Hp Meta - Tumblr Posts

Part of me deeply wonders if Sirius Black hated Snape enough to attempt to murder him via werewolf (however you want to slice his motivation, the end result would have been murder, maiming, or chronic disease) because Snape didn't know his place.

Snape, a desperately poor Northern boy, didn't defer to Potter. Sirius Black deferred to James Potter from the first, but Snape didn't. It was a coddled lordling up against the laborer's son and the trade laborer's son basically said 'Up yours, arsehole'.

And I wonder just how much that rankled, that this unkempt, poorly socialized scholarship student didn't know he was to bow and scrape to the Old Etonians? That he wouldn't accept their inherent superiority. How much of this was based in classism?

Note: I'm not super anti JP or SB. I just would rather not deal with their more rabid fans. I also find the class constructs of the Wizarding World fascinating. And if I got something wrong about classes because I'm not English, please correct me.

"I read it to find out what the fuss was about, and remained somewhat puzzled; it seemed a lively kid’s fantasy crossed with a school novel, good fare for its age group, but stylistically ordinary, imaginatively derivative, and ethically rather mean-spirited."

- Ursula K. Le Guin

It's been understandably popular to take pot-shots at Harry Potter lately because of JK Rowling's truly disgusting and reprehensible comments lately. This quote above by Le Guin, which I agreed with even while a teenager, got me thinking about my own views on the series and apropos to nothing, I felt this was a better place to expound upon them than Twitter.

I have a knee-jerk dislike of the very human condition of saying we, "Always knew something," after the fact, that we "Always knew" someone problematic™️ was problematic or we always knew this thing that was popular was Bad Art after it became less popular. I find it intellectually dishonest.

So I'll preface all of this by saying: I had minor issues with the Harry Potter series back when it came out that went against the mainstream view of it, in that I thought it had many good qualities as a book series, but not enough to warrant its popularity compared to other, similar YA and fantasy series. I was genuinely baffled by its superstar popularity but as a fantasy book reader in the days before it was easy to access online fandom, I would take what I could get and I certainly didn't mind fangirling about Harry Potter stuff with friends even if it wasn't my #1 favorite series of all time. I enjoyed the fanfic for Harry Potter immensely so that allowed me to sort of blend in with those who enjoyed its popularity. (Special shoutout to MY favorite Harry Potter book of all time, "Harry Potter and the Battle of Wills" by Jocelyn over on fanfiction.net, that was MY Harry Potter series lol.)

So here's the thing, it's easy to say, "I always hated Harry Potter" or "I always knew it was trash" and that's a lie. For me, the truth is:

I enjoyed Harry Potter much like I did many of the fantasy series of its day.

What they had going for them was their pacing, whimsy, and inherent mystery structure in the first 3 books. They're fast, fun, easy reads with a likable protagonist. They are not bad books. But as Le Guin says, they're stylistically ordinary and imaginatively derivative. There's a lot of books like them.

I did not think the books were better than Pratchett, or Gaiman, or Garth Nix, or Dianne Wynn Jones, or any of the many other fantasy authors I was reading at the time. I was confused by their popularity as compared to better books like Pratchett's Discworld which, while popular, never got a theme park made for them in terms of order of magnitude popularity.

Now, JK Rowling on the other hand I had some issues with from the start, if not the ones that emerged later with her being a bigot. It is worth mentioning for the sake of intellectual honesty that decades ago, she gave a lot to charity and was a voice for tolerance in the early 00's when Bush/Blair, the Iraq War, etc were in full swing. It makes it all the more heartbreaking and baffling to see her swing towards bigotry on LGBT+ issues. Truly, a lot of young people first learned to stand up to fascism and be accepting of those different from them because of Harry Potter, just like they did reading the Ender's Game series by Orson Scott Card, and in both cases it's absolutely heartbreaking and so very confusing to see these authors fall to the very dark side they wrote against in their books. I have no answer for how or why this happened. I don't say this to make an excuse for either of them, simply to express confusion and mourn the loss of someone who was once a voice for some level of good in the world.

Now, my issues with JK Rowling were writerly, and they are the ones I feel somewhat empowered to say I "always knew" and "always had an issue with" and that, like the worst sort of hipster, "I talked about before it was cool".

Really my dislike began when JKR very famously said in the early 00s that she didn't read any fantasy before writing Harry Potter. Considering how derivative it is (heck, Neil Gaiman already had a YA series about a black-haired wizard boy with a scar) it left one wondering if she was lying or she truly was that ignorant in the genre in which she wrote. Either way, not a good look, and it soured me towards her pretty permanently as an author.

Terry Pratchett, the author I would actually follow into Hell, criticized her for this comment and got a lot of flack for it, asking how in the world she could not realize she was writing fantasy. This solidified my opinion of her as something of a hack, even if she had stumbled upon a winning story. Neil Gaiman also chimed in saying he didn't feel ripped off but seemed to tacitly agree with Pratchett that her lack of institutional knowledge about fantasy was odd.

As a big fantasy fan of the early 00s, I can say that fantasy was still a bit of a forbidden genre (at least in the Anglosphere), one not taken seriously. So for JK Rowling to be asked if she wrote fantasy had a layer of nuance, basically she was being asked if she meant to write a fantasy novel, ie, in a "lesser" genre, barely above dime story penny dreadfuls in value.

No one literary would admit to writing fantasy at the time, it was a whole thing where if you admitted to writing fantasy you were "downgraded" as an author in terms of prestige (Stephen King went through a lot of this). BUT, if a fantasy book achieved popularity, it was labeled as "literary" so the literary folks could claim ownership of the quality genre fiction, and never have to admit that "literary" is a genre and not a mark of quality (a deep-seated rage button issue for me and a rant for another day).

So when JK Rowling said, "She didn't know she was writing fantasy." That meant something. And what it meant was she was throwing the rest of the genre under the damn bus. With her visibility she could have helped actively tear down the biases against fantasy (something she did indirectly with the popularity of her books). Or she could have simply had humility and said she wasn't as versed in the genre as she should be given where her book ended up being shelved, but there's a lot of good works there and she's honored to be among them.

She did neither. She stuck to her ignorance (what would become a common trait of hers, apparently) and did very little to elevate others in the genre, or the genre itself, and indeed, seemed to try to distance herself from it in what was the safe move at the time.

I cannot stress enough how intellectual dishonest, arrogant, and safe it was for popular writers who got dubbed "literary" when they were in fact writing genre fiction to cleave to that title of literary, guard it jealously, and refuse to acknowledge that literary is a genre of its own, not a mark of quality. To be labeled "genre fiction" was to be considered "lesser" and that stigma is still out there, though much lessened by the wave that began with the Lord of the Rings movies, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, and the Marvel films making so much money and really setting up genre fiction to at least be seen as lucrative if not artistic. We have come a long way from how fantasy was viewed 20 years ago.

JK Rowling also said she wrote no other books before Harry Potter. That's another puzzling instance where either she's lying, sold her soul to the Devil (and hey, maybe she did and he's collecting by making her turn into a frothing bigot), or was simply a more lucky and less skilled writer than people realized. Every writer has a closet full of short stories and novels they've written before publishing their first work. I can't stress enough how bizarre it is for her to claim she never wrote anything else before putting pen to paper with Harry Potter, that simply does not happen. Then again, her later books make it seem more likely that is true.

Writerly aside, but JK Rowling is utter garbage at structure. She lucked into the perfect scaffolding for a basic plot with the Harry Potter school year, but as Fantastic Beasts and her other, non-school based plot structures reveal, she didn't realize what a crutch that was for her because the woman does not and has not learned how to build a plot that isn't strung up on the structure of a school year for building tension and story beats.

Look, JK Rowling has always been a weird author. She really did come out of nowhere in terms of previous works. She doesn't acknowledge her peers in the genre that built her fortune, not even to confess that while she didn't know about them, she's now learning about a wonderful rich genre out there. She went the other direction and disavowed fantasy (it's possible she backtracked since and had nice things to say about the fantasy genre, I'd love to hear it if so).

There was in fact always subtle bigotry and a ton of tokenism in the Harry Potter books. That said, in the 90s, that was pretty par for the course, and she deserved some kudos for making the books so explicitly about fighting fascism, even if I'm not sure she fully understood her own themes.

To say these books were unpopular or that they had no writerly merit at all is intellectually dishonest. They were popular for a reason, mostly because they're fun. However, they were not unique, there were many like them, she got very lucky and it's bizarre how little she's acknowledged this or her peers. Of all the negative tendencies any human has, I'm shocked and dismayed that her tendency to stick to her ignorance like she did with the wider fantasy genre is the one that won out and was transferred to LGBT+ issues, to the point of doing active damage to her works and brand. But as her attempts to branch out from Harry Potter have further confirmed, JK Rowling was always a stylistically ordinary writer. Her mean-spiritedness didn't stand out as much in the 90s but it absolutely does now and it's ugly how she leaned more into sticking with the moral heights she reached at that time rather than trying to learn and grow as a person.

JK Rowling went full Whedon and figured because she was slightly ahead of the curve in the late 90s that she had nothing more to learn and it hurts when people who are creative, people whose job it is to have empathy for other walks of life, never learn or grow and stick to their old laurels that are increasingly out of date. I personally don't think myself as a hardcore Harry Potter fan, I have no horse in this race for the redemption or lack thereof of JK Rowling or the book series. I can only offer my view as a fantasy writer and someone who grew up through the cultural phenomenon of these books.

But, as usual, Ursula Le Guin was right, I agreed with her then, and her words have only borne out more and more with time.

Hello, I really wanted your opinion on how Harry anger and mildly obssesion with goodness balance out

I mean, our boy spared Peter, but strangled Mundungus. He more often then not uses harmless spells, but I genualy think that he's willing to kill someone if the situation asks for it, like you mentioned before

It is kinda contradictory to me, it woud be nice to know you take on it

Okay, so first thing first, as someone who used to have anger issues, I just want to say that being an angry person ≠ being a bad person. Like, how angry you are is completely separate from how good you are. Emotions aren't necessarily tied to your moral compass.

The thing about anger and anger issues is that it's not something you control oftentimes. When you get really angry, like, properly angry, you become a spectator in your own body. You move and act out of anger, but it's not something you chose to do consciously you didn't plan it or decide upon it at any point. It just kinda happens. And it's a lot of really hard work for it not to happen once the issue is there.

As such, it happens that once you calm down, you might regret things you did in that burst of anger, but it's already done.

Harry's anger is shown like this sometimes, like something not fully under his control:

Harry was not aware of releasing George, all he knew was that a second later both of them were sprinting at Malfoy. He had completely forgotten the fact that all the teachers were watching: All he wanted to do was cause Malfoy as much pain as possible. With no time to draw out his wand, he merely drew back the fist clutching the Snitch and sank it as hard as he could into Malfoy’s stomach — “Harry! HARRY! GEORGE! NO!” He could hear girls’ voices screaming, Malfoy yelling, George swearing, a whistle blowing, and the bellowing of the crowd around him, but he did not care, not until somebody in the vicinity yelled “IMPEDIMENTA!” and only when he was knocked over backward by the force of the spell did he abandon the attempt to punch every inch of Malfoy he could reach. . . .

(OotP)

Anger management issues are issues with emotional regulation at the end of the day. The issue is with management, control, and regulation, where your emotions quite literally take over you. That's where phrases like "seeing red" come from. It's that all-encompassing anger that takes over, and that's the only thing you can see.

But Harry's anger isn't always like this. Sometimes his anger just pushes him to act on something he wants anyway, even when calmer:

Hatred rose in Harry such as he had never known before. He flung himself out from behind the fountain and bellowed “Crucio!” Bellatrix screamed. The spell had knocked her off her feet, but she did not writhe and shriek with pain as Neville had — she was already on her feet again, breathless, no longer laughing. Harry dodged behind the golden fountain again — her counterspell hit the head of the handsome wizard, which was blown off and landed twenty feet away, gouging long scratches into the wooden floor. “Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy?” she yelled. She had abandoned her baby voice now. “You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain — to enjoy it — righteous anger won’t hurt me for long...”

(OotP)

Even when Harry's calm he thinks Bellatrix deserves torture or death. His anger in the above scene is defined well by Bellatrix. It's righteous anger. It's anger that doesn't push him out of control but propels him to act on something he already wanted to do. It's like an injection of nerves and courage, and not that same out-of-control feeling I mentioned earlier.

Now, Harry's "obsession with goodness" is completely separate from his anger.

What's important to note is what is the definition of good. Good is defined by Harry and the HP books as a whole as good = Just. Good in the HP books and according to Harry, is not some vague idea where everyone deserves mercy, it's a good where everyone gets what they deserve. Bad people have bad things happen to them, and good people have good things happen to them. It's about justice and righteousness.

Quirrell helped Voldemort, so he deserved to die in Harry's opinion.

well, unless you count Quirrell, and he got what he deserved seeing as he was working with Voldemort.

(HBP)

Stan Shunpike was under the imperius. He didn't choose to help Voldemort, he was innocent, so he didn't deserve to die in Harry's opinion.

I saw Stan Shunpike. ... You know, the bloke who was the conductor on the Knight Bus? And I tried to Disarm him instead of — well, he doesn’t know what he’s doing, does he? He must be Imperiused!

(DH)

And it makes sense. I mean, is it good that murderers and rapists go to prison? Absolutely. You need to punish bad deeds to stop bad people from hurting people, how that should be done isn't something I want to get into, but righteousness and justice include punishments for evil acts, and that's good. It's good murderers and other criminals can't just walk around and hurt people without consequences. A good person won't let a bad one hurt others, and for that, said good person needs to be willing to fight, and yes, hurt in self-defense or in defense of others.

And Harry believes in this kind of good. A good that is righteous and just. Harry doesn't think everyone deserves the same treatment. He'll treat you well if you deserve it.

“...It’s time you learned some respect!” “It’s time you earned it.” said Harry

(DH)

Harry's respect and kindness need to be earned. You need to deserve it. His scorn and hate, are similarly earned through your actions and what you say.

That being said, most people don't deserve death in Harry's book. His starting point is that you should be kept alive, and helped, and treated well. You need to actively do something to get on Harry's shitlist. Even Snape only got on Harry's shitlist after Snape mocked and ridiculed Harry in that first potions class.

In the scene with Mundungus, Harry is angry. He doesn't actually think Mundungus deserves death, some punishment, yes, but not death. He stole from Sirius, and he did a horrible thing (for Harry he did an awful disrespect to Sirius whom Harry is still grieving at that point), so the good thing would be him getting his comeuppance. But in that scene, I think there is a bit of this out-of-control anger I mentioned earlier, as I don't think a calm Harry would've strangled him in this way. Harry acted in anger and instinct, he wasn't rationalizing anything in that moment.

And regarding Pettigrew, Harry did want to kill him, he wished for him to die, to be punished, but he:

Was calmer by that point, he wasn't angry anymore so he didn't have the push of anger

He is compassionate. While he wants Peter dead, he doesn't want Lupin and Sirius to become killers because he cares about them, he doesn't want them to have to suffer through killing their ex-freind. But he wouldn't mind if Peter died to the dementors.

He is practical. He wants to bring Peter back to the castle and have him sent to Azkaban — which would allow Sirius to be exonerated. It would serve justice, it would be righteous. As Harry mentioned in the following quote, it'll be what he thinks Peter deserves:

“NO!” Harry yelled. He ran forward, placing himself in front of Pettigrew, facing the wands. “You can’t kill him,” he said breathlessly. “You can’t.” Black and Lupin both looked staggered. “Harry, this piece of vermin is the reason you have no parents,” Black snarled. “This cringing bit of filth would have seen you die too, without turning a hair. You heard him. His own stinking skin meant more to him than your whole family.” “I know,” Harry panted. “We’ll take him up to the castle. We’ll hand him over to the dementors. . . . He can go to Azkaban . . . but don’t kill him.” “Harry!” gasped Pettigrew, and he flung his arms around Harry’s knees. “You — thank you — it’s more than I deserve — thank you —” “Get off me,” Harry spat, throwing Pettigrew’s hands off him in disgust. “I’m not doing this for you. I’m doing it because — I don’t reckon my dad would’ve wanted them to become killers — just for you.” No one moved or made a sound except Pettigrew, whose breath was coming in wheezes as he clutched his chest. Black and Lupin were looking at each other. Then, with one movement, they lowered their wands. “You’re the only person who has the right to decide, Harry,” said Black. “But think . . . think what he did. . . .” “He can go to Azkaban,” Harry repeated. “If anyone deserves that place, he does. . . .”

(PoA)

But that good Harry believes in does allow for reform. It allows for forgiveness. Harry is a very forgiving person, he believes people can regret their past actions and change. He doesn't, for the most part, believe people are evil from birth or that someone who did evil would necessarily always be evil. Specifically with Voldemort, Harry feels a connection to him, he understands him and that understanding leads him to deem Voldemort as redeemable. As someone who could be saved. It's sentimentality talking there, as, let's say, I don't see Harry making such offers to Umbridge.

friendly reminder that Harry Potter

at eleven, was described by his teachers as ‘bright’

at the same age, according to the Sorting Hat: “Not a bad mind, either. There’s talent, oh my goodness, yes” and “You could be great, you know, it’s all here in your head”

mastered the challenging Patronus Charm at thirteen and proceeded to teach it at fifteen

resisted the Imperius Curse at fourteen and soon learned to throw it off completely, even when cast by the incredibly powerful Voldemort

also at fourteen, learned to cast a powerful Accio Charm

at fifteen, was training other students

at the same age, under extreme stress, tested as 'exceeds expectations’ or 'outstanding’ in every subject that required actual magic (including the dreaded Potions)

same age, cast a briefly effective Cruciatus Curse

at sixteen, became a star Potions student simply by following superior instructions

at seventeen, successfully cast the Imperius Curse on his first try, and used it repeatedly

at the same age, cast a successful Cruciatus Curse

Keep reading

I sincerely believe that by 7th year Ravenclaws would just tell the door to their common room to fuck off and it would open for them

Fantastic Beasts and the Chamber of Secrets

Can we take a moment to think about the implications of the Chamber of Secrets opening during Grindelwald’s peak?

It was not merely a mess. I’m convinced that it was traumatic to Albus.

The world was burning, Gellert was out of control, muggles were getting targeted, wizards were becoming collateral damage and he had to be stopped, which Albus still struggled with.

Hogwarts were a little bubble where his students could be safe. There was a deadly thread in their walls, muggleborns were being targeted and a student ended up dead. Even as a teacher Albus would have had to focus on an inside thread, when he also had to keep up with what was happening in the world.

He suspected Tom, whom HE had approached knowing about his complicated history and his abusive tendencies in the hopes of helping him. Albus already felt that they had failed his family and his self-loathing had become a personality trait. He definitely saw anything Tom did at that point as his own personal failure.

Of ALL the people who could have taken the fall, it’s Hagrid. When something happens more than once it starts becoming a pattern: Newt is a good wizard, but the one thing he cared about was magical creatures and was not interested in knowledge and in politics like Albus was in his youth. Hagrid loved creatures and his hobbies were not in Dumbledore’s interests: Hagrid was not sophisticated or articulate and definitely not above drinking and gambling. Both were Albus’ protégées AND as close as he could come to having friends. One could say they were like… younger brothers of his. Isn’t it interesting how Albus kept getting attached to people with qualities that reminded him of Aberforth (loyalty, loneliness, easily dismissible  because of their eccentricities, being better with animals/creatures than with humans), but who actually saw the best in him? The potential of Hagrid having his life ruined would have felt to him as if he was failing Aberforth at a time when his olds wounds had been torn open.

From the HP books we know that giants had been involved in muggle killings. Considerint the time, it would have been SO EASY to paint Hagrid as a half-wizard/half-giant extremist who embraced Grindelwald’s ideology and was choosing to attack muggle-borns out of spite. I would LOVE to see Albus fighting tooth and nail to shut down any slander of the sort. I REALLY wish there was more time to dive into all of FB’s potential storylines.

dae think about how house elves are a very obvious metaphor for chattel slavery oops not even a metaphor they are literally enslaved and then because all of them but Dobby have learned helplessness (Tippy) or internalized racism + speciesism (Kreacher) people in fanon will be all 'well the house elves like being slaves to wizards' and write fics where house elf slavery is presented as a good or neutral feature of magical society and Hermione trying to liberate them is played for even more laughs than it is in the original books? or is it just me?

Counter argument(s):

Tom and Dumbledore only are seen to interact in canon twice (the books, not the movies). Once at the orphanage, once at the job interview (after he’s made a ton of Horcruxes and started doing Death Eater stuff). We just don’t have enough information to conclude anything about their relationship. Dumbledore was perhaps not super nicey to Tom when they first met, but not telling the other professors about the rabbit and cave incidents suggests he hoped to turn over a new leaf (Dumbledore actually says as much). He might come off as judgy when describing Tom in HBP but he's also telling Harry about Tom in hindsight.

People also blame Dumbledore for sending Tom back into the Blitz, but (1) the Blitz was during Sept 1940-May 1941 so it happened while Tom was at Hogwarts and (2) it's Dippet who refuses to let him stay over the summer, not Dumbledore (in the books).

On the subject of Dippet, he literally mistakes Tom as Muggle-born (the latter corrects him), suggesting that a lot of people might also believe this. If anything, Tom probably gets the most grief from his pureblood Slytherin housemates (before he can prove his Gaunt parentage, at least) especially given Grindelwald has probably whipped them into a frenzy.

Additionally, we can’t really blame Tom Sr, a literal rape victim, for noping the fuck out and ‘abandoning’ Merope after being drugged and kidnapped. It might look like abandonment on the Riddle’s side from Tom’s perspective, but it’s not.

If any character is at fault for the rise of Voldemort, it’s Merope. Yeah Tom's tragic backstory explains why he's not the Nicest Guy and his fear of dying and all that jazz but not the World Takeover, Cult Leader, and Killing People things. Also it's just more boring when Tom has no character agency.

Friendly reminder that Tom Riddle didn’t create Voldemort. Dumbledore created Voldemort.

Tom was raised in a Religious Orphanage in the 30s and 40s. He was not treated nicely by anyone. Of course he would be vindictive and hate Non-Magicals.

Dumbledore on the other hand decided that an eleven-year-old was the anti-Christ and treated him like he was already a mass-murderer.

Tom was in the Orphanage in London when the bombs fell. Of course he would be terrified of dying. He was abandoned by his only living relatives. Of course he’d wish them dead.

Dumbledore looked at a child and saw a demon. If he had seen a child, Voldemort would never have existed.

Give me arguments if you disagree.

blood of the covenant/water of the womb

The Black sisters are so tragic.

I mean, imagine:

As kids, Narcissa is the baby sister that the elder two dote on, while both Narcissa and Andromeda look up to Bellatrix, the proud, beautiful, powerful, accomplished, perfect eldest sister, who has always known who she is and where she's going, but especially Andromeda, since they look so alike she's always been encouraged to act like her too but since Narcissa doesn't have the stereotypical Black looks and her parents didn't follow the Black naming scheme she's encouraged to be her own person a little bit more.

At Hogwarts they're all Sorted into the same House, Slytherin, which only increases their bond. Bella does really well at school, probably the top of her class, which makes Andy, who's only a year or two behind hyperaware of where the bar is. She walks, talks, and dresses like Bella.

Until

Andy follows in Bella's footsteps (who's probably Head Girl by now) and becomes a prefect, but she gets assigned to do rounds with a Muggle-born Hufflepuff. And despite everything she'd been taught, everything she knows to be true, she finds herself falling for him and the worst part is she can't tell anyone, even Bella, the one she has always been able to confide in, always reassured her and set her on the right path.

Meanwhile Druella and Cygnus are arranging Bellatrix's marriage to Roldophus, someone she doesn't even like never mind attracted to but because she's the perfect Black and the perfect daughter she has to do it. And Andromeda sees and fears how she could get trapped, too, how there's another Lestrange boy in her year.

Meanwhile a strange foreign Dark Lord comes to dinner and he's so different to Roldophus and all those other men who think because she's a woman she must be weak and she's just a vessel for their pureblood children. And despite the way she shouldn't feel this way, Bella doesn't care. He listens to Bella's opinions and he takes her seriously and he sees her magical talent and her thirst to prove herself and he's not scared of her in the way others say that she's 'too intense.' And when he offers to train her, and adds that he never does this, she says, one better, I'll follow you.

Andromeda and Narcissa watch this strange man burn the Dark Mark into their sister's arm and they don't know what to think. Narcissa's scared Bella will put herself in danger, that she'll do too much, give too much of herself because she doesn't know when to pull back. And Andy's scared Bella's going down a path she cannot follow, because deep down she can't say she believes in blood supremacy, can't say she hates Ted and she can't figure out a way through so she leaves.

It's like part of Bella's heart has been ripped out. They were all close, the Blacks, but Andy and Bella had a certain je ne sais quoi, they were thick as thieves and inseparable. Bellatrix is the one who burns Andromeda off the tapestry, crying while she does it, the scorned love for her sister, the anger and shame that Andy chose that Mudblood over her turning that love to bottomless hate.

Meanwhile Narcissa, the lucky one, watches it all. Narcissa is the one that gets it all, she's the only one who's able to marry for love and stay with her family but there's also this Andromeda-shaped hole in her and there's a Slytherin resentfulness of being Bellatrix's supporting act.

Every night that Bella is on a mission, Narcissa stays up, even while pregnant with Draco, until she knows her sister is safe.

That fateful Halloween she waits and waits and waits but Bellatrix never comes home. When she finds out her last remaining sister is serving life she completely breaks down. Won't sleep, won't eat. The thought of leaving Draco without a mother is the only thing that helps her hold on. Regulus, Andromeda and Sirius are dead/burned off the tapestry/imprisoned; she and Draco are the last Blacks, that makes their bond even stronger, makes her scared of losing him like she did her sisters. She curses Voldemort for putting her in danger, aware of her feelings for him and that Bella would do anything for them, swears she'll never let that happen to her son.

All the while Andy raises her daughter, who hates the name she gave her in the same way Andy know she would hate the Blacks. Narcissa and Andy watch each other from across crowds; Tonks and Draco are never at school together, never know more than scattered off-hand mentions of a cousin on their mother's side. But both Narcissa and Andy fantasize of a reconcilation, of Tonks babysitting Draco while they rekindle their bond. Neither bridges the gap. That burn, that rift cannot be healed. But they still ache for each other.

When Voldemort returns that fear for Draco grows, but it's tempered with the joy of having Bella back after mourning her for 14 years -- Bella, traumatized, starved, jagged and torn up at the edges, different, but alive.

And just like knowing he was innocent kept Sirius sane, Bella's love and trust of Voldemort is what made her able to hang on. Yes, they're both drastically different physically (the snake face and the emaciation) and mentally (both shaken, less confident), but everything else can be the same. Maybe better.

But everyone is scared. It's not the same world, where the Death Eaters have control and are undefeated. Voldemort is scared of that boy, Narcissa is scared for Draco. It's clear things are not the same, things are not normal. Far from it. Fear makes Voldemort angry, and cold, and distant and nothing she does feels good enough.

And that boy -- lying hateful filthy boy -- he dares suggest that her Voldemort's filthy-blooded like him. No, he must just be taunting her, scaring her. But there are things Voldemort's said, things he's done -- she would notice, the way she hangs on every word he speaks and plays their conversations in her head over and over again in Azkaban -- Bellatrix just does her best to silence it and block it out, all these confusing things, she's a great Occlumens after all.

She'll make things certain, make things right, trim off the weakness, cut out the sickness. Like Sirius. Like that young woman with Andromeda's face and Andromeda's laugh, that filthy half-blood Andy left her to create.

Narcissa can't keep Draco safe like she, the baby sister, couldn't keep Bellatrix safe. When Voldemort burns the Dark Mark into his skin she sees her son emaciated and dead-eyed.

To assuage Narcissa's fears Bellatrix trains Draco like Voldemort trained her; but he's not the same, he's weak, he's moralistic, he looks at her with wide scared eyes and he's a failure. The glory of the Blacks is gone.

All the while, Narcissa's fear grows, when Lucius is imprisoned, when Voldemort's ire turns on her family, on her son, sets him an impossible task. The despair she feels, she hasn't felt for nearly sixteen years -- Bellatrix more interested in eking out morsels of approval from Voldemort and turning her frustration on Draco, and Narcissa by extension.

All the while, Andromeda's fear for her daughter grows, of the danger she puts herself in as an Auror and a member of the Order, and she's reminded of Bellatrix, of how she gives everything of herself and how Nymphadora does too, begging, begging her to hold back.

She's not good enough for him, not with the sickness, the weakness still clinging to her. Bellatrix very much wants to kill the woman with Andy's face. She's always been perfect. It's everyone else around her that's wrong, everyone else who has to go. She'll do better. Try harder.

And when the Snatchers catch that filthy boy, and he slides out of her grasp like a buttered eel, Bellatrix hits the bottom rung of the ladder of despair. She doesn't know who she is, anymore.

Voldemort's retaliation and rejection breaks Bellatrix's heart, but it hardens Narcissa's.

Bellatrix will do anything to make him happy. She finally kills the witch with Andy's face -- do you see -- do you love me now -- but he's still cold, still frightened, still different, and she despairs, but it will be all over when Harry Potter is dead and he can breathe again. They've won. It will be alright. It will go back to normal. She can have it all again -- Voldemort and Narcissa and her perfect, pruned family.

Narcissa will do anything to keep him safe. And so she chooses Draco's life, she lies, her heart in her throat, in front of her beloved sister, to the Dark Lord, with unshed tears in her eyes and Harry Potter's 'corpse' before her.

Bellatrix's death is something Narcissa knew was coming, deep down She mourned her sister sixteen years ago and she mourns her now, but it will all be worth it if Draco survives this ordeal; Potter must win, he must live, Voldemort must die. And Bellatrix will never allow this.

She wishes she could tell Andy that she understands.

heretical take #1: bellamort is riddled (pun intended) with secrets

Maybe it's because 'the truth will destroy them' is one of my all-time, top ten tropes, but I think Bellamort actually fits this.

While I do enjoy the Gomez/Morticia-esque dynamic they're often characterized with, I think they're not so straightforward as murder wife/husband.

(1) Riddled with secrets

Re: my earlier, slightly-heretical post, bellatrix lestrange is not in love with tom riddle (and she would die of mortification if she found out)' I don't believe that Voldemort's backstory is common knowledge amongst even the inner circle of Death Eaters, and Lucius not reacting when Harry taunts Bellatrix about Voldemort's blood status, imo, is insufficient evidence to suggest otherwise.

Bellatrix (in the Bellamort ship/fandom) is characterized as being a 'he's one of the good ones' type of blood supremacist, which would explain why she would be bigoted againsy even half-bloods yet become Voldemort's follower and lover. What I think this neglects is that both the family Bellatrix was born into (the Blacks) and married into (the Lestranges) are two of the most blood supremacist families. Draco Malfoy, for example, calls Hermione a Mudblood and Ron a poor, but he never insults Harry's blood status. The Blacks and Lestrange are probably second only to the Gaunts in terms of the bigotry, and the Gaunts inbred themselves to death. The Blacks are not far off, with Sirius and Regulus's parents, Orion and Walburga, being cousins.

All this is to say, Bellatrix is more than likely beyond the point of being a 'one of the good ones' type of bigot. She loses her temper at Harry, not because she knows the truth and he hit a nerve, but because the idea of the great Lord Voldemort coming from the same dirty, filthy stock as Harry Potter is, well... heresy.

People who write/meta exclusively about Tom Riddle pre-1970s are often accused of forgetting that he's also Voldemort, which can happen, but I think it's equally common for those to focus on Voldemort during/post-rise to power to forget that he's Tom Riddle.

Therefore, on the other hand, I think it's safe to assume that TMR/LV is keeping secrets from everyone. (ref: my #many faces of tag and many faces of tom riddle masterpost for the extended version of my Tom Riddle hot takes).

The relevant summary is that even as Voldemort, he is extremely insecure and ashamed of his blood status. Voldemort is terrified of dying, and terrified of inadequacy, both of which lead to his inevitable downfall through his fixation on killing Harry. If he values Bellatrix's opinion and wants her to think highly of him (unlike Harry and Peter Pettigrew, whom he tells in the graveyard), he would never, ever, ever tell her his father is a Muggle -- his pride just wouldn't allow him to.

(2) Blood is thin, I guess?

The idea that Bellatrix's love for Voldemort is so powerful it can override her bigotry is romantic, yes, but perhaps a little unfounded based on her other relationships. Although we don't know much about Andromeda, Narcissa and Bellatrix seem close, so it's not a stretch to assume all three sisters are close, too.

(I promise I'm going somewhere with this)

Bellatrix and Andromeda grow up together for >18 years, but their sisterly love cannot survive Andromeda's rejection of blood supremacy, in Bellatrix's eyes, her marriage to a Muggle-born and half-blood child.

At the beginning of Deathly Hallows, at the Death Eater meeting, Voldemort teases (very mean-spiritedly) Narcissa and Bellatrix about (half-blood) Nymphadora's marriage to (half-blood) Remus. Bellatrix is extremely offended by this and eagerly accepts Voldemort's suggestion that she 'prune' her family tree.

You can say that Nymphadora and Andromeda are different people, and they are, but the whole Bellatrix/Nymphadora beef shows that Bellatrix is not influenced by her (once) love for her sister, or least, blood purity is much more important to her.

The elevation of blood purity above family bonds suggests that Bellatrix (a talented Occlumens) is very, very good at compartmentalizing her feelings from the ideology she believes in.

(3) You like me and want to be me so much, it makes you look stupid

The other thing about Bellamort, is why even? Why would Voldemort, who is a character who's depicted to have a, let's say, hard time with love, be romantically or otherwise attracted to someone?

Yes, Bellatrix is smart, and beautiful, and powerful, and from a very established and wealthy wizarding family, but why is Voldemort so impressed by all this?

Sometimes we find people attractive because we want to be them. Not in a Saltburn-esque, drinking bathwater and wearing their skin kind of way, but nonetheless. Bellatrix's circumstances, of being born into a pureblood family and likely having at least a decent childhood, is something Voldemort covets but can never achieve.

For Bellatrix's part, she quite literally worships Voldemort, which is strange, because unlike, say, Pettigrew, obsequiousness does not become her -- when dealing with anyone else, she is always haughty and often belligerent.

All her life, Bellatrix had been taught to believe that people who are not pureblood witches and wizards are far below her, half-bloods included. The fact Tom Riddle was raised as Muggle, no doubt, would also disgust her. Some say that Bellatrix might make an exception for Voldemort because he's powerful, but I doubt it. I think this suggestion neglects that not only is stubbornness one of Bellatrix's key personality traits, but she is one of the most stubborn, hard-headed characters in the whole canon.

Notably, wand stiffness/floppiness is correlated with the mindset of the owner, and Bellatrix's wand is unyielding, just like her. The world bends to her mindset. Not the other way around.

The only way Bellatrix could consider Voldemort worthy of worship is the fact that she thinks he is pureblood. And, in turn, Bellatrix's bloodline is one of Voldemort's favourite things about her.

Why is harry so uninspired most of the time. Literally, the only times he is excited is when quidditch, malfoy or voldemort is mentioned.

I would also like to add something about JKRs jock mentality. Repeatedly in her text, the jocks are celebrated. James potter, sirius, Harry, Cedric, wood etc. Notice the jocks are not nerds as well, except Cedric but he is portrayed as the cool nerd. On the other hand, Neville is kinda mocked for being a nerdy one, Percy is too. So is Hermione, but hers is then glorified for getting good grades. Riddle is needlessly criticised by Dumbledore for being the best in his class during HPB. As if his brilliance was the reason for his going dark. As far as Dumbledore is concerned, he pretty much declared Riddle devil spawn the moment they met at the orphanage. Dumbledore may not be an orphan, but the orphanage is not exactly a nurturing place. It is an asylum and a prison all at the same time. So when riddle steals from his fellow children or scares off the mean ones, he's cruel but also protecting himself. Dumbledore can't understand this. But Harry should. He has been in similar surroundings. But doesn't due to JKRs short understanding of the world.

Anyways back to nerd vs jock mentality. Snape too is mocked for his looks by the jocks who are justified to be the good guys.

In short, I'm seeing a lot of tropes that are not healthy on rereading the series.

I wish I knew, Anon! Truly, I’ve read much more than my fair share of “Harry is Smart” fanfic and while it’s cathartic it never lessens my frustration with canon Harry.

My speculation:

Harry has lived his entire life in an environment that actively stigmatizes learning and his happiness. The Dursley household.

(When Dudley is failing his classes) Uncle Vernon maintained that “he didn’t want some swotty little nancy boy for a son anyway.”

If there have ever been more incurious people on this planet, I am unaware.

Don’t ask questions — that was the first rule for a quiet life with the Dursleys.

They prevent Harry from learning in many ways. The first is this refrain of “don’t ask questions,” instilled from the second chapter of SS. Any academic questions or curiosity would have been stamped out since the Dursleys seem to associate imagination with being “weird” or “out of the ordinary” and in Harry’s case- with magic.

(Vernon) hoping he was imagining things, which he had never hoped before, because he didn’t approve of imagination.

Harry has the capacity to be interested and enthralled with magic (despite never owning a library card), the times when he’s inspired are the ones I enjoy most.

His school books were very interesting. Harry lay in his bed reading late into the night.

Harry can study, but he has been taught not to.

As, the series progresses this becomes less sympathetic. Less understandable.

“We’re not so different, you and I”

A cliché for villains to try and make their bad actions seem less bad? Yes.

Is there any difference between what the Dursley/neighbors would say about Harry vs what Wools would say about Tom?

Both are unreliable narrators- Mrs. Cole is a drunk, and the Dursley’s hate Harry

It soon became clear that Mrs. Cole was no novice when it came to gin drinking. Pouring both of them a generous measure, she drained her own glass in one gulp... (second glass) helping herself to more gin...Mrs. Cole  took another generous gulp of gin... Mrs. Cole helped herself, almost absentmindedly, to another healthy measure of gin... She took yet another gulp of gin and her rosy cheeks grew rosier still... — Mrs. Cole took another swig of gin, slopping a little over her chin this time...  Mrs. Cole had a slight hiccup... She got to her feet, and Harry was impressed to see that she was quite steady, even though two-thirds of the gin was now gone. (of the full bottle Dumbledore conjured)

Tom:

Tom is odd/a funny boy

Tom: “scares the other children.” “You mean he is a bully?” asked Dumbledore.“I think he must be,” said Mrs. Cole, frowning slightly, “but it’s very hard to catch him at it.”

Tom hung Billy Stubbs rabbit from the rafters 

Amy Benson and Dennis Bishop were never quite right afterwards, and all we ever got out of them was that they’d gone into a cave with Tom Riddle. He swore they’d just gone exploring, but something happened in there, I’m sure of it.

“I don’t think many people will be sorry to see the back of him.”

Tom is terrified of being put in an asylum, he’s been told he’s mad (he keeps screaming he’s not mad)

“I knew I was different,” Tom whispered to his own quivering fingers.

Harry: 

Harry is an odd/funny boy- strange things happen around him and he tries to “lie” his way out of them (Ex. when he apparated on top of the school roof and claimed wind blew him there)

Other children are terrified of Harry: “Neighborhood children were terrified of “that Potter boy", who was a hardened hooligan who attended St. Brutus's Secure Center for Incurably Criminal Boys.”

The neighbors think he’s a bully/delinquent:  “Harry preferred Little Whinging by night... he ran no danger of hearing disapproving mutters about his “delinquent” appearance when he passed”

Harry sets a snake on Dudley

Harry delights in tormenting Dudley with “magic” (COS Ch. 1)

The neighbors are happy to have him gone most of the year and to “see the back of him” 

Harry knows he’s different: “The problem was, strange things often happened around Harry” and “strange visions” (turning teachers wig blue, regrowing a shaved head, shrinking a sweater to a hand puppet, apparating, etc…)

“When he had been younger, Harry had dreamed and dreamed of some unknown relation coming to take him away, but it had never happened; the Dursleys were his only family”- I imagine Tom also dreamed the same. 

Harry gets the benefit of the doubt, Dumbledore should have extended that same benefit to Tom Riddle. (Also, setting an 11-year old’s worldly possessions on fire because he might be a bully is insane. That’s Tom’s introduction to magic. A professor bullied him to teach him a lesson about bullying.)

I agree Anon, there are a lot of tropes in HP that deserve criticism. One that frustrates me the most is this sense of- actions matter less than if you are a defined good guy or an explicit bad guy.

(First example that comes to mind) When there’s corruption at the Ministry- the story applauds Arthur Weasley for using his influence and position to get Moody out of Azkaban time for breaking the law, but when Lucius Malfoy uses his influence the narrative leaps forward at this injustice.

The point is that using your influence to corrupt the government is bad. All around. No matter if the character is coded as good or as bad.

Many thanks for the ask, Anon♥️

On the veracity of the Pensieve memories

In the hopes of making the upcoming Slughorn callout post digestible, here's me poking holes in the Pensieve memories beforehand so I can just link to that in the other post.

Theory: memories viewed in a Pensieve can be doctored, and this was done to at least three of the memories of Tom Riddle shown to Harry in Half-Blood Prince

In Half-Blood Prince, the possibility of faking memories is introduced. We are given two examples of this: once, amateurishly by Horace Slughorn in the memory he surrendered to Dumbledore, where his voice rings out clearly with words he never actually said but there's no accompanying image before it suddenly loops back to the dinner party, and then again with Morfin Gaunt's restored memory, where it suddenly fades into nothing because he'd been knocked unconscious.

So far, so good, and while Slughorn did a shit job of doctoring his own memory he did successfully change the sound file, that is, his voice isn't distorted or difficult to recognise, but clearly his own and saying exactly what Horace wishes he'd said.

It's not a far leap to say that given more time and/or skill, Slughorn could have successfully created a visual to go with the sound, as well as kept the memory from looping back.

(I won't get into it in this post, but the doctoring on this memory seems unfinished rather than unskilled, and as I suspect Slughorn's being blackmailed by Dumbledore it could just as well be he had to give up the memory in the same conversation as when Dumbledore requested it. In which case he has minutes, if not seconds, to doctor it.)

All of this to say that I think anyone with the requisite time and skill could doctor a memory so that the people in it looks and sounds as they would naturally, and it will be indistinguishable from a normal memory.

With that, to the doctored memories we go.

The Hepzibah Smith memory

The memory of Hepzibah Smith is her house elf's memory. Hokey sees Tom Riddle into the flat, immediately leaves for the kitchen, Tom gives Smith flowers, Hokey returns, we get the rest of the conversation.

He picked his way through the cramped room with an air that showed he had visited many times before and bowed low over Hepzibah’s fat little hand, brushing it with his lips.

“I brought you flowers,” he said quietly, producing a bunch of roses from nowhere.

“You naughty boy, you shouldn’t have!” squealed old Hepzibah, though Harry noticed that she had an empty vase standing ready on the nearest little table. “You do spoil this old lady, Tom... Sit down, sit down... Where’s Hokey? Ah... ”

The house-elf had come dashing back into the room carrying a tray of little cakes, which she set at her mistress’s elbow.

“Help yourself, Tom,” said Hepzibah, “I know how you love my cakes. Now, how are you? You look pale. They overwork you at that shop, I’ve said it a hundred times... ”

Voldemort smiled mechanically and Hepzibah simpered.

“Well, what’s your excuse for visiting this time?” she asked, batering her lashes.

“Mr. Burke would like to make an improved offer for the goblin-made armor,” said Voldemort. “Five hundred Galleons, he feels it is a more than fair — ” (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, page 287)

Notably, for the duration of the conversation Tom is very professional and doesn't return any of Smith's flirtations. She flirts, he retorts with some variation of "please let me do my job :/", she flirts some more:

“Oh, Mr. Burke, phooey!” said Hepzibah, waving a little hand. “I’ve something to show you that I’ve never shown Mr. Burke! Can you keep a secret, Tom? Will you promise you won’t tell Mr. Burke I’ve got it? He’d never let me rest if he knew I’d shown it to you, and I’m not selling, not to Burke, not to anyone! But you, Tom, you’ll appreciate it for its history, not how many Galleons you can get for it.” “I’d be glad to see anything Miss Hepzibah shows me,” said Voldemort quietly, and Hepzibah gave another girlish giggle.

My issue with this one is really quite obvious.

The only time Tom is remotely flirtatious is when he gives he the flowers. Not just any flowers, mind you, a "bunch of roses". The flowers are then never mentioned again.

Coincidentally, the flowers happened when Hokey wasn't in the room.

I don't think the flowers happened. I think when Hokey leaves the room Dumbledore finds himself staring at a memory of Hokey putting cakes on a tray, and rather than watch this boring action he fills the hole of what was happening with Tom and Smith in the next room.

The job interview memory

For those who don't remember, Dumbledore shows Harry a memory of the time Tom Riddle came to do a job interview. Dumbledore never intended to give him the job, his interest was in speaking with Tom to see what had become of him.

They have a tense conversation where Tom dismisses the rumors Dumbledore heard about him being some kind of horrible dark wizard as untrue, Dumbledore retorts that he knows about the unsavoury company Tom keeps, the conversation gets to a point where Tom realizes this isn't a job interview, at which point he leaves.

For the duration of this conversation Tom is rocking a hot snake face, if the memory is to be believed. Like Hebzibah's flowers this is never brought up, however, not by Dumbledore who keeps poking holes in Tom's "I'm a normal citizen you can trust with the students" talk and Tom came in expecting to be a convincing non-dark wizard.

Could be Dumbledore's being very polite and Tom didn't care what he thought (if we go by the theory that Tom wasn't serious about getting a job, which I think he was but that's beside the point), this is what I assumed first time I read the book.

The description of Tom, however, is... interesting.

Harry let out a hastily stifled gasp. Voldemort had entered the room. His features were not those Harry had seen emerge from the great stone cauldron almost two years ago: They were not as snake-like, the eyes were not yet scarlet, the face not yet masklike, and yet he was no longer handsome Tom Riddle. It was as though his features had been burned and blurred; they were waxy and oddly distorted, and the whites of the eyes now had a permanently bloody look, though the pupils were not yet the slits that Harry knew they would become. He was wearing a long black cloak, and his face was as pale as the snow glistening on his shoulders. (Half-Blood Prince, page 291)

Two things stand out to me here.

One: The description itself. Harry uses the words blurred and distorted to describe Tom's features. Tom's face is completely white, not just pale but actual absence-of-color white. The skin itself looks waxy, which could mean unhealthy, could also mean light is reflecting off his face in a way that's not quite right.

Almost as if someone put Tom's face through a blender until he looked appropriately dark artsified.

Two: you'll have to agree with me on previous posts for this one, but I don't think the resurrection body was a continuation of Tom's physical deterioration. I think that body was its own thing, a homunculus created without a drop of Tom Riddle's DNA in it and to serve a very particular purpose. There is no reason for it to be a continuation of his previous form, and yet according to this memory it is.

Blurred features and uncanny valley, I think Dumbledore doctored Tom's appearance in this memory.

The Slughorn memory (Harry's retrieved edition)

I think the entire conversation between Tom and Slughorn is fake.

One reason for this is the way Slughorn protected that memory, his word choice- "I'm not proud of what I did", "I am ashamed of what that memory shows", "I think I may have done great damage that day", none of which fits with what turns out to be Slughorn giving Tom information he could easily have found in the restricted section (and which Ron, Harry, and Hermione read about in Deathly Hallows) and then admonishing him when Tom asks about making several horcruxes.

The other reason is Tom's behavior.

Every time we see him Tom Riddle is very sure of himself, very eloquent and charismatic. No matter the situation, whether he's draining Ginny of her life in the Chamber of Secrets, trying to get Armando Dippet to let him stay at Hogwarts over Summer, or bartering with Hebzibah Smith, Tom speaks well for himself.

Cut to the Slughorn memory, and the man can barely make it through a sentence.

“But you obviously know all about them, sir? I mean, a wizard like you — sorry, I mean, if you can’t tell me, obviously — I just knew if anyone could tell me, you could— so I just thought I’d–”

(...)

“Yes, sir,” said Riddle. “What I don’t understand, though — just out of curiosity — I mean, would one Horcrux be much use? Can you only split your soul once? Wouldn’t it be better, make you stronger, to have your soul in more pieces, I mean, for instance, isn’t seven the most powerfully magical number, wouldn’t seven — ?”

Half-Blood Prince, page 327-328

Jesus, Tom.

Now, Harry thinks he's watching a master manipulator at work, but... god, sorry, Harry, I don't agree. Tom suddenly has a completely different speech pattern and personality, and I would understand if he's acting except we've seen him with Armando Dippet, Slughorn (in the first part of this memory), and Hepzibah Smith, and each of those times he was cool as a cucumber. The most flustered I recall him getting is when Dippet asks about his background, but he answers the question easily and succinctly.

Now, this is for the other post since it's a massive claim but my belief is that Slughorn made a move on Tom in this memory. It explains the way he protected and spoke of this memory and Tom behaving so unlike himself, and Tom and Slughorn having had a falling out explains why Tom ended up working as a clerk in Knockturn Alley (I don't think that was the dream) after graduating, when he'd been the number one member of a club that existed to boost careers.

I believe Dumbledore manipulated this memory so that Harry would have a memory confirming the horcruxes, since he very much needed Harry to go out and destroy those things. And so we're left with this ridiculous memory instead. The alternative, "Ope, turns out Voldemort got SA'd by our potions professor. Well, Harry, hope you're still down for destroying some ancient artefacts to kill him!" wouldn't have gone down quite as well.

I... think that's all.

hey, I’ve noticed you don’t have anything romantically for harry (and I’m a harry defender cause he’s underrated in his own movie, I love harry) SO harry x fem!reader fluffy oneshot (it can be 5th or 6th year you choose) just cuddling in the common room together being all cute yk kisses falling asleep together,etc so basically pure fluff. don’t feel pressured tho, if you don’t want to do this then don’t and I’ll understand. have a good day/night <3

t w i t t e r p a t e d

fandom- harry potter

pairing(s)-harry potter

a/n: so im gonna be honest, i did not love harry in his movies but the book owns my heart. its just that everything that has made him who he is just washed away in the screen time, but im going to try my best to deliver and tysm for requesting, it absolutley made my day. and i just wanna apologize why it took so long, there are hundreds of requests and im swamped but im really trying, i promise requests are open luv, tiya

requested- yes

warnings- tooth rotting fluff, finally proof read, a very soft harry

"darlin quit movin"

he was given a snicker for a response, a one that did'nt sound much like you at all

he opened an eye to see Fred Weasley cuddling up to him while his twin and Lee Jordan enjoying the sight with his girlfriend.

"can i get a kiss first arry?" fred droned leaving you tryin you to muffle your giggles.

harry rolled him of the sofa he was napping with and beckoned you to come back with an outstretched arm as he straightened himself.

"hoi"

"hi yourself"

he pulled you in gently by the hem of your skirt. your torso was lined to his face as his hands embraced the behind of your thighs, shoving his face into your white shirt.

"lets leave lover boy alone for a while, i need someone who reacts to tormentation." remarked George in what he disguised his sympathy for boredom of playing with the lot of you.

"call me tonight baby" winked Fred signaling to harry on his way out to the kitchens

the common room was almost empty when he pulled you on top of him, pushing your shoes off. you were upright on his abdomen as he helped you remove your robe.

you comfortably find yourself entangled to him as he peppered kisses from your shoulder to neck

externally, you've done this rodeo before, but internally you were screaming.

and he had the sweetest smile plastered on his lips

for when you saw him

for when you glanced at him, you fell in love

and he smiled because he knew

This is a great analysis!

I would like to add that the first two or three books really are children of their time. They belong to a very specific kind of children's literature that was still popular when they got published. In this type of literature, violence and abuse get exaggerated. The goal is to make them absurd and hilarious instead of serious and disturbing.

So the violence the Dursleys commit against Harry is basically supposed to cross the line twice. The Dursleys cross the line the first time, because they abuse him. But then their methods are so exaggerated, that the whole thing loops back around and crosses the line again. The scene with the frying pan and the cat flap aren't supposed to be taken literally. They are on the books to take off the edge of abuse.

I think a big factor in this, that the early books were written in the 1990s, when corporal punishment of children by their parents/guardians was legal and normalized. No, FUCK THAT, it's still legal and normalized in England to this day. And it is also legal in way to many other countries, too. (My country started to prohibit it in the 1980s, but they had to rework the law to include all forms of corporal punishment. And then they had to rework it again, to drive home the point that No, it's not legal for you to hit your kids. No, not even if you only hit them a little bit. What part of No do you not understand?!)

So, a lot of readers grew up in an environment, where they themselves were hit by their caregivers and where this form of punishment was considered to be normal. Including Rowling herself. So she needed a way to show that the abuse Harry suffered, exceeded the abuse that was considered normal and socially acceptable, back then. That's where stuff like the frying pan and the barred window come in. It shows that the abuse exceeds the societal limits, without scaring the target audience and without being "too close to home".

I think that's the mistake some fanfic writers do, when they try to portray the abuse Harry suffered as realistic. If one wanted to portray this in a more realistic manner, the abuse would need to be toned down, not dialed up even more. (Because the abuse is already horrible in an absurd kind of way. Making it even worse doesn't make it more realistic. Often, it makes it even more absurd instead.)

That said, I'm personally not very happy about how the books handled abuse. The absurd punishments the Dursleys dish out in the first books may fit the genre, but they really clash with the more serious, less whimsical tone of the later books.

What irks me more, is the parentification (if you can call it that, in Harry's case, because they didn't treat him like an additional parent, but more like a servant), so him being forced to cook and clean for them.* Because that shit isn't dealt up to eleven, but portrayed pretty realistic instead. I have the feeling that this is caused by Rowling not really understanding non-physical forms of abuse. Because, let's face it, the Weasleys were parentifying their kids, too, but it isn't portrayed as bad in their case.

(* I do agree that this is a rather recent development, especially the cooking. You just can't expect a young child to cook meals, without them burning the food, burning themselves and/or burning the house down. The daughter of a colleague of mine almost managed to do the latter with a couple of ready-made hotdogs and a microwave. And she was eight at the time.)

how bad do you think Harry's abuse was? like, okay we all know he was neglected his entire childhood. Do you think he really didn't know his name until he went to school? That he was forced to help around the house the moment he could walk? He prob also didn't know his birthday at some point :(( I love him so much, i want to throttle the dursleys

I mean, just from his behavior I feel like it was pretty bad. I talked about it a bit before and he's very aware he is being mistreated. Harry literally makes a joke about Vernon beating him:

“You don’t seem to need many qualifications to liaise with Muggles. . . . All they want is an O.W.L. in Muggle Studies. . . . ‘Much more important is your enthusiasm, patience, and a good sense of fun!’ ” “You’d need more than a good sense of fun to liaise with my uncle,” said Harry darkly. “Good sense of when to duck, more like . . .”

(OOTP, 657)

As for the abuse itself:

Dudley and his friends beat him often. As mentioned repeatedly.

He slept in a cupboard under the stairs until the Dursleys thought someone else might notice. Only when they got the Hogwarts letter that mentioned the cupboard did they move Harry to Dudley's second bedroom. (The title of the room itself and where Harry was sleeping show how much of an afterthought he was).

The house had no pictures of him, no belongings, no sign Harry lived there, he only got Dudley's cast-offs.

So, yeah, it's definitely neglectful to an insane degree.

As for the more fanon portrayals of the Dursleys' abuse.

They did starve him as a form of punishment:

Uncle Vernon waited until Piers was safely out of the house before starting on Harry. He was so angry he could hardly speak. He managed to say, “Go — cupboard — stay — no meals,” before he collapsed into a chair, and Aunt Petunia had to run and get him a large brandy.

(PS, 23)

And Harry didn't get much food at the Dursleys in general:

This was their encounter with the fact that a full stomach meant good spirits; an empty one, bickering and gloom. Harry was least surprised by this, because he had suffered periods of near starvation at the Dursleys.

(DH, 250)

But he did get to eat with them at the table when he wasn't being punished, seen with Aunt Marge, and when the Dursleys didn't have guests:

Harry, who could see a huge Dudley tantrum coming on, began wolfing down his bacon as fast as possible in case Dudley turned the table over.

(PS, 19)

That being said, Harry seems to be punished at the Dursleys pretty often. (Although, Harry considers sitting with them at the table punishment enough)

So the fanon portrayal of getting locked in the cupboard/his room with no food for who knows how long (or just, not enough food, like in CoS when he shared a canned meal with Hedwig) is actually canon.

He gets physically abused by Dudley, but also by Vernon and Petunia. We saw Petunia try to hit him with a frying pan.

Aunt Petunia knew he hadn’t really done magic, but he still had to duck as she aimed a heavy blow at his head with the soapy frying pan. Then she gave him work to do, with the promise he wouldn’t eat again until he’d finished.

(CoS, 17)

The above qoute mentions how he was forced to do chores with the threat of no food until he's done with his chores. So, yes, he was forced to work at the Dursleys. Another quote indicating he had plenty of practice cleaning over at the Dursleys:

“Filch’ll have me there all night,” said Ron heavily. “No magic! There must be about a hundred cups in that room. I’m no good at Muggle cleaning.” “I’d swap anytime,” said Harry hollowly. “I’ve had loads of practice with the Dursleys. Answering Lockhart’s fan mail . . . he’ll be a nightmare. . . .”

(CoS, 114)

That being said, we see Petunia cooking more often than Harry, and she's also mentioned cleaning on occasion:

At last, at long last, the final evening of Marge’s stay arrived. Aunt Petunia cooked a fancy dinner and Uncle Vernon uncorked several bottles of wine.

(PoA, 26)

“Right — I’m off into town to pick up the dinner jackets for Dudley and me. And you,” he snarled at Harry. “You stay out of your aunt’s way while she’s cleaning.”

(CoS, 14)

I think he wasn't constantly worked like a house elf the way the fandom sometimes portrays it. He was made to clean often enough but he didn't cook that often. The breakfast in PS is likely more of an exception than the norm as whenever any fancy dinner, like with Marge or the Masons, it's always Petunia cooking it, not Harry. So, I don't think Harry cooked or cleaned for them since he could walk, I mean Petunia is a perfectionist about how her house looks, so she wouldn't let a small child who'd do a subpar work do it.

But he was definitely put to work as either punishment or when the Dursleys wanted him occupied. And considering he mentions "plenty of practice" when he's 12 and he spent the last two years at Hogwarts, he likely started doing chores earlier than that, but old enough to use a mop properly. So, I'd guess he started helping to clean the house around the time he was 6 or 7 years old, and started cooking on occasion only very recently before the books start in all likelihood.

The really shitty thing about all his chores is that Dudley isn't doing anything and it's just Harry. This difference is one Harry was always aware of and considers unfair, because it is incredibly unfair. The fact he is forced to do work and gets punished when the other child in the house doesn't adds to the sense of worthlessness the Dursleys already make Harry feel.

Uncle Vernon in general is pretty violent towards Harry, shown in the first quote in this post and in others:

Harry ran down the stairs two at a time, coming to an abrupt halt several steps from the bottom, as long experience had taught him to remain out of arm’s reach of his uncle whenever possible.

(HBP, 45)

I wanted to add the imprisonment in CoS, because the treatment is truly subhuman:

The following morning, he paid a man to fit bars on Harry’s window. He himself fitted a cat-flap in the bedroom door, so that small amounts of food could be pushed inside three times a day. They let Harry out to use the bathroom morning and evening. Otherwise, he was locked in his room around the clock.

(CoS, 28)

They treat him like an actual prisoner. They let him out to the bathroom twice a day! Like WTF! This is so not okay I don't have words.

As for not calling him by his name...

“We could phone Marge,” Uncle Vernon suggested. “Don’t be silly, Vernon, she hates the boy.” The Dursleys often spoke about Harry like this, as though he wasn’t there — or rather, as though he was something very nasty that couldn’t understand them, like a slug.

(PS, 19)

They usually refer to Harry simply as "boy" or "the boy", they also use "you" when talking to him or "him" about him, but not his name, except one time in PS when Vernon is faking being nice:

“Er — yes, Harry — about this cupboard. Your aunt and I have been thinking…you’re really getting a bit big for it…we think it might be nice if you moved into Dudley’s second bedroom.

(PS, 30)

Considering how Harry mentions they often don't speak to him, but at him or about him, definitely suggests they don't use his name often. Vernon seems very odd about using Harry's name, and we see it isn't something common, but it does happen. I think Harry did always know his name though, I'm sure he asked, and regardless of how awful the Dursleys are, Petunia likely told him his name in the same breath she talked about how his father was a drunkard that got both him and Lily killed.

We also know they don't do anything for Harry's birthday, and Harry doesn't think they remember it:

The lighted dial of Dudley’s watch, which was dangling over the edge of the sofa on his fat wrist, told Harry he’d be eleven in ten minutes’ time. He lay and watched his birthday tick nearer, wondering if the Dursleys would remember at all, wondering where the letter writer was now.

(PS, 35)

So, it's very plausible the Dursleys never told Harry when his birthday is and that he had to discover it himself somehow.

TL;DR

Harry's abuse at the Dursleys was awful. It included physical abuse from all three Durslesy and periods of starvation.

He was put to chores like cleaning the house, but it wasn't a constant thing where he worked like a house elf. It actually seems Petunia did most of the cooking.

He probably only started cleaning when he was 6 or 7 at the youngest. And cooking is likely a later development.

Harry was allowed to sit at the table and even watch TV on rare occasions but usually didn't get to choose what to watch. It means Harry should be somewhat aware of muggle pop culture at the time.

Harry, in general, wasn't really treated as human. Not having his name used, only talked at, not having his birthday celebrated, not getting pocket money or anything of his own. Not to mention being forced to sleep in the cupboard or on the floor (in the shack on the sea in PS) and getting his food through a cat flap on his bedroom door like an actual prisoner in CoS.

So, while fanon portrayals make the Dursleys worse than they actually are, they are plenty awful on their own. Believe me, if I could throttle them, I would.

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!

Draco is often described in fics as having been Neville's worst bully but is that actually backed by canon ? This intrepid reporter scoured the books for any and all interactions between the two; the results?

See for yourself:

section A: active bullying

Philosopher's Stone is The Book when it comes to any and all Malfoy-based mistreatments of Neville. In PS we have the following interactions:

1)

Draco is a maladjusted little gremlin who doesn't know how to show curiosity for Neville's remembrall in a healthy manner; I give this a 3/10 on the bully scale

2)

Draco straight up curses Neville (the curse itself is treated as funny, Evil Draco is the evil problem), 8/10

same scene, apparently Draco stopped for a chat amidst all the leg locking; middling attempt, 6/10

3)

Draco delivers a group insult at Harry's second match and includes a Neville section, he did not expect any backtalk; 7/10

4)

off-screen forbidden forest hijinks. Harry considers it a joke, does Draco? Does Neville? not enough info; 5/10

BONUS ROUND

Lastly, I'm going to add this conversation from ootp, :

Draco here is indulging in his favorite pastime, Harry-baiting, and Neville is just a bystander. Draco does not seem to know about Neville's parents and he wasn't the intended target but I give this 10/10 because of the psychic damage it causes.

These are actually all the interactions Neville and Draco have in canon: a whole bunch in book 1 and then nothing. This intrigued me so I went looking for:

section B: Draco talking about Neville (but not to him)

1)

This takes place in book 1, during the remembrall scene. Draco is putting on a performance for his fellow Slytherins but actually concentrates very little on Neville's incident, this is literally all he says about him

2)

This takes place in Half-blood Prince, during the compartment scene (wherein Harry is a nosey nancy). This is the only time Draco talks about Neville with no Gryffindors in sight. He is not performing for an audience, merely having a routine discussion with his friends; this gives us the clearest picture of his actual attitude towards Neville (in one word: dismissive). Neville is mentioned in passing and immediately forgotten.

section B (the other way): Neville talking about Draco

This is from book 5. Draco claimed to know an OWL examiner, Neville shares what he knows. Not even a direct mention.

Again, I expected more. Finally, I checked the text for any neutral interactions between the two that may have happened offscreen, as in: both Draco and Neville were in the same location, information was shared between the two (or, more likely, shared by one of them with a third party and then overheard by the other) and no one ended up maimed or otherwise negatively impacted. This brings us to:

section C: ordinary conversations

1)

Again from book 1. Neville finds out about Norbert and tries to help, no known reaction from Draco

2)

From book 3. Draco was getting ready for his yearly train visit to Harry on the way to Hogwarts and somehow ended up in the general vicinity of Neville.

section D: conclusion

While my first instinct was to assume that the instances of bullying from book 1 would repeat themselves during the following years, it appears that Draco and Neville barely interact with each other from ages 12 onward.

Crabbe and Goyle are actually shown to have a more consistently antagonistic relationship with Neville than Draco does: it's them who Neville ends up fighting in book 1 (during Harry's second quidditch match), it's them who laugh when Snape admonishes him in potions in book 3 (immediately post Buckbeak, Draco is present and does not react to Neville) and finally, it's Crabbe who straight up chokes him in book 5 (in the DA vs inquisitorial squad kerfuffle in Umbridge's office).

One can perhaps assume that Draco's bullying continues as the years go on but goes unnoticed by Harry (our POV in the books) but I don't see this happening for one reason and one reason only: this is not what we observe from Neville's interactions with his actual greatest bully: Snape.

The narrative often makes space for Snape's remarks towards Neville (and their effect on him) regardless of plot relevance and they only increase in frequency as the books progress, so much so that in book 3 he is presented as Neville's greatest fear (by way of boggart).

The bullying somewhat plateaus around book 4 (where we can start seeing a shift in how jkr portrays both of them) and Snape and Neville eventually stop interacting completely after book 5, yet we are still presented with a number of interactions between the two that easily dwarfs Draco and Neville's. If Draco was actually a constant negative presence in Neville's life I'd expect to see a similar pattern and yet there is none.

tldr: Neville and Draco have actually very little to do with each other.

As a little treat, here's the only time Lucius Malfoy talks to Neville

Dude didn't have to roast him so hard, but he did.

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

So, where were we? Right. The Weasleys have so many kids that it fucks with their family dynamic and with the mental health of everyone involved. Last time, we looked at Molly and Arthur during the war. We ended in 1981, which means that all kids are born, now. Molly is still nursing. (It’s common to nurse kids up to two or three years, while slowly weaning them, so I assume that this is what Molly does.) She’s finally done with becoming pregnant every other year, however. And it’s about time, because her workload is bigger, than any single person can handle. And while it will decrease over time, it will stay enormous for the next couple of years.

1982 – Bill (who will be 12 at the end of the year) starts Hogwarts. It’s his first lick of freedom. There is no babysitting-duty at Hogwarts. All he has to do is stay out of trouble and earn good grades. Other than that, he is free to do what he wants. He will be the only Weasley-sibling in Hogwarts for two years. Because of this, his parents probably have enough money in reserve to buy him a full Hogwarts-kit without resorting to second-hand-stuff too much. (He might get second-hand books, but his robes and wand are probably new.)

At home, life is still hard for Molly. She has one less kid to take care of, but the kids who are still in her care are a handful. She still needs to teach Charlie. Percy got 6 over the summer and is a little nerd, so she is likely teaching him, too. Fred and George are still chaos incarnate. (And they are just getting started, really.)

Bill’s duties (chores around the home and watching his younger brothers) get passed down to Charlie. Percy might try his hand on this, too, because he is still in direct competition with the twins and Mum gives him attention when he helps her.

The war is over and the Weasleys start to feel the effects of this. As Death Eaters are captured and sentenced, the Wizarding World starts to feel safe, again. The stress eases off (but Molly is probably still grieving.) 

Arthur’s work schedule slowly goes back to more normal levels, allowing him to spend more time at home. However, he missed out on a big chunk of his children’s childhood. It’s also hard to return to his role as a parent, because at this point, the roles of the family are pretty much established: Molly is in charge and does most of the work. Some of the easier chores are passed down to her kids (first Bill, now Charlie, later Percy). This includes watching over his younger brothers while Molly takes care of her toddlers. It’s kind of hard for him to integrate himself into this dynamic. (Just imagine him doing the laundry or the dishes – it’s very likely that he has a different way for doing this, which could easily disrupt Molly’s workflow or simply just annoy her.) 

I think he will mostly stick to the stuff he did when Bill and Charlie were little. So he’s taking his kids out for trips on the weekends. But this is difficult, too, because it’s not Bill and Charlie anymore, but Charlie, Percy, Fred and George. Their dynamic is entirely different, and it’s hard to keep an eye on all of them, while also satisfying their needs equally. (Especially because Percy, Fred and George start to clash.) As a result, the trips are probably not as frequent as they once were.

It’s also possible that Arthur picks up his Muggle-hobby at this point. (Picking up this hobby causes him to spend at least some evenings in his shed, tinkering with Muggle-stuff instead of helping his wife. I imagine him to fade into the background a little bit, while he leaves the household and child-rearing to his wife.)

1984 – Charlie starts Hogwarts.

There are now two Weasley-Siblings at Hogwarts, but things are still pretty chill for them. It’s still just Bill and Charlie, after all. Bill is probably considered trustworthy enough by his teachers to receive a time-turner, so he can take all electives Hogwarts has to offer. (I do wonder how much Molly’s expectations are playing into this. She clearly expects her children to do well at Hogwarts, both in terms of grades and behavior. At this point, he is either a massive nerd like Hermione, trying to perform well to fulfill his mother’s expectations, or both. He is also setting a standard for his siblings here, whether this is on his own accord or because of pressure he receives from Molly.)

At home, Percy (now 8) takes over Charlie’s duties. He tries to control Fred and George. It’s likely that he fails miserably. They are just too close age-wise for this to work. 

Fred and George are 6 now and start to play rough. Last year, Fred turned Ron’s teddy bear into a giant spider (which probably caused Ron to develop arachnophobia). Next year, they will try to talk Ron into making an Unbreakable Vow with them. So keeping an eye on them is getting harder, not easier.

At this point in time, Scabbers exceeds the life span of his species. Rats can get up to two or three years old. (And Rowling knows this. This information is included in book 3, when Ron takes Scabbers to the pet store to have the witch there check on him.) This is Scabbers third year with the Weasleys, so his time is up. No one seems to notice, though. I don’t blame Percy (or the other kids) for this, but Molly and Arthur should notice that they don’t have to replace a rat or have a talk about how Scabbers is happier in the great rat heaven. They don’t and I wonder why. My suggestions are: a) They are either not paying any attention to Percy and his pet (which would suck) or b) Scabbers is turning into Peter and uses a wand (his own or Molly’s) to confund them as needed (which would suck even more).

1987 – Percy starts Hogwarts.

At the end of the 1986/87 school year, Bill (who is a prefect now) takes his OWL in all 12 courses Hogwarts has to offer. It’s possible he returns his time turner after this or keeps it until his graduation to deal with his NEWT-workload. He now starts his sixth year. Charlie is in his fourth year and is already on the Quidditch team. Molly is very, very proud of both of them.

Percy is a wee first year and doesn’t have to watch out for any younger siblings for once. He can focus on learning instead. He is probably the first boy in the family to end up with hand-me-down robes, as he has a similar build as Bill and Bill has probably outgrown his first set.

Scabbers is six, now. So he has lived twice as long as a normal rat would. Still, no one has caught up to the fact that he is awfully old for a rat. It’s very likely that he accompanies Percy to Hogwarts. (It should be noted that Hogwarts only allows cats, owls and toads as pets, so Percy probably got a permission to bring a rat instead. However, no one at the school notices Scabber’s age either.)

Life at home is still chaotic. Fred and George are 10, Ron is 8 and Ginny is 7. Molly is probably teaching all of them. Her workload is slowly going down to a more manageable level, but keeping the twins in check is still a challenge.

She probably doesn’t expect Fred and George to do chores and watch over their siblings. (At least not in the same way she expected from her older kids.) Mostly, because she can’t trust them to do it. (Remember the Unbreakable Vow? Yeah, that.) Additionally, Ron simply has no authority over them, so that’s not an option either.

1989 – Fred and George start Hogwarts.

In his seventh year, Bill was made Head Boy. By now, he took his NEWTs and left school. He probably returns home for a little while, before he takes the first chance he gets to fuck off to Egypt and play with cursed tombs. (We should probably talk about English wizards, Egyptian treasures and colonialism here, but that’s a completely different can of worms.)

Charlie took his OWL and is now in his sixth year. He’s still on the Quidditch team and should be Quidditch Captain by now. He’s also a prefect. So between them, they got all the big achievements Hogwarts has to offer: Prefect (both of them), Head Boy (Bill) and Quidditch Captain (Charlie). Bill also got 12 OWL, which is an achievement on its own. Molly will measure her other children against this later.

Speaking of Molly: While her home life is going to relax a lot this year, her expectations are still around. She is still expecting her kids to do well in school. Considering that Fred and George are now at Hogwarts, the old demand “Watch over your younger siblings!” is back and in full swing. I can’t see Charlie doing it – he has his head full of dragons and Quidditch and lived five blissful years in Hogwarts without the need to look after anyone all that much. Sure, Percy was at school, but he has already learned to look after himself. I don’t think Charlie will start with this now. Not unless the twins interfere with his prefect- or Quidditch-duties or are completely out of line.

Percy is a different story, however. He is in his third year and still taking after Bill. Just like Bill he takes all electives, so it is likely that he also gets a time turner for this. At this point, Percy has ingrained the idea that he needs to perform exceptionally well at school and Bill set an incredible high bar to reach, but he is willing to do just that. He also spent a lot more time at home dealing with the twins. Molly’s expectations for him to be a good boy and to look after his younger brothers will now put pressure on him again. He will probably try to control their chaotic behavior, but they are 11 now, and they will listen to him even less than before.

For Fred and George, this is heaven. They finally escaped the watchful eyes of their mother and have a whole new world to explore. So many secret passageways and even more victims to play pranks on. Percy is annoying, but they can play pranks on him, too. They will soon steal the Marauder’s Map from Filch’s office, which will open up even more possibilities. It’s great. 10/10, no notes.

Life at home is finally manageable. It’s just Molly, Ron and Ginny (and also Arthur and his Muggle-stuff). This is probably a nice time for Ron, because there are no older siblings around to steal his limelight. However, at this point he has the family dynamic internalized and his self-esteem is pretty low overall.

1991 – Ron starts Hogwarts.

By now, Charlie has left Hogwarts. It is unlikely that he actually finished his education, however. When Harry becomes a member of the Gryffindor team in Philosopher’s Stone, Fred says: “We haven’t won since Charlie left, but this year’s team is going to be brilliant.” Had Charlie finished his education, he would have left in summer 1991. The quote is from autumn 1991. In this case, the quote would make no sense, because there were no matches for Gryffindor to lose between Charlie leaving and Harry becoming Gryffindor’s new seeker. So he must have left before then, probably sometime in his sixth or seventh year, after his seventeenth birthday.

It’s important to note that we don’t read about any fights over this. I can’t imagine Molly being happy with this, but he must have had her permission. (Otherwise we would know about it. Molly can’t shut up about the failures of the twins, she would not shut up about Charlie’s failures either.)

Percy is in his fifth year and a prefect. By now he is the career-driven rules lawyer we meet in canon. He will end this school year by taking all 12 OWL – just like Bill. (When Ron is made prefect in OotP, Molly makes sure to tell everyone that he is now a prefect, just like his older brothers, and she seems very comfortable doing so. I assume, Percy heard his fair share of this, when he was made prefect.)

The twins are in their third year and members of Gryffindor’s Quidditch team. By now, they have earned themselves a reputation as pranksters.

Ron is the sixth Weasley-kid to enter Hogwarts. While his older siblings might have gotten some second-hand stuff, everything he owns was basically handed down to him: Bill’s old robes, Charlie’s old wand and Percy’s old pet rat. To be clear: none of those things make much sense to hand down (or at least not to Ron).

Bill’s old robes should have gone to Percy after Bill left Hogwarts. They should be of a similar height, while Ron (as an eleven-year-old) should be somewhat smaller. Instead of handling it that way, Percy got new robes as a reward and Bill’s robes were handed down to Ron. This is clear favoritism on Molly’s part. It’s no surprise that Ron (who already feels overlooked by his parents) feels upset about it.

Giving him Charlie’s old wand makes even less sense. We know, that the wand chooses its wizard. Charlie’s wand did not choose Ron, so it would not perform as well for him. In addition, in book 1 the wand is described as follows: “He rummaged around in his trunk and pulled out a very battered-looking wand. It was chipped in places and something white was glinting at the end.”

That thing is basically falling apart. That was either a lot of wear and tear during Charlie’s time at Hogwarts (considering the fact that we have not heard anything about this with other wands, this is unlikely) or the wand was already a hand-me-down when Charlie got it. In either case, giving Ron a wand that has its core more or less poking out, doesn’t sound very safe. I wonder why Arthur and Molly decided to do this. Did they expect Ron to have a great learning experience with a damaged wand? Did they want Ron to use the wand until it eventually did break, saving them another year or two before they had to buy a new one? (And yes, they would indeed need to buy him a new one in his third year, but they had no way of knowing that. Unless there are prophecies for that kind of shit. And even then. The fuck?)

Money is tight, of course. But is it really that tight? They could afford to get Percy an owl, after all. And buying a wand for their son is an expense they've had 11 years to plan. I understand getting second-hand robes and cauldrons, as they see a lot of wear and tear. But this should not apply to a wand in the same way. This is just really, really odd.

And then there is the elephant – and with elephant I mean rat – in the room: Scabbers. Firstly, that rat should be dead for at least seven years by now. No one seems to notice. No one cares. What the fuck.

Secondly, why is Percy giving his pet to Ron? There just isn’t a great explanation for this. Scabbers has been his pet for ten years. TEN. Percy should be attached to his pet like glue. After all, he has Scabbers since he can remember. Why is he willing to part with his rat? The only reasons I can think of:

1) He does it because Molly asks him to. She is clearly playing favorites, here. Not only does he get new robes when he becomes prefect, but he also receives his very own owl as a gift. It’s possible that this owl comes with strings attached, and Percy is required to give Scabbers to Ron to get the owl. Which would be a pretty fucked up situation for every child involved and should’ve been handled differently.

2) Percy wants to get rid of Scabbers. He doesn’t know about Scabbers’ Peter-shaped secret, of course (otherwise he would’ve reported this). But it is possible that he feels, on a subconscious level, that something about Scabbers is off. Not in a dangerous way (again, he would’ve reported this), just in an unpleasant way. (This would still be odd. Especially when we consider that no one noticed Scabbers age.)

3) Scabbers has decided that it’s time to jump ship. Percy just turned fifteen this year. He is old enough to grow suspicious of his seemingly immortal rat. It’s possible that he cozied up to Ron to manipulate both boys into making the switch. Or he turned into Peter and confunded some Weasleys. Who knows. He’s still a Death Eater and mass murderer on the run, after all.

1992 – Ginny starts Hogwarts.

The flock has left the nest. Molly’s work is mostly over. It’s just her and Arthur who stay at the burrow. She still takes care of the household, but the responsibility for her kids rest on other people’s shoulders, now. There is nothing left to do, except knitting, sending care packages, worrying about her kids careers and hexing the occasional howler. Molly could get a job now or pick up a hobby or two. I mean, she does read Gilderoy Lockhart’s shitty books. She is a fan of his, after all. But she doesn’t seem to enter any community over this (no fan club, no reading circle, no nothing. It’s just her). And there are no other hobbies outside of that. 

Apropos community: We don’t really see her having a community. She is a pretty important side character, but the books never mention that she has friends or other contacts outside her family. It seems like she is focusing on her kids and only on her kids.

Which would explain her meddling. Because Molly meddles a lot, when it comes to her kids and their futures. She keeps putting pressure on Percy to look after his younger siblings – this will expand to Harry after she gets to know him. Percy (still a good boy) does as she wishes. It’s not healthy, neither for him nor for his relationship with his siblings (who are mostly annoyed by him), but Molly either doesn’t notice or doesn’t care. In the future, she will be very cross with Hermione after reading Rita Skeeters articles about her. She will also be upset about the twins' career choice and Bill's choice of girlfriend…

And yeah, that’s basically it. At this point, the family dynamic is firmly established and ingrained in her children’s heads. Percy is already set up to explode in the near future. Being Molly’s Golden Child is neither good nor healthy, especially considering all the pressure that comes along with it. His relationship with his siblings isn’t all that great, either.

Fun fact: We don’t know if anyone ever told him about Scabbers’ Peter-shaped secret. If it did happen, it was probably pretty traumatic. That shit-show was his pet for ten fucking years and he handed it down to his younger brother. That’s nightmare fuel, even if Peter never hurt any of them.

The twins have firmly established themselves as troublemakers. At least some of their “jokes” really aren’t funny and border on cruel, neglectful and/or harmful. (Remember the Unbreakable Vow? Yeah, still not funny. In 1993, they also tried to lock Percy in a pyramid. Yes, I don’t think they wanted to hurt him, not really, but that thing was still a cursed tomb. Things could have gone wrong, and at that point they were old enough to know better. In their last year they tested their joke-sweets on younger students who were neither adequately informed nor old enough to consent for something like this. Yes, they tested the sweets on themselves first, but something could still have gone wrong because of allergies and all that stuff. And after they left Hogwarts and started their joke shop, they do sell love potions to students, complete with options to smuggle that shit into school. Additionally, instead of going bad/losing their potency, those love potions get stronger with age. This alone is a horror story waiting to happen.)

Ron is affected, too. His self-esteem is pretty low when he starts Hogwarts and it will stay that way throughout the series. This will inform a lot of his decisions (especially the bad ones) in the future. 

We don’t know much about how all of this affected Bill, Charlie and Ginny. Bill and Charlie just aren’t as involved in the narrative, and Ginny stays kind of… bland and love interest-ish… throughout the story.

So… yeah?

Am I saying that the Weasleys did not love their kids? No, of course not. Especially Molly shows her love regularly. (Her love is more like a water hose than a watering can, however. Very intense and focussed on a single spot at a time, instead of reaching all her kids equally.)

What I am saying is that the Weasleys, as a family, are pretty dysfunctional. Many factors are playing into this – Molly’s and Arthur’s dynamic as a couple and as parents, the number of their kids, the war, etc. It’s impacting all of them negatively. Molly is stressed out, Arthur is out of touch and some of their kids lose their trust (either in their parents, in their siblings or in themselves.) It also makes their love feel conditional. The twins feel this whenever Molly is comparing them with their older (more well-behaved) brothers. Percy feels this when he comes home with that promotion and is demoted from Golden Child to family-traitor within a heartbeat. Ron has internalized it and desperately seeks attention and affection elsewhere.

They still love each other, but it’s a difficult position to be in for most of them.

And the worst thing: I don’t think Rowling notices any of this. She did not intend the family to be as dysfunctional as it is. She keeps portraying the Weasleys as this great, loving family who took Harry in when he needed it the most. And of course they did – but that’s not all there is to it. There are so many issues that go unresolved in the books. Molly never learns to back off. The responsibility for the conflict between Arthur and Percy is placed entirely on Percy, despite Arthur being at fault, too. The twins never really learn that a prank can go too far. Ron doesn’t really solve his self-esteem-issues. Rowling does start to give him some character development regarding his self-esteem-issues multiple times, but he always seems to revert back over the course of the summer holidays. 

The family really deserved more effort to go into the writing.

Note: This analysis is not meant to say that stay-at-home parents are bad or that Molly should have gotten a job while having seven little kids at home. What I am criticizing is the way we treat care work. Because it is work, and a lot of work. A stay-at-home parent is often on call 24/7. A stay-at-home parent never really gets to take a break, never can take a day off, and never just can leave their work for another day. But they do deserve breaks and days off, just like any person with a day job. And that is where their partners and the rest of their families come in.

And this is the other thing I wanted to criticize here: The way we glorify living as a nuclear family. It’s said that you need a village to raise a kid and I do think this is true. Having more people involved in child-rearing (be it relatives, neighbors or professionals like teachers) is a boon. Families had access to this for millennia. Raising your kids with the help of your family and your village was normal, up until very recently. And it’s a shame that the Weasleys seemingly had no help like this. And yes, I do see the fault with Rowling, who wrote them that way. She basically took the concept of the nuclear families of the 1980s and 1990s and slapped it onto the family, without any world building at all.

(Please also note, that I consider stay-at-home parents to be different from tradwives. When I use the term “tradwife”, I am specifically referring to stay-at-home mothers who do not just take care of their household and their kids, but who also commit themselves to having as many kids as possible and who tend to take on other duties (like homeschooling) as well. The most common examples of this are probably families who belong to fundamentalist Christian churches or cults.)

So, picture this:

Here I am, sat in an internet-less room, twiddling my thumbs and waiting for time to crawl ever so slowly by. For lack of a better alternative, I start flipping through the pages of Chamber of Secrets and I notice A Thing.

"My, how peculiar" I say to myself, fully intending to let The Thing be, but alas; time moves slowly, boredom persists and, not unlike the tell-tale heart, The Thing calls to me.

"Come," it beckons, "notice me further". "Compile some data" it begs, "that's surely the most productive way to pass the time"; like a moth to a flame, I am caught.

This, dear reader, is how I found myself tallying all the different ways the word "mudblood" is used in canon. So gird your loins and let me introduce you to

The Mudblood Chronicles, or what's in a name?

part 1: methodology

Since the purpose of this exercise is to analyse the use of the term "mudblood" as a slur, I'm not going to count the times in which the word is not being used with malicious intent. Throughout the books this happens on several occasions, those being:

during the course of the narration (it happens once in the context of "everyone present knew mudblood was a very offensive term")

when Harry uses the term, since it only happens when he either recalls someone else saying it (one time with Draco and once with Snape) or he's forbidding Kreacher from using it (twice).

when Ron uses it; it happens once to explain the slur's meaning and once (in conjunction with Ginny) to demand Kreacher stop using the term.

when someone is quoting themselves. Draco quotes himself to Dumbledore once ("you care about me saying mudblood when I'm about to kill you?"; incidentally, it's also the last time he ever utters the word)

I am counting instances in which a muggleborn character uses the term to refer to themselves, since it happens in the context of reclaiming the insult and I am interested in who the author chooses to highlight thusly.

part 2: the results/ WHEN

The word "mudblood" and its plural "mudbloods" are used as an insult a total of 62 times in the Harry Potter books. Here we can see the book by book breakdown:

Unsurprisingly, The book where "mudblood" is used the most ( a total of 34 times) is Deathly Hallows since it takes place during a war about muggleborns. Chamber of Secrets, where the term is introduced, follows with 10 mentions, after which is Order of the Phoenix (7 mentions), followed by Goblet of Fire (6 mentions) and Half-Blood prince (5 mentions). The term "mudblood" is not used in either Philosopher's Stone or Prisoner of Azkaban.

part 3: the results/ WHO

So who is our biggest culprit?

Draco Malfoy is our uncontested lead, having both the advantage of appearing in all books and of orbiting around our narrator. Both Bellatrix and Kreacher make a good showing, with Bellatrix's 6 times being especially notable since they all occur during the course of Deathly Hallows.

Let's break this down further, shall we?

Despite introducing us to the term, Draco appears to scale back his usage of the slur as he ages.

Before partaking in this experiment, I was under the vague impression that, in the wizarding world, "mudblood" is seen as a childish insult. I can now see why: in times of peace (i.e. before Voldemort's resurrection), Draco is the only person in Harry's day-to-day life saying it and he himself peters off in the usage of "mudblood" as things get more serious. To Draco, it appears, "mudblood" IS a childish insult, and we'll see further proof of this at a later date.

part 4: the results/ HOW

Let us now look at how the term is used:

Unsurprisingly, the person "mudblood" is hurled most often at is Hermione. As a main character, she is the most visible muggleborn in the narrative and, if that wasn't enough, she is more often than not the only muggleborn present, even when it doesn't make much sense (Hermione is the only known muggleborn member of the order of the phoenix, an organization whose supposed aim is the fight for muggleborn rights.)

There are no known instances of the word "mudblood" being used to refer to any other muggleborn student during Harry's time at Hogwarts. Lily Evans is the only other school-aged character who gets the dubious honor of being a "mudblood".

Let's break this down further and look at who people are referring to when they say "mudblood":

*= Walburga's portrait never directly addresses Hermione, she only alludes to the presence of various filth (muggleborns, blood traitors, werewolves..) in her home. That said, Hermione is the only muggleborn we ever see in Grimmauld Place so it must stand to reason that Walburga is referring to her, just like she's indirectly referring ro Remus Lupin when she mentions werewolves.

**= Both Hermione and Lily use the term mudblood to refer to themselves in an attempt to reclaim the slur, they both do it twice.

***= Our only "other" is mr Ted Tonks, who Bellatrix only mentions in order to disavow when Voldemort talks about the birth of Teddy Lupin.

Interestingly, the only people who ever refer to Lily Evans as "mudblood" to her face are Severus Snape (one instance recounted three separate times) and Lily Evans herself. Voldemort uses the insult when talking about her with Harry long after her death.

Of further note, our only written "mudblood" comes by courtesy of a ministry pamphlet Harry finds in Diagon Alley, heavily implied to have been written by one ms Dolores Umbridge.

part 5: a brief interlude/ Draco's language

Draco refers to Hermione as “Granger” 13 times and, while their interactions often consist of him talking about her blood status, he uses "mudblood" instead of her name only 4 times. Furthemore, there are 4 additional times where he uses both mudblood and Granger (as in "that mudblood Granger").

The very first time Draco mentions Hermione in the books occurs during this exchange with Lucius:

I find this interesting because, even in private, his first instinct is to use her given name. It's only after he is scolded by Lucius* that we get our first "mudblood", in a scene where he is once again feeling threatened by her.

*= Guess who never utters the word "mudblood"? Lucius. Even Narcissa does once (in DH, when she recognises Hermione at the manor)

part 6: conclusion

I am not a linguistics expert, I cannot tell wether JKR uses the slur she made up in a way that mimics real world slurs. What I can do with the data I compiled is try to track various characters' attitudes towards muggleborns in the books by looking at what they call them.

People whose views remain unchanged (Voldemort, Kreacher, Walburga) remain consistent with their usage of "mudblood"; Draco, who grows up as the books progress, scales back. Snape only ever uses the word once, in the past, and the incident is retold multiple times to signify its importance.

As the situation in the wizarding world worsens, more people feel emboldened to use an otherwise taboo term, as seen by how most one-off utterances of "mudblood" take place in book7, during wartime.

Finally, I would like to note that we only ever hear two muggleborns' (Lily and Hermione) opinions on "mudblood" as a slur, the rest of the time it's mostly purebloods (and the occasional half-blood) telling us how to feel about the insult; I find that very interesting.

There. Now all this useless information is out of my brain and into the aether, where other nerds can ponder on its significance while this nerd here sleeps the sleep of the truly righteous.

xoxo

The additions are awesome, yes! I completely forgot about Sirius. It is interesting to see, how this scene compares to others.

When it comes to Percy, I'm still surprised how subdued his crying in that scene is. Because, yeah, Rowling does respect him less. She also has a tendency to write him in a pretty feminine manner. It's still a stark contrast to his mother, however. She gets mentioned just before the quoted scene and is described as bursting into tears. This is the whole exchange:

Mrs. Weasley burst into tears. She ran forward, pushed Fred aside, and pulled Percy into a strangling hug, while he patted her on the back, his eyes on his father.

“I’m sorry, Dad,” Percy said.

Mr. Weasley blinked rather rapidly, then he too hurried to hug his son.

“What made you see sense, Perce?” inquired George.

“It’s been coming on for a while,” said Percy, mopping his eyes under his glasses with a corner of his traveling cloak. “But I had to find a way out and it’s not so easy at the Ministry, they’re imprisoning traitors all the time. I managed to make contact with Aberforth and he tipped me off ten minutes ago that Hogwarts was going to make a fight of it, so here I am.”

It's a pretty sharp contrast between the woman (who shows her emotions freely, but is depicted as kind of unreasonable for this) and both men (who suppress their emotions). I also wonder what this says about their conflict. It doesn't really feel solved, to me.

Guys who Cry in the Harry Potter Books (and Why)

Men do 30% of the crying in the Harry Potter books, even though they represent 66% of the characters (and that's pretty much as expected).* I’m interested in why the crying happens though, and what it says about the characters. For the ladies, crying is neutral - they all cry, and for all sorts of reasons (tired, frustrated, stressed, emotionally overwrought...) Bellatrix, Augusta Longbottom, Ginny, Tonks… all cry. *Hermione* cries thirty separate times over the course of the books. 

Male crying though, that's something that gets mocked (usually by Slytherins.) Pansy calls Neville a “fat little cry baby,” and after Rita’s article (falsely) describes Harry crying, Draco comes in with “Want a hanky, Potter, in case you start crying in Transfiguration?” Of course there’s also “D’you think [Hagrid]’ll cry when they cut off his hippogriff’s - ” right before Hermione slaps him. So making fun of guys for crying is bad right? 

Let’s get into it. 

1 : Crying because of a death

The most “acceptable” reason for male crying. This happens a lot, we are definitely not supposed to think any less of the guys who do it. Mostly it happens *right* at the moment of death, or maybe at the funeral. The exception is Harry, who cries in Book 3 after talking about hearing his parents dying (although the narrative voice DOES let us know that he’s kind of embarrassed about this...)

“Harry suddenly realized that there were tears on his face mingling with the sweat. He bent his face as low as possible, wiping them off on his robes, pretending to do up his shoelace, so that Lupin wouldn’t see.” 

Then he cries again in Book 7, while visiting his parents' graves. But it’s definitely still crying over a death. Just one that Harry takes a little bit longer to process. 

Crying over a Death: Full Breakdown: 

Amos Diggory: 1 (Cedric’s death) 

Arthur Weasley: 1 (Fred’s death)

Harry Potter: 3 (Hedwig, Lily, James)

Rubeus Hagrid: 4 (Dumbledore, Buckbeak, Aragog, Harry) 

Argus Filtch: 1 (thinks Mrs. Norris is dead) 

Xenophillius Lovegood: 1 (thinks Luna is dead) 

Fillius Flitwick: (thinks Ginny is dead) 

Ron Weasley: 1 (Dumbledore’s funeral) 

Elphias Doge: 1 (Dumbledore’s funeral

2: Crying because of Pain

You’d think this one would also be acceptable. But… it really isn’t? Dudley cries when Vernon hits him (but Harry doesn’t.) Peter Pettigrew cries when he cuts off his own hand, Saw style, but it gets framed as blubbering weakness. Pettigrew framed SO pathetically for the entire resurrection scene - and honestly, for the entire rest of the series.

(Which is strange when you think about it. Like objectively, Pettigrew did GOOD. Sure he only likes Voldemort because he’s powerful, but so do most of the Death Eaters, that’s nothing special. Peter found Voldemort, resurrected him single-handedly (ha.) Found Bertha Jorkins,  i.e. the reason Voldemort was able to plan his comeback. Obviously he has god-tier bluffing and lying abilities, as well as enough willpower to cut off a limb. Being able to turn into a rat would make him a really useful spy. Also his spell, the one that killed thirteen muggles and destroyed a street? Most magic we see does not have a blast radius like that. Either he’s extremely powerful, or he somehow rigged the whole street up to blow beforehand? Maybe he planted magical bombs everywhere, and triggered them after luring Sirius to the right place. Either way, Peter’s formidable. But somehow his job is to hang out and be Snape’s servant? (Is it because he’s not cute?  Is this JKR’s fatphobia rearing its ugly head? Unclear.)

Our last guy crying in pain is Book 1 Neville, after he breaks his wrist during flying lessons. He also “sniffs,” while walking into the Forbidden Forest for detention, which *might* count as crying? But really, Neville cries surprisingly little. We get a lot of “looked as though he might cry” and “on the verge of tears”... but that's not actually crying. And I think that’s because… early-books Neville, yes we’re supposed to see him as a little pathetic. But definitely not as pathetic as Dudley or Pettigrew. 

3: “Childlike” Crying

Sometimes the people who cry are literally little boys. This is also okay. No one is going to judge infant Harry for crying when Voldemort is in the house, or little Severus for crying when his parents are fighting. Interestingly, when Myrtle is talking about Draco crying in her bathroom, Harry assumes she’s talking about someone much younger: 

“There’s been a boy in here crying?” said Harry curiously. “A young boy?” 

But of course, when an adult is crying in a childlike way, it immediately becomes… pathetic. Again we have Pettigrew, who “burst into tears. It was horrible to watch: He looked like an oversized, balding baby, cowering on the floor.” In the Horcrux cave, crying Dumbledore is described “like a child dying of thirst.” Which is also meant to be pathetic, but in more of a ‘Harry has to be the adult now’ sort of way. Also, the potion seems to have made Dumbledore mentally regress back to his youth, so it’s *closer* to a literal “child crying” moment. 

(I considered putting Dumbledore drinking the potion in the ‘pain’ section, but at least in the book I think it’s clear he’s mostly in emotional rather than physical pain.)

Where this gets messy is with the house-elves. House-elves are not children, but they are presented as childlike. They are small and in-your-face, direct even though their problem-solving tends to be very convoluted/not especially logical. I like the present-tense, no pronouns way they speak, but I can’t deny it is kind of baby-talk adjacent. And… house elves are *really* emotional. Dobby, Kreacher (and Winky) cry a LOT. If I had to guess, I would say JKR likes treating house-elves as childlike so it’s more of a surprise when it turns out that one of them was behind everything. But considering that they are slaves, it is gross considering that one of the main real-world justifications for slavery was ‘slaves are childlike, and unable to take care of themselves.'

There’s also Hagrid. With seventeen separate instances of crying, Hagrid easily cries more than any other guy in the Harry Potter books. And… well… he’s also presented as oddly childlike. He seems much more like Harry and Ron’s contemporary than a peer of the other professors - which is weird, since  if he went to school with Voldemort fifty years ago, he’s in his sixties now. But still, he’s helpless in the face of criticism, he’s comically out of his depth whenever he deals with the Ministry, he’s constantly letting things slip or drastically misjudging danger levels. The first three books use “Hagrid gets in trouble, the gang has to bail him out” as a plot point, and in Book 4 his sideplot with Madame Maxime gets treated like a schoolboy’s first crush, with all these jokes about him wearing suits that don’t quite fit, and trying and failing to style his hair. Not to mention, we know she’s flattering him because she wants insider info on the Tournament. But he doesn’t know that. 

4. Crying because of Sports

Oliver Wood cries when Gryffindor wins the Quidditch cup. That's all.

And that brings us to our stragglers. The only non-childlike guys who cry for reasons other than death, pain, or sports are as follows: 

Harry Potter: 1 instance of crying

Draco Malfoy: 2 instances of crying

Severus Snape: 2 instances of crying

Albus Dumbledore: 4 instances of crying

Horace Slughorn: 1 instance of crying

Let’s see what’s going on here. 

Harry Potter

Dumbledore had weakened himself by drinking that terrible potion for nothing. Harry crumpled the parchment in his hand, and his eyes burned with tears as behind him. Fang began to howl. He clutched the cold locket in his hand so tightly that it hurt, but he could not prevent hot tears spilling from his eyes

There’s a lot going on in this moment: Harry is tired, frustrated, disappointed, overwhelmed. But even though it is a complex moment, probably the main emotion is still Harry’s attempt to process Dumbledore’s death, now that he finally has a second to do so. So this honestly could have gone in the “Crying because of a death” category. It’s just different enough that I want to specially call it out. 

Draco Malfoy

We hear about Draco crying once from Myrtle, and then see it first hand: 

Malfoy was crying — actually crying — tears streaming down his pale face into the grimy basin.

The narrative takes a second to let us know that he was ACTUALLY CRYING, just to hammer in that this is something unexpected and not-normal. I think I want to attribute Draco’s tendency to cry - and cry because he’s overwhelmed, scared, lonely - to the character’s slight femme coding. What can I say, he cries for ""girly"" reasons. And so does Snape!

Severus Snape 

“Snivellus” is clearly a nickname meant to evoke the idea of “crybaby,” since “sniveling” is a synonym for crying. We also get this: 

Snape was kneeling in Sirius’s old bedroom. Tears were dripping from the end of his hooked nose as he read the old letter from Lily. 

Crying over Lily’s letter could count as crying over a death… but since he’s crying over a letter, not over a grave or her body (like in the movie), I’m going to say that he’s probably crying because of guilt, emotional overload, or love (especially because he rips the ‘love Lily’ off the end of that letter.) Like Draco, Snape might be getting little bit of femme-coding here. He’s the mean-girl type of bully (versus the mean boy) He cries, he threatens to poison people, which is something we only see women (and Draco) actually doing in these books. Idk, he’s an odd one who JKR clearly has very complicated feelings about. 

Albus Dumbledore 

I was actually really surprised that Dumbledore cries as much as he does, and at such unusual times! He cries when he sees Snape’s doe patronus - because of love or just because he’s emotionally overwhelmed. He cries all through the Horcrux cave, primarily because of guilt. He cries twice during the King’s Cross Station vision-quest, once because of his complicated feelings about Harry while he asks for forgiveness, and once over … Grindlewald.

“They say he showed remorse in later years, alone in his cell at Nurmengard. I hope that it is true. I would like to think he did feel the horror and shame of what he had done. Perhaps that lie to Voldemort was his attempt to make amends . . . to prevent Voldemort from taking the Hallow . . .”  “. . . or maybe from breaking into your tomb?” suggested Harry, and Dumbledore dabbed his eyes.

And okay. JKR announced that Dumbledore was gay just a few months after book seven was published, and I think she was folding in deliberate queer-coding as early Book 6. My proof of that is Dumbledore's increased emotionality - as we can see, it’s pretty unusual for men to cry in the Harry Potter books because they’re feeling “softer” emotions like love, regret, stress etc. It’s something she associates with femininity, and I’m sure she associates gay guys with femininity as well (I mean, that’s a very common thing to do.)

There’s also this interesting passage from Book 6: 

This younger Albus Dumbledore’s long hair and beard were auburn. Having reached their side of the street, he strode off along the pavement, drawing many curious glances due to the flamboyantly cut suit of plum velvet that he was wearing. “Nice suit, sir,” said Harry, before he could stop himself, but Dumbledore merely chuckled.

Now, this is subtle. Wizards out and about in the muggle world often wear unusual colors like purple and emerald green. However. That adjective flamboyantly is only used one other time in the entire series, to describe Fudge’s hand gestures. But here, it is used to describe an outfit, a purple velvet suit which is honestly a little bit Oscar Wilde. And “flamboyantly gay” … those are two words often heard together. 

Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but I am pretty sure this is the only opinion about clothing Harry ever expresses aloud. And, I think @niche-pastiche hit the nail right on the head when were talking about this and they said, "'Nice suit, sir,' said Harry, before he could stop himself," is SO the response of a young adhd boy in the early 2000s trying not to say "thats gay." 

Horace Slughorn

Horace Slughorn cries at Aragog’s funeral, not really out of grief for Aragog, but mostly out of a maudlin sense of togetherness, nostalgia, and camaraderie. And… I do think we have one more slightly morally ambiguous femme-coded guy on our hands? Like Dumbledore, Slughorn is very much a flashy dresser, with shiny hair and gold buttons on his waistcoat. He loves treats and candies (hey… so does Dumbledore. They’re the only adults with a sweet tooth like that.) He loves fancy dinner parties, and is well-connected without being ambitious the way Lucius is. He also (like Draco) is aligned with pureblood-supremacy, but hyper avoidant of violence and confrontation. Except for the Harry example, I think I’d be comfortable with calling all of these last few instances “Femme-Coded Crying.” 

* Methodology - My list of 208 Harry Potter characters comes from TV Tropes, which had the most complete list. I am excluding characters from Cursed Child and the Fantastic Beasts Films. 

In order to find instances of crying, I searched for the words “cried/cry/crying” “tears” “sob” and “sniff.” I counted each crying episode as one, even if crying was brought up multiple times throughout the scene. I made the fairest call I could whenever I hit a “the crying intensified” or the “the tears restarted,” but I mostly judge pretty conservatively when I’m ringing up data.