The Wizarding World of Harry Potter (a thread for Potterheads)

I think the biggest issue with Snape is that she did a little too good of a job making him a horrible human being in the first four books. If he'd been less of an abusive jackass to the students early on (Neville's parents were tortured into insanity by Death Eaters, and SNAPE is his worst fear), it would have been easier to swallow Snape the tortured soul who earns redemption. Like, she could have established that he hates his job and his life and what Harry represents without showing him as someone who mercilessly bullies children who don't have any way to fight back. (Hell, even if his vitriol was concentrated on Harry only instead of Harry and everyone else in his house it would have helped the metaplot.)

 

Yeah like, okay: the Dursleys were unambiguously terrible people, but Petunia's jealousy over her sister (and I think she had a lot of grief and spite all mixed up there) directed at Harry was very human. She was abusive as shit all the same, but you found out that she was a person under it and it made her almost heartbreaking in a way. And the way Dudley grew up and recognized just how shit Harry's deal was? That was a good fucking scene.

And if Snape had maybe been the same way, completely focusing his spite on Harry, that would have made him more... It'd still be abusive and malicious and cruel, but it would have been understandable. I might not have liked him as a person still, but there would have been a reason to see him as a little heartbreaking.

As it stands, he sits next to Umbridge in the Rampant Student Abuse corner. Kids never built up a miniature army to fight him specifically, but that was because his abuse was so deeply ingrained into the Hogwarts culture that he got away with it. Umbridge as an outsider didn't have that benefit, so instead she was opposed; it wasn't until the asshole became the Headmaster (and spy or not, still perpetuated abuse and war crimes on children at Voldemort's orders) that any real movement against him was assembled, and as far as we can tell that was aimed at Voldy with Snape + Death Eaters as proxies, not really a rebellion against his bullying specifically.

 

I to this day remain annoyed that the scene between Harry and Dudley in Deathly Hollows was deleted. Like I get pacing and time constraints and what have you but god dammit that was one of my favorite moments in the series.

 

I haven't even seen any of the movies past OotP, and I'm mad about that scene getting cut. :::PPP (It was important! It showed someone developing empathy toward someone they'd been told was worthless and evil!)

 

and it's not like, y'know, this is kind of a serious point of the whole damn series or anything like that...

 

Yeah, exactly. That's also a reason I'm disappointed by the lack of a redemption thing for Draco- he's set up as a mirror of Harry, where he's swallowed the stuff he's been taught by adults wholesale without questioning any of it, so he's eager to join the fight and doesn't realize that the Person in Charge who goes "yeah okay" absolutely does not have his best interests at heart. It's just that the beliefs Malfoy absorbed are a lot more repugnant overall. If he pulled a Zuko, it could have involved them confronting the fact that they've both been trained to see the other as an enemy instead of a person.

 

I really, really wanted a redemption for him. The closest we got was his realizing oh wait no I don't want to be a part of this. I am very happy with what his mother got though. Like yeah she is a racist bitch, but god damn did she love her son and she did what she could to keep him safe. And ultimately said yeah no to wizard Hitler.

 

Re: Narcissa: I saw a post on Tumblr once about her and Harry striking up a weird friendship post-series that Draco is totally embarrassed and appalled by, and that immediately became my favorite HP headcanon. :::PPP

It wouldn't even have to be a full redemption, just a single moment of "I want out but I can't get out so all I can do is help you guys this once and hope." There was plenty of opportunity for it; they were even locked up in his basement for a while.

(...speaking of, can I add "Wormtail's treatment and the resolution of his plot" to the pet peeve list?)

 

There was the moment in the basement, the moment in the Room of Requirements, and I think at least one other moment at Hogwarts? But that's what's so galling is she kept setting up Moments, and then kept going "lol jk he still evil tho" for no real reason I can see. Narcissa gets a Moment! Wormtail gets a Moment (albeit a small one)! Fucking Snape gets a Moment! What the hell did Draco do to get no Moment of his own?

(The fact that Peter fell under the "ugly therefore Bad" shit pissed me off too. Aaand the 'entire Slytherin House' refusing to fight in the Battle at Hogwarts. And pretty much every House related issue that boiled down to Griffindor Good, Slytherin Evil, Hufflepuff/Ravenclaw Who?)

 

Re: Pettigrew: It's not just that, it's all the little ways the narrative codes him as weak and loathsome, even in the past. Like, he's described as a hanger-on fanboy to the other three Marauders who wasn't really as good or accomplished as the rest of the group, and the other three all get Big Dramatic Animals while he's a rat (sure, in the real world rats are often pretty awesome, but in terms of animal symbolism that's definitely the author saying something negative about him), and there's not really any exploration of why he did what he did beyond "he's a cowardly asshole." And it's kind of annoying to me that "coward" is such a central defining feature of his character, yet the fact that he was in Gryffindor is never really addressed.

Re: houses: yeeeah, it's always bugged me that HP tries to be about how prejudice is bad, but prejudice against 25% of the population of your school based on what a hat said about them when they were 11 almost always turns out to be completely justified.

 

So, I saw this on Seebs' blog and wanted to rant about something for a moment, which is mostly HP related.

Spoiler: long

(source)

Now, I'm nitpicking this for two reasons: one, because the Never Good Enough problem is a problem, but more importantly, two, it doesn't apply to Dumbledore.

(Hot tip: if you're worried about whether or not your character will come off as a poor representation of a sexuality/race/gender, have more than one of that character. It really does magically fix most problems.)

The problem with Dumbledore isn't that he's gay and manipulative and abusive and ssssort of a terrible person, it's that he's manipulative, abusive, sort of a terrible person, and the only gay man in the book. (Other than Grindewald. Who is also manipulative and Literally Evil. So.) And he had to be confirmed gay outside of the source material, which only came up because of Concerned Parents asking JK whether or not she quite meant it to seem like he was being The Gay with Grindewald. So she confirmed it! We now have a Gay Character in Hogwarts.

Just one. One that has such a casual disregard for the lives of the people around him that he ends up acting as a foil for Voldemort, the Wizarding Facist.

If we take the hard and loose ten-percent statistic for gay men, there is still a large enough cast with speaking roles in Harry Potter to justify having at least three more gay male characters. And it doesn't have to be a situation where it's like "Yes Hello my name is Dean and I suck dick, as the teenagers do," it can be as simple as offhand references to two students hooking up. God knows there was enough Dating Shenanigans in the books to utterly exhaust that possibility with every permutation of sexuality. And lo! That would have fixed the entire Not Good Enough problem!

I'll admit, I'm a little bitter when people accuse me of hunting for "politically charged statement in favor of diversity and inclusivity" while acting as if the opposite is completely removed from any political sentiment. Just because the politics are not overt doesn't mean that there's not an underlying message-- queercoding of villains may not have been intentional by some of the creators who relied on it, but that doesn't mean that the overwhelming trend of it isn't political. JK may not have intended to make the only gay characters in her series a) dead, b) morally corrupt, and c) murderers, but she did. And that carries an underlying tone of politics, even if it's not one that she intended.

(Now, if this was someone talking about people having conniptions over Pearl Is Abusive Therefore The SU Crew Things Lesbians Are Evil, that would be a different story. That's probably something that needs to be talked about, because I know it happens! But Dumbledore really isn't the hill to die on.)

 

Further to the tangent in Tumblr.TXT, here are SO MANY THOUGHTS ABOUT REMUS AND TONKS. (@chaoticArbiter here's your tag)

I want to start with full disclosure: I'm a giant Wolfstar shipper and have been since like... 2003? Or thereabouts? And I can go on for ages about why, but that's not the issue here. So yes, when Remus/Tonks was first introduced, my firm belief in Remus/Sirius did shape my reaction - but not because I was annoyed at those pesky women breaking up my slash. As soon as OotP came out, I totally adored Tonks, and I related to her in ways that made me headcanon her very strongly as some flavour of massive queer - specifically a lesbian, though, which was probably because I'm a lesbian and I relate to her.

(I also relate to Remus like whoah. Like way more than Tonks. When I tell people this - specifically my brother, who was equally obsessed with HP - they're not convinced, and usually compare me to Hermione or Luna; but the thing is, while I have traits in common with Luna and Hermione ((which in retrospect could be summed up as "all of the autism")), I relate much more to Remus's experiences and feelings.)

Anyway. Moving on.

Before HBP, I was already uncomfortable with Remus/Tonks as a ship due to the age gap. The fan sites I frequented classed it under "intergenerational ships", next to Remus/Hermione and shit like that. I know Tonks was introduced as an adult, but she's portrayed as relating more to the teenage characters, and in general I feel like her youth is highlighted in her portrayal. Meanwhile, Remus is always portrayed as significantly older than his years (psychologically, I mean).

(another side note: my gay Remus headcanon was based on more nebulous gaydar feelings, and solidified long before I knew about the AIDS metaphor)

As I said in the other thread, we see Remus being pushed into a relationship against his will. It would be one thing if he did really want it, but had hang-ups about acting on it; but that was never the impression I got. When he gives his reasons ("I am too old, too poor" etc) it doesn't come across to me as "I am opening up and honestly explaining why I'm holding back". It seems more like "nobody is respecting me when I say no, so I have to try to convince them".

When Tonks says she doesn't care about those things, there's no sense of "well that's a relief!" or even "I want to believe you but it's hard" from Remus. I got much more of an impression of mounting panic as he realises that no one wants to let him choose freely.

Here:

Even when his excuses are refuted, he does not get any happier or more comfortable. He never says "I want that too, but...". He avoids addressing whether he actually has feelings for her.

Spoiler: tangent about gay headcanon

(In a way, thus is one of the things that made me favour gay-Remus over bisexual-Remus. It could be "I do like women, I just don't feel that way about you", but my gut says that's not it. The whole scene reminds me vividly of the feeling of being closeted and having people try to get me to admit that I have feelings for a boy. They knew I was lying about my reasons for not feeling that way; they just didn't know the real reasons, and unless I came out, the truth would never cross their mind. If I wasn't ready to come out, I'd feel that same mounting panic when they saw through my excuses.

So even if you take orientation out of the equation, we have a portrayal of a frightened man surrounded by people who refuse to take no for an answer. Molly in particular won't respect his choice; she doesn't seem to even consider that he genuinely does not want this, and calls him ridiculous for expressing that. Molly's a great character and I love her, but she does tend to assume that she can always get to the bottom of things and see them as they really are. I get the impression that she thinks that if she just orchestrates things correctly, everyone will come around to her point of view, since it is obviously correct unless you're being silly.

I haven't reread the books in quite a while because I don't have my own copies, unfortunately. However, back when I read them every single day I firmly believed that although he does care for and respect her, Remus does not return Tonks's feelings. Everyone around him just assumes that he must, and they pressure him to make bigger and bigger commitments based on that assumption, even though he expresses discomfort the whole way.

And then we have Tonks. I have a lot of feelings about Tonks.

These fall much more into headcanon than analysis, but basically, the only way I can reconcile my perception of Tonks with her behaviour towards Remus is via a really really tragic headcanon about internalised homophobia. I won't get into it here, but the more I think about it the sadder and more convincing it gets. It has a lot to do with how she treats Remus: I got the impression that her misery at being rejected was tied in with her feeling that she was supposed to have this relationship, what with the weird wizarding trend of marrying young despite having a huge lifespan. Plus heteronormativity. Plus the whole "oh shit we might die tomorrow and I haven't achieved this expected rite of passage". Plus Molly's implicit and unchallenged belief that everybody within a relatively small group can be neatly paired off in heterosexual relationships.

(I know I said I wouldn't get into it, but part of my headcanon features Molly basically talking her into believing that she's in love with Remus for the above reasons, and Tonks taking this idea and running with it to avoid having to think about the alternative.)




tl;dr a lot of my feelings on this are speculative rather than anaytical, but I definitely believe that the text itself depicts Remus being coerced into a relationship against his will.

 

oh nooooo that makes so much terrible sense

I love Molly too but she's definitely a... a meddler who's very convinced she knows what's up, even when working from VERY VERY FLAWED data (like anything Rita Skeeter wrote ever), I can absolutely see her mombullying her younger friends into doing things 'for their own good' that will make them happy if they just TRY it.

 

holy shit all of that though
like
yes
thank you
I think that Remus was definitely coerced into the relationship, and very heavily by Molly, among other characters
personally I support bisexual-Remus for...reasons but otherwise yes I am wholly in agreement with all of this
and like Tonks, holy shit...
like
it just didn't fit with her character at all?? and I was so disappointed??
and then Remus tries to literally leave the relationship and Harry calls him a coward and I just
holy
fucking
shit
what the fuck
and JK honestly thinks this is a good relationship?
no

 

Can we genderfluid Tonks too, please.

But yeah, the other big thing that bugs me (besides the above-mentioned thing where Remus doesn't seem to want anything to do with this relationship) is that Tonks' prior characterization ceases to exist in Book 6 in favor of moping about Remus. Her Patronus changing doesn't make me think of "she loves him sooo much" so much as a surprisingly literal representation of "the author rewrote her entire personality to be about him."

 

yeah, and that's very frustrating, because up until that point I really liked Tonks. she was amazing! she was courageous, she was witty, she was funny, she was outgoing and friendly, she was a fantastic character! and then...suddenly she became nothing but mopey and sad and pining for Remus.

 

Literally ALL of the above.

The scene where Remus tries to run away from her is the thing that cements it as a fucking awful ship most in my mind. He's gotten into this weird relationship that he never wanted in the first place and is fathering a child he really doesn't want and! has pretty fucking good reasons to be concerned about! but all he gets is yelled at about making excuses and committing and it's like ://///

 

Yeah, that's... yeah, I basically agree with that. :::||| Harry Potter minus every romantic subplot, please.

 

Yeah there was some serious pair-the-spares going on, plus some just making up new characters so that we could know everyone was properly in heterosexual marriages with picket fences, dogs, and 2.5 children (looking at Astoria Malfoy and Rolf Scamander here.)

 

god, I got kinda frustrated by Astoria Malfoy and Rolf Scamander...maybe because I just always personally really supported Drarry and we didn't even get to see Draco in his relationship or anything and like. c'mon. and Luna always struck me as either queer or the 'not interested in marriage and children' type, though maybe that's a me thing, but she did, so when Rolf came out of nowhere I was like "?????"