in depth

  welcome to the land of theories and analysis, where we simply can't accept things at face value  (was welcome-to-analysisland)

[evansensations]

The simple life. You’ll get there one day.

[bitsandbobsandstuff]

Something frustrating suddenly sticks out.

Just…when did Steve ever want family and stability? When were those domestic desires ever a driving force for his personality? In what world was he sighing wistfully and dreaming of the wife/ kids/ picket fence combo? Positioning these concepts as some kind of fundamental goal he was fighting for makes no sense because he has never indicated caring about them.

SURE, Steve still feels out of time, and SURE Steve wants to find connections to who he was in 1945, and SURE, Steve probably suffers from emotionally crippling nostalgia, but the idea of Steve Rogers focusing his energy on creating a family and stability - aka the alleged hallmarks of 1940s tranquility - is nonsensical.

[subtext-seeker]

This is what angers me the most about Steve’s ending in Endgame. People argue that “Steve deserved to rest” but why is it that getting married and settling down? Why is that the only way of resting he could have had?

Steve never wanted it. It is presented to us over and over again in the movies, and then Endgame took a wild turn and gave us this. It is completely out of character for him. They took “happily ever after” and gave it to him without thinking about what it meant for him, what it meant for his character.

Not only that, but what about the message? This ending tells us tat getting married is the only way to “rest” aka the goal in life even if it does not make sense for Steve. This is telling all of us that the ultimate goal in life, the thing we should all be aspiring to, is to stop fighting and settle down in the past. 

While I understand Steve wanted to, yeah, rest, it could have been done in so many other ways, while he stayed in the present. Let alone the fact that they could have killed him in the battle. 

They ruined a character because they were too lazy, or maybe just completely out of touch, not only with Steve’s character, but with his audience and fanbase.  Or, maybe, just maybe, they deliberately chose this message? 

[subtext-seeker]

I was thinking of the different ways the houses react to the same situation. For example, how would each of them react to a pop quiz or sudden test?

a Gryffindor would argue with the teacher, claim it’s not fair and the class doesn’t deserve it. They’d argue, maybe scream, refuse to take it, organize a protest if necesary. They’d get the class to revolt against the teacher. They’d put up a fight simply because it is the right thing, the fair thing.

a Slytherin would argue with the teacher only if they knew they could win, only if they had objective arguments to destroy the teacher’s. If they couldn’t, they’d study/work as hard as possible to still get a perfect grade. Because the most important thing to them would be to still win, still come out on top, reputation undemaged.

a Hufflepuff would talk to another teacher they trust, see if they can convince the teacher without making them mad. They’d complain about it among each other, of course, but if they coudn’t find a way to peacefully convince the teacher they would just give their all in the test. Because a) they’re probably ready either way, since they’re such hard workers and b) they don’t want to make the teacher mad. Ultimately, they just want to keep a peaceful environment in the classroom and do their best.

a Ravenclaw would destroy the teachers argument, objective arguments or not. They’d use all the persuasion techniques they know, reference rules and studies on why they can’t do this, invent excuses if necessary. After all, they’re known for their wit. But, if the teacher were to do the test anyway, they’d either know everything or be able to bullshit their way through it.

[subtext-seeker]

Dumbledore learned to suppress his feelings in the 1940′s and he never let go of that lesson.

That’s what makes him manipulative in some occasions: he learned to brush off his feelings in order to do the right thing, and now he expects everyone else to do the same. 

He learned that feelings will hold you back from fighting the evil wizard that once was your lover, the only person who ever really understood you. So if brushing off people’s feelings is what it’s gonna take to defeat Voldemort then he’s gonna do it. 

[subtext-seeker]

Thanos is a hufflepuff. Thanos, as in the evil purple alien from the mcu, is a Hufflepuff. 

Think about it.

What does he want, more than anything? A universe where everyone has enough resources and no one has to die of hunger or live poor. Not power, not glory, a comfortable life for all living beings. Equality, if you will.

And how does he plan on achieving it? Through a genocide, sure, but he tells us himself, in Infinity War: “At random. Dispassionate, fair to rich and poor alike.” Equal and “fair”.

He’s willing to do the thing he believes is right, he puts hard work into retrieving the Infinity Stones, but most importantly,... he doesn’t look for recognition.

he doesn’t want to be the hero for the crowds, doesn’t want to live in a big shiny palace. In fact, when he wins, he retires in a humble farm, all on his own, and plans on living a normal life. He even destroys the Stones because “they have served their purpose”. He doesn’t use them for more than he thinks necessary.

There is good and bad in every Hogwarts House, and Thanos is what an evil Hufflepuff can look like.

[welcome-to-analysisland]

I know it was probably not intentional but guys...

Albus Dumbledore's demise was ultimately set in motion by him wearing a ring.

Rings are heavily linked to marriage, and thus love.... Was it maybe a sign love was his weakness? That of all things in life he does not get love?

[subtext-seeker]

Slytherins are people-pleasers.

I know they’re always pictured like the ones that don’t care but guys, no. They might act like they don’t care, of course, but they do, they care so much. Their image and reputation are always so important to them because it affects how their message is received, what their legacy will be, it’s crucial.  

And guys, Slytherins are ambitious. If they were in ancient Greece the Gods would punish them for their “hybris”, literally “pride”, “thinking you can do better than Gods”. You know when people say “you can’t please everyone”? Slytherins agree, they rationally know it’s true but the deepest part of them sees it as a challenge. They know it’s not possible and even unhealthy, but they want to, they think their resourcefulness and cunningness will make them achieve it. 

Slytherins are people-pleasers, and that’s their weakness

[welcome-to-analysisland]

Albus Dumbledore and Gryffindor

We know Dumbledore won every award and received every honor Hogwarts had to offer. You don’t achieve all of that through just being smart, you have to have motivation. Ambition even. Everyone that saw him in school probably thought he should have been a Slytherin. Or maybe it was a thirst for knowledge that guided him, making him perfect for Ravenclaw.

But Gryffindor? He didn’t show any reason for being sorted into Gryffindor.

When Albus and Gellert started making plans, it was power they wanted. To make the world safer for wizards, of course, but through power.

Individually, they viewed this seize of power in different ways. Gellert was convinced of doing the right thing, sure, but we can’t ignore the pull Dark Arts had on him, and power too.

What was Albus’ motivation? The Greater Good, of course. Making the world safer for wizards. But there are other ways, rather than creating some sort of monarchy or dictatorship. They could have looked for reforms to repel the Statute of Secrecy, for example. But they decided to go for power. A decision influenced by Gellert, sure, but we already established Albus was incredibly smart. This wasn’t Gellert fooling him, it was a conscious decision. Blinded by love? Yes, but not entirely.

First of all, Albus knew Gellert’s, well, genocidal tendencies, and he decided to turn a blind eye on them. I mean, love can only cover up so much. Dumbledore himself states in The Deathly Hollows  

“Oh, I had a few scruples. I assuaged my conscience with empty words. It would all be for the greater good, and any harm done would be repaid a hundredfold in benefits for wizards. Did I know, in my heart of hearts, what Gellert Grindelwald was? I think I did, but I closed my eyes.”

He convinced himself it was all good, but he knew it wasn’t.

Secondly, Albus Dumbledore wanted that power. He craved it, believed he deserved it, and that’s why Grindelwald’s ideas found fertile ground in him. From the first year at Hogwarts, he is said to be “the most brilliant wizard the school has ever had”. Imagine growing up with that and then being “trapped” in a small town taking care of your siblings. You’d feel like you were stripped of the incredible career and life you should have had.

So where is the Gryffindor in him? Not that a Gryffindor can’t wish for power or fame, of course. But a Gryffindor prizes courage and doing the right thing above all, and Dumbledore is so far away from that path.

The answer comes in the late summer of 1899, with Ariana’s death. It is only when Albus Dumbledore had the courage to give up that power, to give up love, for the Greater Good, that he showed his true colors.

The red, and gold of a Gryffindor.

“It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends. I, therefore, award ten points to Mr. Neville Longbottom.”

This looked like a cute yet not so important quote, much less a reason to award Gryffindor some points in The Sorcerer’s Stone. But now we know Neville had, at just 11 years old, a kind of bravery it took Albus Dumbledore years to gather.

[pixelpaladin24]

//So Gellert could give a phoenix to Credence. Not because Credence is a Dumbledore...

But because Gellert is a Dumbledore.

He doesn't have the blood pact with him but they definitely mixed blood with Albus (amoung other things lol :D!), and it's as good as anything else for the phoenix. They're basically married and blood brothers...

Thoughts?

[welcome-to-analysisland]

I’ve always asked myself why Beth March died. I know, I know, she was sick: I mean from a plot, character development point of view. Was she that ill-fit for adult life? Was she too weak of a character? Did Louisa May Alcott not like her?

Then I realized that Beth’s existence cannot continue when her family is no longer intact. You see, she is like the Italian poet Giovanni Pascoli. 

Let me explain.                                                                                                  Just to give you a little background, both his parents and three of his siblings died when he was very young, leaving him traumatized. Especially since his father was murdered and they never found out why or who did it.                    Anyways, due to this trauma, he always focused on recomposing and maintaining the family. He was so set on this that he got mad when his sister married. He wanted the other sister to never marry so she could stay with him and keep a resemblance of the happy childhood they once had.

And Beth is just like that, save for the trauma part. She could not conceive her family growing apart, not even when eventually the March sisters would get married. She repeats many times how much she wants them to go back to being kids, with her father at home and everyone happy. 

So it’s only natural that Alcott couldn’t keep her alive: if she changed and accepted the reality of the sisters leaving the house that would have been strange, almost out of character. If she didn’t accept it, the picture of a happy and peaceful future would have been ruined.

In conclusion, Beth March’s whole identity and personality revolve around keeping the family and the other characters how they were at the beginning, so Alcott had to kill her for the development and happiness of everyone else.