageable to read and understand my point. If not, I'll edit the text.

The first thing we have to understand is how neoliberalism works and the theory behind it, and then we'll talk about how it's portrayed in Ketterdam.

So neoliberalism is a theory born more or less at the end of the 20th century (70s-80s), and it finds its roots in laissez-faire capitalism, meaning that it's a political current that tries to suppress and/or eliminate the State's influence from the market. The neoliberalist view understands that the market can supply by itself the population's needs without help or limitations imposed by the State.

The thing here is that most people listen to this and think neoliberalism is about electronics, cars, and other stuff. The truth is, that neoliberalism aims to suppress the presence of State-run facilities in ALL corners of society, such as health care, housing, water access, electricity, etcetera.

So, we can use the American and Brazillian health systems to understand it better, for example:

In the US, the ones providing health care for the population are great corporations - they decide the price of care, they work together with pharmaceutical companies to define medicine prices, and the laws that bind them are pretty much only offer and demand. There is almost none State intervention to provide the population with accessible health care.

However, this brings problems, of course: not everyone (actually, most people) has real access to health care simply because they can't afford it, or they can't afford it without taking a big financial hit, which threatens their other basic needs, such as food, housing, water, electricity, etcetera. Not everyone can provide for their medical needs, such as diabetic and disabled people.

That leads to:

(a) an increase in poverty;

(b) a decrease in educational levels - if you don't have the means to pay for higher educational levels because of health care debt, or if you're sick and need to go to class and tough through it but you're not really learning anything, and so on, which leads to a major workforce in base level production and a minor class who has access to this education;

(c) an increase in overworking people - meaning that we have a lot of people taking on several jobs to be able to pay for things like health care, which increases the competitiveness between people, making individualism levels go up and breaking up human beings' natural sense of community.

I could also talk here about how this breeds isolation and increases the potential for mental health problems but I think you got what I was saying.

On the other hand, we have the Brazilian health care system (SUS), which is a universal gratuitous medical care service through the whole country. Its purpose is not profit, it's providing health care for the community, so therefore, any SUS unit is bound by State law and run by the State. By law, every SUS unit must provide for anyone who enters its premises in need of medical care. Everyone, Brazillian and foreigners, poor or rich, must be treated if they need to. It's the law.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's all rainbows and flowers, there are definitely many problems in SUS. However, what I'm trying to showcase here is that, when the needs of a population are met, the population itself is more resilient, their life quality goes up and so does their participation in their community.

On the other hand, in neoliberalism, when the State is absent from these areas of community service, the market is, in theory, the one providing for the community. In practice, however, what we observe from neoliberal policies in cities with a great poor population in Latam for example, is that when the State doesn't provide for the community, the market is unable to step up for them because of their obscene prices.

The poor population that doesn't have their needs met by the State or the market sees a great boom in criminal activities within their spaces. That's mainly why criminal organizations are so present in slums and favelas throughout Latin America: criminal organizations are a way for the community to provide for themselves and, as a means to become more powerful, they provide for the community in exchange for their services (not to say they do that for the good of their hearts, of course not).

It's why it's so common, for example, that criminal organizations such as PCC in Brazil pay for kids from favelas to undergo Law school, for example.

And that's is where I wanted to go to start the conversation in SOC: one of the main traits of Ketterdam is the Barrel and, in the Barrel, we have the presence of many criminal organizations, such as the Dregs, the Dime Lions, the Menagerie staff (not the girls, ofc), etcetera.

This, as observed by Kaz himself, is one of the only ways to survive on the Barrel - you filiate yourself to a gang because you need to be able to provide for yourself and, more times than others, for your family as well.

Kaz's story is actually a perfect example of how Ketterdam is the representation of America in the early 20th century in full policies of laissez-faire (neoliberalism): as we can see in Titanic and many other historical fictions, the said American Dream had people believing the US to be this economical paradise where they could all enter the market and become millionaires.

The result of it is the Great Depression, of course, but I'm getting ahead of myself here.

When Kaz and Jodi leave Lij for Ketterdam, Jodi believes he'll become a merchant - which is a pretty common belief of those who arrive at Ketterdam, as Pekka Rollins and Kaz himself state in Crooked Kingdom.

The reality of it, though, is much harsher, because the truth is that when you have a market that controls everything, as we see in Ketterdam with the Merchant's Guild (I think that's how it's translated?) and the Stadwatch as a police force, you see perfectly how neoliberal policies really work in real life:

You have a higher class who controls the market and the riches (question: who do you think got the money Shu Han sent to Ketterdam at the beginning of the first book: the people of the city/country or the merchants in the "government"?), and a lower class that, without support from the State or the market to have their needs met will turn to their own means to do so.

So you have the trafficking that brought Inej to the island, the unlimited gambling that Jesper was trapped in, the cons Jodi and Kaz fell for - it's all product of liberal policies.

And so, you have Ketterdam and its neoliberal policies (:

(I really love to make this kind of analysis, please, if you have something you want me to talk about, don't hesitate to ask)

On Fascism, DEs and Dumbledore

I really think we should be talking more seriously about how dangerously close to condoning fascism and actually villanizing those who oppose it we are getting as a fandom, especially on TikTok and especially when we talk about the Marauders Era

Anyone interested in my rant/book and characters analysis?

On Fascism, DEs and Dumbledore - the actual essay lol

Hey, guys! Sorry it took me so long to write this one, I really had some themes to mature before I could put all of my thoughts in writing but I finally feel like I’m ready to talk about what I want to. Before I begin, however, I want to point out a few things:

First of all, I ask all of you to enter this with an open mind because not everything I’ll say here is exactly popular opinion in the HP fandom. And, although I recognize that my perceptions and interpretations are frayed by my own background and way of thinking, my literary analysis is still based off, on some level, of academical knowledge. It doesn’t make it true, of course, but I believe it’s a solid base to have.

Second, this is, in no way, an attack on people who like the Death Eaters (Barty, Regulus, Rosier, Draco, and so on). These people are not the problem I’m talking about here because, to begin with, the characters they like are not exactly the Canon version of them, and then, because a work of fiction doesn’t determine a person’s character.

It's completely normal for popular works of fiction — and that’s especially true in Literature — to have their characters remodeled to fit a better narrative to the time they are inserted in. It happens with Fairytales, it happens with classical books — Sherlock Holmes is one of the greatest examples I can give —, it just happens. And the new interpretations are an attempt to almost self-insert: is a mirroring of our interpretations and experiences in those characters we like so much.

That said, I still have a problem with how normalized it has become in our society to make a sad backstory to fascist-like villains and that’s where I would like to start this rant/analysis. This issue is not focused on the Harry Potter characters, however: it has happened in Star Wars (both with Anakin and more recently with The Acolyte), in The Hunger Games (with Snow, although it wasn’t the intention) and many other big films/books/series in the industry.

It has a reason: we’re living through late-stage capitalism, which means capitalism is in shambles and it needs a “emergency button” of sorts, something it can use to establish some kind of control back. That’s why we’ve seen so many far-right parties win elections lately: it’s a normal thing for people to be attracted to fast and simple solutions when things are bad, even though they might not be solutions at all.

Anyway, I digress: the point is, when fascism (capitalism’s emergency button) arises, it needs to have a cultural support so that people can assimilate it better, accept it better so it can maintain itself. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not, by all means, saying that a bunch of men sat down on a white room and decided that now they would start creating Art that endorses/romanticizes fascist narratives, of course not.

This is a natural process, it happens because we, as a general rule, already lean into right wing theorical thinking by living into a capitalist mode of production. So, when capitalism collapses, many of us pull our values farthest into capitalistic mindset because that’s what we understand as secure, as stable. And this translates into art through some favored tropes or classical narratives, such as the Chosen One or the “the system is not corrupted, the people running it are” narrative.

Both of those tropes fit into the Harry Potter series in obvious ways, of course. But lately, I’ve been noticing a really particular characteristic of these narratives/tropes that are used to endorse fascism, which I believe has to do with the time period we’re at right now and who the target-audience is, and that is what I called the “individualization of narratives”.

I’m not gonna be arrogant here and say that I’m the only one who noticed this, of course not, but I haven’t found any works on that, so I’m gonna describe, in my own words, what I think this phenomenon is:

The individualization of narratives, as I call it, refers to the details some characters’ backgrounds have when they are into the “dark side”, the side that is supposed to be the fictional version of fascist-like groups. And those details — or lack thereof — are done in a way the reader can fill in the gaps in such a way to identify and empathize with them.

Again, that’s is not the problem, this happens to every character ever, it even happens with celebrities. Our brains are wired to fill in gaps in a person’s personality or character when we don’t have all the information, it’s a natural reaction. Problem is that, as it’s becoming popular to write a villain with a purpose, a “morally gray” character if you will (although I take issue with how that’s portrayed, which I’ll treat more carefully when I talk about Dumbledore), the fascist-like narratives that became so popular with post-war people, gain a new meaning.

That’s not the doing of the Art itself, it’s just a reflection of political issues that are already here but that are also perpetrated and continued by Art and material cultural production, just like anti-socialism dystopian books were in the Cold War scenario, for example. However, it’s undeniable that this movement serves a purpose, a political purpose, and that is to endorse fascism and fascist narrative. Let’s not get over ourselves here: again, this is not the evil doing of some unknown entity, it’s just a natural process of the current political climate reflecting in cultural production.

But it still serves a purpose, and what I aim to do with this essay is to demystify a bit this movement in Harry Potter. But first, we have to understand what fascism is:

Capitalism, which begun more or less in the 1600s, is a mode of production (a mold to which our society fit to work within capitalism’s needs of existence). It is based on profit, which means our society is shaped to produce that profit, everything in a society is shaped to serve this purpose, from the industry to our perception of reality — it’s all a capitalism-based ideology.

Again, reminding: that’s not a secret plot to convince people, it’s a natural process of building identity within reality. It happened in feudalism, and before that with Ancient Empires, and so on and on. There’s nothing inheritedly evil in this process.

However, capitalism is a mode of production that demands, in order to continuing to exist, more than society can provide, so it collapses from time to time. The Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the following Great Depression is one of the most striking examples of capitalism collapsing, and it’s not by happenstance that fascism arose right after this collapse.

As I said before, fascism is capitalism’s emergency button: when systems collapse, that’s where they get more vulnerable to radical change, and the extreme hardships the masses had to endure after its collapse in the 1930s could easily signify a chance for a change in the modes of production throughout the occidental countries of Europe — something that couldn’t happen if capitalism was to survive.

What I mean by bringing all this to the essay is that I want to be very clear with what fascism defends and what it means: it’s the supremacy of not only a country, or exaggerated nationalism, it is also the management and upkeeping of a society’s very structure. And, to be even clearer: that society is white, rich, and patriarchal-based.

There’s a reason why fascism is considered a white-supremacy political movement: because it defends capitalism. And capitalism was built over the need of cheap work force.

Many of you may have thought slavery when I said that, and you’d be correct.

However, with the times progression, that changed into a new form of exploration: because of the past with slavery and exploration of resources of colonized countries, it became easier — and also a natural progression from the dehumanizing of non-white communities to justify slavery — to just cheapen the work force by making non-white communities poorer, more vulnerable and more desperate to fulfill their needs.

That forces those communities — and third world countries as a whole — to accept the money and the exploration of not only first-world countries (colonizer countries) but also big corporations. I could go on and on about all the effects this policy has in non-white communities, from police brutality until the banalization of the violence in large scale (such as the Palestinian genocide) but I want to stay within the scope here.

This justification of slavery, the dehumanization of non-white peoples, is one of the main pillars of capitalism, and as such, it’s the main pillar of fascism. In Harry Potter, the intention is that those characteristics don’t present themselves in race but in blood — not that Rowling is very successful with this, considering the amount of veiled and not-so-veiled racism in her books but whatever.

Now, as I see it, Harry Potter is not a good portrayal of fascism and that has a very clear cause: Rowling’s lack of understanding of what fascism is to begin with, or how the root causes of it affect the system of the wizarding society.

As someone who have studied it, I can say that the blood purity issue wouldn’t be present only in some rich people’s minds, it would be structural to the wizarding world, in a way that would present itself in hardship for muggleborns to get jobs, in jokes that are not funny, in opinions that are degrading, in isolation and discrimination in a day to day level. And of course, there is some of it in the HP books, but it’s not treated as a structural issue — it’s treated as an individual problem.

And that’s where the real problem begins: if we treat fascism as a problem that stems from a person’s own choices instead of a political and collective movement that elevates to a highest level the structural issues that are already there, we fall into the trap of minimizing the problem because, if someone is a fascist because they’re evil, the next question to make is: why are they evil?

Currently, what we’re doing with our villains becomes a problem in these situations: in an attempt to individualize our villains, we make them human. Human in the sense that we can empathize with them, we can understand them. And, for a fascist-like narrative, that’s extremely dangerous because it makes us unconsciously start to endorse their trajectories and choices when we absolutely shouldn’t.

Fascism is not equivalent to rebelliousness.

“Oh, the good side is not so good because they treated this character bad and now he had to turn to a fascist group and decimate people because he’s traumatized.”

See how, when I say it like that, it sounds ridiculous?

But of course, you probably know that. Again, I’m not accusing people who like those characters of endorsing fascism, what I am saying, however, is that the political climate of today is doing it and it’s reflecting on our art production. What I am calling for is for people to recognize that their view of those characters as they really would be if they were anywhere near reality is not only flawed, it’s entirely wrong.

Snape, Barty Crouch Jr, Evan Rosier, Draco, Bellatrix, the Blacks as a whole — they are not the abused little teenagers who had no choice but to join the Death Eaters. They are fascists, they have always been fascists, even when they suffered. And sure, to some of them, there is more to their characters than this but the truth remains that they, in some capacity, not only endorsed a fascist narrative, they actively perpetuated it to the detriment and the suffering of marginalized peoples.

And none of them had a good, believable, and more importantly, complete redeeming arc.

Our interpretations of them are cool, I love it, I prefer them to many HP characters, to be honest. But that doesn’t change the fact that, if HP was a little bit more real, a little bit closer to reality, those characters wouldn’t be bullied teenagers forced into fascism as a means to become powerful enough to escape their abuse — as if that makes it so much better —, they’d be incels, they’d be bullies themselves.

And that’s not an opinion: we, as a fandom, tend to forget that the DEs are the ones with real societal power in the wizarding world. Most of them are purebloods, most of them are rich, most of them are friends with rich and pureblooded wizards, and they are privileged. They are not ostracized as we like to imagine, they are royalty.

For them, to fight for blood purity is to fight for their own benefit, is to fight to maintain the pillars that keep them unaccountable for their behaviors and privilege whilst at the same time, pushing marginalized people — muggleborns, fantastical creatures, even half-bloods — to a dehumanizing condition. And they don’t feel sorry for this.

Now, the truth is that this is partially Rowling’s fault: her lack of understanding of how deep the issues she’s portraying really run makes it possible for her to interpret her own characters as redeemable because they somehow exchange sides when it fits them.

That’s mostly seen with the Malfoys: neither Draco, Narcissa, nor Lucius ever change sides because they see the suffering of others and think of it as wrong. They change sides when Voldemort’s cruelty starts to weigh on them — their change of loyalties are not coming from empathy for marginalized peoples or decency, it comes from self-preservation.

Kind of the same thing with Snape (I wrote some essays focused on Snape, so if anyone is interested, here’s the first, then the second).

Now, of course, that’s not to say those characters weren’t abused on someway or suffered but that’s the thing: no abuse in the world justifies the persecution, torture and killing of innocent people. To offer a counterpoint, the marginalized peoples the Death Eaters persecuted are also traumatized in some, they also can have had abusive parents and/or families but that is not taken into account when we talk about the Death Eater’s own traumas.

The narrative that the Death Eaters were abused their whole childhoods is so strong today in fandom that most people don’t stop to think that those teenagers probably were horrible people. Yes, maybe horrible because some of them were abused, I’m not denying that, but still horrible, which means they wouldn’t accept help. To hold them responsible for their own doings and their own privileges would seem for them as a persecution against them — just like fascist-like narratives often portray pro-LGBTQ+ or non-white policies and/or narratives.

It is also one of the reasons I take issue with the Slytherin portrayal of abused kids ostracized by the rest of the school. It’s really just isolating fascist narrative and only partially based on truth but I don’t think I want to stretch this conversation now (I can write more about it later if you want though).

So no, respectfully, I refuse to accept that those people — mostly men and rich people, I am forced to point out — would be anything but disgusting, and that’s where I take issue with some behaviors within the HP fandom. Because we’re being influenced by almost two decades of fan fiction and the current political climate, it’s very often that I find people who are sincerely incapable of dissociating fandom to canon.

Hence, the actually infuriating villainization of Albus Dumbledore.

Now, that’s a topic that makes me impatient AF. Not only because it is based on a strong fetishization of who Dumbledore really was, and what he could and couldn’t do, but also because it is a clear example of most people’s inability to differentiate between what they’re reading for fun and what they are internalizing from that media.

Let’s begin with that: Dumbledore is not some evil mastermind, and he is not equivalent to Voldemort. He is a flawed character, that’s true, but he is not a villain. And to think so is to play into the narrative that, because the “good side” fails, or makes wrong decisions, or even actively makes bad decisions, or immoral decisions in times of war, that is somehow equivalent to the “bad side”.

It is not.

That narrative is the same narrative that allows Israel to build an equivalence between Hamas’ violent acts and their own when in truth, as reproachable as some Hamas’ decisions may be according to various perspectives, their violence is a reaction to heavy and even more violent oppression.

What I mean is, even if Dumbledore failed in some of his decision-making in the Harry Potter books, even if we may believe we could do better, Dumbledore is a true morally gray character. But first, to make the point I want to make, we have to understand him:

For this, I will first separate his two identities as they appear throughout Harry Potter: as the story unfolds, it becomes clear that Dumbledore plays a role as a leader and role model, but he is also a person with flaws and mistakes like anyone else. These are the two main “faces” of Albus Dumbledore for this defense post, so now let's analyze them more closely:

The first "face" we see of Dumbledore is that of the leader, and this is primarily because of Harry who, at eleven years old, sees Dumbledore as the kind of man he would like to emulate. This also happens with many other wizards throughout the story: it's clear to anyone that most of the people within Harry’s personal circle like and admire Dumbledore, while those who despise him are often the “bad” characters (Lucius Malfoy is probably one of the earliest examples of this).

Although that doesn’t mean they are somehow starstruck by the headmaster: Sirius, Snape, the Weasley parents, Moody, even James and Lily, they all question Dumbledore and his decision making at some point in the books. They end up following through more times than not, that’s true, but trust in someone is different than blind-faith. Those characters accept Dumbledore’s leadership because they trust him, not because they think he’s some type of a god.

However, we see things through Harry’s point of view, and Harry is a child who has no parents, no model figures, no one who really supports that role to him until his eleventh year. It's easy, then, to see how the leader face Dumbledore presents is one of someone the characters (and readers) can trust not to fail, and even easier to view him as someone with great power. This is the fandom’s biggest mistake in viewing him.

Shall we now remember a bit of Dumbledore’s history and delve into his personal side?

As a young man, he met Grindelwald and, according to J.K. Rowling, fell in love with him, as well as with his goal of seeking the Deathly Hallows and becoming the most powerful wizards of all time. 

In the last Harry Potter book, in the King's Cross chapter, Dumbledore himself confesses to Harry how the desire for power blinded him to what was truly important, how power was his greatest weakness, and therefore what made him unworthy of it. This is why Dumbledore remained as the headmaster of Hogwarts when he could have so easily become more important in the wizarding community (besides, of course, his love for the students): to keep himself away from power.

Here's the quote (It might be a bit different in the original, considering I’m translating it from Portuguese):

“‘I was gifted, I was brilliant. I wanted to escape. I wanted to shine. I wanted glory... Invincible Masters of Death, Grindelwald and Dumbledore!... The years passed. There were rumors about him. They said he had obtained a wand of immense power. Meanwhile, I was offered the position of Minister for Magic, not once, but several times. Naturally, I refused. I learned that I could not be trusted with power.’

‘But you'd have been better than Fudge or Scrimgeour!’ said Harry.

‘Would I?’ asked Dumbledore heavily. ‘I am not so sure. I proved as a very young man that power was my weakness and my temptation. It is a curious thing, Harry, but perhaps those best suited to power are those who have never sought it. Those who, like you, have leadership thrust upon them, and take up the mantle because they must, and find to their own surprise that they wear it well.’”

This is what the fandom most fails to understand: the admiration of wizards for Dumbledore makes him influential, but not powerful, and this becomes especially clear during the end of The Goblet of Fire and throughout The Order of the Phoenix.

One of the first signs of this in the fourth book is when Fudge refuses to believe Dumbledore about Voldemort’s return: let's remember that, until that point, Fudge sought Dumbledore’s advice for his decisions as Minister of Magic precisely because the headmaster had the respect of much of the wizarding population. But when Fudge, who has the actual power, puts his foot down and says that Dumbledore no longer has influence over the Ministry’s choices, Dumbledore lacks the power to deny it, to stop it.

If he did, it would be safe to say that he would have used his power over the Ministry to convince everyone that Voldemort had indeed returned, and more, to mobilize the Ministry against Voldemort. But none of this happens simply because Dumbledore does not have that power.

Thus, it becomes easier to differentiate power from influence.

It’s Fudge’s power that causes the Ministry as an organization and the wizarding media to turn against the Headmaster, and Dumbledore doesn’t have the power to stop it, but he has enough influence to still be heard by part of the wizarding population. It’s Fudge’s power that leads to Harry’s expulsion from Hogwarts at the beginning of Order of the Phoenix, but it’s Dumbledore’s influence that convinces the Ministry to agree to a trial, and it’s his influence that moves the people present to listen to his defense of Harry during that trial. If Dumbledore had power over these events, Harry wouldn’t even have had a trial — something the Headmaster categorically calls an absurdity.

Therefore, Dumbledore doesn’t have power; he has influence, and there’s a difference between what he can actually do and what the fandom seems to believe he can do. Dumbledore has no power over the Ministry; he can’t boss anyone around except, perhaps, the Hogwarts staff and the Order of the Phoenix, a group whose members agreed to make him leader.

What he really has are people willing to listen to his advice and thoughts, as well as inclined to follow him, but that doesn’t mean they’ll necessarily do everything Dumbledore says (Sirius, anyone?).

It’s important to separate these two concepts for this analysis to continue because it will make Dumbledore’s actions make much more sense in this discussion. That said, let’s now begin to analyze “The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore”:

The main criticisms I see regarding Dumbledore revolve around Harry’s life and the decisions the Headmaster made concerning him.

Before I begin, however, I want to point out that, despite Dumbledore’s flaws, he is still a leader (just like Harry), and as a leader, he bears responsibility for the lives of the people he has chosen to protect (just like Harry). It’s important to keep this in mind so that I can highlight a few things later.

So, let’s start with when the prophecy is heard and Voldemort begins hunting Harry instead of Neville. It’s important to emphasize here that, once a prophecy is made in the Harry Potter universe and the people the prophecy is about start acting according it, it’s going to happen; there’s no way around it, or at least that’s what we’re told as canon. That’s why, as soon as the prophecy is made and Voldemort actively choses to hunt them down, everyone knows that Harry (or Neville) will be the one to face Voldemort, and one of them will die — hopefully Voldemort.

Although he’s the one to whom the prophecy was made, Dumbledore has no control over it: there’s no way to avoid the fact that Harry (or Neville) would face Voldemort at some point in their lives once Snape overhears it and tells Voldemort. All he — and everyone else — can do is give the Chosen One the tools and knowledge necessary to face Voldemort with the best possible chance of winning — which he does later on by becoming Harry’s primary mentor.

Then the Potters are “chosen” and go into hiding in Godric’s Hollow, making Peter the Secret Keeper. Some more information on this choice: Dumbledore offered to be the Secret Keeper, but James and Lily refused and preferred to choose Sirius. However, they switched to Peter without telling anyone, not even Dumbledore. This is another thing I see the fandom complaining about a lot, but it’s explicitly canon that no one besides Sirius, James, Lily, and Peter knew about the switch.

This wasn’t because they didn’t trust Dumbledore, but because Albus was in the middle of the storm as one of Voldemort’s biggest targets. The Potters didn’t reject Dumbledore as their Secret Keeper because they didn’t trust him (they wouldn’t even be in the Order if that were the case, don’t you think?), but because they were thinking primarily of Harry’s safety, and placing their family’s safety in the hands of the second biggest target of Voldemort in that war simply doesn’t seem like a wise move.

So, there’s no reason, even up to the third book, for Dumbledore to suspect that Sirius is innocent and try to intervene to get him some kind of trial or chance to explain himself. There’s no indication that Dumbledore had contact with Sirius before he was sent to Azkaban, so how could the Headmaster be blamed for that?

Again, it’s important to emphasize that Dumbledore has influence.

Even if he wanted Sirius to have a trial, there’s no evidence that he could make it happen, since everything pointed to Sirius as the culprit — remembering that there’s a big difference between a trial for underage magic and the murder of thirteen Muggles, plus the whole Secret Keeper and high-profile situation. In fact, it’s also good to remember that as soon as Dumbledore learns the truth, he does everything in his power — even sending Harry and Hermione back in time — to save Sirius from being kissed by the Dementors.

But going back a bit, a week after Peter becomes the Secret Keeper, he reveals the Potters’ location to Voldemort, and on Halloween night in 1981, Voldemort goes to Godric’s Hollow and kills James, then Lily, then tries to kill Harry but fails.

This event needs to be broken down into two parts. The first is about Lily’s protection: when she chooses to die even though Voldemort gave her a chance to live, Lily protects Harry, and that’s the reason he survives that encounter with the Dark Lord, who also “dies.”

Since the fourth book, there’s a very specific characteristic of this protection that’s seen many times but never explicitly stated, which is the fact that Lily’s protection has a blood-related nature. In other words, Lily’s protection is especially tied to blood, which is why Voldemort chose Harry’s blood to resurrect himself: because in that way, he also “has” Lily’s blood and, consequently, her protection, which frees him to harm Harry in a way he couldn’t before.

And this is the point I want to reach: Dumbledore chooses the Dursleys to raise Harry not because he wants him to suffer, but because Petunia is the only one who carries Lily’s blood and, therefore, the only one who can ensure that Lily’s protection — the thing for which her sister died — continues to work. The blood Petunia shares with Lily even prevents Voldemort, even after the resurrection ritual, because her blood makes Lily’s protection even stronger.

And it’s good to remember that this measure ends up saving Harry in The Philosopher’s Stone — Quirrell and Voldemort couldn’t touch him because of Lily’s protection, guaranteed by his living in the same house as Petunia — and keeps him safe in the Dursleys’ house for sixteen years, until Harry turns seventeen and the protection finally stops working, even though he still lived with Petunia.

Once again, people overestimate Dumbledore’s ability to act: he had no control over the nature of Lily’s protection; he acted to keep Harry as safe as possible within what he could actually control.

Unfortunately, the choices presented in that situation were either to leave him protected from Voldemort’s assassination attempts or spare him the suffering of growing up with the Dursleys.

Neither choice was ideal, but this is where Dumbledore’s leadership character comes in: Harry’s responsibility to face Voldemort was no longer a choice, even though he was only a year old, because of the prophecy. So, it makes much more sense for him to protect Harry from the greater threat (Voldemort) while ensuring that Harry would have more time to develop and grow before having to face him again.

Dumbledore didn’t make the choice to give Harry to the Dursleys joyfully, wanting him to suffer, but thinking about giving him more time and more opportunities to be a child than he would have had if Lily’s protection weren’t ensured. Obviously, this doesn’t work out very well because the Dursleys are especially cruel to Harry in a way that Dumbledore hadn’t really foreseen, something he himself admits in The Half-Blood Prince:

“‘[...] Harry, whom Lord Voldemort has already tried to kill on several occasions, is in much more danger than on the day I left him on your doorstep, fifteen years ago, with a letter explaining that his parents had been murdered and expressing the hope that you would care for him as a son.’

Dumbledore paused, and although his voice remained light and calm, and did not betray his anger, Harry felt a certain coldness emanating from him. He also noticed that the Dursleys huddled together almost imperceptibly.

‘You did not do as I asked. You have never treated Harry as a son. In your care, he has only known neglect and often cruelty...’”

But it’s important to note that Dumbledore didn’t have good options regarding Harry’s custody; he didn’t have the power to change how Lily’s protection worked; he was working with what he had, which wasn’t much.

The second part of this event focuses more on Voldemort and Harry and is probably the most controversial regarding Dumbledore: the creation of the Horcrux inside Harry and how this is somehow seen as Dumbledore’s fault — hence the famous phrase about being “raised like a pig for slaughter,” but... let’s be honest? What, exactly, could Dumbledore have done against the fact that Harry became a Horcrux?

Once again, here’s the exaggerated view of Dumbledore’s power that the fandom seems to have: he had no control over what happened to the Potters in Godric’s Hollow on Halloween night in 1981. He had no power over Lily’s protection or the Horcrux in Harry. He has no power over Lily’s protection, nor over the Horcrux in Harry. The only thing he has the power to do is to act in a way that ensures his plan guarantees Voldemort’s ultimate defeat and thus saves the entire wizarding world.

I hate it when people say Dumbledore “raised Harry like a pig for slaughter” simply because he knew that Harry would have to die for the Horcrux to be destroyed, as if he had any other option in the matter. Harry’s fate was sealed as soon as Lily’s protection saved him and a part of Voldemort’s soul entered him; Dumbledore bears no responsibility for what happened that night.

So what Dumbledore can do regarding Harry having to die is exactly… nothing. He literally has no power to change this fact, no matter how much he wants to — and he does, because he loves Harry, as he himself says in Order of the Phoenix. But Dumbledore is still a leader, and he still needs to think about the best plan of action to ensure that people continue to have hope and that they can truly see that hope — of being free from Voldemort and his reign of terror — come true. And if that meant Harry had to die to destroy the Horcrux, then that was it. Period.

But it’s also important to point out that Dumbledore didn’t force Harry into anything: by the time Harry receives the information that he needs to die to ensure the salvation of everyone and Voldemort’s mortality, all the people who know this — Dumbledore and Snape, in this case — are dead and unable to do anything if Harry decided to simply run away and leave everyone to fend for themselves because he didn’t want to die.

But, as I pointed out before, Harry is a leader. And he fully accepts the responsibility of this role the moment he decides to face death: he goes to Voldemort willing to die by his own choice, wanting to save those who matter to him, those who trust him to end Voldemort. Not because Dumbledore ordered him, but because he — Harry — is a leader, and a leader sacrifices himself for his cause when necessary.

Saying that Dumbledore was the “cause” of Harry’s death, besides being wrong, also takes away from the greatness of Harry’s choice in that situation. Harry is the protagonist of his own story, and he is always making decisions based on his own mind and beliefs (going after the Philosopher’s Stone, entering the Chamber of Secrets, sparing Pettigrew, going after Sirius in the Department of Mysteries, pursuing the Horcruxes, etc.), so it’s completely unfair for people to place the responsibility for his choice to die on Dumbledore’s shoulders just because the Headmaster gave him the information that Harry was a Horcrux. Harry always acted according to his own mind based on the information he had been given — why would it be any different with the Horcrux inside him?

It simply wouldn’t be. Dumbledore gave the information, but it was Harry who decided what to do with it.

Furthermore, it’s worth noting that Dumbledore didn’t tell Harry about having to die to destroy the Horcrux inside him earlier because (a) Harry was a child, and (b) Dumbledore didn’t want to take away Harry’s hope. Additionally, after the fourth book, there was still the possibility that Harry could survive because, by performing the resurrection ritual, Voldemort intertwined his life with Harry’s, thus giving Harry a chance not to die when allowing the Horcrux to be destroyed. So why would Dumbledore tell a teenager that he would have to die at some point in the future… if there was a chance Harry might come back? It seems (to me, at least) like an unnecessary cruelty to place that burden on someone for so long.

So the biggest issue I see with the fandom in relation to Dumbledore is the belief that he had power over things that were completely beyond his reach. Dumbledore was a leader doing the best he could with what he had, within the limitations presented to him and his own experience.

Moreover, it’s admirable that Dumbledore had such a dark and flawed past and acknowledged each of his mistakes, always acting to ensure that he wouldn’t repeat them. It was the events of his adolescence that led him to always remember to value what truly mattered: love and people. He grew through his own pain, through the consequences of his own mistakes; he never forgot or repressed what happened to Ariana — which would certainly have been much easier — but instead, he used that painful event to become a better person.

That’s a morally gray character, that’s someone who had been stuck between a rock and a hard place and did what he thought was best, that’s a character who did the best he could with what he was given. And I really don’t like how fascist-like characters are more often than not considered more complex because of trauma than characters like Dumbledore.

But I guess that’s a bit because we can actually empathize with them better by being convinced that they didn’t have a choice, or that they were somehow forced into those choices even if they really didn’t want to and that might be the case, but to be honest, after seeing what fascist narratives do to marginalized people, I can’t say I care much about it. Anyway, be my guest to comment on my analysis but please be kind, I won’t engage in rage baits nor Zionists, Free Palestine loves <3

Question for the Secret History readers: do y'all think the seven deadly sins is a pertinent angle to read the greek class (Julian included) through? Cause I definitely see it fitting for Richard as envy (a deadly sin is supposed to be one at the origin of other sins and that leads to death if my memory serves me right, and his envy of rich people led him to wanting to transform into a rich person leading to him almost dying that one winter), Francis as paress (he would literally rather die than be disowned and forced to work to sustain himself). It could work for Charles (wrath), Camilla (luxury) and Bunny (avarice), and a sweet argument could be made for Julian as gluttony (in the sense of eating for pleasure rather than sustenance) but of course Henry's a problem. I mean, he doesn't NOT fit pride, but it's not evident either you know? Plus guy's literally Death so it feels weird to coinjoin the two, what do you guys think?