These Two Are Both Nerds, Yes, But In All Other Aspects They Are Incompatible.

This post sums up all of my most recent thoughts. It feels good to see some sense amid all this chaos.

I don't understand why people say that all hp fans are responsible for Rowling’s actions. How? She did that on her own.

Because, tbh, if you're someone who isn't particularly interested in HP it's basically free morality points. It's easy to do absolute fuck all and then point at others and go "see? I'm morally superior to them because I'm not sacrificing ethics for a kids book!"

The trouble is that all of us are in some way 'sacrificing ethics' all the time in order to maintain the lifestyle we've grown accustomed to. And I'll add that in ways that are much more flagrant than simply talking about a book online. I don't see these people being nearly as gung-ho about everyone giving up amazon or twitter or else they're evil, when using those platforms has a DIRECT, completely unambiguous effect on our society. The reason they're so intense about this in particular is because not caring about HP is something they're already doing without expending any effort whatsoever, therefore it's an easy, cheap way to feel better about themselves at the expense of others.

Seeing the idea that reading/discussing a book means you agree with the author politically propagated on here so uncritically has honestly been... idk pretty surprising to me. The bottom line is I'll never agree with the belief that it's morally wrong to read or discuss any work of literature, I'll never agree with preventing anyone (children or adults) from reading any literature. Like ok conservative queens, what books should we ban next?

But apart from that, I think the fact that the conversation around the ruling has become so focused on HP/fandom in general is a problem.

Strategically, it's absolutely BONKERS, like insanely braindead and counterproductive, to try and tie the issue of trans rights to liking Harry Potter or not. Tbh this might even have the opposite effect, and drive (admittedly fairly weak-willed) people away. But weak-willed or not, how is it at all a sound strategy to alienate people from an issue of basic civil rights over their preferences in literature. If you can recognise that people are too 'selfish' (or whatever you want to call it) to give up their interest in HP for purity's sake, idk, change your tactics because this isn't helping anyone. This is what I mean about more focus on the moral purity of individuals and their thoughts rather than on material reality.

I even think some guilt-tripping in the sense of 'all HP fans should donate 10€ to trans charities before they can be absolved of sin' (obviously not phrased exactly like that lmao) would be soooo much more effective in a material sense. Like tbh I think that would be a fairly successful campaign. If you can harness the guilt many HP fans are likely feeling into something more productive and materially helpful than a twitter beef like... idk I'm all for it. But you can pretty clearly see that a lot of this is more about personal validation than anything else-- otherwise HP fans would be viewed as potential allies to recruit rather than, for some stupid reason, the enemy.

real

regulus is not posting books and sad boy poetry on instagram he’s spreading propaganda on 4chan

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.

Well, kind of. I mean, it suggests he probably doesn’t care much about his hygiene, which could be a result of his depression, or, when he was a kid, a result of parental neglect and poverty. Or maybe he always had naturally oily hair, which might have given the impression that he doesn’t take care of it.

Yk, people are really getting a bit carried away trying to argue that Snape’s hair isn’t greasy, just because they’re uncomfortable with his unkempt appearance. But Rowling consistently describes his hair as greasy; it’s not just Harry’s biased view, but it’s in the narration itself. Harry notices it when he first spots Snape, before any animosity has developed and before his bias kicks in. This is a deliberate part of Snape’s character, contributing to the complexity and depth of who he is. There’s a reason for it. So yes, Snape’s hair is greasy and it’s not just pure bias.

Collection of Harrydore Recs

Sirius Black is a loser.

How did you get into harrymort?

I read the books

I was thinking about Luffy not wanting to be a hero when I realized something.

His very simple yet insightful line, "heroes share their meat, I want all the meat", very clearly shows that heroes make sacrifices. He doesn't want to make sacrifices. Perhaps it's because he's been the sacrifice himself.

Garp is a hero. He's cool too. But he was hardly present in Luffy's childhood. No matter how much he'd get beaten by his grandpa, I bet he'd still rather have him around than not ("being alone is worse than being hurt."). Yet Garp very clearly makes a sacrifice here. Being a marine being a priority over his grandson in the absence of the child's father.

Later, after Enies Lobby, he finds out that Dragon is a revolutionary. Literally a hero of the people. What's he done? The cost he paid for a greater good? He sacrificed Luffy.

So, while Luffy loves really deeply and fights for this love, he would rather have a death grip on his precious ones by being a pirate than let go and sacrifice and become a hero.

This may very well just be me looking too deeply into it, but the idea of Luffy being the sacrifice just did something to my insides that is hard to explain.

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.)

😍😍😍

He spent his fucking adulthood imprisoned.... He never had a chance to have a job or a family..... And then he died!!!!!!!!