Woobification - Tumblr Posts

Something’s been bugging me about the way the fandom treats Husk. Lots of people have been woobifying him since the reveal that he used to be an overlord until he lost his soul to Alastor, but the fact that he used to be an overlord is what’s been bugging me. The show, and the fandom love to portray him as a poor innocent victim who’s being exploited by Alastor, but here’s the thing. He isn’t a poor, innocent victim.

The fact that Husk became an overlord is concrete proof that he isn’t some poor innocent victim. You can’t become an overlord without claiming souls, and/or killing other overlords, and Husk would have had to do one, or both of those things to get his position in the first place. When he has his little heart to heart with Angel, he doesn’t express any regret or remorse for the souls he claimed, or killed-His only regret is losing his power to Alastor. He has the nerve to complain about owned by an overlord when he used to own souls himself, and that left a rotten taste in my mouth. How are we supposed to feel sorry for Husk when he’s fine to dish it out, but he has the nerve to complain when he’s the one taking it?

following up on this, i believe this is (part of the reason) why so many fans of villainous characters end up woobifying said characters. time and time again, the backstories of villains or antagonists are dramatized for maximum whump, their agency is stripped away, and their worst choices and actions justified until all the fun stuff is gone and all that is left is a poor hurt woobie who just can't help themselves because everyone around them is evil, abusive, and manipulative and they have no free will. aww, poor baby!

obviously, the woobie is a character utterly divorced from the original/canon version, intensely boring, and always inferior. so why is woobification so common? after all, if all you wanted was a character that made you go 'aww poor baby 💕' wouldn't you have picked a canonical cinnamon roll?

the thing is, people like villains and antagonists because they're bad people, because they're a reflection of what will happen to us if we stop listening to our morality and instead give ourselves over to baser motives. they reflect the worst parts of ourselves. it's cathartic.

however, there's this almost puritan undercurrent in pop culture nowadays, where if you like a character that must mean that you find all of their actions morally correct, which means that if you like a villain, you are an inherently bad person with morally repugnant values. therefore, to like a villain and remain morally pure, the villain must be a hero and their actions, no matter how evil, must be justifiable. the reaction to this dissonance is woobification.

villain discourse is so annoying.

every once in a while when i scroll through the notes on a post about a villain or antagonist who's a fandom favourite, the notes are filled with 'but you know he killed people, right... killing people is bad... if you think this fictional guy is cool and funny and iconic then you're basically a hybristophile because they're a serial killer. you're normalizing serial killers omg. murder is baddddd'

yes, i know that murder is bad, i'm not six months old. and excuse me? it's giving 'women will read books and get ideas' which is maybe not far off because most fic writers and readers are female, and the stereotypical fanfic writer is a teenage girl.

besides, literature and drama always loved the bad guy. re: greek tragedies, crime and punishment, etc. i think everyone on tumblr needs to read some actual books for once.

so many people have this disney-fied, marvel-i-fied idea of what storytelling is, they believe that every story has to be an aesop's fable and adhere to the hays code.

if you're looking to fiction for a moral compass instead of (sometimes ugly!) truths about the human condition, you're looking in the wrong place.

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.

One thing I don't get is when people make a huge deal out of Tom and Dumbledore's first meeting, as if it was uniquely traumatising for Tom or it was evidence of Dumbledore's evil or literally caused Tom to become Lord Voldemort.

Look it might be because they are both my problematic faves but it doesn't sit right with me!

Yes, this wasn't Dumbledore's nicest, least judgmental and most diplomatic moment BUT do you think Tom grew-up-in-an-orphanage-with-all-the-associated-mental-health-issues-I-go-around-London-by-myself Riddle hasn't seen or dealt with worse? It is not a big deal! I guarantee his fellow Slytherin were 100x worse to him for his questionable lineage!