More cartoon Sevvy! 🍂 🍁

Joanne just summarised Harry Potter (on her twitter) as the story of: "a narcissistic villain and his acolytes, all of whom had an innate advantage over those they were persecuting"

So um...

The Purebloods were better all along then??? That's really what you're saying here?

Talk about misunderstanding your own story -or fluking into telling a resonant story when that wasn't what you intended at all!

Her intended story was seriously "the Purebloods are better, but they shouldn't be mean about it"! rather than "Your blood and your family doesn't define or limit your potential"???

ElevatorSelfie

my new insta: kedroboiz =)

If just he was the God of the underworld. Not my first time drawing him in Hades-Persephone role and yes. I love this concept!

Just a reminder in case you're ever looking to back up your blog try this method first before you do something silly like scrape the thing yourself or put your password into a third-party tool without verifying what it really does

Severus Snape is a tight-fisted man. The kind of stingy who, if he can buy something on sale, absolutely won’t even consider getting it at full price because he knows perfectly well he can get it cheaper. Stingy to the level of getting genuinely pissed off when he finds out he’s being overcharged for a pint, because it’s the same bloody beer that costs two quid less at another pub. The kind of stingy who’ll have a proper go at the apothecary when ordering potion ingredients because he’s LOOKED THROUGH EVERY POSSIBLE CATALOGUE and knows exactly what the market price is—and he’s not about to let anyone rip him off.

He’s the type who doesn’t see the point in buying new clothes if the ones he’s got aren’t falling apart, and doesn’t get the appeal of spending money on frivolous crap because he sees it as a massive waste. So stingy he won’t even spend on himself—if he gets a new set of cauldrons, he’ll feel bad about it, thinking he could’ve made the old ones last a bit longer. The sort who double-checks and compares the price of everything before buying it. The kind of stingy who looks at Christmas or Valentine’s or Halloween decorations and thinks it’s all a ridiculous waste of resources—why the hell would anyone spend so much on silly things? And the sort who didn’t even have proper clothes growing up, so he’s always had to count every knut and measure every sickle, and now any kind of indulgence, no matter how harmless or well-deserved, just feels like an unforgivable extravagance.

I think this could definitely be true considering the poverty he grew up in

Except when it comes to books and rare potions ingredients. Maybe he doesn't need them, but they're practical, so he can justify the expense. That new book might have something useful, something that would give him an edge, and he wouldn't be a proper Potions Master if he didn't have the right ingredients on hand.

(All alone, he smiles, pleased, as he finds his new rare tome the perfect spot on his shelves. They're stuffed to bursting already, but there's a little room left, just there, and really, what's a little more magical expansion when there's still things to learn and create? He smiles again thinking of all the knowledge and power stored on his shelves. Perhaps he will go back and get the other one he was waffling about...)

Master..

What I think happened at grimmauld place last time Sev visited. Seeing Albus again started it

Yes, plz, ty

hermione’s school photo for her fifth year

Snape’s plaque in the Hogwarts Memorial Garden be like

Day 18: Stuffed

A few years before Snape became the resident Office Goth at Hogwarts.

“Snape hated Harry because Harry looked like James.” Okay. Let’s dig into this. Because it’s not a matter of, “Your dad bullied me and I’m getting back at him by being hateful to you.” It’s more complex and insidious than that. When Snape knew James as a teenager, Snape was “twitchy, like a spider.” He stuttered. He knew he could be under attack at any moment, and he was powerless: poor, with no social clout, unattractive, generally disliked. After James died, Snape was trapped back in the place where he’d been bullied, trying to be an authority figure to kids only a few years younger than him who’d watched him being bullied and assaulted. It must have been incredibly hard, but he did it. When we see him ten years later, he no longer stutters. He can keep a classroom quiet with a soft voice. He’s in control. Then, suddenly, there’s this face in the crowd again, the one his instincts associate with danger. He has to fight the automatic response to take cover or defend himself when he passes Harry in the halls. He’s twitchy again, his nerves are raw, it’s uncomfortable all the time. And then he gets face-to-face with him in class. And it’s like the clock has turned back and he’s a teenager again. Only, he’s managed to take all the things he’s fought so hard for with him: he doesn’t stutter, he can clearly say all the insults he ever wanted to; he’s the one with the power, with social standing behind him. And so all the things he would’ve liked to say to James come pouring out: the carefully created insults, the disdain. And the laughter of the Slytherins feeds the dark places in his soul. And then Harry leaves, and he hates himself. What is wrong with him? He knows this isn’t James, it’s not helping anything to treat him like this. He’s going to stop. He will just ignore the boy and get on with his life. But it never lasts. His control slips, and he says one thing, and then it snowballs, and he’s lost all that hard-won control he’s fought for all his life. He’s acting like a teenager again, and he hates it. He despises himself for it. But he won’t let anyone know his weakness. Better that everyone thinks he is petty enough to loathe the boy for no good reason than that they know how his control crumbles at a touch. So he sneers and insults him to other teachers and gets on with his self-loathing. He’s used to it, after all. And he does his best to protect the boy, to keep him alive despite all the idiot does to undo his efforts. But every time, he ends up screaming at the kid like he’s crazy. Maybe he is crazy. Normal people don’t feel out of control like this, for no reason. Just because a kid looks like his dad. So, yes. Harry looks like James, and Snape hates him for it.

yesss, I’m not the only one who thinks that the first lesson was qualitatively different from all the others, like Snape basically never accuses Harry of such a blatantly made up “misdeed” after.

that also hints that he wasn’t prejudiced towards Neville like he was towards Harry, he started disliking him later because of his potions results, and not because he was a “second option” for the prophesy.

i think it's interesting that the harry potter series holds up the weasleys as the 'poster child' poor family but given that they are supporting 9 people on Arthur's single salary they aren't doing THAT badly. Yes there's a lot of stuff they can't afford and they have to be careful with their budget but they still seem to live in relative comfort, especially given the large size of their family - there's always enough food on the table, almost all the family members seem to have their own room without having to share, they don't worry about losing their home, the kids don't feel pressured to work during summers to earn enough money so their family can get by, the house is in relatively good condition etc.

this is not to say that you cannot be poor and also have basic comforts or that someone cannot suffer from financial hardship even if they aren't literally starving on the street. but it's striking because of how much more sympathetically the narrative frames the weasleys' poverty than it does the poverty experienced by snape or tom riddle or the gaunts. all these characters are not 'good victims' and do not cope as gracefully with their circumstances without complaining or showing visible signs of it in ways that might make make people uncomfortable. and idk. it's weird and I'm not sure I like it.

Classic conservative idea: Poor people who struggle do so because of their own personal faults, not because they can't make ends meet even while making sacrifices.

Snape, as far as we can tell and adding historical context for the part of England he grew up in, lived in abject poverty. I'm talk a 4-room house without a bathroom. The old cartoons of men bathing in a big tin wash tub? That's a real thing that people as young as Severus Snape had to do! This is industrial revolution meat grinder industry, and Tobias Snape was either often unemployed due to a lack of available jobs once Margaret Thatcher and her ilk axed the coal industry or was injured at work (or both, both works.) The story implies that Tobias is a drunk, so the Snapes deserve what they get. The circle of Social Darwinism and all that rot: they are bad people, so they deserve misery, and aren't able to have a stiff upper lip and avoid complaining, so they make others uncomfortable by existing, which makes them bad people, so they deserve misery...

The Weasley’s are the ideal noble poor family. They make it work, buying all the kids' school supplies on the tiniest budget with minimal hand-wringing about it and absolutely no charity will be accepted. They win a big cash prize and blow it on a vacation because they don't really need the extra money to make ends meet. Arthur works hard, we don't see any of them smoke or drink that I can remember (contrast with Mundungus being chastised for smoking a suspiciously scented cigar and Snape's probably nicotine stained teeth) and they are just so happy and pleasant to be around. Sure their clothes are worn, but everyone has something warm in the winter because Molly knits! Sure, they are poor, but even with all the kids at boarding school Molly doesn't get a paying job. She does political activism volunteer work. Isn't that just so very conservative feminist of her? Arthur makes just enough, so long as they stick to the budget.

On one hand, it's a kids book and Harry, our POV character, knows about enough about money and economics to fit on half a paper napkin. He didn't even take a maths class (arithmancy.) On the other hand, every other poor person in the books is ugly and miserable or a "uncommonly attractive orphan" predestined to be a murderer in a way that is noticeable by good people by age 11.

This is an excellent addition and I couldn't agree more. Do the Weasleys have anything close to what the Malfoys or the Blacks (or the Potters for that matter) have? No. They most certainly do not. But the three families I just named are fabulously wealthy. I'm sure that as a child Severus Snape would've given almost anything to be able to grow up in a home like what Ron had. This is not to say that you can't be poor or under financial pressure just because someone else has it worse, but it is notable given how the Weasleys are framed by the story - especially compared to other poor characters.

It's also worth noting that in-universe part of the reason the Weasleys may see themselves as being poor is that they are an old pureblood family and may to some extent be comparing themselves to families like the Blacks and the Malfoys - possibly because possibly not long ago they had similar levels of wealth which subsequently got lost.

I don't want to minimize the genuine pain and emotional impact going through that can have. No matter how much someone has, it can be extremely difficult and distressing if they lose what they consider to be their baseline standard of living. Having to make dramatic changes to your lifestyle and losing privileges you were used to is often extremely hard. And many times that is still true even if the changes someone has to make are giving up luxuries that most people could never have afforded or imagined to begin with. But even so, it is relevant context.

I just think it's really striking how as soon as characters are poor in a way that might make people uncomfortable JKR seems to want us to link it to characters' moral failings. In contrast to other poor characters, the Weasleys are clean and usually happy and not affected by their poverty in ways that could be off-putting or difficult in the way that Snape or Tom Riddle or Merope are.

I'm definitely on team 'Weasleys aren't that poor'. Aside from the big (though shabby) house full of functional furniture and cozy little details, a hobby garage, a car just for funsies, plenty of brooms even if they're older models, and yes, the plentiful food...I think they definitely used to be rich (see also: goblin silver tiara with diamonds in the family, Arthur's incessant beef with the Malfoys seemingly just because they're rich) and somehow did away with all the actual wealth and now can't get over it. Wouldn't be the first wizarding family that happened to, although the other example (the Gaunts, if it wasn't clear) are treated very very differently. The Gaunts didn't accept 'charity' either, and look where they ended up. The single difference between the two families before the books happen is how Dumbledore treats them (and the fact that Weasleys aren't quite as inbred), they just happened to ally later with people who go on to ensure the family's circumstances are drastically improved.

Anyway. I quite suspect the Weasleys don't even need a lot of money for the food either. Between the orchard, the vegetable garden, and the chickens (also in the wider series actual real pigs) that's a lot of food they don't need to buy anywhere. No wonder they could afford to blow all that money on those family vacations!

I think it's also a possibility we're all getting caught in differing definitions of 'poor'. I can't help but think of that one Simpsons post that periodically goes around, about how they were originally meant to be very poor and shabby but in the present day their lifestyle is way out of reach of most people, to the extent that they actually get thought of as rich these days. The same effect could be in play here - they're meant to be poor and perhaps in their own context they are, it's just that in present day circumstances that qualifies as rich.

(and yeah, none of that removes the hypocrisy in the treatment of the other poor people in the series, who are actually poor even by present day standards)

#this is a subject I've thought about a lot#what actually qualifies as poor in the wizarding world#the answer seems to be that if you only have some luxuries instead of a lot you're considered poor#and it's not actually about survival for them#also pet peeve but harry very much does get taught maths at hogwarts. see also my post on astronomy#and by extension the divination class that can't function without advanced maths either#but that's not really relevant to the main point of the post via @perilousraven

Also probably what's poor among older pureblood families is different from what's poor among other people. For example Tonks probably defines poverty differently than Ron does or than her mother Andromeda does. After all, in many ways the Weasleys are quite similar to the Blacks & the Malfoys - similar views about nonhuman magical beings, implied cutting off of squib relatives, viewing muggles as inferiors (though the Weasley's believe in treating Muggles well, they seem them more as charming animals than equals). It would stand to reason they would have similar views on what constitutes poverty. Also, the Weasleys have a HUGE family compared to most families we see in the wizarding world so that also adds financial strain that most others in their circle don't experience

I don't think that people must be X amount of poor or X amount of suffering to count as poor. I wouldn't have a huge issue with the way the Weasleys are portrayed in the narrative if not for the contrasting framing of other poor families whose circumstances are much worse and who are treated very differently by the narrative.

This dissonance in treatment makes it feel like the story is saying if you are "too" poor then you're gross and terrible but also you should be happy with your lot and you can never climb out of those circumstances or be deserving of a happy ending the way your wealthier (morally superior) peers are. Like yeah Snape can redeem himself from being a Death Eater somewhat, but obviously he's not going to get the girl - that's for James the wealthy pureblood even though he never seems to have truly regretted his cruelty - nor is he ever going to leave Spinner's End or get to make it through the story alive - that's for people like Harry or the Weasleys.

Moral turpitude is linked to a greater level of poverty and those characters are never able to overcome it. Even later it clings to them and trying to climb out and not just accepting their fate as social subordinates is bad. Snape of course doesn’t get the girl and dies for his “betters”. Tom is defeated and his quest for higher status and dominance over the wealthy pureblood social elite leads him down a path of evil.

Also, I would say the other difference between the Weasleys and the Gaunts is not just how Dumbledore treats them, but also that the Guants are wayyyy poorer.

It's striking to me that Merope, Tom Riddle, and Snape all know what it is to be hungry. Ron, however, the poster child poor character, does not. There's literally a major plot point about how badly equipped Ron is to deal with having to go without. Harry also know what it is to be hungry but he was secretly rich the whole time so when he moves up in the world he’s actually returning to the status quo. We don't see much mobility that comes without judgement - except through marriage (Ginny to Harry and presumably Lily to James & Petunia to Vernon). Fred and George make it big with their joke shop and that's it. But they already started off in a much better situation than the true squalor that Merope or Tom or Snape grew up in.

It's not that if you've never been hungry you can't be poor or experiencing financial hardship. But I think it says something that none of the characters who grew up extremely poor ever find true happiness or love or even make it through the story without dying an unpleasant death and all of them are framed by the narrative as morally lacking. In that context I look askance at the Weasleys being held up as the shining example of a "good" poor family.

It’s kinda like how some people will talk about “rich people” but never consider the fact that compared to plenty of people THEY are the rich people and also never consider how wealth can be relative or examine their own privilege because they're too busy thinking about those who have more than them to remember those who have less.

In a move surprising absolutely no one, JKR has now added asexual people to her list of people to mock and bully online. While obviously this is nowhere near the amount of vitriol she aims towards trans women in particular, it's continued evidence of her bigotry and yet another reason not to support or engage with the new HP show if her continued transmisogyny still wasn't enough.

Anyway fuck HP and fuck JKR.