for my campaign i always approached the darklords as a cautionary tale (hence humanizing strahd being so central to my campaign) and images of what the party could become if they gave in not necessarily to their base desires but if they disregarded everything to get what they wanted. the darklords in this case are closely connected with dark powers checks as the powers themselves close in on new targets to create new points of suffering. the actions taken by my players to warrant a dark powers check then need not be outwardly evil but rather selfish and in pursuit of something they'd do anything for - a clue that the darklords did not get to where they were because of a broken moral compass but instead because of how willing they were to get what they want, how desperate they became in that pursuit. that it was not the end that damned them, but the means they employed to get there
since i see them as having ultimately damned themselves i try to include an element of potential redemption in their stories as well. that redemption need not be atla zuko style but also darth vader-esque where connections to the party/loved ones can inspire the ultimate sacrifice and renunciation of what these darklords gave up everything for
Harry: I think loneliness and isolation is something that’s consistently throughout this book for Harry. The previous book was all about him coming out of his loneliness and finding a home, while CoS is challenging that in a way. Harry’s isolated from his friends in the beginning thinking they don’t want to talk to him, someone is literally trying to prevent him from being at Hogwarts (AKA his place of belonging), he hears a voice no one else can, and then the people within Hogwarts antagonize him. To top it off, he’s feeling like an outsider on a deeper level due to the abilities he possesses that suggest he could be evil. I talked a lot about this in the final chapter of this book but here’s a quick sum:
If B1 was about Harry finding his place at Hogwarts and discovering his strengths, B2 is about Harry looking deeper into his strengths and finding something that jeopardizes his new found place at Hogwarts. It’s this side of Harry that he’s a bit frightened of and doesn’t really understand. It’s his darker side, the part that has the capability of doing evil and what is most like Voldemort. Yet Harry chooses to use his resourcefulness and determination for good. He chose not to be in Slytherin. He chooses to love and to be kind. And like Dumbledore says, that’s what’s truly important.
New qualities of Harry that have come up: His low self-worth, he’s a boy of action (he’s a doer, which makes me think he’s a kinesthetic learner), his fear of losing this strength to take action
Ron: I’ve already mentioned that Ron is very protective of his friends, but it’s still important to say! He always shows concern when they’re not acting like their usual selves, like how he went full Mom mode on Harry during his depressive state when encountering the Mirror of Erised, or his immediate reaction to not hearing from Harry all summer and learning he might be using magic was to check on him. I will never get over how Ron and the twins enacted a jailbreak for Harry :’) Another quality I noticed in this book is how he always speaks his mind, likely do to growing up in a household with so many siblings. He draws a clear line of what he’s willing and not willing to do, but that said, if it means helping his friends, Ron is willing to do anything (even walk into his literal nightmare).
I also want to talk about the Weasley family in general and how they’re basically a manifestation of what the wizarding world is for Harry. The Durselys are all about order, perfection, and normalcy while the Weasleys are chaotic, rustic, and unique. The magical world fills Harry with excitement and love, which the Weasley family provides every day at the Burrow.
Hermione: I really admire Hermione’s dedication to knowledge and learning. She inhales books, always asks questions, and loves things that challenge her abilities! And when deciding which classes to take, Hermione was like I will take all of them. Which, good for her! but also, I hope she knows how much she can handle lol.
Ginny: Can you imagine being so excited to finally go to Hogwarts, only for your first year to be something straight out of a horror flick. Ginny has gaps in her memory that just so happens to align with attacks on students, she literally wakes up with blood on her hands. The trauma. Ginny opened her heart to someone only to be used, manipulated, and abused. Yet after all of that, she still comes out a stronger person, she still lets people in her life and thrives.
Draco: I started seeing new bits of information that revealed why Draco is the way he is in B2. He’s obv very spoiled, but it’s shown that he actually doesn’t get much love from his father. Like in Borgin and Burkes, he pushes his father’s buttons to see what he can get away with, which is a sign that Lucius doesn’t give Draco the attention a child needs from their parent. He also constantly complains, wanting to be coddled. I’ll just plop in smth I said in chp12 about Draco’s attention-seeking antics:
Sometimes Draco gets away with it, sometimes he doesn’t, but it’s never out of love. It’s more of I’ll do this so you can leave me be. In reality, they have a very materialistic relationship. Lucius also teaches Draco that he’s privileged because of his pure blood and he absorbs that, clings to it, probably because it connects him with his father. By upholding this blood purity mindset and trying to internalize it, Draco feels like he belongs in the Malfoy family.
Tom Riddle/Voldemort: Tom Riddle/Voldemort and Harry are constantly compared with one another. They were both orphaned as infants, taken into hostile homes, and were isolated and alone for much of their lives, yet they grew up to be opposite in personality. Tom became resentful, pessimistic, formed a superiority complex, internalized blood purity, and is incapable of love. He is also a coward at his core, which is where his superiority complex formed from. He’s overcompensating for not having control over his life at the orphanage (and also being a half-blood, not pure blood). He’d rather go the easy route and be feared than having any meaningful connections with others. He values himself above anything else.
Dumbledore: On the topic of Tom Riddle, I still wonder why Dumbledore did nothing when he saw all the signs that Tom might fall into the dark arts. Was Dumbledore in denial and overlooking those details in hopes they weren’t true? Did he just not know what to do?
Dumbledore might be a kind man, but he’s also very calculating af. He’s taking very calculated chances on Harry and his upbringing to make sure that Harry doesn’t become another Voldemort and that he can stand against Voldemort. Like both in B1 and B2, Dumbledore gives Harry tools that will help him in the final battles, trusting that Harry will be brave and stay true to his beliefs i.e. trusting that Harry wouldn’t use the Sorcerer’s Stone when in front of the Mirror of Erised, or trusting that Harry was a true Gryffindor.
Notes:
I had been wondering how Dobby was able to appear before Harry is house elves can’t usually use their magic without their master’s permission. But it might be that it’s less of being physically incapable of doing so and more of being extremely taboo for house elves, which be another factor for why Dobby would punish himself so much for trying to warn Harry. As we know in later books, Dobby is outside the house elf social norm.
Very salty about the movies giving Ron’s lines to other characters
I’m still confused on how the basilisk moved around. Like does Harry hear it in the walls when it’s coming out of the Chamber, then it just wanders around the castle?? Are there openings in the pipes at various points in the castle that it can fit through??
What's your opinion on Canon Ravenloft's stance of 'Darklords are incapable of redemption or positive growth?' I have a hard time believing that the Dark Powers wouldn't have snatched at least a few Darklords who learned from their mistakes.
i never liked the idea that the darklord's are never capable of redemption, not just from a pure narrative perspective but also from a DM perspective. there are players who will TRY to redeem the BBEG and i think negating that chance entirely removes that freedom and agency from players. setting up a redemption arc may drastically change the tone of the campaign (going from kill the baddy to rehabilitating this one weird person) but if that's the campaign player's want that's the one they can have bc at the end of the day it's about fun. besides, setting up a curse that can't be cured (since strahd can't actually die he always comes back) is very frustrating for players. it can also offer unique opportunities for moral dilemmas and player reflection, like why is it assumed the only option is to kill?
current canon is weird anyway especially since old 2e-4e ravenloft gazetteers also outlined how the dark powers might try to give the darklord's one last chance on reflecting upon their mistake and an original gazetteer writer said that redemption was always an underlying theme of ravenloft in his understanding
i think it also depends on how you characterize the dark powers which is smth that 5e has failed at imo. for my campaign i try to take more of an eldritch/bloodborne vibe for my dark powers since that's what 2e supported and i liked that better than old vistages with names and faces. it makes it more spooky in my opinion, but with that in mind the purpose of the dark powers in my campaign is just to feed off of suffering so they don't want the darklords to redeem themselves because it means suffering. however, it means redemption is still possible and a way to break the curse
tl;dr yeah i think it's dumb and uninteresting but that's just my opinion and i know some og ravenloft fans feel the same way and @casketsanctum has made a post about redemption in ravenloft as well 😌
just some tatyana & strahdyana thoughts from me and my gf @tatyanafederovna
narratively tatyana has to embrace the monster the vampire because that represents breaking away from the oppressive gender roles that have been placed upon her
there’s smth beautiful about not being the delicate princess and embracing volatility and violence and i think in the choice between strahd and sergei it can be read as a choice between mother and monster. even though strahd is a liar his form of feral and self destructive love feels more genuine than the fairytale love sergei seems to impose onto tatyana (ignoring the preconceived notions strahd seems to have for her for a moment because this narrative isn’t just about him just as dracula isn’t just about the vampire it’s about mina murray)
sergei to me represents traditional life and societal norms and acceptability and i think its why i rebel against him as a character and his ending so much whereas strahd represents hidden desires and the otherness and pushing against those boundaries / the transgressions of social norms (like exploring sexuality) which is what the monster is supposed to represent
i say mother versus monster because traditional societal norms expect women to be mothers and be pure and nurturing and caring which ties into compulsory heterosexuality and how it affects even straight women it’s just this very strict assumption that romantically and emotionally women are only supposed to be oriented towards men and reproduction rather than themselves because that would be monstrous or whorish for lack of a better word and then motherhood is associated with a gentle maternity and everything that isn’t violence
it’s the madonna-whore duality. women were either pure and virtuous like a madonna or corrupt and sexually available like a whore and the duality suggests that women cant be both at the same time
it’s why i adore yellowjackets because as teenagers going into womanhood instead of motherhood they’re thrust into monster-hood to survive the wilderness and there is something to be said about violence and rage and hunger being natural (woman is wolf)
and that’s why i also think ladies loved 1930s dracula so much it was sensuality and terror all in one. we see this a lot w/ post bram stoker dracula which is far more romanticized and shows a world where the monstrous (whore) side is allowed love. with bela lugosi!dracula it was like this vampire (monster) is a man who will love me for my feminine sensibilities but also my feminine violence and feminine fury
acceptance from a monster feels like recognition and love from a hero feels like expectation
Do you ever think that Strahd’s soul sees what Strahd has done as a vampire and ever just grimaces? Or is horrified at it? (These are the existential questions about Strahd that I wonder)
ok this has been sitting here for a moment because i had to really like sit back and be like so what is a soul because the social scientist in me got war flashbacks to all my political justice and ethical philosophy classes and i really had to think about what a soul is what the dividing line is between a morally good and morally bad action and throwing out everything i know about the fuckin separation of soul from person thing (which ain't much sorry house on gryphon hill idc about you) i have just some thoughts on why i don't think strahd's soul would ever grimace tbh
there is also a debate to be had on what a soul is, philosophy, psychology and neuroscience all have answers and discourses surrounding this but i'm not interested in that and the political scientist in me is more interested in the logic that guided strahd's decision making both while alive and undead and imo it hasn't changed!
having read a lot of classical realist literature it has inevitably bled into my portrayal of/interpretation of strahd's own political philosophy. he is in my opinion machiavellian but not in the modern sense because that term has been too widely used and misappropriated. machiavellian per machiavelli is simply a ruler who is pragmatic, practically wise, and competent. there are three concepts in machiavelli's classical realism that pertain to power, the pursuit and maintenance of it through a strong ruler:
"Power, as per Machiavelli, is defined best in opposition to, and in conjunction with, other terms. Meinecke (1965, as cited in Sullivan, 1973) distills Machiavellianism into three distinct concepts that provide a throughline in his political thought. In a more modern realist context, fortuna can better be understood as anarchy. Virtu is the ability to survive fortuna and derives from Machiavelli’s references to the “virtuous prince” (Meinecke, 1965, as cited in Sullivan, 1973). Virtuous in this case, does not refer to moral goodness but rather a leader’s abilities, or skill. The final concept is necessita, which is not explicitly defined by Machiavelli but instead heavily alluded to throughout his works. This concept can best be understood as the state’s interest (Meinecke, 1965, as cited in Sullivan, 1973)." (me lol, 2022)
classical political realism if applied to 5e morality would most likely fall under the lawful evil category, particularly if machiavelli and more modern proponents such as morgenthau would be taken as templates for political action though in saying this i know morgenthau is rolling in his gave at my comparison between the two sorry bud <3 anyway these are morgenthau's thoughts on being a politician
"There is no escape from the evil of power regardless of what one does. Whenever we act with reference to our fellowmen, we must sin and we must still sin when we refuse to act; for the refusal to be involved in the evil of action carries with it the breach of the obligation to do one's duty. No ivory tower is remote enough to offer protection against the guilt in which the actor and the bystander, the oppressor and the oppressed, the murderer and his victim are inextricably enmeshed." (Morgenthau, 1945)
classical realist ethics reject ethical perfectionism, but also go beyond mere utilitarianism. for classical realists means to an end is not enough of a moral foundation upon which to build policy for the ends and the means can be beyond evil and falsely justified as "national interest" and in the flow of time there is technically no end and the consequences of the end pursued are often ignored in utilitarian debates.
"The individual or the state has the capacity to choose that action which causes the least harm and moral behaviour stems from the ‘endeavor to choose, since evil there must be, among several possible actions the one that is least evil’. This is the political ethics of despair, but also of moral courage: ‘To choose among several expedient actions the least evil one is moral judgment. In the combination of political wisdom, moral courage, and moral judgment man reconciles his political nature with his moral destiny’." (Molloy, 2009)
thus classical realists such as morgenthau put forth the idea of pursuing the lesser evil. the only truly unethical option in this philosophy is a total rejection of national interest.
this is all to say i don't see strahd looking at anything harsh or cruel if done in the name of barovian interests as bad. he does not feed to be evil, he feeds to maintain himself and as far as strahd is concerned he is the best at securing barovia's national interests because he is the most capable in doing so.
i would see him having less disgust but perhaps more regret in selfish and reckless actions. i do not think he would be as ashamed as he would be embarrassed for violating his own ethical values. book!strahd only feeds from bandits and other criminals. the source of his suffering and indeed the thing that cursed him are his very human, very emotional desires that took over him and drove him to murder before he was even a vampire.
“Give me that man that is not passion's slave, and I will wear him in my heart's core, in my heart of heart, as I do thee.” (William Shakespeare, Hamlet)
i think his biggest ick looking at his past self is just this feeling of regret, hindsight being 2020 and being ashamed of his lack of virtu/prudence/practical wisdom etc. i think for the first time in his life as a "prince" he made a selfish decision, he chose perhaps the greater evil to satisfy the desires of his heart rather than those of the nation he serves and in that pursuit he was sloppy and it cursed him and the woman he loves forever. it is a cautionary tale, and i try to play him as machiavelli's virtuous prince who has fallen prey to his own heart's desire. it's about the tragedy of doing what you want vs. what's expected of you and that backfiring. it's the tragedy of wanting and grieving that want. it is the tragedy of being human but being expected to act as a "prince"
i don't think he even sees being a vampire as bad, i think he suffers most from being human and that being a monster is nothing in comparison to human heartbreak
under the read more are some more quotes on passion, power, politics, responsibility, and love as food for thot anyway follow me i'm delicious :)
Morgenthau’s treatment of love is complex: love and power play opposite roles as responses to the fundamental existential experience of isolation. Man is restricted in his choices in that he either embraces love or power. Love is, according to Morgenthau, ‘in its purest form the rarest of experiences. It is given to few men to experience it at all, and those who experience it do so only in
fleeting moments of exaltation’. The rarity of this pure form, and the corruption of most love by power, entails the ‘inevitable frustration of love’. (Morgenthau, 1962 as quoted by Molloy, 2009)
“Who has not asked himself at some time or other: am I a monster or is this what it means to be a person?” (Clarice Lispector, The Hour of the Star, 1977)
Hamlet, aware of this tragic tension between the ethics of our minds and the ethics of our actions, resolves to act only when he can
act as ethically as his intention demands and thus despairs of acting at all; and, when he finally acts, his actions and fate are devoid of ethical meaning. (Morgenthau, 1945)
“I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offences at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape, or time to act them in. What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves, all. Believe none of us.” (William Shakespeare, Hamlet)
“I must be cruel only to be kind; Thus bad begins, and worse remains behind.” (William Shakespeare, Hamlet)
“It is not, nor it cannot, come to good, But break, my heart, for I must hold my tongue.” (William Shakespeare, Hamlet)
Harry Potter and the Sacred Text word of the day: Excellence
Something I didn’t think about that was brought up in the podcast was how, like complaining, excellence is a neutral thing that can be used for either good or bad. Hermione for example excels in a lot from magic to retaining information and uses those skills for good, while someone like Lockhart, who excels at memory charms, chooses to use his skills for selfish reasons. Instead of working for the ministry or smth, he wipes the memories of witches and wizards and takes credit for their successes. Ironically enough, Lockhart says “excellent” a lot when he himself isn’t excellent.
Snape might be a dick, but he’s still really good at what he does. He’s an excellent potions master, dueling master, and spy. This doesn’t really redeem him as a person in my eyes though, cause he’s never actively trying to be a better person. I have to wonder whether his response to Goyle’s cauldron exploding was due to him fulfilling his roll as a caring teacher or if it was because it happened to a Slytherin and/or it affected so many students he had no choice but to give them antidotes. I’m wondering this because something similar happened in the past, but it was Neville’s potion that went wrong and Snape immediately yelled at him and then blamed it on Harry. I know that Goyle’s potion was sabotaged, but I have a feeling that if it exploded bc of something Goyle did, Snape would’ve had a very different reaction than he did with Neville.
Speaking of Neville, as much as I talked about him last book, he has barely appeared so far. Poor thing is so freaked out about the chamber monster even when he’s a pure-blood, citing that he’s “almost a squib” so he might still be in danger. Honestly I think a lot of Neville’s mishaps with magic are because he doesn’t believe in himself. His growth is in such small steps and as he is now, he doesn’t acknowledge himself as someone of worth. But he still has things he excels at! Like herbology! And he’s still a brave person! And cares about his friends! Like the hosts said, you can’t really quantify excelling at kindness and the like, but that doesn’t make them any less valid of skills.
The discussion on the podcast about being forced to use your talents or having talents forced upon you was interesting. With Harry, he’s naturally fluent in parseltongue (due to Voldemort’s horcrux) but he has no way to control it, versus his talent for flying but he chooses to use it for Quidditch. I mentioned this part of Harry that he can’t control in chapter 9 and he still doesn’t know what to do with it (though at the moment he thinks they’re separate causes). Interestingly, he panics more from being accused of being the heir due to his gift rather than the gift itself. To Harry, it’s just this thing he can do, it’s not inherently bad like any other skill, yet it has a history of people using it for harm so now society associates it with dark wizards. And Harry hasn’t been socialized with this.
I wonder why Snape didn’t immediately get rid of the snake when it was going for Justin. Maybe Harry reacted before he could? And it’s amazing how fear skews memory. Because like Harry said, anyone who thinks about what truly happened would realize that the chain events went a) snake is angry and moves towards Justin, and then b) Harry tells the snake something and it stops. But to everyone freaked out by the Chamber of Secrets and the Heir of Slytherin believes those actions are flipped. Fear also skews logic, as seen with the Hufflepuffs when Ernie jumped to conclusions. I think this is an example of how all the houses have good and bad qualities to them, it’s not all black and white. Here, Ernie is being loyal to his friend who’s in danger, but he directs his anger at an easy target rather than logically looking at the situation. He goes so far as to assume Voldemort attacked a baby bc the baby had dark magic. Does he even stop to think about how crazy that accusation is?? God bless Hannah though, she’s the true Hufflepuff here.
I can’t believe Ginny’s only line in the book so far was that one time in Flourish & Blotts. Give my girl actual screen time pls and ty. I mentioned in a post that all of the info about Ginny that we get are just told to us and I suggested that she might be avoiding interacting with Harry. But it might also be that what’s happening to Ginny is just in Harry’s periphery, they’re just small details that he doesn’t think too much about. And it’s meant to throw first-time readers off since they seem like trivial facts. Which is extremely sad when something serious is happening to her. She’s not just distraught about Collin bc he sat next to her in Charms. She’s not just having random nightmares. So I want everyone to pay more attention to the people around you, even if they seem fine, they may not be and are too afraid or don’t know how to call for help. And for those who are in dark places, I pray that you will have the strength to ask for help.
Small things:
Good for Harry for saving Hermione from Millicent when the teachers were too full of themselves to do anything
He also has such strong ethics, like instead of leaving the petrified bodies since he’s being accused of being the heir, he think I can’t just leave them here
Harry is so savage sometimes lmao
Lockhart: Just do what I did!
Harry: Drop my wand??
And again we have an instance of the movie script writers giving Ron’s lines to Hermione :/
Ah yes, the nasty little voice in Harry’s head. From that description it sounds like the piece of Voldemort’s soul in Harry
Harry hid himself in the Invisibility section of the library lol
Harry Potter and the Sacred Text word of the day: Shame
I uh,, dropped the ball on this one. I read the chapter before Christmas but didn't listen to the podcast episode until now,,,, whoops lol.
I read At Flourish and Blotts from the perspective of people feeling ashamed or embarrassed, but the hosts also made a good point of how people are also shaming others. Obviously the main point of shame in the chapter surrounds the idea of wealth and possessions: the Weasleys feeling ashamed that they have very little wealth, while Harry is ashamed for being wealthy, and also Lucius, who'd feel embarrassed if he's found with certain items in his possession. When George was talking about how expensive Lockhart’s books would be, I thought about college textbooks and how elitist colleges can be with just assigning the latest edition of books (I’m looking at you science departments). The scene also made me wonder if the Weasleys passed down their school books to younger siblings, since besides DADA, all their books would be the same in each year. Idk the chapter gave me the impression that they still buy the assigned books every year (since Ron grabbed a copy of The Standard Book of Spells), and that makes no sense. Also, do students not need new books for other classes?? All that was listed was The Standard Book of Spells and Lockhart’s books lol.
I love that while the Weasleys are poor, they are one of the most generous families that Harry interacts with. Harry in turn does everything he can to return that generosity, like sharing his Nimbus Two Thousand, giving his free books to Ginny, and buying ice cream for his friends. The hosts talked about how Harry delicately manages how he acts around the Weasleys because he doesn’t want to flaunt the fact that he has a small fortune. So he accepts their hospitality, but gives back in small ways without it seeming like “charity.” So he takes turns riding his broom with Ron, George, and Fred; he doesn’t want Lockhart’s free books because he received them through his fame, so he gives them to Ginny; he buys ice cream for Ron and Hermione, but also gets one for himself. Even in the first book, he traded half of his candy for Ron’s homemade sandwich (since he never had something homemade like that).
There's also little moments of shame, like Ginny being embarrassed for the way she acts around Harry (as well as her brothers, who tease her for it), and George exclaiming that he couldn’t stand the shame if they had another Head Boy in the family lmao. Reminds me how I sometimes say eating with silverware with food that’s supposed to be eaten with your hands is uncivilized lol. I’m sure Arthur and Molly often talk about how good of students Bill, Charlie, and Percy were, and in the perspective of the twins who aren’t talked about with pride in that way, they probably find it very annoying. So George is flipping that pride in academics on its head, calling it a shame instead. I like how the podcast hosts worded it: reappropriating shame.
Speaking of Percy, the hosts also talked about his shame of his family, but in turn he’s shamed for being ambitious. Though I think his younger siblings tease him less because he’s ambitious in general, but more because he wants success for himself alone. And the fact that Percy is trying to distance himself from his family.
An interesting place that I didn’t expect shame to appear was with Lucius when he was selling things to Mr. Borgin. He specifically said “I have a few items at home that might embarrass me if the Ministry were to call.” Lucius is all about appearances, so considering he made a big show about going to the good side, being found with objects enchanted by Dark Arts wouldn’t look so good. He even told Draco to at least act like he’s fond of Harry because he’s the hero who defeated Voldemort. Also for all the talk Draco says about how his father gives him this and that, the scene at Borgin and Burkes comes a bit as a surprise since all Lucius does is reprimand Draco. Draco seems like that spoiled kid pushing their parent’s buttons to see what they can get away with. And at this moment he finds out he can’t get his father to buy him Dark Arts objects lol. Also that his father is very done with his complaining about a certain muggle born and famous kid.
I want to take a moment to appreciate Ginny. Not only did she stand up to Draco, but she did it in front of Harry when she could barely say a word to him. She’s also very observant since he understood that Harry doesn’t like being the center of attention, which makes sense considering she has a crush on him. I’m sure she watches him quite often lol.
Small things:
Harry finding the fact that the Weasleys actually liked him to be the most unusual thing while living at the Burrow.... like.... kid
How did the Weasleys expect Harry to get Floo Powder right the first time when he’s never heard of it until that moment lol. Molly has every right to fuss about it
A lot of those trinkets in Borgin and Burkes are important in book 6!
I love how the first thing that both Hargid and Molly do when seeing Harry is try to dust off the soot he’s covered with. Like parents after their kid rolled around in the dirt lol
*Files Ron being looked over for Harry Potter at Flourish and Blotts under Ron’s Insecurities*
Do you say “Loo-shus” or “Loo-see-us”?
Special shout out to Hagrid for being at the right places at the right time (◕‿◕✿)
In light of recent events, I want to state that this blog is a safe space. No matter what JK Rowling says, you are seen, you are valid, and you matter.
Harry Potter and the Sacred Text word of the day: Curiosity
I’ve been talking about curiosity so much that I had to double check to make sure this hasn’t been a chapter theme before lmao. Because Harry is such a naturally curious person! Which is so interesting since he grew up in a household that discouraged questioning anything. It’s something I noted in chapter 3 of book 1 funny enough, because the Hogwarts letters had really sparked Harry’s curiosity. Now at the Burrow, Harry is dazzled by how wizards live and he can ask all the questions he wants! And you can see how much happier he is to once again be in a new place and learn new things. The hosts talked about how curiosity comes with happiness and joy. It’s the natural interesting to discover and learn, whether it’s adventuring or finding a new show to watch or reading a book. Harry finds joy in learning about the wizarding world, Arthur is fascinated by muggle culture, the Weasley children love to hear about their dad’s day at work (I want to think of their curiosity as pure curiosity and not just them wanting a distraction from their mother’s wrath lol).
Back tracking a little, Vanessa from the podcast had made a connection between curiosity and love. Ron for example, who has had way more time in loving conditions, is more likely to question what is going on with his loved ones if they’re quiet or angry. Thus Ron’s immediate concern when he doesn’t hear from Harry all summer. Harry on the other hand, assumes that they weren’t really friends and doesn’t question if anything happened to Ron or anyone else. Part of it is may also be Harry’s own self esteem issues and the negative environment he currently lives in, something I talked about in chapter 1. So I wonder if curiosity is also tied with self worth and esteem, as well as the setting one is in. I just love how as soon as the Weasleys hear about Harry supposedly using magic, they immediately come up with a plan to bust him out. I can just imagine a scenario where Ron’s like we gotta do a jail break and either Fred or George go we’ll use this car that we’ve never used before and might be able to fly. I also love that Casper talked about how the wizarding world and Hogwarts open Harry’s mind and imagination and always him to grow, something that can’t happen at Privet Drive.
I think the line “‘It’s wonderful,’ said Harry happily, thinking of Privet Drive” really encompasses this discussion with the Dursleys and the Weasleys in Harry’s life. Privet Drive and the Burrow are the opposites: whereas Privet Drive is a cookie cutter house with an orderly yard and interior design, the Burrow is unique, cluttered, and well used; one is normal, dull, and oppressive, the other is magical, exciting, and freeing. Harry doesn’t care that the Weasleys are poor or their house is haphazardly put together, all he sees is a magical world that’s far more interesting than where he grew up and that loves and accepts him unconditionally. When Molly dumps all the food onto Harry’s plate, I thought about how the Dursleys starved him. The same also applies to knowledge! With the Weasleys, Harry is full and content.
Questions: If house elves can’t usually use their magic without their master’s permission, what are the exceptions? I’ll have to remember this when Dobby’s family is revealed, if this is ever mentioned again.
Small things:
The line “We’ve come to take you home with us.” I just,, I cry
Harry motherfucking Potter how dare you almost forget Hedwig. She was being all quiet and considerate and you were about to leave her behind smh
Molly’s comment about her not having trouble with Bill or Charlie makes me think they were far more discrete about their rule-breaking and trouble-making lol
Special shout out to both Arthur and Molly. Arthur works so goddamn hard with barely any rewards, but he does it because he loves what he does. His love for the muggle world is so genuine and pure and also something you don’t find in a lot of wizards, especially pure bloods, as seen in how small the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts department despite it being so important to the functioning and secrecy of the wizarding world. And for Molly, she loves her family so much and runs this entire puzzle-pieced house, yet she also has to deal with her misfit children. So this is an appreciation for all those hard working parents and adults whose labor may not always be seen or acknowledged.
