Latest Posts by mikailakay - Page 3

Ohhh Harry's reflexes must be insane! And I totally agree with your arguments, although I'm not sure how cardiovascular endurance plays a part, sorry I'm a bit dumb xd and oh yes grip strength must be crazy too since he must be able to stay on the broom while it's flying super fast. That takes real physical strength in the arms and stomach muscles. His stamina is probably also high level.

Thanks for your imput ☺️

describing harry as "an insanely athletic man" while all he does is sit on a flying broom is crazy work

Hi, one more question!

I read Tomarry fan fiction with time travel, and when they write that Harry is taking Tom from the orphanage, for some reason they write that Harry expects that if he gives the love and care that he was deprived of, then Tom will become a different person. That is, Harry projects himself onto Tom and expects the same reaction from him that Harry himself would have had if he had been taken away from the Dursleys. And also, I do not understand the authors themselves believe that if you give a child (Tom) everything he wants and do not limit him at least somehow, that he will grow up to be a morally better person? Or do they think that Harry is so narrow-minded and does not understand that punishments and rewards are needed for proper upbringing? That it's not enough to just say "don't do this because it's wrong for a moral reason", but to provide a logical explanation that would be based on logic and pragmatism, which would sound clearer to Tom? What do you think about it?

Anyone could write whatever they want, and I'm not going to diss any specific fics or authors. Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of Harry going back in time to raise Tom fics because it's just not to my personal taste. So, this isn't the kind of scenario I really think about for Harry's and Tom's characters.

In general, though, I think Harry understands Tom and how he thinks more than fanon often gives him credit for. I also think Tom isn't as evil incarnate as some fanon paints him as. I don't think he's super moral, but I don't think he is especially cruel either.

Like, Tom doesn't do immoral things because he doesn't know what's good and what's evil, he is an intelligent capable adult — he knows very well what he's doing is evil, he just doesn't mind doing evil if he thinks it's necessary.

And he has morals. He regrets needing to kill Snape, he dislikes unnecessary death and bloodshed and actively avoids it in the first war. He doesn't want to kill students in the battle of Hogwarts and calls a ceasefire to let them regroup and treat their injuries to the detriment of his own side. He hates cowardice and treachery. He derides Wormtail because he betrayed his friends, yes, that betrayal helped Voldemort, but Voldemort despises cowardly traitors as a rule and his morals are important to him. He hates pretentious purebloods and he shows this contempt in how he treats his followers. Tom has a moral core all on its own with his shitty upbringing, it's just, kinda messed up and he's a practicality-over-morality kind of person most of the time. I'm saying most because he doesn't allow himself to cheat when trying to kill Harry. He just has to kill Harry properly, in a fair duel, because of his own morals and ideals. I also think Tom would be insulted by the concept of cheating at school, for example.

I mentioned in the past the fact Voldemort's favorite spell is the killing curse kinda shows that he has some twisted sense of morality. I mean, in a world where you can burn and cut and torture people with magic there are so many cruel and painful ways to kill someone, and yet, Voldemort's go-to spell, when he isn't making a point or torturing someone for a specific reason, is Avada Kedavra. The Killing Curse is a painless death, even Voldemort considers it a merciful death. It's quick and painless and efficient. This is the death he gave James and Lily because he respected them and didn't want them to suffer unnecessarily. This is the death he chooses for anyone he doesn't have a specific reason to torture because he is against what he deems as unnecessary cruelty. Snape's death is the only real death that is unnecessarily cruel but I think it has more to do with JKR needing a way for Snape to get Harry the information he needs rather than be accurate to Voldemort's character as he was shown thus far.

Like, he has some weird sense of morality, and even with the evil things he does, like murder, he knows they are bad and he does so anyway. Sometimes, he does so regretfully, in the most merciful way he can, and other times, when he hates someone, he relishes in it. It's not about not understanding good and evil or not knowing what morals are, it's about caring about morals less than about whatever goal he wants to accomplish, and sometimes that goal is to humiliate the crap out of Lucius Malfoy, or to showcase how great he is and be dramatic about it. But the fact he has his twisted morals and considers himself merciful is part of what makes him so interesting to me.

Sometimes people don’t realize they experienced abuse but the effect from it is the same.

I don’t think Severus knows what James did to him was technically SA, and even if someone told him, his pride and shame would not let him accept it.

I didn’t know that the guy I dated when I was 21 was gaslighting me and psychologically abusing me either, or that because of him, I had spiraled into severe depression. But thanks to my therapist, I realized that he was—and that doesn’t change the fact that I went through psychological abuse.

Yeah I also don't see him as a macho buff guy. I like to think of him as someone strong but skinny (those guys you would underestimate, but they'd break you if you try anything funny).

But we see some things differently sooo, let's wrap this up 😄

describing harry as "an insanely athletic man" while all he does is sit on a flying broom is crazy work

Every time I see someone in the fandom joke about Harry being an “attention seeker” or “dramatic” I think about that one post that says that Harry goes through a lot of problems women face (people calling you a liar/dramatic/an attention seeker when you’re in pain and suffering). Because how the hell is both canon AND the fandom calling him dramatic after everything he experienced and went through.

(If anyone knows the post I’m talking about and has the link please please please send it to me, I would love to reread it but idk where it went.)

But doesn’t him saving the world (like defeating a whole Basilisk, always running, even at the tournament) plus the quidditch training he did, imply he was athletic? And people could even assume insanely. When he got put on the team it was because McGonagall saw his talent and potential. And it wasn’t even a full game. He was very talented (+ the boy who lived so people naturally gave him more attention) and athletic. Not in a buff macho way. Just in a strong, competent way.

So I think your original post is kind of wrong, that's what I wanted to say. But if you don’t see it then I suppose it's fine to leave it at that 🤷‍♀️

describing harry as "an insanely athletic man" while all he does is sit on a flying broom is crazy work

But he is the best chaser and quidditch requires a lot of training. It's also the equivalent to football. You also don't have to be buff to be very athletic, you can be lean and slightly muscular. I think all the adventures and quidditch training does tell the readers that Harry is an athletic person. Everyone who does quidditch is an athlete. Quidditch is the main sport and Viktor Krum, one of the most popular quidditch players, is very masculine.

🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

describing harry as "an insanely athletic man" while all he does is sit on a flying broom is crazy work

Do you know how much strength you need to manage such a high-adrenaline and high-maneuverability broom sport? He trains frequently as well. My man might not be buff or overly big, but he is athletic and does have muscles.

He's also someone who has been in physical fights before and frequently ran from bullies as a child. He might have been scrawny and short as a child due to neglect, but he grew into a healthy, properly built physique over time at Hogwarts.

describing harry as "an insanely athletic man" while all he does is sit on a flying broom is crazy work

It's terrorism to me

I feel like we need to start really pushing for hate crimes against women to actually be treated as such. It's fucking insane that a man can beat/rape/murder a woman, call her sexist slurs during the attack, and then tell the police and press that he did it because he hates women, but somehow this isn't considered a hate crime. The only reason places don't want to do it is because there's so many that it would mean like 90% of hate crime victims would be women (literally the reason the uk gave for not doing it a few years back)

It's extra crazy because wasn't it something like 80% of mass murderers have a history of harrasment and violence against women and girls? You would think it would be a no brainer to treat these crimes seriously to prevent these men from getting out and committing even more violent and horrific crimes, but that would mean treating women as people and not shock absorbers for society I guess.

457 are so harrymort coded

This man has been gaslighted his whole life.

Something about how Snape says in anger about his first time going to the Shrieking Shack, "Saved? Saved? You think [James] was playing the hero? He was saving his neck and his friends' too!" (DH)

Something about how Snape tells Harry in exasperation in his second time in the Shack, "I have just saved your neck; you should be thanking me on bended knee!" (PoA)

Then something about how Snape dies from a neck wound on his third time in the Shack, doing the exact opposite of saving his own neck, while "Harry remained kneeling at Snape's side"... (DH)

I'd like to think Voldemort has an oedipus complex.

You can love someone and still be abusive towards them.

Do you think James and Sirius bullied Severus frequently? Since we only have one memory, perhaps it was especially brutal that day because of the Shack incident? Or maybe this was simply the norm for their interactions. The fact that everyone around laughed tells me this type of thing did happen at least once before. I can't imagine most people not being shocked if this were the first time Sirius and James had treated Severus so harshly.

Severus clearly had a bad reputation (although not because of anything bad he did). The fact that he immediately knew what was coming the moment he heard their voices in the memory - and was described as twitchy - suggests he had adapted a defensive stance in this environment. This implies the bullying must have been somewhat frequent. But what did it actually look like?

James and Sirius clearly felt entitled to bully him, even just to get rid of their boredom. But were these actions common, or was it particularly brutal that day due to the Shack incident and other circumstances?

Yes, James and Sirius frequently bullied Severus, and the narrative makes this quite clear through multiple hints. SWM scene in is the only one Rowling shows us directly, but it is not an isolated incident; there is enough context in the books to infer that the bullying was constant:

-When Harry sees Snape’s memory, the narration emphasizes that Severus tenses up and assumes a defensive stance the moment he hears James and Sirius’s voices, indicating that he is already used to being their target. If this kind of attack were an exception, his initial reaction would be one of surprise rather than resignation.

-The other students do not seem shocked or outraged; in fact, many laugh or just watch without intervening. This suggests that this behavior was normal and recurring. If James and Sirius had attacked someone randomly or without precedent, the reaction would likely have been different.

-Sirius mentions in PoA that "it was just something between Snape and us." Moreover, in OotP Lupin—who tends to be more impartial—acknowledges that James was "a bit of an idiot" and that his behavior towards Snape was unjustifiable. This confirms that the bullying was not a one-time thing.

-The mere fact that James called Snape "Snivellus" suggests a pattern of constant mockery. Offensive nicknames typically arise in contexts of systematic bullying, not from a single episode.

-Snape and the Marauders did not just argue in class or have an intellectual rivalry; their relationship was marked by animosity that went beyond academics. This is evident in the fact that Sirius once tried to lure Snape into the Shrieking Shack to be killed by a werewolf. Such an extreme act does not occur in the context of occasional teasing but rather in a sustained hostility dynamic.

-The fact that Sirius and James decided to attack him simply because they were bored suggests that this was a habitual occurrence. The difference may have been the brutality of the attack itself, but the underlying attitude remained the same.

Why are Molly haters always so rude? 😮‍💨

‘She wasn’t a good mother’ great are we evaluating this character trait as one of her many facets or are we just damning her for not being the most maternal womanliest woman who ever womaned

I like shipping people that almost nobody ever thought of shipping together and have the potential to be really interesting.

Like Molly x Voldemort, Molly x Sirius, Ron x Voldemort, Andromeda x Bellatrix, Lucius x Hermione, Blaise x Ron and so much more 😄

I loathe Molly Weasley bashing and idk why...it always makes me uncomfortable. Even if I like Hermione and Ron who also get bashed often, with Molly, it's something different.

Falling in love with Harrydore is a curse because there’s almost no food for meeee 😭😭

Collection of Harrydore Recs

Voldemort is NOT a bad boy mysterious type. He wants to be, but his hobbies are journaling and antique collecting. Gayass.

Wow so many interesting points I've never considered 😍

Hi, do you have an analysis for why you prefer bottom Tom? Most fics have him as a top, but I'm very interested in your perspective ma'am.

well, the short answer is because i want to and because i can.

the longer answer is that i just don't find any of the arguments for why voldemort would never bottom under any circumstances to be as convincing and definitive as their proponents claim them to be.

my issue - to be clear - isn't with people having a preference for reading or writing about him being a top. it's with the fact that him only being a top - and not only that, but him being repulsed or humiliated by the idea of bottoming - is typically presented as such an objective fact that preferring to read or write about him being a bottom provokes responses which range from the simply annoying - "this is out of character!" [any fic in which he consensually shags his prophesied child-enemy is out of character, be serious] - to the genuinely troubling - "it's disgusting! voldemort is a real man and real men don't want anything up their arses!".

obviously - let's be real - a lot of the arguments about why bottom!voldemort is impossible are just typical "slash fandom reinvents gender roles" shit - they essentially boil down to "omg no harry would bottom because he's the girl".

but others do come with more weight behind them. and two of these are:

that the gender norms voldemort was raised with would inculcate in him a big lump of internalised homophobia which would make him see bottoming as feminine, and - in seeing it as feminine - see it as weak, humiliating, dependent, and incompatible with his understanding of control and power. that voldemort would be horrified by the idea of being penetrated, because he would see it as something which polluted or profaned the body he considers to be sacred.

i do think it's possible to argue both of these points robustly, using actual readings of the text rather than just vibes. i've just never found any of these readings compelling.

and the reason why all comes down to this:

"I knew I was different," he whispered to his own quivering fingers. "I knew I was special. Always, I knew there was something." [HBP 13]

he's talking about something specific - how he's always known that he's a wizard - here, of course. but we can also take this statement and use it to think more generally about how he views being perceived as deviant, strange, or wrong by the norms of the society in which he lives.

by which i mean... he's somebody who believes that being different makes him special and that people who try to punish or shame him for his difference are idiots who simply haven't yet worked out that he's superior to them in literally everything he does. he's not someone who perceives being different in a self-flagellating way - he doesn't think there's something wrong with him, he doesn't think that his difference makes him a pathetic or unimpressive person. and he's also not somebody who views being criticised or punished for his difference as something which causes him sorrow or anxiety. it causes him rage - because it inconveniences him [it creates obstacles he has to overcome, although he entirely believes he can overcome them] and because it doesn't recognise his self-conception as the protagonist of reality:

Riddle's reaction to this was most surprising. He leapt from the bed and backed away from Dumbledore, looking furious. "You can't kid me! The asylum, that's where you're from, isn't it? 'Professor,' yes, of course - well, I'm not going, see? That old cat's the one who should be in the asylum. I never did anything to little Amy Benson or Dennis Bishop, and you can ask them, they'll tell you!"   "I am not from the asylum," said Dumbledore patiently. "I am a teacher and, if you will sit down calmly, I shall tell you about Hogwarts. Of course, if you would rather not come to the school, nobody will force you -" "I'd like to see them try," sneered Riddle. "Hogwarts," Dumbledore went on, as though he had not heard Riddle's last words, "is a school for people with special abilities -"   "I'm not mad!" [HBP 13]

you can entertain a very dark reading of this scene - in fact, i have - but it's also possible to entertain a liberating one, and see the child voldemort as someone who has always been proud of his difference and prepared to defend that pride in the face of censure, and who is absolutely delighted to be given the language to define and describe his difference and to be given access to a community of people who are similarly - in his words - special.

all of which is to say... the standard interpretation in fandom seems to be that a queer voldemort would fall somewhere on a spectrum from indifferent to his sexuality to actively ashamed of it.

but i think it's much, much more plausible that he'd actually be proud of it, and for his statement - "i knew i was different... i knew i was special" - to be used as the starting point for how we might imagine him realising that he's queer.

and this is why the "he'd have so much internalised homophobia he'd never bottom" argument always falls flat for me - it rests on an assumption that queer men having to grow past a childhood/teenage fear that there's something wrong with them is the default position. it overlooks the fact that there are many ways for somebody to come to understand their own sexuality.

and that two of those ways are "defiantly" and "spitefully". aka the lord voldemort special.

something which always stands out to me about the canonical voldemort, both when he's a good-looking teenager/young man and a monstrous, serpentine adult, is that - even with all the phallic symbolism which surrounds him [enormous snakes and ultra-powerful wands and so on] - the text presents him as somebody who comes across as fairly effeminate:

he's typically described - as we can see from this excellent analysis from @said-snape-softly - as speaking "softly" or "quietly". when he isn't, he's often "shrill", "shrieking", "screeching", or "screaming".

he has a hair-trigger temper and he's extremely emotionally volatile.

he's typically described as moving in ways which have similarly feminine connotations - he "drifts" and "glides". while the primary doylist reason for this is clearly so the reader associates him with snakes, ghosts, and dementors, it ends up giving him a quality of movement which is fey, rather than powerful and purposeful. indeed, we only ever see him do one thing which requires physical, as well as magical, prowess - duelling. but, like fencing - which is its real-world equivalent - good duellists aren't people who are physically strong or imposing, they're people who are cunning and nimble [and the other men the text emphasises are good at it are snape, flitwick, and harry - with harry's quick reflexes being explicitly given as a reason why [i.e. GoF 34] ]. his ability to fly is a demonstration of his magical power alone, since it allows him to circumvent the need to use a broom, which does appear to require physical strength [hence why the only main characters who aren't fond of using brooms are either women or fat, cowardly little boys like neville...]

building on this, he's often described in ways which make him sound quite physically fragile - he's very thin, he's very pale, he's always cold, every time his heartbeat is described it seems to be irregular and so on.

his reputation in his teens and young adulthood is as a "polite [and] quiet" goody-two-shoes who "showed no sign of outward arrogance or aggression at all" [HBP 17]. i think that point about aggression is really important - it builds on what mrs cole tells dumbledore about it being "very hard to catch him" bullying other orphans [HBP 13]. he's not dudley - or james and sirius - using his physical talents to subdue and control people. he's sneakier... more insidious... indeed, in chamber of secrets, ron explicitly compares him to percy - somebody else the text presents as fairly effete - in order to complain about him "squealing" - aka, running to tell a teacher, like a girl, instead of settling things like a man - on hagrid [CoS 14].

when he's a young man, living alone for the first time, the text thinks it's very important to tell us that he has "slightly longer hair" than he does at school [HBP 20]. "slightly" is obviously the operative word here - i don't think he's strutting into hepzibah smith's house in a twenty-four inch lace-front - but we can certainly imagine him with the sort of greaser or pompadour haircut which was understood in the 1950s as being a bit counter-cultural...

of the five horcruxes which are objects - rather than harry and nagini [who is, of course, female] - three [cup, diadem, locket] originally belonged to a woman and are acquired from a woman, two [cup, locket] are acquired by killing a woman using a stereotypically female murder method [poison], two are connected to voldemort's rage at his mother being disparaged [locket - he's furious to hear hepzibah say that merope must have stolen it, ring - he attacks morfin immediately after morfin calls his mother a "slut"]. and all five of these horcruxes also depend on women to introduce them into the narrative in a way that facilitates their destruction: the diary is given to ginny; dumbledore puts on the ring in order to speak to his sister; the locket is associated both with walburga's grief [it's literally moved from the cave - voldemort's grave for his mother - to the house which is walburga's own tomb!] and with umbridge's performance of femininity; the cup is given to bellatrix [and the text is very clear that both she and voldemort understand it as having only been given to her, rather than to her and rodolphus] and is then destroyed - albeit off-stage - by hermione; and harry is given the tools to acquire the diadem by cho, luna, and mcgonagall, although he has to overcome the obstacles of alecto carrow and helena ravenclaw to get hold of it. harry - of course - also only becomes a horcrux because of a woman - lily's - sacrifice.

his favourite death eaters are a woman and a very feminine-coded man. but - more interestingly - what the text finds unimpressive isn't that he likes bellatrix and snape... it's that he leaves a lot of his dirty work to male minions who are characterised by their brutish strength - people like greyback, hagrid [who he makes carry harry up to hogwarts], rowle, gibbon, amycus carrow and so on. there's the heavy implication in the text that voldemort's preference for leaving the violence to others - as i'm always pointing out, his canonical kill count is really low; most of the murders in the series are done by other death eaters acting on his orders - is something we should see as weak.

the text associates him with this effeminacy - i think it's really important to note, given who jkr is - as a criticism. it's something - much like the text's presentation of him as aromantic, and the fact that the degradation of his looks via the creation of the horcruxes makes him look sexless/eunuch-like - being used to underscore his villainy. he's feminine-coded in a toxic way.

but let's take this in another direction [and let's also return to the actual question you asked me...] and read him as someone who has always had to deal with being perceived as queer by other people, and having that perception be associated with negative assumptions.

he's very easy to imagine as a child/teenager who's the target of ridicule from his fellow orphans/fellow students [for not being sporty, for liking to sit in the library for hours on end coming up with anagrams of his own name, for the way he walks and speaks] which hinges on the idea that his failure to conform to the expected conventions of "proper" masculinity mean that he's not a proper man... and that if he's not a proper man then... he's not straight.

but then we have to come back to the "i knew i was special" point, don't we?

voldemort's belief in his own superiority can - in my view - be used to read him as somebody who would embrace being camp or effeminate or whatever term we want to use, in order both to express his contempt for people who criticise him ["think i'm a messed up little deviant, do you, mrs cole? well, you don't know the half of it!"] and who conform to social norms he thinks are reprehensible ["oh, do purebloods frown upon bottoming, abraxas? well - guess what - so do muggles. do you agree with what muggles think?"] and to humiliate, subjugate, and control them ["you think i'm a faggot, do you...? well, you're right... i'm a faggot who's defeated you in battle and now i'm about to kill you... still feel like a man?"].

while - obviously - appearance/gender presentation has nothing to do with preferred sexual roles - the manliest men on earth can be bottoms! being femme doesn't prevent you topping! - i really do think that voldemort is someone who can be written entirely canon-coherently as thinking that the homophobic perception of bottoming as weak, powerless, or humiliating is complete nonsense, and who would actively flaunt his rejection of this perception as a way to mock people who subscribe to it.

after all, we see him do something similar in canon when it comes to his blood-status and social class. the death eaters - lots of whom are posh pureblood men who conceive of themselves as the most important people in the universe - are made to kneel at the feet of and kiss the robes of and be branded like cattle by and be at the beck and call of someone who's neither pureblood nor posh. there are - as lupin tells us - no wizarding princes... and yet the closest things the wizarding world has to an aristocracy are rolling around on the ground debasing themselves and calling a half-blood orphan "my lord".

voldemort does this to humiliate them. but he also does this to amuse himself - à la logan roy making men who've displeased him play "boar on the floor".

[wormtail being forced to care for him when he's in his half-form at the start of goblet of fire, for example. he's not humiliated in the slightest by his dependence on wormtail... wormtail is humiliated by it, and voldemort finds it hilarious.]

and so i think we can plausibly imagine him also deeply enjoying making his straight, married, "i would die before i let anything near my arse", "i'm not getting changed for quidditch with so-and-so there, he's queer", "i'd disown my son if i found out he let other men fuck him" death eaters grovel for the favour of someone who loves getting railed...

this deeply aligns with how voldemort understands things like power and control - and it's why the argument that he'd only top because he would regard it as the only way of being powerful and controlling never hits for me.

because this also rests on an assumption - that the bottom always understands themselves as the passive partner. i do think the fandom is broadly getting better at recognising that bottoms and submissives are different things [although the bar was on the floor...], but i think there's still a tendency to default to the idea that the two people involved in sex are an active partner and a passive partner, and that the passive partner is - for want of a better term - the receptacle.

the language used around bottoming reinforces this assumption. its voice is passive - the bottom is penetrated, is bred, is fucked, is taken - its verbs are passive too - the top does, the bottom receives.

but the thing is... this is just semantics. and it's a semantic argument directly rooted in misogyny, and the homophobia which stems from and connects to it.

and - since it's just semantics - we can change the language we use at any time to completely reconfigure the assumed power dynamic.

the bottom grants access. the bottom consumes. the bottom takes. the bottom absorbs. the bottom uses. the bottom captures. the bottom detains. the bottom grips. the bottom devours. the bottom permits. the bottom destroys.

the top is the person who's passive - who receives permission, who is granted access, who is consumed, who is absorbed, who is captured. the top is the person having their life-force leached from them. they're just a toy, just a piece of meat. they literally don't matter.

and the text already uses this sort of language - the language of consumption and capture and permission to cross thresholds and so on - to talk about voldemort's attitude to power, magic, and the body.

he drains the blood of unicorns; he uses up the life-force of the people and animals he possesses; he grows stronger by consuming ginny's secrets; he is restored to his body by taking from his father, wormtail, and harry; he takes the money dumbledore offers without feeling the need to thank him or regard it as a gift; he offers up gifts to people he wants to use for his own gain; he "doesn't march up to people's houses and bang on their front doors" [OotP 6]; he hoards and conceals precious things; his soul is kept safe by being encased by the horcruxes; his locket is guarded by something which has to be drunk, which destroys anyone who assumes they can simply take it without his permission; he "would be glad to see anything miss hepzibah shows me" [HBP 20] and then seizes her secrets and uses them to bring about her doom; his descent from slytherin is proven by his control of the threshold of the chamber of secrets; he places himself and his talents at dumbledore's disposal, "i am yours to command" [HBP 20]; he controls snakes and they do his bidding; he drains the ministry of its secrets; he controls the dementors, who devour joy; augustus rookwoord "has lord voldemort's gratitude... i shall need all the information you can give me" [OotP 26]; he is the greatest legilimens - that is to say, he is excellent at pulling other people's secrets into his own mind and using them as he wishes - the world has ever seen; he has seen ron's heart and it is his; his followers live to serve him...

his followers are called death eaters, not death fuckers.

and so it's inarguable, really, that he'd have a legion of service tops under his command...

Nicely written 😊

My problem with Lily and James being seen as a super couple has nothing to do with Severus Snape but rather with the fact that when we look at the relationship between James and Lily through a feminist lens, it’s hard not to notice some pretty glaring issues that go beyond just whether or not they’re an “OTP” couple. Sure, on the surface it might seem like a story of two people finding love amid all the chaos, but scratch beneath the surface and you see a whole lot more about toxic masculinity, objectification, and the erasure of a woman’s agency. James is celebrated as this charming, rebellious “bad boy” with a roguish smile, while Lily gets stuck playing the role of the sacrificial, moral compass woman—someone who exists largely to balance out and even redeem the male narrative. And honestly, that’s a problem.

James is shown as this complex, active character who’s constantly surrounded by friends, enemies, and drama. His life is dynamic and full of choices—even if those choices sometimes involve manipulation and deceit. He’s the kind of guy who can easily slip out of confinement with his Invisibility Cloak, leaving Lily behind in a narrative that, over time, turns her into a background figure. This dynamic isn’t accidental; it’s reflective of how our culture often values male agency over female independence. Lily, on the other hand, is repeatedly reduced to her relationships with the men around her. Instead of being a person with her own dreams, opinions, and friendships, she becomes a symbol—a kind of emotional barometer for how “good” or “bad” a man is. Her character is used to validate the actions of others, which means her individuality gets smothered under the weight of a trope that’s all too common in literature: the idea that a woman’s worth is measured by her ability to tame or save a troubled man.

This isn’t just about a lack of depth in Lily’s character; it’s also about how her portrayal reinforces harmful gender norms. Lily is depicted as this kind of sacrificial mother figure—a person whose primary virtue is her selflessness, her willingness to suffer and sacrifice for the sake of others. While selflessness is often celebrated in women, it’s a double-edged sword when that selflessness is the only thing we see. Instead of having her own narrative, her role is defined by how much she gives up, not by what she contributes or the inner life she leads. And it’s not just a narrative oversight—it’s a reflection of a broader cultural pattern where women are expected to be nurturing, supportive, and ultimately secondary to the male characters who drive the action.

What’s even more frustrating is how Lily’s isolation is used to further the narrative of James’s redemption. Over time, we see Lily’s network of friends and her connections outside of James gradually disappear. It’s almost as if, once she falls in love, her entire world is meant to shrink around that relationship. And here’s where the feminist critique really kicks in: this isn’t a realistic depiction of a balanced, healthy relationship—it’s a story that subtly suggests that a woman’s fulfillment comes from being dependent on one man and his circle, rather than cultivating her own identity. Meanwhile, James continues to be portrayed as this larger-than-life figure who’s got a whole world beyond his romantic entanglement, a world filled with vibrant interactions, rivalries, and a legacy that extends beyond his relationship with Lily.

Another point worth mentioning is the way in which the narrative seems to excuse James’s less-than-stellar behavior. His manipulation, his lying, and his willingness to trick Lily into situations that serve his own interests are brushed off as quirks of a “bad boy” persona—a kind of charm that, in the end, makes him redeemable because Lily’s love is supposed to “tame” him. This kind of storytelling not only normalizes toxic masculinity but also puts an unfair burden on Lily. It’s like saying, “Look how amazing you are, you’re the only one who can fix him!” That’s a dangerous message because it implies that women are responsible for managing or even reforming male behavior, rather than holding men accountable for their own actions.

The imbalance in their character development is glaringly obvious when you compare how much more we learn about James versus how little we know about Lily. James is given room to be flawed, to grow, and to be complicated. His friendships, his rivalries, and even his mistakes are all part of what makes him a rounded character. Lily, however, is often just a name, a face in the background who exists mainly to serve as a counterpoint to James’s narrative. Her inner life, her ambitions, and her struggles are rarely explored in any meaningful way, leaving her as a one-dimensional character whose only real purpose is to highlight the moral journey of the man she loves.

It’s also important to recognize how this kind of narrative plays into broader cultural ideas about gender. When literature consistently portrays women as the quiet, isolated figures who are only valuable in relation to the men around them, it sends a message about what is expected of real-life women. It suggests that a woman’s worth is determined by how much she sacrifices or how well she can support a man, rather than by her own achievements or personality. This isn’t just a harmless trope—it contributes to a societal mindset that limits women’s potential and reinforces gender inequality. The way Lily is written reflects a kind of “tamed” femininity that’s supposed to be passive, supportive, and ultimately secondary to the active, adventurous masculinity that James represents.

At the heart of the issue is the lack of balance in their relationship as depicted in the texts. The idea that Lily “fell for” a man who was clearly not a paragon of virtue is problematic, but what’s even more problematic is how her role in the relationship is so narrowly defined. Rather than being seen as an independent character who makes choices and has her own voice, she is constantly portrayed as someone whose existence is meant to validate the male experience. Even when the texts mention that Lily had her own issues—like hating James at times or suffering because of the way their relationship unfolded—it’s always in a way that underlines her weakness compared to James’s dynamic, active presence.

Looking at the broader picture, it’s clear that this isn’t just about one fictional couple—it’s a reflection of how gender dynamics have long been skewed in literature. Male characters are given the freedom to be complex, flawed, and full of life, while female characters are often stuck in roles that don’t allow them to be fully realized. This isn’t to say that every story with a sacrificial female character is inherently bad, but it does mean that when a character like Lily is reduced to a mere symbol—a moral compass or a measure of male worth—it’s time to ask why and what that says about the society that produced that narrative.

So, what’s the way forward? For one, we need to start reimagining these relationships in a way that allows both partners to be fully fleshed out. Lily deserves to be more than just a side character or a moral benchmark; she should have her own narrative, her own dreams, and her own agency. And as much as it might be appealing to think of James as this redeemable rebel, it’s equally important to hold him accountable for the ways in which his behavior perpetuates harmful stereotypes about masculinity. A healthier narrative would be one in which both characters grow together, where mutual respect and equal agency are at the core of their relationship.

In the end, the story of James and Lily, as it stands, is a reminder of how deeply ingrained gender norms can shape the stories we tell. It’s a cautionary tale about the dangers of allowing toxic masculinity to go unchecked and of confining women to roles that don’t do justice to their full humanity. For anyone who’s ever felt frustrated by these imbalances, there’s hope in the idea of re-writing these narratives—of pushing for stories where both men and women are seen as complete, complex individuals. And really, that’s what literature should strive for: a reflection of the messy, beautiful, and often complicated reality of human relationships, where no one is just there to serve as a prop in someone else’s story.

Ultimately, if we can start imagining a world where characters like Lily aren’t just defined by their relationships to men, where their voices and stories are given as much weight as those of their male counterparts, then we can begin to chip away at the outdated tropes that have held us back for so long. It’s about time we celebrated the full spectrum of human experience—and that means giving women like Lily the space to shine on their own terms, without being constantly overshadowed by a “bad boy” narrative that has little to say about their true selves.

Harry’s problem with authority and his “saving people thing”

Harry has a problem with authority in general. He grew up being ordered around by the Dursleys, and does not appreciate it when people try to exert authority over him, even when they do so with good intentions. He’s touched by Mrs. Weasley saying he’s as good as a son, but impatient with her mollycoddling because he’s not used to the idea of being shielded from information for his own good. He cares for Hermione, but ignores her or lashes out when she nags him.

He’s much more willing to openly contradict authority figures. Snape, Umbridge, Scrimgeour, Dumbledore, and even Lupin in DH. He’s polite, but he does not take it for granted that authority figures deserve respect because they’re authority figures.

He does have adults in his life that care deeply for him, but the problem is that Harry already knows that adults don’t have all of the answers.

And his attitude toward authority is closely related to his “saving people thing.”

Harry learned from a young age that adults could not or would not solve his problems for him. He learned that if he needed help or someone else needed help, he was going to have to do it himself.

So he learned to solve his own problems. And if someone is in danger, he can’t just blindly trust that adults will handle the situation. He doesn’t have that implicit knee-jerk “adults will solve this problem for us” reaction. This is perfectly illustrated when he pulls Gabrielle from the lake in GoF. Ron and Hermione are exasperated with him for not realizing that of course Dumbledore wouldn’t actually let them drown. Harry attributes this to the general creepiness of the lake, but I think it’s deeper than that. It simply doesn’t occur to him that of course the headmaster of the school wouldn’t put an 8-year-old girl at risk for a school event like that.

When you’re little and you think there’s a monster under your bed, you usually run to your parents. Because you see them as infallible human beings and trust implicitly that they’re capable of handling whatever horrible creature is under your bed.

Harry never had that. He had to handle his own monsters. And Voldemort is no different.

I dislike the characterizations that are common in all (or 99%) of wolfstar fics. Their dynamic and relationship are significantly altered just to make them more palatable and workable. Their core personalities suffer in the process as well.

Is this a safe space to say I'm lowk starting to heavily dislike wolfstar

And then they'll pretend they were just joking around

Sirius and James on a random Thursday "you couldn't find one without the other" sir

Not “Only my reading of canon is correct” or “Interpretations are subjective and all valid” but a secret third thing, “More than one interpretation can be valid but there’s a reason your English teacher had you cite quotes and examples in your papers, you have to have a strong argument that your interpretation is actually supported by the text or it is just wrong and I’m fine with telling you it’s wrong, actually.”

Not all kinks have to be accepted. We should accept that it's normal to have these kinks and not shame the people for it, but some practices of kinks shouldn’t be supported or normalized as a good thing. Talking about cnc mostly. It is dangerous to participate in it and people should be wary to even consider it if they have these fantasies. It's okay to have all types of fantasies, but not every fantasy is good for the person or anyone involved. Critical thinking is important in this context. But I agree with the rest.

Boundary setting, LGBTQIA acceptance, and kink positivity, and enthusiastic consent are requirements of a sex positive culture.

Something about the men who turned Harry's life upside down...

Yeahhh I wanted to rank him second, but then I realized he only did all that to avoid being possibly tortured. He was under pressure to succeed from two psychos—his aunt and Voldemort—so I have more sympathy for him. He was never a physically violent person before that, he mostly stuck to verbal taunts and petty bullying. That’s why I think the things he did in sixth year weren’t something he actually wanted to do. He had a Dark Lord ordering him, and those who disobeyed the Dark Lord were punished.

Personal ranking of HP characters based on who did the most to least shitty things during their school years:

1. Tom Riddle: murders, student endangerment, using a deadly creature as a weapon, framing an innocent for his crimes, manipulation of others, encouraging delinquency, school rule breaking and creating a horcrux.

2. Sirius Black: attempted murder, frequent harrasment and bullying of a vulnerable student, intimidation, school rule-breaking, illegal animagi transformation, unauthorized surveillance of staff and students, using an illegal spell, risking his friend's future, belittling his friend.

3. James Potter: attempted sexual assault, frequent bullying and harrassment of a socially vulnerable student, hexing of other students, coercion, threatening, school rule-breaking, illegall animagi transformation, unauthorized surveillance of staff and students, using an illegal spell.

4. Draco Malfoy: multiple attempted murders, affiliation with a terrorist group, repeated use of hate speech, abuse of power, use of an unforgivable curse, school rule-breaking, bullying and intimidation of others, assisting malicious prosecution of an innocent animal.

5. Peter Pettigrew: enabling and participation in rule breaking and unethical behavior, bullying, illegal animagi transformation, unauthorized surveillance of staff and students.

6. Severus Snape: school rule-breaking, use of hate speech against his best friend, affiliation with an extremist group that hates his best friend and practices dark magic on students, invention of a dark spell, ignoring Lily's valid concerns about the company he kept.

7. Hermione Granger: kidnapping and blackmailing of Rita Skeeter, assisting identity fraud, illegal brewing of a potion, theft of ingrediences, school rule-breaking, arson, assisting a prison break, disfigurement of another student, physical assault, unlawful entry of the Ministry, emotional neglect in favor of appeasing Dumbledore.

8. Harry Potter: attempted involuntary manslaughter, physical assault, identity fraud, school rule-breaking, international law violations, aiding a fugitive's escape, theft of ingrediences, invasion of privacy, spying and stalking, unauthorized surveillance of staff and students, unlawful entry of the Ministry.

9. Remus Lupin: continuous enabling of rule breaking and unethical activities, avoidance of responsibilities and duties, unauthorized surveillance of staff and students, allowing a student be harrassed.

10. Fred & George: endangering of students through reckless behavior, unethical experimentation on underage students, school rule-breaking, unauthorized surveillance of staff and students.

11. Ron Weasley: international law violation, identity fraud, assisting illegal brewing, theft of ingrediences, school rule-breaking, emotional neglect in favor of appeasing Dumbledore, betrayal of trust, unlawful entry of the Ministry, enabling of reckless behavior.

12. Lily Evans: dismissing her friend’s struggles, classist behavior towards a vulnerable student, close association with individuals known for illegal behavior and immoral actions towards her ex friend.

The reason some individuals who committed more crimes than others are ranked lower is that I took intent and ethical justifications into consideration, as well as my personal feelings about their actions. Hopefully, I haven't missed anything important.