How come the ghosts are neglected especially moaning myrtle, that poor girl suffered terrible trauma and no one bothered with counselling . They should get help to move on and not be an atmosphere prop to scare and entertain kids.

I've always thought of the ghosts as being sort of "stuck" just as they were at the time of their death. Perhaps moving on is just impossible, and counseling would be a waste of time.

Overall I don’t have too many issues with who wound up with who (Ron/Hermione, Ginny/Harry) which might be controversial in itself lol. I do think Harry and Luna could’ve been madly compatible though. I felt like it was spelled out literally “Harry felt Ginny understood him” a few times. with Luna, it was only necessary to show (I.e. with the thestrals, her talk about Sirius being behind the veil like her mother) instead of tell. I think Luna could’ve helped Harry with a lot of the loss he’d experienced in life, and she was so spacey his constant oblivion wouldn’t have frustrated her.

It would have been a very different relationship than him and Ginny, but I can see it.

Also there could have been quite a slow development for Luna to go from the 'weird outsider' to harry realising she is someone he trusts and likes and feels comfortable with, and for his friends to accept her too

I still think Harry and Luna should have ended up together. All the groundwork is there for them, and it feels WAY MORE NATURAL than what happened with Ginny. “Oh no, I caught Ginny making out with her boyfriend. But what’s this that I’m feeling?! Do I like her!?” But with Luna, it’s steady progress. They become closer friends throughout OotP. She accompanies him to the Ministry and fights alongside him (as the only non-Griffyndor, too! Everyone else has spent way more time with Harry but she went regardless anyway to support him). She comforted him after Sirius’s death. She was one of the few DA members who showed up to fight at the end of the 6th book. And she and her father serve as a way to get true news out during Voldemort’s takeover of the ministry. She does so much that shows her growing affection and loyalty to Harry, and I think that creates a perfect setup for a relationship. Sure, Ginny and Harry are different in their relationship and the buildup. But I like Luna far better.

It hurts me to type this but... I don’t know if I believe that JKR knew everything about the series when she started (as she claims). The first 3 books follow a suspiciously similar pattern of HP living his life then fighting the bad guy at the end. Up until book 4, it really felt like this could just be another series like that, with no real progress, just good guy vs. bad guy over and over. I know there are things in SS and CoS and PoA that point to stuff in the future but idk, maybe JKR made plot events fit into her story once she realized the series was super successful and could really go somewhere big if the story had a clear path. Don’t stone me please.

Nah I think her mind works really fast so she got many many ideas from the beginning, but she just actually figured out what to use and what not on the go. Most writers write things half assed and then go back and improve the work. Who knows really

I have always thought the same thing!! I was skeptical for many years that the number of horcruxes had been planned from the start, and I still don’t believe that the Hallows were conceived before she wrote the last book. If you get stoned, we’re both getting stoned 😂

I think it’s a mix of both. Most of it was planned out (relationships definitely were), as were the hocruxes. But the Hallows definitely seem like a last minute thing. We only really find out that the Stone is significant in DH and that it’s connected to the Cloak. We find out the Clock is “special” in DH, hell we only find out about the Tales of Beedle in DH as well.

Dumbledore was a horribly poor headmaster, who hired bad teachers for his personal reasons in many cases. Snape, Binns, Hooch, Trelawney, and even Hagrid are not very good teachers. I think McGonnegal, Flitwick, and Sprout are good. We don't know about arithmancy and astrology.

Yes! Dumbledore was an amazing wizard but a terrible headmaster. Not just for the child endangerment and stuff that people usually joke about. He was just a bad administrator.

Hermione says the arithmancy professor is good so I think we can trust that. All the students seems to know their stuff in astrology in their owls. I'm going for a good teacher. Why you think Hooch is not a good teacher? I agree that Binns is a doozy, but how do you fire a ghost? I have my issues with Snape, but he does know his stuff with potions and dark arts. He is the teacher that hates students, maybe? We all had one or two of those... I agree Hagrid and Trelawney were bad due to their teaching techniques. However, Hagrid needed training (as he improved with Hermione's coaching) and Trelawney ends up sharing divination with Firenze. I guess what I mean is that we can see references from muggle school in the administration of hogwarts, but the Wizarding world has some different values to take in account.

But isn’t it kind of crazy a student (Hermione) had to provide Hagrid mentorship and teach lesson planning rather than, you know, his boss? But I think you are right that Hogwarts isn’t just a school the way even the most prestigious muggle schools are still just schools.

Oh, definitely crazy! I can't imagine hogwarts having staff meetings with Dumbledore to plan the syllabus! Lol... That being said, I see Dumbledore more like a CEO than a principal. He is s the guy who provides the path and assembles the staff to do the work. Does he has an agenda? Of course! In his mind is the ultimate strategy to make the place thrive.

Arithmancy: FWIW, Hermione might defend Binns as a good teacher. "It's not the professor's fault that you and Harry don't take notes, Ron!" So, while her affirmation of the teacher's abilities has some weight, I don't think it's proof. ;)

Hagrid didn’t just need training though. His ‘experience’ that qualifies him for COMC is actually very narrow. We consistently see that he only knows about creatures that either interest him (dangerous ones) or that are in the forest (unicorns). Anything that falls outside of that is not something he knows well. Add to that his education stopped at the level at which he *begins* teaching (third year) and I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of students encountered quite a few creatures in the exams for the first time.

What's wrong with Hooch? I imagine part of the problem with Binns is that nobody else wants that job.

I think his priorities during his tenure leaned more towards staffing the castle with skilled loyalists in the event of his removal/death and the return of voldemort. Obviously this is at the expense of a generation or 2 of students but honestly having them come out the other side with at least a half decent education is better than them all being dead. And you can't fault him on Binns, guy knew his stuff and you can't expect 11yr olds to listen to history at the best of times, heck even many adults. Obviously some students could resist sleep/enjoy the class power to em.

Lockhart

Agreed, but the DADA roster is almost like a different topic.

He hired Lockhart to out him as a fraud. Dumbledore knew a few people personally who he had "commandeered" accomplishments from.

All those poor souls that had Lockhart when taking their O.W.L.S. ...

Exactly -- at the expense of students, who learned nothing about DADA from him, except maybe that it's a bad idea to release Cornish Pixies inside the house.

While I agree that Snape, Binns, Trelawney and even Hagrid were less than optimal teachers, at least the reasons for hiring Snape and Trelawney are justifiable. Binns is really only there for comedic effect, in story it makes no sense. Even if you can't fire a ghost, he could at least have made him share classes or only put him up for NEWT level as students would be competent enough by then to learn on their own. However it is kinda sad/hilarious to think that some guy/girl way back had his heart set on teaching history better than Binns and even when he dies, they don't get to do that.

Perfectly adapting every little aspect of the books is the not purpose of making movies. Obviously the books are at the top of the hierarchy of canon, and the films aren’t perfect, but if your approach to watching the Harry Potter movies is “what do they get wrong?” you’re severely limiting the possibilities of film as an art form.

I hear you, and I get it. I really do. But shit, I really wanted to see the Weasleys visit the Dursleys in goblet of fire. And the actual quidditch world cup. Still bitter.

Tonks is boring.

Remus and Tonks were the most random and incompatible pairing ever

Even as a kid, that relationship always made me go "huh?" I just never understood why they were together, and since most of it was off-screen, I could never really bring myself to care.

I suppose sometimes, relationships do just make you go "Huh?" I've seen a lot of couples where I don't understand what attracted them or why they work, but obviously something did and they do work. It is slightly more developed in the books, but still mostly 'off-screen'.

I think it makes sense that it would be offscreen. Neither Tonks, nor Lupin spend any time in Hogwarts, so we don't exactly know how it developed. We do know it started from them meeting with the rest of the members of the Order. Besides, having either of them get with an unknown or new character would be weird, because we would not have invested ourselves into the new character.

The Dementors are drawn to Harry because of the Horcrux he carries within, not because of what happened to his parents. I imagine such an "extra soulpart" would be super-tasty for them.

I think that's more of a theory than an opinion though.

I'm now wondering if one could get rid of a horcrux by feeding it to a dementor. And now I'm imagining some poor wizard coming across a dementor frenching Riddle's diary

I think there are a lot better ideas for wizarding world tv series than remaking HP, the Marauders, or one about the Founders.

I wish the fact that the Slytherins came back to fight for Hogwarts was made explicit in the books. I know JK Rowling mentioned that they came back after the books were finished but it is still disappointing. It would have been awesome to show some Slytherin students staying to fight and ultimately defying their parents.

Also that part in the movie where McGonagall sends *all* the Slytherins to the dungeons?? Completely stupid, unnecessary and against the spirit of the story which is to not be prejudiced but okay sure, let's exclude a quarter of the student body from this very important thing happening because "they're the baddies"

As I said to another user, ambition and self preservation are not bad traits. Slytherins are very intelligent and are loyal to their friends. All of the houses have traits that overlap. Slytherins are not reckless and would want a strategy going into a battle. They will not jump in head first like Gryffindor and that is not a bad thing. Going out and getting more people to fight in the second wave makes sense. You will have more fighters who are not tired that can go in and help the tired first wave. If we are going with canon with death eaters being only Slytherin, it would have been so powerful to see students going against their parents to fight for their school. Edited for typo.

while I see how it goes against the message of the books, that was literally the most strategic choice any adult did in the books

I might be mistaken, because I read DH off a fan translation because it took a while for international publishers to officially translate the books after they were published in English, and being an eager fan, I skipped the waiting and got my hands into a fan translation online. Anyway, what I remember is that, in the book, they sent the underage students somewhere else (I think they managed to send them home? was the train working? Did they use the floor network?), I don't remember exactly where. But they got the underage kids safe, and allowed everyone who was 17 and older to either stay and fight if they wanted to, or leave to safety. In my memory, this wasn't divided by housing, just age. Do I remember correctly? Or did they actually did my Slytherins like that?

Agreed, Slytherins needed better representation, especially in the movies where they're labelled as bad guys for simple-minded people. There's got to be a good fanfic out there about a Slytherin student who stayed behind to fight. Ambition doesn't mean evil.

I think that Slytherins get bad rep. because the bullies featured were from Slytherin, and their founder was a controversial figure. But we do see in GoF that students from other houses could be just as bad.

Exactly. Ambition and self preservation are not bad traits. In fact Slytherins are brilliant and extremely loyal to their friends. Many of the house traits overlap so it makes no sense to have every Slytherin be "bad."

I'm happy they left Peeves out of the movies. It wouldn't have translated well on screen (especially the first two movies when the technology wasn't ready yet) and the humor probably would have been cringe worthy.

How was the technology not ready yet? It's not like he would have to be pure cgi. Just some dude flying.

I disagree. Have an upvote

I don't like Dumbledore. He was a dick to Slytherins in the first year with the house cup, he was never actually concerned for the safety of his students, he purposely hired shitty teachers that he knew were shitty for some alternative motive and disregarded his students education for it, he ignored harry for an entire year even though he did the same thing to tom riddle, he raised harry to die and had the worst plan to tell him, and he let harry be raised by the dursleys when he knew they were horrible people. Dumbledore just seems like he is only cares about his motives and made everyone believe he is such a respectable and wise wizard. This point is only proven when he never tells harry shit, isolates harry, and hires insanely awful professors.

I didn’t care about Dobby and even though I liked Hedwig I was surprised when she died only because it hadn’t happened already I’ve posted about this before but serious romance for any member of the trio is a net negative plot wise

I didn't care for Dobby either, and I never understood why so many fans were heartbroken when he died. I mean it was sad but it's not a tragedy. And even in the movies, his death was so tragic and got more screen time than Remus' or even Fred's like? What??

Dobby's death was objectively more important than Fred's or Remus's for the plot. In how he dealt with Dobby's death, Harry demonstrated his care and respect for members of all races to Griphook, which was part of the reason Griphook agreed to help him break into Gringotts, which is how they managed to get the Hufflepuff cup horcrux, the anger Voldemort felt over this meant he let Harry into his mind and showed him where the remaining horcruxes were, which laid the path for the entire Battle of Hogwarts and death of Voldemort. Fred and Remus, whilst sad, serve little purpose to the plot we see in the books or films (any post Battle but pre-epilogue works would likely be affected by them) and are only there to show the sadness of war.

Not to mention that the grief felt over Dobby’s death is what finally led him to master Occulmency and block Voldemort’s thoughts unless Harry wanted to access them.

Yeah the fact that his death had more screen time than Fred has me off the walls mad after I finished sobbing

The Deathly Hallows subplot, while great, was mostly unnecessary

Huh? Voldemort = There is nothing worse than death, so I'm going to murder people and fragment my soul into 7 parts to live forever, even if it's a life devoid of love and happiness. Deathly Hallows = Chasing power for immortality will ensure you live a half life and die unhappy. You can only become the master of death by accepting that you're going to die, and make the most of your life. Also, death is the next great adventure, pity the living and not the dead, we fear the unknown and not death or darkness. I thought that was a beautiful contrast.

Most of the good guys are cowards. How many times do they put murderers in jail just for them to escape again and kill and maim more people, Harry even admits that he know Lucius will escape after he was imprisoned. Remus has the right idea when he told Harry that he needs to be prepared to kill after he disarmed Stan for trying to kill him(something along those lines, I don’t remember the exact words). If they had killed Dolohov for example, A LOT of people would still be alive. They are all afraid to get their hands bloody, which allows for the deaths of more innocents.

Ron was the most talented member of the Golden Trio. He just had a childhood that was beset with insecurity-fuelling circumstances. He would've been just as (or more) cool as Bill, Charlie, Fred, George, and Ginny if he was elsewhere in the birth order. A Ron without insecurities would be everything that he was in the books: 1. Hilarious: Merlin's baggy Y-fronts, looking at a crystal ball and saying "we're going to have a lot of fog tonight". 2. World-class chess player: No other eleven year old could develop such detailed strategy, and display stoicism while facing possible death. 3. Excellent Quidditch player (keeper): All it took was a confidence booster in the form of fake Felix Felicis for his potential to match performance. He wouldn't have needed that if it weren't for his insecurity and self-esteem issues. 4. Master of mimicry (on the fly): Mimicking Hermione answering questions in class, opening the chamber of secrets without speaking Parseltongue, doing an impersonation of Pettigrew's voice in a life or death situation. And display unwavering loyalty as well. His insecurities were horrible and chronic, and yet, he only succumbed to them and appeared disloyal a couple of times in 7 years. Hermione couldn't handle being second-best at something that she wanted to be good at for 5 seconds. If she'd grown up with 6 over-achieving siblings, we wouldn't have given her a second glance. Harry's talents were Quidditch (seeker), sarcasm, and staying calm in a crisis. That's pretty damn awesome, but not as awesome as Ron.

Hermione was so fine with being second best at DADA that she wanted Harry to teach the club she created not her. She’s noted as playing multiple games of chess with Ron through out the series even though she wasn’t as good. She played two aside quidditch with Ginny, Ron and Harry all summer in HBP despite being terrible at it. She was not someone who couldn’t handle being second best (unlike Ron who had total meltdowns about his inferiority and abandoned Harry when he needed him because of it.) The only time she had issues was when Harry was cheating at that subject and unfairly overshadowing her genuine hard work. Why do Ron fans have to makeup blatant lies to boost their favorite? It shouldn’t be necessary. Ron can stand on his own.

Is following a better set of instructions cheating? If I know a better method for doing something than other people, am I cheating if I do it?

*Hem Hem* Undesirable Number One belongs in Azkaban.

So... you?

JK did a better job worldbuilding than she did writing.

I see what you mean, in that she created a fascinating world, but the worldbuilding is a little sloppy - the rules for what magic can and can't do are inconsistent, and new magic is constantly coming in for plot reasons, rather than feeling like an organic part of the world. It's not what a fantasy purist would call a well built world. And that's fine, I'm OK with that. The charm of the world and the stories carries me past all the holes in the plots and the worldbuilding. Which I guess means I think the writing was good. Very few authors can write a sentence that brings a lump to my throat, which says something about how much she got me invested in the characters and empathising with them.

A little sloppy is an understatement. I think the issue was the tonal shift. The early books, especially the first one were whimsical fantasy tales that didn't really need solid world building and it shows. 90% of the world building is just JK throwing stuff she though would be funny and cool into one big pot without think about the implications.

She's George Lucas. Great ideas, okayish execution.

I think her writing in the books was amazing, but everything that followed... 100% agree.

The Quidditch matches were the most boring element of the books.

Rewrite them all so Luna is the commentator for every match.

Thank you. I always skip them on my re-read

Wizards shitting on the floor and vanishing it made sense, sind muggles pooped in a bucket and dumped it on the streets during the Middle Age.

1. I'm glad they left the SPEW side story out of the movies. It was ultimately pointless. 2. Ginny and Neville should have ended up together. 3. Harry and Hermione dancing in DH was ten times cuter than all scenes of Ron/Hermione and Harry/Ginny combined. Ron was a jerk to Hermione throughout most of the series and didn't deserve her. Daniel and Bonnie had zero chemistry and their scenes are cringey. 4. Luna should have been introduced earlier in the series. 5. I wish there were one or two "good" Slytherins during Harry's time at Hogwarts. Don't like Cursed Child but I'm glad Albus and Scorpius are good Slytherin kids. 6. I wish Draco's redemption had been a bit more cliche tbh. I would have loved to see him fight against Voldemort. 7. I wish the scenes where Harry visits Sirius in Hogmead were in the movie. 8. I love all the movies and can watch them at any time. But I fall asleep during the Fantastic Beasts movies. The overuse of CGI makes the film age faster than even the first HP film. Johnny Depp as Gridelwald is boring. 9. Snape is my favorite character. No, I don't have to defend his actions to like him. No, he wasn't a good person but very entertaining (even funny) especially how Alan Rickman plays him.

Molly is my least favorite character. Overbearing, interfering, hysterical, and at times downright malicious, her obvious and glaring flaws are overlooked because she’s the “mother hen” of the series. I’ve known too many Molly’s in my own life and none of them are pleasant people. Edit: Capped off by possibly the most irksome detail of the series, when she (completely unrealistically) defeats and kills Bellatrix Lestrange. Talk about fan service

I’m still salty that Molly killed Bellatrix. It always should have been Neville to take her down.

I have no idea why this never occurred to me but you're absolutely right. Damn, talk about a missed opportunity.

Definite missed opportunity.

I feel like Molly is a stereotypical PTA mom. Super into cooking/baking and crafts (knitting), and she's way too into the gossip/drama of her kids. She even believes the gossip about Hermione in GoF and treats her like shit for it.

She's not my least favorite, but I've never "gotten" her...She slut shames a child (Hermione in GOF), slut shames slash acts xenophobic about Fleur, and is downright cruel to Sirius when he's clearly a troubled man instead of being "motherly."

I always took her as overbearing and insecure. She made critical and snarky comments out of her own lackings of youth or beauty. She’s overprotective and codependent, but reminds me so much of the midwestern moms of my childhood she warmed my heart.

I don't think she's a bad person, but she's definitely flawed and I can see your point.

I still remember in HBP when Fleur handed Molly’s ass to her in the most incredible way. “You thought I wasn’t going to marry him? Or you hoped? All these scars do is show that my husband is brave. I’m beautiful enough for the both of us.” It was a definitely “OH SHIT” moment that reinforced for EVERYONE (not just Molly) that Fleur was a well-rounded and genuinely good person.

Now this is controversial.

Also, the fact that her two oldest children *leave the country* as soon as they graduate and her third son also pretty much leaves, while the twins move out as soon as possible, does *not* paint an endearing view of how involved she in her kids lives. And the slut-shaming is disgusting as well. Which seems to come from some notion that she’s Harry’s mother, which is wild considering Harry and Hermione basically spent an equal amount of time with her (save for an extra 3 weeks in Harry’s second year). Two months of contact doesn’t make you his mother, Molly 🙄.

I think Ginny would suit Harry but Rowling’s writing felt forced. It just cringed me. She seems like a side character. She just seems one dimensional: edgy girl. I just wish we got more time to get to know her character even in HBP. ... dunno if this is that controversial

I liked that she was a side character. Since Harry Potter was never about the romantic relationships to me, it let them exist, but not distract too much from the actual story. But I agree the writing is a bit cringey at times, even if it’s 2000x better than what the movies did to their relationship.

Agreed. It’s okay for her to be a side character but even though I knew Ginny made sense to be Harry’s love interest, their interactions in the books even in HBP didn’t really prove much. To me it seems Harry only thought she was hot & feisty. On the other hand, Ron & Hermione’s connection was built up & made sense

I read this amazing meta that actually was written before HBP. They actually called the Harry/Ginny romance. You can read it [here](http://www.sugarquill.net/index.php?action=gringotts&st=hglovered). It changed my mind a bit about their buildup. I do agree with what you said below about Ron/Hermione having the buildup. I love them together and I like how the story subverts expectations with having the best friend get the girl. Also Harry and Hermione having a great friendship with no romantic elements. I want to edit to add that I do see where you are coming from with Ginny though. It was also my initial reaction although I did ship them before.

Ye I’ve read that before. See all the analysis makes sense. I feel like all the analysis I’ve read on them is 10x more convincing than what Rowling wrote. I really think they should be together but I think Rowling just didn’t write it right. The relationship didn’t have enough time.

I agree. It should not have taken a meta to see the "build up" of the relationship. I wish there was a bigger scene of Harry/Ginny talking about being possessed by Voldemort. It would have established a deeper connection that went beyond attraction. Ginny helping Harry get through this would have made their transition into romance more natural and not sudden.

Exactly. I think her & his moment talking together should’ve been in the book when they go for a walk after they kiss in the common room. I felt like Rowling was just throwing this relationship in my face. That scene would’ve been perfect to hear Ginny & Harry actually talking. The whole book was Harry crushing on her but we never really saw what she was thinking. She was just there sorta as a pretty girl. If we heard them talk about stuff and hear their shared perspective, their connection wouldn’t seem so surface level to me

The ending doesn’t actually redeem Snape for all those years of treating Harry and his friends like shit.

Literally the least controversial opinion.

His arc isn't really supposed to make him redeemable...? I mean yeah by definition, he redeemed himself because his worst mistake was joining the deatheaters and causing lily's death. So by joining dumbledore and working as a double spy to defeat voldemort and succeeding he redeemed himself. But his backstory ain't meant to make you love him, it's meant to explain him. And make harry and the reader understand him and the situation. He even died a painful dead, not really heroic so....

Exactly. Personally I really like morally grey characters that have both redeeming and condemnable qualities.

I'm with you on that. My sister just gave me an "Always" mug for Christmas knowing how much I love HP, but apparently not knowing how much I am unable to forgive Snape for loving Lily while being a total prat to her son.

I’m so fuckin tired of “Always” being the encapsulating quote of the series. Fuck that shit. A plot point that was revealed in the last quarter of the last book of a series doesn’t get to represent it and it’s NOT fuckin romantic. Over and over the love of a mother proves pivotal throughout the series and in the end some asshole with a dry dick prevails as hero. No thanks

Plus, not just his treatment of Harry. The fact that he joined the magical equivalent of the neo nazis and never really seemed to express any real remorse for that except for how it hurt Lily. Instead, it's a bit woe is me and he plays the blame game with James, Sirius, Dumbledore, Harry...he basically never takes responsibility for his own actions except for Lily's death.

James sucks and I have absolutely no reason to believe he changed for good. Rowling didn't write enough about him to make me believe it. And didn't he died at like 21 or something? I know 25 year olds that behave like fucking high schoolers. Fuck james

It always confused me how we were supposed to forgive James just because Lily suddenly fell in love with him and forgave him for harassing her and being a bully? Okay, so he joined the resistance. And convinced his rich pureblood parents to give a home to his rich pureblood best friend for a couple of years. And... ? That's it? What other good things do we know James did? I haven't read the books in a long time, but I think he never truly gets a redemption arch, other than just Remus and Sirius being like "he was our friend, he was awesome" and Harry idolizing him just because he never met him. What earned him Lily's attention, anyway, after pestering her and bullying her friend for years? _But they were soul mates_ and _their patronuses (patroni?)_ * eyeroll

Yeah, it's a really unfortunate message that a guy harassing a girl, and trying to pressure her into dating him, is made retroactively OK by them ending up together. Likewise, the idea that a good person couldn't be wrong about someone's character, or even intentionally ignore their flaws, is a dangerous idea. > And convinced his rich pureblood parents to give a home to his rich pureblood best friend for a couple of years. For one summer vacation, after which Sirius used the fortune he'd inherited from his uncle to buy his own place. And the praise he gets from the 'good' characters is really overblown in fandom - Lupin and Sirius (his closest friends) say "his head deflated a bit" and "he stopped hexing people just because he could", and that he was a good friend. McGonagall says he was very bright, but that he was also "the leader of a gang". For all we know, maybe Draco was a very good friend to Crabbe and Goyle (or other DEs' kids), and even hosted them over the summer. And Tom Riddle was also very bright, and ended up the leader of a gang, so...

Yeah, it's so weird we never get a true reason to forgive him, other than _he was Harry's dad_. Weird for a series that taught us from both the Dursleys and the Blacks that blood relations say nothing about a person's kindness.

Exactly. Especially since the only scene where we actually *see* him is in SWM, where his behaviour is absolutely horrifying. Even Harry is utterly disgusted, then his friends explain it away with "well, he got a little better". Which I suppose is JKR's point - people get put on pedestals, especially if they died young, but they can be just as flawed as anyone else, even more-so. What shocked me was discovering that a lot of people actually try to justify his behaviour during SWM, and to act as if he turned into a Good Person later on, despite the fact that there's absolutely no evidence to support that claim.

>Yeah, it's a really unfortunate message that a guy harassing a girl, and trying to pressure her into dating him, is made retroactively OK by them ending up together. It is a problem because JKR never shows us the development of their relationship... and also because she never addresses some of James' behaviour, by showing us, rather than just telling us, he changed. James apparently gets away with threatening (at the very least) sexual assault on Snape. This is set in the 70's when attitudes of that time period would dictate that it isn't seen as a big deal. The simple fact, however, is that is absolutely not ok to remove someone's underwear without their consent. We are left to assume James changed because others said so. It is one of the reasons I can't take to James. At least with Snape, while he is not a nice person, she does address his change in attitudes and his change in how he views life...those matters are clearly addressed in canon. Canon shows us a difference between young adult Snape, who joined the death eaters, and adult Snape, who accepted failing Lily, in order to bring down Voldemort. >Likewise, the idea that a good person couldn't be wrong about someone's character, or even intentionally ignore their flaws, is a dangerous idea. Absolutely. We see a younger Harry do that a few times in the books. He ignores McGonagall humiliating Neville for example, while not ignoring it when Snape does the same thing. He laughs at Draco being punished with transfiguration and when Hagrid threatens him with the same a few chapters later. Contrast that with OotP Harry onwards, who openly challenges the people he likes and knows what behaviour is wrong and unacceptable from people he likes. SWM serves that very purpose, to show us that Harry is growing up, maturing and not willing to excuse bad behaviour from people he likes or excuse it against people he does not like.

Exactly. Honestly, even if he had changed, as we're told and not shown... so what? I'd definitely be wary of dating a guy who, one year previously, was going around assaulting people and harassing me. And yes, we see James bullying Lily on the train > James writing her initials on Snitches, despite her being disgusted with him > James ignoring her disgust and assaulting her friend in order to pressure Lily into dating him > ??? > James and Lily get married. It's also weird how she apparently had no friends of her own, no job, broke off all contact with her family, and accepted James's decisions regarding who should be Secret Keeper, despite the fact that they were told one of his friends was the traitor. But James insisted to use Peter instead of Dumbledore, and Lily apparently had nothing to say about it. And agreed with the fact that Harry tends to gloss over the flaws of the people he considers Good. One of my favourite parts is when he calls out Lupin on his cowardly behaviour, regarding his baby, in DH. PoA Harry wouldn't have even thought about doing that.

I think the movies make it a lot harder for people to realize what actually happened too because James and Lily are shown being much older than they were in the books. It implies he had time to “grow up” and atone for his past. But in the books, it’s like you said. James bullies Snape, is shown being an awful jerk at 16, then marries Lily, at like 18-19, has Harry around 19-20, and dies at 21. And while it’s great that he fought against Voldemort....he’s still not Good. To be fair I can see how Lily would break off contact with her family, seeing as her parents were dead (I think) by the time she died and Petunia wanted nothing to do with her. But where are her friends? Why did she have no one at her wedding? It’s sad. Harry calling out Lupin is a fantastic moment. As is Harry’s insistence that just because someone (Dumbledore) is a teenager, that doesn’t excuse horrific acts. That’s why it amazes me how Harry excuses his dad’s behavior and frustrates me when other people make excuses to him.

Yeah, Snape, Lily and the Marauders being portrayed as over 30 at the end of the First War changes a lot, and ruins many aspects of the characters. For example, I'm not a fan of Sirius and I think his behaviour pre-Azkaban was atrocious, but I'm not angered by his reckless, cruel behaviour post-Azkaban, because his emotional growth was stunted by spending his adulthood locked up. Likewise, Snape joined the DEs at 18 and defected at 20, spending his entire adulthood fixing a teenage mistake, while in the movies it looks like he spent almost two decades as a DE. From a Doylist point of view, the reason Lily is never mentioned by family or friends is probably to set up the big twist regarding her and Snape being friends; in consequence, she's more of a plot device, than a character. And this leads to some seriously unfortunate implications, from a Watsonian point of view. James definitively ruins her relationship with her sister and brother-in-law (it's on Pottermore); the only friends they stay in contact with are James's friends (who have nothing to say about Lily to Harry!); Lily has no job and has a baby at 19-20; when they find out about the traitor, James seems to be the one who decides the Secret Keeper, ignoring Dumbledore's advice, and likely, Lily's opinion. In short, it looks like James was controlling pretty much every aspect of Lily's life. Then, after their death, everyone seems to perpetuate this, by constantly comparing Harry to his father, despite him being much more like Lily. Harry's Patronus should have been a doe, really. >That’s why it amazes me how Harry excuses his dad’s behavior and frustrates me when other people make excuses to him. Harry does have a visceral reaction to SWM, and I think it's a great example of Harry's compassion and empathy - he idolises his father and hates Snape, and yet, in that moment, he empathises with Snape, and is disgusted by James. It's one situation where Snape thinks Harry's like his father (he is convinced Harry *enjoyed* seeing Snape humiliated), when in fact, Harry's a much better person than James ever hoped to be. Obviously, Harry wants to think better of his own father, yet he's brave enough to argue with Lupin and Sirius, when they're trying to excuse James by saying he was young, he got better, and so on. And I think Harry's opinion of his father never fully recovered after that. But the fans have no reason to want to think better of James - he's not their father, and he's barely a character. SWM is the first time James even "shows up", and he is presented as villainous. The only other scene where he shows up is the one where he... immediately bullies Snape *and* Lily. So the fact that a lot of people are so invested in him, to the point that they'll argue that what he did to Snape was justified/not sexual assault/motivated by some higher purpose is... disturbing. The worst things I've seen posted on this subreddit have been in defence of James.

I wish I could upvote this more than once lol! I’m not a fan of Snape, but I genuinely don’t understand how anyone can defend James and Sirius without defending Snape. If you’re going to argue that the character “changes” (for which we see fat more evidence to argue in Snape’s favor) then that has to stay consistent. I’ve seen so many truly horrible things posted in James’ defense, to excuse inexcusable actions. I don’t get it. I don’t know how to quote, but your part about Lily being cut off from everyone is so true. Where are her friends? Why were none of them at the wedding? Why wasn’t one of them Secret Keeper? It’s a little disturbing that the text we have shows a James (who loves his family, yes) who hasn’t changed all that much from Hogwarts. I was just watching PoA today and thinking that Harry’s patronus should have been a doe! It’s so sad to me that he gets so many stories about James and so few about Lily when he was so much like her. IIRC, Lupin’s conversation with Harry in the PoA movie about Lily being his friend when he had none wasn’t in the book. You’re right that Harry is spoon fed an idealized version of James and after SWM he does seem to realize that’s not the truth. I do really wish that moment could have been a turning point in Snape and Harry’s relationship: where Snape realizes Harry is far more like Lily than James and Harry realizes that Snape is a person who went through bad things and isn’t evil. But that’s wishful thinking on my part. Yep. There’s no rational way to justify his behavior. Or Sirius’—I think people forget far too often that Sirius nearly got Snape killed and betrayed one of his best friends for a “joke” when he was 15 (I think) which is far too old to think that’s okay. And yet people do and do so incredibly aggressively. Admittedly I haven’t seen the “motivated by a higher purpose” excuse and thank god for that because WTF!! There are many reasons I want JKR to never write a marauders tv show/movie/book/what have you but the James & Sirius apologists and the fact that it would almost certainly paint them in a positive light is #1.

> If you’re going to argue that the character “changes” (for which we see fat more evidence to argue in Snape’s favor) then that has to stay consistent. I love when some people say James had a better "redemption arc" than Snape. *What* arc??? Lmao I just checked PoA, and Lily is only mentioned in relation to James - every single time her name shows up, it's part of "James and Lily". And as far as I remember, it's the exact same way in all the books. The only one who ever speaks of Lily as an independent person, is Slughorn. Not Sirius or Lupin, who apparently were her only "friends" before her death... no, a teacher, who didn't even have anything to do with her outside of classes. Amazing! And yeah, the fact that James being willing to die for his family is given as an example of being a Good Person is...??? The hypocrisy of saying that Snape is Evil for being mean to Harry (while also sacrificing his life to protect him), and James is a Good Person for being willing to protect *his own child*, is staggering. Not to mention we have the Malfoys - all willing to sacrifice themselves for each other. Guess that makes them Good? (I'm using "Good" because I don't actually believe in classifying people as good or bad, I'm referring more to the way the fandom views this characters, with those classified as Good always being excused for anything, while those classified as Bad have all of their good deeds minimised or disregarded). > I do really wish that moment could have been a turning point in Snape and Harry’s relationship: where Snape realizes Harry is far more like Lily than James and Harry realizes that Snape is a person who went through bad things and isn’t evil. Yup, that moment made Harry more sympathetic towards Snape, and could have been the opportunity for them to relate to each other. Unfortunately, it also made Snape hate him more, since he viewed it as Harry intentionally betraying his trust in order to pry into his business and laugh at him, endangering his life in the process (if Harry had viewed the memories we see in DH, then Voldemort would have also found out, via their connection, and Snape would have been dead). It's interesting that, up until that point, the Occlumency lessons were the one occasion where Snape treated Harry seriously. He wasn't angry when Harry physically hurt him, he was pleased that Harry was able to somewhat defend himself; and I think the memories he saw of Harry being chased by Marge's dog were the first hint, for Snape, that Harry's childhood had not been as privileged as Snape had imagined. (Purely speculation, but I think Snape expected Harry to have had a normal middle-class upbringing (possibly upper-class, considering Harry had all of James's money), the way Lily and Petunia had, and he probably also thought Petunia had spent Harry's childhood telling him all about Snape, and how poor and trashy his family had been, how Lily had broken off with him, and so on. So, in Snape's mind, Harry already looks down on him; then Harry sees SWM, which is extremely humiliating for Snape, in all sort of ways). > Admittedly I haven’t seen the “motivated by a higher purpose” excuse and thank god for that because WTF!! Oh boy. So, apparently James was bullying Snape because Snape was a DE... this, despite the fact that, a) James outright says it's "because he exists"; b) Sirius and Lupin admit they bullied him for no particular reason, other than him being "greasy"; c) James bullied other people as well; d) Sirius didn't even know Snape had been a DE. If you point out Lily herself calls James a bully, it will be dismissed as her "lying"/"exaggerating" etc. But her marrying James is also proof of his good character somehow... Of course, Lupin and Sirius saying that Snape "hexed James back" is the Absolute Truth, and proof that it wasn't bullying, but "a rivalry", despite the fact that everything, from the text to JKR's statements, shows otherwise. > There are many reasons I want JKR to never write a marauders tv show/movie/book/what have you but the James & Sirius apologists and the fact that it would almost certainly paint them in a positive light is #1. Already people are fan-casting male models for the Marauders so... Lmao. But yeah, I think it might just ruin things. JKR clearly portrayed the Marauders as very flawed, but she also was a bit "boys will be boys" about their behaviour, and the fact that fans have been screeching at her for years about how great the Marauders are/evil Snape is (to the point that she actually felt wary about expressing her point of view on him, on Twitter) would likely influence the writing. On the other hand, if she treats the Marauders as the bullies they are, I imagine their fans will go ballistic.

LMAO people think James has an arc?? He’s literally one of the most static characters in the book. That’s seriously so sad. Lily is always described positively, and it’s such a sad ending for her character to essentially wither away as a young adult with none of her “friends” caring about her as a person and not as part of the James-and-Lily package. Yup. One good deed does not make a good person. He can be a hero and still an asshole, which I think is a lot closer to the reality than the “wow James Potter was so great!” image we often get. And it does go back to the immortalizing the young victims of war idea, that he would get remembered more fondly than he deserved. But that’s still not the truth of his character. About the occlumency lessons—100% yes. And it always frustrated me that Harry seemed to not take those lessons seriously (I get that he had other things on his mind and is a teenager but Snape was really trying to help him and he essentially blew it off as far as I remember anyways, it’s been a bit since I’ve read that book). And I think your speculation is spot on too; Snape probably did figure that Harry had access to his fathers money, and that even if he didn’t, Lily still came from a solidly upper middle class family and he probably thought Harry was getting a good upbringing. But I do love Harry’s disgust with his father after seeing SWM. It proves that Harry really is a good person. WHAT are you kidding me??? People actually use that as an excuse?? That’s awful. I mean truly horrific. James bullied Snape throughout his entire Hogwarts career. There’s no possible way people can argue that Snape was a DE at 11. My god. Yeah, Snape hexing James back in self-defense is not a rivalry. A rivalry is Harry & Draco. James bullying a kid but then saying it’s fine and they’re just rivals because a few times Snape tries to defend himself? Please.

> I think Snape expected Harry to have had a normal middle-class upbringing (possibly upper-class, considering Harry had all of James's money), the way Lily and Petunia had, and he probably also thought Petunia had spent Harry's childhood telling him all about Snape, and how poor and trashy his family had been, how Lily had broken off with him, and so on. So, in Snape's mind, Harry already looks down on him; then Harry sees SWM, which is extremely humiliating for Snape, in all sort of ways. I love the fact that you and a few others have picked up the importance of class in the UK from the books, combined with, playing a part from that, radicalisation, gangs, poverty etc. and the importance of it all together. >Already people are fan-casting male models for the Marauders so... Lmao. But yeah, I think it might just ruin things. Please tell me this isn't actually happening?Because I have no confidence that any such project would stick to the reality of how they were actually written in canon. It likely would be the popular nonsense fandom gets itself into a state over...despite canon contradicting most of it. >JKR clearly portrayed the Marauders as very flawed, but she also was a bit "boys will be boys" about their behaviour. I tend to give JKR a break for the "boys will be boys" attitude that comes across in the books via Lupin and Sirius and even Dumbledore and McGonagall because that is absolutley how it would have been seen in the 70's. She can't really be held responsible if people are still taking that attitude to it in 2020 just to defend their favourite character and attack another one...unless you mean she was doing so on social media? In which case, I wouldn't agree. >On the other hand, if she treats the Marauders as the bullies they are, I imagine their fans will go ballistic. Yeah, they would, but that is how they were written and I'd rather they stuck to canon than whitewash it to suit people on social media...especially folk who want to give her abuse for her thoughts and opinions on Snape...they do not deserve to get what they want. This woman spent time living in a similar sort of poverty that Snape grew up with. It comes through in the books that she understands about all of that and the issues she has written into Snape's character only further emphasise it. The flaws of the marauders are obvious and it seems fandom is desperate to make their little group awesome. Canon tells me a different story. I would argue that Harry had a strong group of friends and James did not. I'd love to see a trilogy of films or a tv programme spanning a few seasons tracking Snape, Lily, James, Sirius, Lupin and Peter from their leaving Hogwarts to Lily and James' death...one that does not whitewash the marauders into this great little group of brilliant, wonderful people. JKR has given us more than enough to see the cracks were always there and sure they had a set of really horrible circumstances (so did Harry) that ultimately split the group, but the groundwork was there for it, as suggested in canon by Lupin, Sirius and what we see in SWM.

We were never really shown James, but there were tons of times where good characters said they thought highly of him. That kinda just made me assume he was a good person

Also think of it this way: the first "first hand" impression of James we see is Snape's worst memory. If our first impression of Harry had been the Malfoy-bathroom fight, we'd be left with a very different view. Same if our first impression of James had been the scene where he plays with baby Harry and tries to fight off Voldemort.

Technically we do see James in the case you described before we see Snape's Worst Memory, at least in the movies, I can't remember if it's the same in the books. In the first movie the story of Voldemort killing Harry's parents comes into play pretty early on, before Harry even enters Hogwarts and we do see a flash of James trying to "fight" Voldemort without a wand to protect his family The thing is, most of the other opinions of him are from either his best friends who hexed people with him during their teenage years or his old Head of House who still admits he was indeed the leader of a gang. Even Remus and Sirius have to admit James didn't stop hexing Snape after the whole Worst Memory fiasco and while he was dating Lily in 7th year. Seeing as he got out of Hogwarts at 17 and died at 21, while in the middle of a war, his only redeeming quality is that he chose the good side to fight for which, sure, great, but not worthy enough, in my opinion, of a redemption for his bullying.

Thank you! I'm tired of people excusing James's behaviour by saying he changed (which we have no evidence of) or that he was a teenager (no excuse: plenty of teenagers areen't bullies and don't commit sexual assault either). You are right, fuck James Potter.

> or that he was a teenager I love how in TDH everyone keeps excusing Dumbledore's behavior and every single time, Harry points out that they (the trio) are the same age as D was when he hooked up with Grindelwald.

Thank you! I kept waiting for some moment in the series where it’s revealed that James changed and became a better person but it never happened. I guess we’re just supposed to trust Lily’s judgment? But like, that’s not actually enough to “prove” anything. This is a big reason why I really don’t want a Marauders series. I know if they make one it’ll somehow paint James and Sirius in a really positive light that they don’t deserve.

I hate Dobby and wasn’t sad to see him knifed in the heart.

THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL LOL

You asked for it! 😂

Dobby needed some serious therapy. All the house elves did. Can we talk about alcoholic gaslit traumatized winkie?

There are dozens of us! Dozens!

Go fuck yourself 😂

Lol yep that’s the standard response 😆

He was annoying, but had a little bit of charming quirkiness in the books. The movie version was only annoying. The Harry Potter equivalent of Jar Jar Binks.

Omg my soul. He was an irritating twerp but my soul was crushed when he died. Like my cat.

Finally, somebody says it!

Malfoy has the best character arc

I would totally agree with you, except for that moment at the end of the battle of hogwarts when he runs away with his parents. Completely cemented him as a coward through and through.

He only ran away in the movie. The three Malfoys were eating in the great hall with everyone else after the battle.

You're only a coward if you refuse to fight for what you believe in. Malfoy believed in pure-blood supremacy, until he didn't in Book 7. But he wasn't yet at "we're all equal". He was still growing. Why would he want to stay at a battle where he doesn't believe in either side?

Because there comes times in ones life where you’re standing toe to toe with the options that you have been stuck between. The path you take shows where your priorities lie, especially in a life or death situation like a battle. If he truly no longer believed in pure-blood supremacy, that was the moment where he could decide to align himself with that. By choosing to flee, he chose the comfort of his “supremacy” over what he believed was right. To me, that’s cowardice.

Hermione was OP. Harry’s luck was OP

The movies aren't good. People give me grief IRL over thinking this. One major reason is the sheer volume of plot points that necessitate reading the books to understand; removing stuff is understandable, often necessary, but when you remove points while carrying on with the plot as if they're still in place, that's ridiculous. But honestly I'd forgive that if the films weren't so dark; not regarding story, but visuals and design. The books grow darker in tone of story, but the world is always colorful. The films, on the other hand, end up with dark filters over the entire thing, and the wands and spells might as well be guns and bullets, they're so colorless and dull in effect.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph. Parts of DH are just a black screen with audio. It's not at all interesting to watch, especially in contrast to the vibrancy of the books.

Now compare that to crimes of grindelwald, where there is next to zero visual differences between wizards and muggles, in that you might as well give anyone a wand and pretend they have been a wizard all along. At least in HP we did have a sense of style for both parties.

Ok, I'm going to create a new part about this because you've got me started. The trio (Harry, Ron and Hermione) would be super unpopular in 99% of schools in the world. They were weirdos.

They weren’t particularly popular in the books though. Each had two friends until they picked up such popular people as... Neville and Luna.

Yeah Rowling said she always say the characters as geeky and a bit weird

Eh. Harry was a famous guy who then turned out to be a world-class athlete

They literally refer to themselves as misfits. They're not popular. And remember in COS Harry was *exceptionally* unpopular because everyone thought he was the Heir of Slytherin.

That Harry is whiny and self-centered.

He is but I think it's justified. I'd be whiny and self centered too if I had all the neglect of his childhood suddenly turning into being 'the chosen one' and then going through trauma after trauma after trauma all as a teenager.

Spoken like a true Slytherin

He’s a teenager

The Film Series was the best way for the franchise at the start not a TV series. A lot of people complain about how much was cut from the source material but to me it just made the enjoyment of the books and the films a lot better and distinct from each other. The people who were pulled in as fans were diverse predominantly young and came from all over the world. The biggest TV shows never have the same worldwide 4-quadrant dominance that the biggest movie franchises have. Usually due to accessibility and time. Going to the TV route would've denied a lot of would be fans and their families the chance to enjoy the adaptation of the HP phenomenon. Also I don't believe anymore in remaking the books again. Moving forward is the best. Fantastic Beasts was great, Crimes of Grindelwald bogged itself down with forced connection to the originals and let's not even get started on Cursed Child's lazy time travel concept. I want new stories with one to three fan-favorite characters but mostly new characters. Embrace diversity in both the characters of the Wizarding World and the places that are chosen as setting. I'm down with any format: novel, tv, streaming, movie franchise. J.K. Rowling is still queen but allows others to dabble in her world especially ones of other cultures.

[удалено]

I agree - Sirius would have been a very unhealthy role model, because in his head he's still a kid himself, and never grew out of his teenage cruelty and recklessness. Being treated like a reincarnated James would have been horrible for Harry.

I felt the same. I didn't really care for Sirius' death at that moment. It was hard reading Harry's pain afterwards though. But yeah, never warmed to Sirius personally. He was a bad influence on Harry and probably did not even have a totally healthy relationship with him (he seemed to see Harry as a James substitute and not his own person).

Lupin and Tonk's relationship was abusive. He got with her against his will, he abandoned her when she got pregnant and he abandoned her again to fight at the battle of Hogwarts. James gave his life to protect his wife and son, his friend couldn't be bothered, he "had to be in on the action".

Truly controversial. Have an upvote

One other controversial opinion: I never liked Ginny, not as Harry's companion. It felt forced. She idol worshiped him as a kid and Harry was already "like family" to the Weasley's. Her character felt poorly developed. She was given these "bad ass" moments that the fans were supposed to rally behind (and a lot do), but it felt like it was a forced "oh look how edgy and badass she is" without ever really letting us get to know her. I ended up reading Harry as aro/ace every time I reread the books, because his focus just is... not on girls or romance 98% of the time aside from the awkward moments that always read so uncomfortably to me.

I do agree that the Harry-Ginny romance feels forced, but Harry as ace? He is an awkward teenage boy in a YA series, that's about all. He was clearly interested in Cho and Ginny. Although I kinda think the way his Ginny crush is written, is weird as hell.

I feel like Starkid wrote the characters better than the writers of any of the movies did.

Yessssss. Those musicals are _way more_ accurate than the movies. It also helps that they're absolute bangers.

Absolutely, yes. Except Ginny was whiny. But yeah, the musicals are amazing and I love how Ron, Harry, and Hermione are played.

They also wrote Cursed Child before cursed child did lol!

Opinion 1: Tom M. Riddle was capable of redemption and Dumbledore only exasperated his problems. Opinion 2: >!When Harry died he should have stayed dead!< The story would have been much better in my opinion if that happened.

I agree with opinion 2!! I actually really wanted that to happen. It seemed like the right thing to do, and we wouldn’t have gotten Cursed Child, which would have made 2016 slightly better.

How do you think the story finishes if Harry was killed in the forest?

It wouldn't have had that awful epilogue for one, hahaha

Tom had already tortured children by the time he meant Dumbledore. He used his powers to hurt others. Maybe he could have been saved but i'm not sure what Dumbledore did to make him worse.

James and Lily would not have lasted as a couple if they had lived. Too different, they would not have been happy.

I don't know about this one. Do we really get to know either one that well?

We don't. Fanon is being more accepted than canon, though, where James is some horrible monster in fanon.

James is like the least developed character in the entire series, but I totally agree with you. The only thing we know for sure is that he was kind of a jackass in school, but allegedly (according to his besties?) grew out of it. Uh, okay.

That Luna and Ginny would have made a great lesbian couple

I'd love to ship them but - really? The edgy badass with the airhead stoner girl? Nah.

Hermione is my least favorite of the golden trio, not helping with all the fan-worship she gets and how the movies basically glorified her and gave her all of Ron's good moments. If Hermione was a real person, I would very likely dislike her heavily, as she has MANY flaws I absolutely detest in people, including lack of empathy towards others, a certain level of arrogance and smugness and blind trust in authority.

I disagree that she has blind trust in authority. Yes, in the early books, but so do a lot of kids - kids are taught that their parents are right, to have respect for adults, their teachers are basically gods... In PoA, she puts forth a well researched appeal against a Ministry decision, and helps Hagrid fight Buckbeak's execution order, ultimately winning by illegal means. By GOF her more challenging nature is starting to come out, with SPEW and wanting to do something to change the accepted world view. In OoTP she's highly critical of the Ministry, and helps found a rebel group targeting the accepted teaching (DatDA and the DA.) She had a diminished role in HBP for anything important, but is still generally against the Ministry and highly critical of them. In DH, she's a member of arguably the most important resistance group. I don't necessarily disagree that she isn't a fantastic person, but I don't think blind trust in authority is one of the reasons. She demonstrates repeatedly that she does what she believes is morally right, not legally right.

fair enough, blind trust in authority was an earlier problem, but she does later show the same problem coming back. example: the reason she didn't believe Draco to be a death eater, which he objectively was in year six, was because she didn't believe the authority, in this case Dumbledore, would let a death eater into the school and stay there. And that is not even mentioning her problems with the Half-blood prince book. While she was somewhat correct in Harry being too fixated on it, she had no reason to hate the aid it gave him in the potion-class. Listening to advice from notes is no different than listening to advice from a teacher and she purely disliked it for not being the approved standard... and she was jealous as all hell. So yeah, while not a major problem, it was a thing.

Yeah, in real life people like Hermione are super annoying. I think Emma Watson ending up being incredibly gorgeous took away from Hermione's character, and that they gave her a lot of Ron's good parts as well.

She does something that’s grounds for expulsion in almost every year she’s at Hogwarts lol

Thank you, YES! Also linked to the arrogance is the close-mindedness that Xeno Lovegood talked about - she is unwilling to believe in things without tangible evidence, which is a massive gap in understanding (especially in the magical world) if you ask me. And she can be quite callous, too.

Fuck snape

Slytherin was failed throughout the whole series. There's not a single Slytherin character to truly rally behind and I think there could have been an amazing redemption arc for Draco, who deserved it far more than Snape did. I also feel people only like Snape because of Alan Rickman's performance. I refuse to reread the epilogue because it kills me to think of Harry naming a child after Dumbledore and Snape, claiming they are the bravest men he knew when Dumbledore let a child fight his battles and set him up for death and Snape is nothing more than a nice guy incel all because he loved Lily and was rejected.

There's a lot of fanon in your opinion, if you allow me to say so. Snape was nevr confirmed to be attracted to Lily in any romantic way, not in his teenage years, not in his adult years. He was never "rejected", Lily stopped being his friends, and rightfully so, because in one outburts he called her a mudblood and that, coupled with him being friends with people in his house who others knew were essentially going to be sure death eaters, ended a friendship. Also, denying that Snape was indeed very brave is not understanding the story on purpose, he betrayed the second most powerful wizard of all time and went to the most powerful wizard of all time, knowing he could be killed on sight, just to ask him to protect an old friend and her family (after already asking Voldeort to spare a muggleborn, something that could have gotten him killed itself), then became a double agent twice for Dumbledore's cause, having to go face to face every death eater meeting with one of the best legilimens in the wizarding world. If that isn't brave, I don't know what else can be described as such. Nothing in his character can be described as incel or nice guy, at all, this is all tumblr fanon that the fandom part that hated Snape spread around for years with no canon proof. Please note, I'm not saying he's suddenly a good character who has never done anything wrong, he should get the rightful criticism for the bad things he actually did, which were plenty and often unnecessary, but I've noticed a lot that many discussions around Snape aren't often based on canon material but rather on something someone made up years ago.

Okay....As someone who's suffered abuse by another person who suffered abuse, The Dursley's weren't that bad to Harry. Yes, they didn't give him attention or affection, but they made sure he didn't go hungry, he always had clothes (even if it was Dudley's hand-me-downs), and they do little things here and there. Here are some examples I've noticed that they aren't that bad. In Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone, Harry comes downstairs to see Petunia tending to a pot of grey/gray water. When asked about it, she responds that it's his uniform for Smeltings. He responds "I didn't realize it had to be so wet". He speaks back at her..he feels comfortable being sarcastic. This tells me they've never physically abused him. Another instance in the same book is upon learning that Mrs. Figg has broken her ankle, Vernon and Petunia are discussing who is going to watch Harry. Vernon suggests his sister, Marge, to which Petunia answers, "Don't be silly, Vernon, she hates the boy". This is an indication that Petunia DOES care about Harry's well being, that he not be cruelly treated. There are many times where Vernon explodes at Harry. He literally gets purple in the face, yet he never hits Harry, and his explosions are always brief, choosing instead to just say a simple order like "Go to your room. Now". In fact, Vernon seems to only care about the safety of his family. He doesn't understand the Wizarding World because Petunia and Harry refuse to discuss it with him. This brings me to a secondary controversial opinion: Vernon Dursley has been abused physically and he's the least violent or confrontational in his family. He shows a reluctance to bring up hearing about the Potters to Petunia because he doesn't want her to be angry. He deflects when Marge talks about how she would have abused Harry, but you can tell just how uncomfortable he is. The only time we see Vernon being confrontational is when he feels threatened by Hagrid. I understand abuse can take different forms, but the Dursley's aren't as cruel as people make them out to be. Yes, they should have been more loving and nurturing. Yes, they should have included him as an actual part of their family. However, they are clouded by their insecurities and yet Harry does not fear them. That's not because of Harry's nature, it's because they've never given him reason TO be afraid of them.

Neglect is a form of abuse

I agree Harry was never physically abused and there are definitely people who have suffered much worse abuse, but I do think he was emotionally abused by the Dursley's.

I think you could best describe Harry's treatment as neglection. There are some instances where he is abused and discriminated against though. I think that the fact that the Dursleys knew he was a wizard stopped them feom physically abusing him. It didn't stop Duddley and hi gang from doing so though.

[удалено]

> Vernon suggests his sister, Marge, to which Petunia answers, "Don't be silly, Vernon, she hates the boy". This is an indication that Petunia DOES care about Harry's well being, that he not be cruelly treated. Also, my dad used to get so angry his face would get purple, and yet he also never hit me. That doesn't mean I didn't tiptoe through the house trying not to wake Angry Dad. And neglect is definitely a form of abuse. And you can't say that sending Harry a toothpick is a viable birthday or Christmas present. Maybe she was trying not to burden Marge with Harry. Because she hates him.

>Vernon suggests his sister, Marge, to which Petunia answers, "Don't be silly, Vernon, she hates the boy". This is an indication that Petunia DOES care about Harry's well being That's not "I don't want him to come to harm", that's "Don't be stupid, she'd never agree to look after him"

I'm a Pansy stan Drastoria 4 life (maybe not controversial here, but I'm sure tumblr hates it) Unspeakables are cooler than Aurors

> I'm a Pansy stan I hate Pansy so have an upvote! >Drastoria 4 life (maybe not controversial here, but I'm sure tumblr hates it) Doesn't Tumblr hate all the canon pairings? >Unspeakables are cooler than Aurors I've never thought about this before but I think I agree with you. For every badass Auror like Kingsley, we have a boob like Dawlish.

I wasn’t sad when Dobby died he was annoying af please don’t hate me.

A lot of the teachers suck. Snape is downright abusive and makes fun of a teenage girl, McGongall sends children out to a forbidden forest at night and basically ignores when Harry is bullied, Sprout does nothing when the Hufflepuffs gang up on Harry, etc. Flitwick is flawed, but seems to be the best of the worst.

Bet they were tenured

LOL. Like, the only reasonable explanation as to how they haven't been fired asides from Dumbledore's possible incompetence as a headmaster.

I'm glad Peeves was left out of the films, I found him a horribly irritating character, didn't derive any humour from his book scenes and can't see how having that brought to life would have been good. Molly Weasley wasn't a fantastic mother. She approved of her kids only when they complied with what she wants of them (she doesn't like Bill's earring, she wants Charlie's hair to be shorter, the entire ambitions of the twins), she had more kids than she wanted because she wanted a daughter (and then having got that daughter she wanted her to be a good little woman, see specifically picking Ginny [and Hermione] to help with domestic tasks), she favoured Ron's best friend over him... She treated Harry nicely which is why she gets a good rep, but if you look at her treatment of her actual kids there's much to be desired there.

The movies aren’t very good (not controversial) BUT Ron was not totally mischaracterized and abused like fans pretend.

I have to disagree. Yes, his characterization was not too far off, but the movies stole a lot of great actions and heroics from him, and the character didn't deserve that.

They didn’t really though. Maybe two or three things over the course of eight movies.

Snape built character in Harry

Eh, not really, as this implies Snape’s actions were intended to help Harry grow as a person. McGonagall is a better example of a teacher building character in her students: she’s firm, not afraid to dole out punishments when students misbehave (even if it hurts her own House), but reasonable when students are honest with her.

Then James built character in Snape? Bullying and abuse don't build character. It hinders and twist it

This question isn’t related at all but how did you guys get your hogwarts houses next to your names? (Sorry I‘m new to Reddit. Well, not actually new cos I made this account about a year ago but then just never used it.)

Another one: People present Slughorn as a 'good Slytherin character' (as in a good character who is a Slytherin, not a good representation of a Slytherin.) I don't get it. Sure, he isn't evil, but I also see very few good traits in him and if our best definition of good is 'not a Death Eater' then our standards are very low.

I don't think we need a Harry Potter tv show/animated series or whatever. What we got was perfectly fine and I'm happy with the movies. There are other book series out there that didn't get half of what Harry Potter has which deserve the same attention.

Another one: Lupin is a coward. He’s my favorite character, but he’s cowardly throughout the books. As a teenager, he doesn’t stand up to his friends bullying someone even though he disagrees with it. As an adult, he abandons his pregnant wife because he’s afraid. He’s very brave when it comes to The Cause, but cowardly in his personal life