Thinking Of Lily Who Learned Potions Under Her Mentor Slughorn Who Obviously Adored Her...yeah, It's

Hi! First off. I love your blog and how you write about James and Sirius they are✨everything✨

But, I was wondering what your views and opinions are on each of their individual relationships with Remus and Peter.

Firstly thank you! It’s my mission to put more j/s out into the world so I’m glad my particular brand of it resonates with other enjoyers <3 I love this question but unfortunately various deadlines and then me just being a messy, inconcise writer have delayed it to the two months mark 💀 so hopefully you’re still interested & it was worth the wait! I’ve edited it to death and it’s still this long so buckle in & multiple apologies 

~

The little that we do know of James and Remus’ friendship gives the impression of a really genuine, nurturing, trusting one, and helps to bridge that gap between the arrogant bully we see in SWM and the good guy Sirius and Remus tell us that James becomes later. James supported Remus financially post-Hogwarts, became an Animagus for him, and then there’s the “furry little problem” comment that Remus bursts out laughing at and looks “slightly more cheerful” at the memory of. 

I think that one line says a lot about James and Remus and establishes a shared sense of humour. It’s a very “raised by older parents” thing of James to say, it’s weirdly gentle and tactful from someone who doesn’t show that in any of the memories we see of him but it’s also quite light and optimistic about Remus’ “little problem” as something they can solve together. James, like Remus, probably spent a lot of his childhood with his parents so I think they’d both have had quiet evenings in by the Wireless with biscuits and hot chocolate before bed and homemade jumpers and grandad slippers so despite James being very loud and Remus not knowing how to really interact with other kids despite wanting to, they would ‘get’ each other on a home life level that would bridge the difference in wealth and with the werewolf thing.

I think that James makes Remus feel more normal and his brand of carefree, casual, cocksure acceptance would make him Remus’ main source of support in terms of friends. The time that Remus knows James (meeting him in first year to James’ death) directly correlates with the happiest, most stable time in his life. When James dies he has lost all of his friends and James’ financial support so James is a literal stabilising force in his life, so James would have been Remus’ go-to when he wanted to talk serious werewolf stuff. I see James plopping down next to Remus on his bed being like “talk to me, I’m listening” and Remus finding it easy to open up that way. They’d be familiar enough to have little in-jokes that are just the two of them whereas I think Remus and Sirius wouldn’t have that closeness. (Not a j/s post but I also like to think of Remus just giving James this wry eye-contact re:Sirius like ‘lol u got it bad’ and James being all ???!!! back at him).

OTOH I see Sirius and Remus’ friendship as more distant and a friendship of two halves. On the one hand there’s a consistent mutual respect.  Remus includes Sirius in his praise of him - “your father and Sirius were the best in the school at whatever they did” - and Sirius evidently regards Remus more highly than Peter because he engages and jokes with him in SWM which shows a shared sense of humour. I think Sirius would respect Remus’ magical abilities as being close to his and James’ in the same way that he doesn’t respect Peter for his lack of relative magical ability. I think a lot of their discussions would about wizarding politics and the technical possibilities of magic so they’d probably get on quite well with the Marauder’s Map project (but also lol at Sirius being like “Remus, just let me do it, I know what I’m doing and I’m quicker” and taking over and Remus going all mutinous). However, Sirius also rebuffs Remus’ attempts to engage in SWM, showing an element of impatience and a sense of tension, instability and misunderstanding to their friendship (more on this in a separate post bc this one is Long).

A big thing for me that inhibits me from reading Sirius and Remus as particularly close is the mutual distrust and suspicion of the other as a traitor. I have always thought that this was a gradual thing that built up over years. To suspect a friend of ten years of being a spy is huge so I think the prank intensified and maybe accelerated it but it wasn’t the origin of the breakdown in trust. Notably it was a spy in the Order, not a spy just out of the Marauders, yet both Sirius and Remus suspected each other out of everyone else. I think that the tension would be unspoken but mutually felt and it would come from fundamental differences like their different backgrounds, and on Remus’ end a resentment of Sirius’ freedom to be reckless and impulsive and get nothing more than a detention for it when Remus being reckless could lead to dangerous consequnces (even though that didn’t really stop him being reckless on several occasions). 

I also feel like Sirius would have a more clinical, less tactful, though still very supportive, approach to Remus’ lycanthropy and he’d discuss werewolf issues from an intellectual/social/political perspective rather than really engaging with Remus’ experience (at least until he actually sees him transform) which might seem dismissive to Remus. I also think that Remus would question Sirius’ support because of the Black family’s reputation, enough so that when the prank happens that background suspicion would be vindicated. It’s said a lot that Sirius would never have sent Snape to the Shack if it was James who were the werewolf, and that’s an important distinction between James and Sirius’ close relationship & Sirius and Remus’ more neutral and separated friendship.

At the same time there must be genuine friendship there somewhere because they reunite very easily in the Shrieking Shack, hugging like brothers and calling each other “old friend” and they sense/assume capability to kill Peter and the desire for revenge in each other which suggests that they know each other well. I do think that a lot of that comes from the adrenaline of the situation, and that the combination of relief, familiarity, nostalgia, revenge, desperation, grief, etc, would heighten that joy at being reunited. I think that they experience those emotions alongside each other rather than because of each other, routed through James and their experience of knowing and losing him rather than an especial attachment to each other specifically, though. Their joint venture of avenging James positions him as a central touchstone in their friendship. When Harry goes to them for reassurance after SWM, they’re both just remembering James and Sirius’ acknowledgement of Remus is all about separating him from himself and James. The main thing they have in common is James, imo. The discovery of Peter as the traitor removes the main internal conflict of their friendship, as well as external conflicts (i.e. impending war, Harry’s chaotic life) superceding any personality differences or annoyances. 

Convenience also plays a big part in their post-PoA friendship. They’re a mutually beneficial, easily accessible source of familiarity and nostalgia for each other, a parallel reminder of James and their youth when they were both happier. Things like “lie low at Lupin’s” and Remus living at Grimmauld Place are measures of convenience rather than closeness when scrutinised. Grimmauld Place is Order HQ and Remus is single and unemployed, obviously he’s going to choose to be around people and have free food and shelter (plus Tonks is there a lot). Before that Sirius that lives in a cave eating rats even though he probably could live with Remus because at this point it’s not widely known that he’s an Animagus but he doesn’t. (Would Remus even want him there?)

It doesn’t seem like they’re in touch at all until then either? Dangerous, etc etc, but these are supposedly the kids who snuck around school as animals undetected for years and one of them has escaped Azkaban so it would have been feasible to be in contact if they’d wanted to. It’s also significant to me that Sirius didn’t leave Remus anything in his will despite him struggling financially (vs James actively helping Remus out) and Remus is like..fine after he dies. It’s understandable because they were separated for longer than they initially knew each other. They were obviously friends, but different and more distant in comparison to their individual friendships with James. It all culminates for me in a friendship that is based on a shared youth, on the memory of freedom, on love for a mutual friend, on existing in the same place at the same time, on mutual respect for magical ability, on curiosity for the constraints of magic, on holding the same values but still being fundamentally different people.

I don’t think that the Marauders were a particularly equal group anyway but with Peter specifically I think it was more an illusion of equality and inclusion that James and Sirius think is ‘enough’ for Peter but that Peter finds it lacking. James and Sirius definitely don’t view him as equal with Remus, but they also spare him from the kind of bullying we see Snape get, despite Snape being more capable and logically worthy of their respect (were he not interested in dark magic or ugly, I guess).

I think that James and Peter’s friendship was the most mutually transactional. Peter’s inclusion in the group was social security for him first and foremost and James’ ego also got stroked a lot from having Peter around. James would pat himself on the back for being friends with someone like Peter lmao. All we see of James and Peter’s dynamic is James saying to Peter: “How thick are you, Wormtail?” and Peter openly adoring James when he plays with the Snitch and James lapping it up. Despite the derision and harshness, Peter actively feeds James’ ego, which isn’t a sustainable dynamic for a genuine friendship and it clearly irritates Sirius. I think that’s more Peter performing a role for his own continued benefit rather than him being stupid enough to not notice that James is being a dick though.

The combination of Peter’s capabilities being underestimated by his friends and James’ sense of duty and love towards his friends would foster a lowkey mentor/pupil, big brother/little brother dynamic but it would boost James’ ego while treating Peter as less intelligent than he actually was. I’m sure Peter benefited from it (Animagus transformations) but I can see James playing into it more heavily than necessary. However James and Peter are the two with the most typical childhoods and upbringings, so I think it would be an easy casual one-on-one dynamic, they’d have a lot of common experiences, a lot of the same reference points that Remus missed out on and Sirius’ family didn’t approve of that would make them feel close but they’re just opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of confidence, wit, popularity that beyond that I don’t think they’d have a lot in common except their shared high opinion of James (!) and there would be a lot of James talking at Peter and Peter agreeing. I don’t think Peter would be that into Quidditch beyond maybe the glory of it and James overlooks this with Sirius and understands why Remus isn’t into it but with Peter he’s like how what why ?? 

Ultimately unequal but I think James has that ability to make you feel like you’re the only person in the world when it’s a one-on-one thing and that would be something that Peter would strive for all the time but never quite get. I definitely think that James thinks he loves Wormtail but whether he actually does or treats him like he does is an entirely different thing.

With Sirius, we only see him treat Peter with contempt and I don’t think it’s oversimplification to accept this basically at surface level. I don’t think Sirius ever really respected Peter and generally regarded him as weak. Even Sirius’ irritation at James showing off with the Snitch is diverted through Peter in a way designed to humiliate Peter and relieve James of responsibility and to distance James from Sirius' reproach whilst giving Peter the full force of it and I think that shows how disposable and irrelevant he was to Sirius. (It’s not that far off some of the comments he makes about Snape and Kreacher.) 

This is a relationship Sirius would have had to work really hard at. Peter is the friend he is always irritated at and is mentally like "god just go away just fuck off". Sometimes he'd be like "aw he's not that bad I should be easier on him" but he mostly never is. Sirius likes Peter most as a rat, unironically, because for Sirius that’s probably when he sees the most potential in Peter. The way Peter works so hard to please James (and James’ acceptance of his attention) would irritate Sirius. Sirius loves James and makes a lot of allowances for him but he would find Peter’s sucking up degrading and embarrassing and think less of him for it, like “I like James more than you but you don’t see me pissing myself over him”. 

Peter I think was scared of Sirius, because of Sirius just being openly hostile but also because of his family. Peter would suck up to Sirius in the same way he did James but it doesn’t work on Sirius and Peter is like “well idk how to act then” so he’s constantly trying to find ways to get Sirius to like him and falling short so eventually he plays into Sirius’ underestimation of him (very successfully, clearly). I think Sirius’ whole “nobody would suspect him because he’s so stupid” sentiment grew in hindsight but existed somewhat at the time of choosing Peter as Secret Keeper. Sirius would never knowingly do something that he thought would even slightly risk James' safety so I completely believe that he trusted Peter and believed in a vague mutual understanding of friendship despite his lack of patience and respect for him. 

(Sorry this is SO FUCKING LONG, esp the Sirius & Remus bit bc I always feel I have to justify that one more, plus there’s way more in-text stuff for them. Once again ty for the ask! <3 Loved answering it, hate myself for being inarticulate but oh well)

I’m SO curious... how DO you think gender plays a role in Harry and Ginny’s respective interactions with Voldemort? I’d never thought of it, and now I’m fully invested🤩

i honestly wanna write a fucking academic paper with like, sources™, on this some day because there’s so much there. but i’m thrilled you asked so here are some thoughts to get us started:

(cw for gendered violence and abuse, nothing graphic)

so i picked out harry and ginny specifically because many of their peers only know voldemort as this far-away, larger-than-life villain: like, he’s the wizard fascist they read about in the daily prophet, whose goals and views they’re opposed to and which they might be personally affected by, yes (losing loved ones to fighting him, directly suffering under voldemort’s regime because they’re muggleborn etc.), but they don’t know that guy personally, and he doesn’t know them either. it’s been pointed out before, and it bears repeating here, that even ron and hermione don’t even lay eyes on the guy until book 7.

harry, being our protagonist, gets personally singled out thanks to the prophecy and the ensuing boy who lived / chosen one shenanigans. he gets to have his very own hero’s journey™, gets personally antagonised by voldemort and ultimately tasked with his defeat. this makes a larger-than-life figure out of harry as well, a symbol of hope and resistance, an opposing force to voldemort’s evil.

ginny also encounters voldemort as a personal evil, but that experience differs from harry and voldemort in some significant ways: that dynamic is well-known and witnessed by the public: he’s famous for his part in this ultimate fight of good vs evil, and he literally defeats voldemort in front of an audience and then goes down in history for it. the struggle of ginny vs tom goes almost entirely unnoticed and unwitnessed, except for a few close friends and family members, if it all. (yada yada yada lucky you.) we’re around for harry’s fight against voldemort from start to finish, the books are constructed around it, and hardly witness ginny’s. most of the diary stuff happens off-page and we don’t even find out until it’s too late to prevent it, and then again, too late to give her some sort of company in the aftermath.

(not to go on a whole tangent on the gendered dichotomy of (feminine) private and (masculine) public spheres in (for example) victorian literature but that's part of what i’m getting at here.)

(if it wasn’t glaringly obvious from this and also everything else i have ever posted on this blog, i’m a million times more interested in reading harry and ginny as two sides of the same coin than i am harry and malfoy. fuck that guy and get me more ginny meta)

ginny’s own villain actually isn’t voldemort: it’s very specifically a memory of riddle, and while voldemort makes no secret out of antagonising harry, the riddle in the diary uses ginny by pretending to be her friend. so ginny’s dynamic with riddle is full of themes of gaslighting, manipulation and loss of bodily autonomy (when she’s being possessed), and while none of that is exclusive to women, of course, being gaslit or manipulated by abusive or violent men, especially trusted men, is a familiar experience to a lot of women and often appears in tandem with patriarchal structures and misogyny. think about how women murdered by men tend to die at the hands of their partners or ex-partners, for example. even given that he isn’t one, riddle shares a lot of characteristics with a textbook abusive ex-boyfriend.

that’s not even getting into the gendered horror tropes, specifically, that surround ginny! like literally getting possessed! like the accusations of insanity that likely followed! oh my god! and that part is very interesting because harry actually also experiences that starting in ootp. let me comb through a dozen papers on the topic and get back to you later with conclusions, i’m just going to leave that here for now. separate dissertation on ginny as a horror protagonist, yes i absolutely have thoughts on that, will be saved for another time.

there’s absolutely more, but i’m leaving it at that for now and if i can’t help myself i’ll make a part two, but i’m also supposed to be writing a whole multichapter fic exploring all of this, so we’ll talk about this more in 2029, probably.

The Death Eaters: a contradictory anti-State narrative in the HP universe

From Prisoner of Azkaban onward, the Death Eaters (formally introduced in Goblet of Fire) emerge as a violent, prejudiced force; primarily against the Ministry of Magic. However, instead of being an anti-state organization, as initially presented, the Death Eaters are more concerned with maintaining existing power structures, albeit with a more extreme, blood-supremacist agenda (that's basically Deathly Hallows). Indeed, the Ministry of Magic itself is already prejudiced and violent, even before Voldemort.

I will explore key instances that highlight the contradictory nature of the Death Eaters and their relationship with the wizarding state’s power structures.

1. The conflict in DEs’ aims and their misrepresentation through real-world historical parallels

The Death Eaters' role as villans is evident in their modus operandi and in their belief system, particularly blood supremacy. This is why, while their ideology resembles Nazism, they operate as a terrorist organization.

For clarity: terrorist organizations operate outside the framework of a formal state structure, relying on violence, fear; their focus: undermining established power, creating instability, mistrust, etc. This is essentially the First Wizarding War:

"...this wizard, about twenty years ago now, started lookin' fer followers. Got 'em, too — some were afraid, some just wanted a bit o' his power, 'cause he was gettin' himself power, all right. Dark days, Harry. " - Rubeus Hagrid, PS "You don't know who his supporters are, you don't know who's working for him and who isn't; (...) Every week, news comes of more deaths, more disappearances, more torturing... The Ministry of Magic's in disarray, they don't know what to do, (...). Terror everywhere... panic... confusion... that's how it used to be." - Sirius Black, GoF "...You-Know-Who and his followers sent the Dark Mark into the air whenever they killed. The terror it inspired... you have no idea, you're too young. Just picture coming home and finding the Dark Mark hovering over your house, and knowing what you're about to find inside... Everyone's worst fear... the very worst." - Arthur Weasley, GoF

On the contrary, institutionalized authoritarian regimes align more closely with the description we have of the Ministry of Magic (although I don’t believe it is a totalitarian regime in the FWW). However, if one thinks about it, in a completely corrupted Ministry of Magic, power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite (purebloods) that controls state institutions, including the military (Aurors), law enforcement (The Department of Magical Law Enforcement, Hitwizards), and the legal system (Wizengamot), enabling them to enforce their policies (e.g., the Statue of Secrecy), maintain order, etc. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are far more dangerous in such a structure (see DH).

(Had Hitler remained the leader of a violent terrorist group and never risen to power as the dictator of a nation, he could never have been responsible for the deaths of six million people in CC, nor would his expansionist war have led to the deaths of over 30 million.)

That being said, while most authors base their world-building on a singular historical event (e.g., the rise of Fascism in Italy) or comparable historical events (e.g., the rise of totalitarisms), JKR mixes terrorist organizations with institutionalized authoritarian regimes. This blend leads to a disjointed narrative, and it is deeply problematic.

The IRA parallel

i. Historical accuracy (for historical background, check here):

Voldemort’s rise to power in the late 1960s, his decline in the late 1980s, and his resurgence in the 1990s closely parallel the timeline of The Troubles—a complex conflict between factions in the Republic of Ireland and the big island. To put it very, very simply, this period of unrest stemmed from centuries of English colonialism, during which the English conquered and subjugated Northern Ireland. This colonization led to widespread violence, cultural destruction, and systemic repression of the Irish people. As a result of the poverty, exclusion, and repression, a reprehensible terrorist organization rose: the IRA (Irish Republican Army).

Mirroring the timeline of the First Wizarding War, the conflict in the 1970s was marked by street fighting, bombings, kidnappings, and the assassination of both civilians and high-ranking figures. The arguments about the Ministry becoming nearly as vicious as the terrorists they were fighting—using torture and murder (Aurors casting Unforgivable Curses) and internment without trial (as seen with Sirius Black)—parallel real-life arguments about the British security services' brutal response to the IRA.

ii. Contrasting ideologies

The IRA emerged from decades of oppression faced by Irish Catholics, aiming to challenge a discriminatory system, while the Death Eaters seek to reinforce and perpetuate existing power structures. By positioning the Death Eaters as anti-state, it obscures the fact that they are objectively fighting to preserve and enforce the status quo. The parallel with the IRA oversimplifies, and arguably dangerously misrepresents, political movements and conflicts.

The Hitler parallel

i. Convergence in worldview

There are several reasons why many people, JKR included, associate DEs with Nazism, one of which is the unambiguous nature of their ideology. Both Nazism and the DEs' ideology are grounded in notions of racial supremacy and purity, with the premise that a person’s worth is determined by their ancestry. For the Death Eaters, this belief is reflected in their conviction that pure-blood wizards are inherently superior to Muggle-borns and Muggles. But DEs are not terrorists because of their belief system; they are blood supremacists who carry out terrorism to impose their belief system. If you want to impose your belief system, institutions are the answer, as true dominance is easely maintained through ideological control, which is exactly how wizarding society already operates. Here, DEs modus operandi fails.

ii. Historical inaccurancy

A key distinction between the DEs and the Nazis lies in the structural dynamics of their respective rises to power. Hitler's ascent was marked by the systematic institutionalization of mass violence and control. Once in power, Hitler's government passed laws (e.g., Nuremberg Laws) and engaged in legal political moves (e.g., Munich Agreement). The Nazi leadership was public and institutional, with high-ranking officials known to the public (Göring, Himmler, Goebbels, etc.). The DEs never sought or achieved official political power in the same way. They never formed party, they operated in secrecy (using masks) and they kept their membership a secret within their own ranks. As the terrorists they are.

In Deathly Hallows, when the they take formal control of the Ministry of Magic, they maintain this secretive approach. The coup is swift and quiet, with Voldemort not openly declaring himself as Minister. He imperiused key figures (like Pius Thicknesse) to create distrust and prevent some form of rebellion (this doen't make sense btw, rebellion from who, at this point? Only the Order would have continued its resistance activities.... but whatever....).

When, in HBP, Slughorn says, "I confidently expect you to rise to Minister for Magic within twenty years," and Tom Riddle responds, "I don't know that politics would suit me, sir. I don't have the right kind of background, for one thing," it's clear that Riddle has his own agenda (which sometimes conflicts with the DEs' aim, but that's a different discussion). However, this alone doesn’t explain why pure-blood supremacists like Lucius Malfoy don’t leverage their influence to establish a more radicalized and enduring power structure (such as totalitarianism), especially given the entrenchment of their ideology within society. Again, why would Lucius Malfoy act like a terrorist, risking his reputation, life, and endangering his family, when he could already do whatever he pleases? It's still not clear.

KKK paralel (I swear is the last one, here for historical background)

While the DE' ideology echoes Nazism, it also resembles many other supremacist and bigoted ideologies. Our final group (which also inspired the aesthetics of Goblet of Fire) is the violent, white supremacist terrorist group called Ku Klux Klan.

i. Historical context and differences with DE

The KKK expanded into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern “resistance” (forgive the word) to the Reconstruction-era policies, which aimed at establishing political and economic equality for Black Americans. While some leaders later attributed KKK violence to poorer southern white people, the group did attract people from across the socioeconomic spectrum.

By comparison, the DEs were not a response to a period of social progress or societal change (but more on that later). It is also arguable that the Death Eaters were not a heterogeneous group. Aside from Snape, who was a half-blood with a working-class background (though he obviously repudiated his origins, that's the bloody point of HBP), the rest were rich purebloods— one might even say the purest of purebloods, as many of them were Sacred 28, (part of what seems to be) an aristocracy akin to feudalism.

The KKK never started a civil war (basically FWW and SWW), and in terms of proportion, it never had the numbers that the Death Eaters did. (However, KKK violence is real and it did contribute to an ongoing racial conflict, so it’s hard for me to say that DEs were “bigger”). One can only imagine what would have happened if it had reached a 50/50, or one could think that a more domesticated version it's currently seated in the White House (see: the point made earlier about institutions...).

2. DEs and the inconsistency of their portrayal as anti-State

The Death Eaters do not fit neatly into any real-world ideological or political framework. They don’t represent a subversive anti-state movement, as they seek to reinforce and uphold the existing power structures within the canon, making them both ideologically and narratively inconsistent with the groups they are meant to represent. Their violence and blood-supremacist ideology do not stem from institutionalised oppression or inequality, nor are they based on misinformation. This mess is rooted in JKR’s limited understanding of politics and discrimination (I will never forgive her for having Hermione shout "I'm proud to be Muggle-born" and stop, as pride is the problem when it comes to discrimination and racism).

3. Adjusting mess with extra-canon

I firmly believe that, unless you delve into supplementary materials, there is little to prevent these lunatics from operating in board daylight. DEs make sense in a political climate where their power feels threatened, even if it's made up. That's why...

What happened when HP ended: Pottermore

...at some point, JKR (or her team) must have realized these inconsistencies. On Pottermore, new information surfaced that contradicted the canon. When woman, gays, Black people and other marginalized groups gain greater social equality, those who have traditionally held power by birthright see their unjust dominance begin to crumble, and suddenly they have to do something. This aligns with Rowling’s portrayal of Muggle persecution, suggesting that historical anti-Muggle sentiment was largely unfounded (Fantastic Beasts movies). Again, by what is implied in the tale of The Wizard and the Hopping Pot, she suggests that wizarding society had little to fear from Muggles, thus minimizing the historical violence and oppression wizards may have faced. Other examples that come from extra-canon are Nobby Leach and hints of progressivenes. In 1962, Leach became the first Muggle-born to be appointed Minister for Magic (in canon, this would be absurd. Is there a Muggle-born working in the Ministry? Is there any Muggle-born working at all?). Then, there were Squib Rights marches in 1968-1969 (a parallel to the Civil Rights marches in the real world).

Conclusion

It's absurd for me to write something like this, but it's obviously NOT pointless to examine the motivations of prejudiced groups that seek power through violence. Take that moment in Order of the Phoenix, where Harry and Sirius talk about Dolores Umbridge:

"I know [Umbridge] by reputation and I’m sure she’s no Death Eater—" "She's foul enough to be one…" "Yes, but the world isn’t split into good people and Death Eaters," said Sirius with a wry smile. "I know she’s a nasty piece of work though."

Someone like Umbridge, though not a literal Death Eater (for now, but it's not the point), exhibits similar traits—prejudice, abuse of power—which can be just as damaging. But Sirius isn't suggesting that she occupies some middle ground between good and evil (I blame the movies for this shit). Rather, he’s acknowledging that Evil takes many forms and expresses itself in different ways. This is the core difference between prejudice and terrorism: the latter is a violent, organized force, whereas the former usually manifests in a less overt, everyday bitch. While racial slurs or internalized discriminatory tendencies are undeniably harmful—the cancer of our society, if you ask me—these groups actively unite to fight. People risk their lives, they believe themselves heroes of a greater cause.

If you oversimplify the rationale behind why a bigoted terrorist group holds such views and acts on them, thinking it's not as complicated as it truly is, you're part of the problem. History repeats itself because we often dismiss the importance of understanding our past. We rely on our moral superiority, believing that others are or were easily manipulated by forces we are too righteous to fall victim to. But this is exactly why they thrive.

Anyway thank you @artemisia-black and @tedwardremus, you'll find some of your words here.

Arguing that James Potter’s death meant nothing is such a fundamental misunderstanding of the narrative that it makes me wonder if people have even read the books.

This is a man who ran headfirst toward his death in a desperate attempt to give his wife and son a chance to escape. A selfless, brave act of love that stands in contrast with Voldemort's personal war against death and Snape's desperate plea to bargain for the life of Lily while not caring if her husband or child dies.

James isn’t just a character who dies early, off-page, before the main character is introduced—he becomes a specter who haunts the entire story.

James’s absence profoundly shapes Harry’s journey as he struggles to define himself. His sense of masculinity and self-worth is deeply tied to the father he never knew but constantly strives to emulate. Sirius and Remus, broken by their shared loss, are mere shadows of their former selves, their lives forever marked by James’s death. Even Voldemort acknowledges James with a twisted form of respect when he taunts Harry in the graveyard.

To say James’s death means nothing disregards the emotional heart of the series. Harry’s story is fundamentally about grief—his desperate longing to connect with the family stolen from him, and his eventual journey toward acceptance. It’s about learning to live fully in the face of loss, choosing life over despair, and understanding death not as an enemy but as an inevitable companion.

James’s death isn’t meaningless—it’s pivotal. It echoes throughout the series.

James’s death means everything.

Voldemort feared the halfblood boy more than the pureblood boy because only a halfblood straddles the line between inexcusable weakness and birthright power. Only a halfblood boy would have the hunger to rise up against him, especially since Voldemort had positioned himself to be aligned with the pureblood upperclass.

I don't think he intentionally thought of Harry as an equal over Neville. I don't recall whether or not he heard that portion of the prophecy from snape. But we do know that both the Potters and the Longbottoms 'defied' him thrice. I'd always understood the Longbottoms as older, old enough to be well established and known aurors. Perhaps they fought for years during this 11-year-long First Wizarding War, perhaps neville was a conscious choice that may have seemed like an act of defiance but certainly wasn't an act of defiance to Voldemort himself. The Longbottoms no doubt had ample opportunities to clash with Voldemort's plots and plans. The Potters on the other hand joined the Order as teenagers with nothing more than some vicious schoolyard scrapping to their resume. I'd always liked the theory that their choice to marry and keep the baby (that became Harry) in that political climate when they were only 20 years old was itself an act of defiance. But the other two instances during which the Potters 'defied' him must have resonated. Lily must have said something that stuck with him, that forced him to forever associate her with his weakness, with muggles, even though she was not a muggle but a mudblood. A talented witch that even he noticed enough to consider snape's plea to spare her but also unforgettably "muggle". And James must have made enough of an impact for Voldemort to memorize his countenance years to come -- voldemort doesn't usually remember all his murders unless they meant something personal to his journey to immortal power. Yet somehow Voldemort recognizes the need to turn Peter so thoroughly and somehow Voldemort remembers James standing tall and formidable enough to try to taunt Harry with it at the graveyard.

Both Lily and James Potter had been living rent-free in Voldemort’s mind for enough time that their halfblood child was the first kid to pop into his mind at the news of the prophecy.

Also, Voldemort believes in pureblood supremacy the way Jordan Peterson is a Christian who believes in Christianity as salvation...aka, its largely a cloak for the pursuit of power, gets him the connections with the right people, he's conviced enough people with his narrative that it almost seems like he's convinced himself, but there’ll always be signs.

I wasn’t sure how to incorporate this into the options, but add in the tags if you think he also hated purebloods!

Secrets of the Darkest Art: How to Make a Horcrux

So I saw many theories regarding how to make a Horcrux, but none of them really made perfect sense to me, so I decided to give it a crack myself as part of my mission to understand Lord Voldemort/Tom Marvolo Riddle (Which I think I did, big post coming about that at some point, this is but another piece of that puzzle of a man)

So this is my reverse engineering of a ritual to create Horcruxes based on book evidence, my knowledge of real-world alchemy, real-world ancient Greek cults and rituals and linguistic analysis.

How to reverse engineering a dark magical ritual:

The first thing, is to define what we knew fore certain:

The name: "Horcrux"

The creator is an Ancient Greek wizard named Harpo the Foul.

A death is required in the making.

A Horcrux holds a piece of the casters soul that anchors them to life so they won't die.

I'll actually start with the third point.

How to split a soul?

Both Dumbledore and Slughorn mention a death being required to tear your soul to make a Horcrux, and that never really sat right with me. It magically doesn't make sense and even the canon examples we have for Horcrux murders make this statment iffy.

We have seven examples of murders used to create Horcruxs (thanks to one Tom Riddle being dramatic):

The Diary - Myrtle Warren - killed by a basilisk. Sure, Tom freed the Basilisk, but it hardly seemed targeted at Myrtle specifically and you can argue he didn't actually kill her (more a manslaughter by negligence). He didn't cast the spell, so how come this tore his soul?

The Ring - his father (Tom Riddle Sr) - Avada Kadevra.

The Cup - Hepzibah Smith - she was poisoned by her house elf. Sure, the elf was under the imperious, but it wasn't a first-degree murder, and like with the Basilisk I find it hard to consider this the same as casting a killing curse. Magically those are very different things.

The Locket - Muggle Tramp - Avada Kadevra

The Diadem - Albanian Peasant - Avada Kadevra

Harry Potter - himself - backfired Avada Kadevra

Nagini - Bertha Jorkins - Avada Kadevra

Now, I used the term "magically different" or "magically make sense" what do I mean by that?

Well, besides the fact I'm going to make a full post about how I see magical theory in the Harry Potter Wizarding World, I'll say it takes a lot after occult philosophies from Alchemy that are very old, Slughorn mentions as much in book 6 and there are a few other references to it. I'm just gonna cover the basics required for this theory.

In Alchemy, everything (people, animals, plants and rocks) are built of three base components:

The Salt - the body - the physical form.

The Sulfur - the soul - the self that holds the divine flame.

The Murcury - the spirit - the life essence that binds the salt and sulfer together.

Now, in Alchemy, the main study is in purifying and combining these different aspects of material. Let's look at a herb, for an example:

If we want to retrieve its salt, we'll dry the herb completely using fire to leave behind a fine light grey ash that represents only the physical form.

If we wanted its mercury we'd distill all liquids from it until we get a purified, clear liquid which in the case of plants would be alcohol (it's why alcohol is referred to as "spirit").

And if we wanted its soul, we would take the remains from the distillation and drying process which would be a kind of oil.

(it can get more complicated with different materials, but this isn't a post about Alchemy)

Now, back to Horcruxs.

So, if we would want to split a soul, Alchemecly, how do we go about it?

Well, we don't. Not really. See a soul can't really be split, as every part of it, every bit of that oil from our random herb represents the entire soul. It's why something like a Horcrux could theoretically work in giving a full life to the diary the way we see in Chamber of Secrets.

Additionally, to work with any material in Alchemy, you are required to purify it first. It means that to get a piece of soul to bind to a diary, you need a pure soul.

Killing someone else won't sever your own soul from the spirit and the body, it's not how this works. Killing someone severs their spirit and therefore splits their body, spirit, and soul. Besides, an Ancient Greek man, like Herpo was, would hardly consider murder as vile as we do today. It wouldn't even cross his mind that any murder (even an indirect one) could harm one's own soul.

No, the only way to "split" a soul is to first sever it from life, disconnecting the bond between soul and body. Essentially, the only way to promise you immortality is to kill yourself.

I know it sounds a little confusing, but, essentially, once the soul is severed from the spirit and body you can split it. Think of the herbal oil, once you have the oil, separate from the rest of the plant parts, you can combine it with new ingredients. You can only work on a specific aspect once you severed it from the other two and as what binds all three together is spirit — life — the only way to do it for a human soul — is death.

But really, how?

Well, here comes the second thing we know about making Horcruxs — that dear Herpo was Ancient Greek.

In Ancient Greece they had multiple different religious cults, some of which were Chthonic cults. Cults that dedicated themselves to death or ditties and heroes associated with death and more importantly — rebirth.

Many of these cults were dedicated to figures like Orpheous, Dyonysus, Persephone, characters in mythology who are known for going through the underworld — through death — and coming back out. These cults were very secretive and not much is known about their practices, but some is.

What is known is that they had rituals were they reenacted a death and then rebirth (usually drinking wine — a water if life, was the representation of rebirth).

This created a very clear idea in my head — to split a soul, you'll have to ritualisticlly, magically kill yourself, severe a peice of your soul and then revive yourself with a water of life — a potion.

This potion is never mentioned, but I believe it exists due to these Chthonic cult rituals and how they were structured. Not only that, but the Greek underworld did have a river known for being incredibly painful to drink, literally made of fire, but being able to bring the dead back - The Phlegethon River.

Note: Lethe River Water (the river in the Greek Underworld that makes the drinker forget) is a canon ingredient in a Forgetfulness Potion.

So what is the dead body for?

Well, congratulations, you killed yourself to retrieve a sliver of your soul and revived yourself so you won't stay dead. You found an item you can keep secure to tie that sliver of soul, too. Now, how would you bind then? After all, the only thing meant to bind a human soul to a body is a human spirit - a human life... you get where I'm going with this.

This is why Tom didn't have to be the one to do the deed. As long as he had a recently deceased corpse to harvest the life from to use to bind his newly split soul and the item of his choice.

It explains why nothing was missing from the bodies. Myrtle and the Riddles were investigated by the Ministry of Magic. One would assume the aurors would've noticed if any corpse was missing a hand due to the killer eating it (as other Horcrux theories suggest).

Not only was nothing missing from the body, the soul was intact. Myrtle became a ghost after death, a ghost is quite literally, just the soul, no body, no spirit.

So the only thing that was taken from Tom's victims was their life, quite literally at that.

Is that all? Can we make a Horcrux now?

Not really. See, when analyzing spells in Harry Potter is their name.

Avada Kadevra - is a reference to an Aramaic healing spell "Abracadabra" pronounced in Aramaic as: "Avra Kadebra" and meaning "I will create as commanded". Merged with the Latin word "cadaver" meaning "corpse" to create -> "I will create dead bodies as commanded"

Or Wingardium Laviosa - is a cross of the English word "wing", the Latin word "arduus" (meaning "high, tall, lofty, steep, proudly elevated"), or "arduum" (meaning "steep place, the steep" and the Latin word "levo" (meaning to "raise, lift up"). So together the spell means -> "lift high up".

So, it's pretty clear spells, their names and incantations are very self-explanatory. So a Horcrux should be no different.

I've seen some attempts at translating the name Horcrux. Unfortunately, these attempts treated the name as Latin, modern Greek, or Old English. Herpo, was Ancient Greek, though, so I went and translated a few possible meanings from Ancient Greek (Classical Greek and Homeric Greek are what I looked at):

ὅρκος (orkus, pronounced "hor-kus") - an oath, the object by which one swears, bound by oath (still used in modern Greek).

κρόκες (crukes, pronounced "cru-kes") - saffron-colored (blood red in Greek), crocus flower. The crocus flower symbolizes both death (the saffron that is the spice) and rebirth (the golden crocus which brings renewal and joy) because Demeter wears them when Persephone returns from the underworld in myth.

So what we have is a spell called "binding oath of death and rebirth" which all around sounds fitting.

There might also be a "made in blood" tucked at the end due to the association of κρόκες with the color of blood.

But what does it matter?

Well, somewhat. As now with this name, I expect the binding between the spirit from the victim, the split soul, and the item would be done in a sort of oath - an orkus.

The association with blood gives us another hint. Blood is the part of the human body most representative of life. Therefore, in Alchemy, your blood is your spirit. So it'll make sense that your own blood would be used in the binding process or more correctly in the process of turning another person's spirit into your own. Making the thread to bind the body (item) and the soul piece your own. As it also refers to just a red firey color, it can indicate the Phlagatton potion I hypothesize should be part of the ritual due to how Chthonic rituals usually went, as the Phlagaton river is made of fire.

So we have a general idea on how to make a Horcrux. You need an item of your choice to bind your soul to. You need a life (spirit) harvested from a human that you transformed into being your own using your blood. And you need a piece of your own soul, which you get by killing yourself and then reviving yourself. And you finish it off by binding it all together with an oath.

But how could you make one accidentally?

So, everyone knows Voldemort succeeded in somehow making a Horcrux accidentally, something a lot of theories I saw don't account for. Becouse whatever process you need to go to to make a Horcrux, Voldemort went through all of it the night he died the first time and marked Harry.

All the steps for my method of making a Horcrux were met that night.

The item in qustion is baby Harry, nothing interesting there.

The soul sliver was split the way it always is — through death. Voldemort dies, killed by his own killing curse and that is what splits his soul.

The life or spirit that then binds his soul to Harry isn't Lily's spirit or James'; it's his own spirit that acts as a binder between Harry and Voldemort’s split soul. Because the spirit was already his, there was no need to transform it by blood.

Step-by-step guide to making Horcruxes:

I'm not going to actually give the full step-by-step least a budging dark lord is looking for this information. I do have notes about exact incantations and even the full recipe and instructions for the Phlagaton potion I'm going to mention. These instructions won't be here since they are more in the realm of speculation and headcanon. This is just the overview of the ritual based on canon information and the occult philosophy I mentioned above.

Step 1 - Life and Blood

Get access to a recently deceased human and extract their Mercury (Spirit or Life Essence).

Submerge the retrieved life essence with your own blood on a new moon (life and vitality). (7 drops of blood will probably do)

Step 2 - Water of Fire

To complete the cycle of death and rebirth you’ll need the Phlegeton Water potion to return you to life at the end of the cycle.

As you brew the potion, it must be brewed in a dark room, preferably underground to remind as much of the underworld as possible.

While brewing the potion one must be in the mindset of the Phlegeton, must be willing to go through agony to achieve eternal life and imbue these thoughts in their potion. (In alchemy, when working, it is believed you imbue your work with your thoughts during the Alchemical process. As an Alchemical process affects both the material being worked and the Alchemist themselves)

Likley Ingrediants:

Saffron spice

Golden crocus flower juice

Pomegranate juice

Step 3 - The Ritual Preparation

Set up your space so none of the components may escape the ritual space and so the ritual will not be interfered with.

Make sure the spirit you retrieved is within reach.

Make sure the item you desire will hold the Horcrux will be within reach as well.

Coax the spirit into the item and prepare it to tie your soul to the next step.

Step 4 - Death and Rebirth

To create a thread of your soul to tie to the ritual, you must die figuratively. Go through death to return stronger from the underworld.

Once you feel like death has reached you and your soul is separated you should heal your soul and finish the cycle, bringing you out of death and back to life by drinking the Phlegeton potion.

After the pain subsides you will feel healthier than before, stronger than before, and you’ll have an additional thread of sulfur (soul) in your chest to be pulled out and placed into the Horcrux.

The split-off soul should, on its own, try to search for life and a body to be bound to. If it doesn't, coax it out yourself and bind it to the Horcrux with the spirit you made in step 1.

Step 5 - Oath of Life

The connection between the body (the item), soul, and spirit is still unstable, if most likely strong enough to hold.

Swear the oath of life to finalise the bound between you, the Horcrux, and the soul thread together to ward off death.

I'll end with this note I made regarding Horcruxes when I started working on this theory:

I don't know what all goes into the process of making a Horcrux but I don't believe a person who truly likes themselves and doesn't want to inflict pain on themselves could make a Horcrux. Tearing up your soul is an act of arrogance above nature, sure, thinking you deserve to change the laws of the world and be the exception is part of it, but it's also an act of self-hatred. You need to hate yourself enough to be willing to kill yourself, hurt yourself, and tear yourself up in the most unnatural ways — hence why so few can do so, let alone more than once.

And Tom Riddle does seem to have that exact mix of arrogance, spite, and low self-esteem that would allow it.

Pleaseee do Hinny art soon. I would love to see them in your style.

i’ve drawn hinny before hehe enjoy this doodle i did while listening to the audiobook of hbp:

i find them so cute sometimes

ginny weasley is as loyal as ron, as cool as bill, as funny as the twins, as fiery and protective as mrs weasley, as understanding and indifferent to other peoples’ opinions as mr weasley, as much of an animal lover as charlie, as stubborn as percy and they STILL gave her the personality of a wet rag in the films

i love this bit sm in deathly hallows bc they were all so sad and yk scared that seeing hermione being "back to normal" in a way made them both smile at the normality.

ps. a little before this harry points out that hermione was so focused in what was happening in the moment and debating with ron that she forgot she was mad at ron and harry also was relieved by that lmao by boi loves them both sm i wanna cry.

this book has so many tiny moments like this that i love sm.

this 12 year old describes a girl as “glowing like the setting sun” when she blushes and people wonder why they ended up married [x]