Just read your post on the hp double standards and we are definitely on the same page

I dislike like 90% of the characters for those reasons 😭

Glad to meet a like mind!

Seriously, I would love so many more characters HP characters if the double standards didn't exist. Half of these characters needed a better author.

re: ur tags on that one post. ngl i technically think that In Canon snape is a good person in that i think jkr wanted us to think he’s a good person but ur right that anyone w a brain should b able to realize how much he sucks ass. sometimes canon does stupid things and also sometimes canon takes very bad moral stances. anyway fuck jkr

You’re right, you’re beautiful, and I love you.

So, after watching the anime and reading the manga after seeing the live action I have a few issues with how they did the Arlong Park section (though it's still a super good adaptation overall). Some of them are bigger then others so I'll start with the smallest addition that bugged me even the first time I watched--Nami's chain.

First of all it just doesn't make sense, especially since they changed it so it was Nami who approached him on making maps and getting money for her village. Why would he chain her in a room to do the thing she already promised him to do? Also if he's afraid of her running away, why does he ever let her leave to steal money to buy the village at all?

It doesn't even make sense in manga cannon where he made her make maps for him, because she genuinely has no where to go and Arlong knows that. Arlong is no genius, but I think him using a chain on Nami makes him look stupid. The village people have already kicked her out, and in the LA even her sister hates her. Arlong knows she cares about the village because she's willing to risk her life to get the money to buy it from him. She can't run away because she knows he'll kill the villages in retribution, while she can't even really go home because everyone hates her for 'joining' his crew.

She essentially only has Arlong as a life line no matter how awful he is. He doesn't need to put a chain on her to keep her there because she needs him, both because she needs to buy back the village to save everyone, but also because when she returns to the Island Arlong Park is the only place she can go (especially in the LA where her sister hates her and wouldn't let her sleep in their old house).

The second reason it bothers me is because I can almost guarantee it was added because they worried the audience wouldn't understand just how bad Arlong was to her without him being more physically abusive. That or think the audience would criticize Nami for not leaving as a child. Plus it adds more angst to Nami's character--that was most likely why they changed it to her sister hating her as well.

The thing is I really don't think it was needed. Arlong was bad enough to Nami as it is. She was under constant psychological abuse due to Arlong holding the lives of the villagers over her head. Every injury she got because she was stealing money is his fault. Later during the Fishman Island Arc she has a flashback of the crew not feeding her. We have Arlong shoving her face into her desk because she purposely (or maybe accidentally) misdrew a map. He only started to treat her better as she grew up, but even then it was always clear he saw her as lesser and enjoyed mentally torturing her when he was given the opportunity.

Nami didn't need to be chained for her pain to be 'bad' enough. Her life was already terrible. She was already a victim of abuse, both physical and mental. The chain adds nothing and doesn't make sense in either the LA or the Manga's story.

Third, it does leave a sort of bad taste in my mouth that given the fish-men were coded more as black in the LA, that they had essentially a black coded character (played by a black actor) chaining up a white girl. It feels even worse when they added Arlong constantly talking about fish-men slavery--making it clear from the get go that's why he hates humans. That entire thing is it's own can of worms, but at least to me it does come across as kind of off-putting. When it adds nothing, and easily didn't have to be included it just makes it feel worse.

I know harry potter is bad for a million other reasons but it is hilarious to me that the "protective anti-death spell cast from a mother's sacrifice wears off at 18" bit implies that JKR doesnt think mothers can love their adult children

to all those asking "why would anyone write that," i present to you reasons why authors may write "fucked up" things:

they have a scene buzzing around in their head that they need to share

they have something to work through and writing helps them process

they want to make the reader have a visceral emotional response

they want the reader to have to challenge their beliefs

they want the reader to have an OH SHIT moment

they want to share their life experience

they want to share their lived experience and still provide a bit of emotional distance

the scene will add stakes to their story

the scene ties into character development

they enjoy pouring their own fears, disgusts, or bodily experiences into their work

they are haunted with "what-ifs"

they want to imagine what something feels like without experiencing it

they have experienced it but want to rewrite it in a way that reimagines it

they have literally any kind of fucking story to tell!!!

oh my god the terfs found my post critiquing jkr's writing

this is incredibly funny to me because I'm certain none of them have actually sat down and tried to read her new work at all? do they know what the knee-jerk "defend everything about jkr at all costs" attitude is even making them defend?

also please talk to me about long-winded authors because I love them. jkr just fucking sucks.

How do you think Snape should/could have helped Draco more in 6th year? I'd never considered that Snape might have failed him until I saw your post about this.

hi! i don't have much to add to this beside what @mxlfoydraco told you here. i largely agree with all of that. simply put, snape should've offered draco a way out. snape's own redemption could've happened through draco; his treatment of him, and going along with dumbledore's nonsense, undermines how his narrative was supposed to play out. i mean, it's not the only way his narrative is undermined because his narrative sucks, but it was a missed opportunity to fix some of it.

People claim that JKR is a good writer when she deadass made Dumbledore, the ambitious master manipulator who was interested in dark magic as a youth, a Gryffindor rather than a Slytherin

We talk a lot about people rewriting history to claim problematic authors were always bad but there's a inverse phenomena where people rewrite history to give artists they agree with a ridiculously outsized reputation

You see this with conservatives falling over themselves to declare that "Kid Rock is better than Bruce Springsteen!" bc Kid Rock agrees with them but also

TERFs have gone from claiming JKR is the best British children's writer of her generation, a defensible belief (one I'd disagree with, that's motherfucking Philip Pullman, and that's what I thought as a kid too), to increasingly ridiculous and lavish praise about her being the greatest female writer, the greatest living writer, the writer of the best first sentence in literature, after Dickens and Orwell of course, you have to be modest and acknowledge the classics. It's not enough for her to be an acclaimed best-seller, she has to be literally the greatest writer in history, for some reason

Which is wild enough with Harry Potter, but when they apply it to her detective books it gets bizarre. Her detective novels, which only sold well (but not Harry Potter well) after her identity was revealed, and which get mixed reviews as they crest past a thousand pages a book, a ludicrous length for a murder mystery novel. They absolutely do not have a rapturous reception anywhere but in TERF circles, where they're unimpeachable masterpieces and the fact that they aren't more popular is suspicious, so you must buy Mission Earth Comoran Strike, and talk about it, and do anything you can to support visionary author L. Ron Hubbard JK Rowling as she changes the world forever

"Ummm they toned down the abuse from Gabe in Percy Jackson because it's a kids show, stop being mad about it"

Ignoring the fact that it's also a children's book, let's take a look at some children's media in the last couple decades that depict parental abuse towards children that isn't physical, but still makes the abuse feel real:

1. Harry Potter. I'm loathe to even put it on here bc of how much I hate JKR, but HP DOES depict child abuse in probably one of the best ways of any modern media. As far as I can remember (correct me if I'm wrong), the Dursley's never lay a hand on Harry. But it is never even questioned if they're awful people towards Harry - they literally make him sleep in a closet.

2. Matilda. Like do I even need to explain this one? Abuse from not only her whole family (again, NONE of it physical from what I recall), but also from other authority figures. And she's not the only character who deals with parental abuse - Miss Honey is a grown adult shown to be dealing with the negative effects of an abusive parental figure.

3. Phineas and Ferb. Laugh all you want, but Doofenshmirtz's parents were genuinely awful to him. His stories are just tamed down in a way that's palpable to a much younger audience while still also being clear abuse - a young child can chuckle at his stories but STILL understand why maybe some of his stories would turn him evil.

4. Avatar the Last Airbender. Zuko's father physically disables his own son. Not to mention the constant emotional neglect and manipulation on top of it, the writers never held back on how bad his father was. Even if he hadn't scarred Zuko, he would still be a clear depiction of an abusive parent.

5. The Willoughbys. The parents are so awful that the kids literally plot to murder them. The parents abandoned them to freeze to death on top of a mountain. Enough said.

6. Percy fucking Jackson.

Percy Jackson IS a book made for kids that depicts child abuse from a parent - and not only does it depict child abuse, it depicts spousal abuse.

I know Percy doesn't know that Gabe is physically hurting Sally in the beginning of the book. But we as the audience know that Gabe DOES hurt Percy. There is not a single sign in the new show that Percy has anything more than a snarky, annoyed view of Gabe.

Gabe is supposed to be smelly and disgusting, a drunk (which, even if they can't depict that in a Disney show, you can still play around with his grossness), a slob, and a gambler. He's barely even greasy in the show. Literally they could have just had him belch a few times or eat messily and it would have given off a better impression of his character. Instead, he just quips back and forth with Percy and then later is just...whining. He's whiney. He does not ring as a man who abuses his family, emotionally OR physically, he rings as a pathetic step-dad figure who can't support himself (which is ALSO not canon, because in the book he runs an auto store! His abuse towards Sally is not for lack of money, it's just because he's a dick!!!) The fact that I think that Doof's parents in Phineas and Ferb are more overtly abusive than him on screen is actually absurd.

And Sally fell flat. Her character in the book doesn't yell literally ever - not once in the whole series can I recall her legitimately yelling at someone. Her persona is kind and gentle in the books and as for wits, she's clever, and sneaky, and cunning. She fights back with Gabe in ways that we as the audience can see, but Gabe misses because he's so dense.

Take the bean dip scene.

In the show, she basically is like "Yeah yeah I'll make the bean dip, shut up" and Gabe just whines about the sour cream while they yell at each other.

In the book? That's her bargaining chip to take the car for the weekend. That's her ticket out of the house. Bribery. Not just placating a whining husband - she bribes him in the books.

And her yelling back? Just feels so unnatural to Sally Jackson as a whole. I saw someone say she feels like Disney girl-bossed her, and they're right. She doesn't feel like Sally Jackson. She feels like just another cut and paste Disney woman who's snappy and doesn't take shit.

And to be clear - the OG Sally Jackson also didn't take shit. She was just so much more clever about it, in a way that made sure Percy never saw her actively yell. She doesn't have to be snarky and rude to get her way. Percy knows she's fighting back without physically fighting, and that's what makes her so strong. Sometimes you have to fight more with your wits and cleverness than you do with screaming and fists

(Gee...wonder what other character Percy ends up really admiring that also holds that philosophy in life?)

Anyway...all that said, stop blaming the fact that it's a children's show on Gabe's watered down personality. Children's shows/movies and family shows/movies have been depicting serious parental abuse and neglect for decades, in both realistic and more humorous ways that don't take away from the neglect. Kids can handle it, because there are kids going through it.

To say that "It's a kids show, kids shouldn't have to see that," is a disservice to the kids who need to see that, so they know that they can get away too, and they don't have to get physical to do it.

Also, this version of Gabe? Doesn't deserve to die. He's just annoying, not an asshole that scares Percy more than literal monsters do.

Hermione's Torture Scene was Hilarious

I read snippets of Bellatrix torturing Hermione in the Malfoy Manor chapter of Deathly Hallows. And I honestly found the entire thing hilarious. From Ron screaming her name to Harry not even showing any emotional cues of concern for her at the beginning. I could not take anything in this contrived chapter seriously.

At the last word there was a peculiar grinding noise from above. All of them looked upwards in time to see the crystal chandelier tremble; then, with a creak and an ominous jingling, it began to fall. Bellatrix was directly beneath it; dropping Hermione, she threw herself aside with a scream. The chandelier crashed to the floor in an explosion of crystal and chains, falling on top of Hermione

Hermione was just tortured and a chandelier fell on her. How is this girl still alive??? Maybe Bella did not torture her long enough.

Hi!

I've seen several posts floating around about the prank being used more for drama in fandom and that it wasnt really that big of a deal. And I know that canonically remus wrote it off but I seem to remember in choices exploring remus being upset for a bit. Do you think in general it's true that it's out of proportion?

I just know that I've seen some great and well thought out answers from you and curious your thoughts.

Hope youre having good weekend ❤️❤️

Hello! So, i find the idea of something being used by writers "just for the drama" *derogatory* inherently funny. because. as a writer you should be looking for ways to create drama, that is basically your number one job. In canon the prank is a big deal, it just isn't a big deal for Remus and Sirius because JKR wasn't trying to do anything with them. It was a big deal for James and Snape.

now. personally. I think that making the Prank matter, adds really interesting emotional dynamics to the marauders. If you are writing Wolfstar, it provides excellent foreshadowing for the distrust that we see in the war, and it also showcases a darker side to Sirius's character, something that is very interesting to explore generally, but also if you are writing Regulus as well. Sirius is always seen as the "good" brother, but the Prank really complicates that narrative because it shows that Sirius can be selfish, thoughtless and amoral in the same ways that Regulus can.

basically I think, realistically, if Sirius and Remus are supposed to have any kind of believable relationship at all, it doesn't make sense to me that the Prank wouldn't be traumatic for them both. and i have gone on separate rants about how to me, the most sacred thing to James Potter is his boys and how devastating it is for him to realize that Sirius is capable of violating that.

ANYWAY absolutely not blown out of proportion, in fact, make it bloodier i say! Make it messier! Drive the knife in more! why would you waste such a beautiful opportunity to make all our favourite lil guys hurt so bad.

you mentioned in an ask that the ending of HP book 5 was "so offensive that you dropped the series." can you elaborate on that?

--

Did I say it was offensive? I suppose I might have meant "offensive to my sensibilities" or something.

No, the end of book 5 was moronic.

It's eleventh hour tragedy tacked on for drama. Having there not even be a body is stupid as fuck too. I didn't think it was a fakeout, but I did think it was written like one, which is unforgivably hack-ish.

My actual issues that told me she wasn't worth reading anymore weren't quite that though. They were these two things:

First, there was allcaps yelling. I do not tolerate authors who've gotten too big to listen to their editors about standard formatting. Allcaps yelling is for stupid children on the internet, not something I paid for, much less something from a major publisher that I bought a hardback of.

Second, in interviews JKR tried to justify Sirius' death as "Real life is full of random tragedy" and some bullshit about teaching readers to face life.

I do not read Improving Literature. How arrogant to think that any reader needed her lesson! How doubly arrogant to think that her writing is strong enough to even do that! Now that is genuinely offensive in a way that the book never was.

This line is such a hallmark of undergrad writing classes and that tedious person in your writers' group who keeps writing plots that don't work and then getting offended when people say so.

It's literally one of the top cliches people say in defending their bad writing!

Every writing how-to book and blog has at least one post going "Real life may not make sense, but fiction is not generally random" and explaining why this justification is a cop-out that leads to cruddy books.

Self importance and incompetence are not things i look for in an author.

when people write headcanons for hp’s next generation i think they usually forget these are post war children and they can be so much more interesting. their parents, family and everyone around them have all been to war and have lost too much. that’s not to say that they can’t be happy or won’t ever have fun, but this is the kind of thing that leaves scars and trauma. i don’t think it would be the case in canon because jkr is a bad writer but thinking about characterization these kids don’t always have a good time at home, their years have too many days dedicated to mourn. they didn’t lost anyone themselves, but somehow grief has been around ever since they were born. they probably struggle to get through holidays and see hogwarts as a way to escape this reality because family can be a lot even when they love each other. maybe fred the second doesn’t prank around because his father taught him or it’s on his blood. he does pranks because he thinks his father’s actually a bit strict and it’s not having enough fun. maybe he doesn’t get why his father of all people would work on the funniest place in the world. he feels like it’s his job to make the house happier and to make everyone smile because realistically talking, george had a rough time without fred i and it changed him. he probably put too much expectations on his first child, named after the person he lost. he’d probably expect fred to be exactly like his brother and got frustrated when he wasn’t and what child wants to disappoint their parent.

Hello! I saw your posts about JKR's bad writing and my eyes were opened! How do you feel about JKR constantly repeating concepts? For eg. in book 4, she highlights the mudblood concept more than necessary. She has to spell out why the Malfoys don't like Hermione when it should be obvious by now. She has to say mudblood is an offensive slur when Draco calls Hermione that in the forest when this was literally done in book 2!

Yooooo, this is a GREAT question. This is such a good issue to look into and to watch out for as a writer, especially if you're trying to write original works. I think this is a great topic for the next post because this is something writers can easily do by mistake. I know FOR SURE I've likely done this for multiple concepts in my own work, especially Terrible, But Great since I've been writing it for over two years now. It's so easy to forget.

In the case of JKR, I suspect it's carelessness or forgetfulness. Chamber of Secrets was published in 1998 and Goblet of Fire was published in 2000... Hang on a minute... Pardon me for going on a tangent, but--

HP1 word count: 76k. Published June 1997

HP2 word count: 85k. Published July 1998

HP3 word count: 107k. Published July 1999

HP4 word count: 190k. Published July 2000

HP5 word count: 257k. Published June 2003

HP6 word count: 168k. Published July 2005

HP7 word count: 198k. Published July 2007

Oh, god. I just learned something today. Well, all right then, there's our reason. THIS is the reason why the writing isn't as strong as it could be in the Harry Potter series. It's because she was writing a book per year for the first four books. I remember her talking about getting stuck for HP5 and that was why it had the largest time difference.

She was rushing the drafting process. I bet she did very little self editing at this pace. You just can't if you're writing a book per year.

Fucking hell, no wonder.

Okay. Quick side tip to all my writing buddies. Yall, don't rush, okay? It's okay to push yourself to reach goals, but don't overdo it. The drafting process is important, but giving yourself the time and space to edit your work will always help you grow as a writer.

Anyway, OP, this was a great topic to bring up and I think I'll go into much further depth with it in the next post of the series. Thank you for this ask!

there's no way quidditch is actually fun imo. like i know the seeker thing and how illogical it is has been talked to death but the whole overall concept is so stupid. imagine you're a world class chaser and you're amazing and everything you do is invalidated (or validated) by the performance of one specific player who has nothing else to do with the rest of the players. you have good stats but your win record means absolutely nothing.

there's little strategy; a good defense depends entirely the keeper, which is another way all the positions are just completely disconnected from each other. they could all be playing different sports and nothing would make a difference. beaters are there for Violence ("ethically mean-spirited"). god there are so many bludger moments in fic (and in the books too tbh) that are so dramatic and injurious and it's literally just the beaters playing their stupid position the way they're meant to lol.

i know the reasonings behind this are like: jkr fundamentally doesn't understand sports in even basic ways; the seeker position has to be for The Most Special Guy and that has to be harry always because he wouldn't be Special Enough if the entire game didn't ride on his shoulders; jkr is a bad writer. very annoying that this huge insidious piece of worldbuilding is so bad!!!