Let's chat

Theories, Wizard Rock, Discussion, Panel Notes, and more!

[wrockingwriter]

Trelawney and Snape: Unwitting Accomplices

In the course of the series (books or films) Sybill Trelawney and Severus Snape never directly interact, and yet without Snape (yes, specifically Snape) neither of Trelawney’s True Prophesies would have come to fruition; the ones that the fates of Voldemort depend upon, though we have no real way of knowing if she made any others.

But let’s break this down from the beginning.

Prophesy 1 - Voldemort’s Initial (and eventually, final) Downfall (1980-1981) Death

Film Prophesy: The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches, and the Dark Lord shall mark him as his equal but he shall have power the Dark Lord knows not. For neither can live while the other survives.

(this is incredibly nonspecific; it could have been made at any time about any Dark Lord and any person beyond the whole ‘mark his as his equal’ bit which is not limited to physical marking, but perhaps metaphysical, or mental via trauma even. This is one of a thousand ways that the films did a great disservice to anyone who had not already read the books- but I digress)

Book Prophesy: The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches. Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies. And the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not. And either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies.

(this one is much more specific, but is still vague enough for multiple interpretations)

For the purposes of specificity, and that the film and book canons are difficult to reconcile without defaulting to the Book interpretations anyway, so I’ll be focusing there. So.

A basic breakdown:

Born to parents who defied Voldemort 3x

Born as the 7th month dies

Dark Lord will mark him as his equal

Will have power the Dark Lord knows not

One must die at the hands of the other

We know that Snape was eavesdropping and heard up until the first ‘born as the seventh month dies’ before being ousted, and he gave that incomplete prophesy to Voldemort.

From here we as readers and consumers of this series know that both Dumbledore and Voldemort interpret the first bit of the prophecy to apply to two families: the Longbottoms and the Potters. We know that Voldemort settles on it meaning the Potters. And we also know that at some point after learning this Snape asked Voldemort for Lily’s life to be spared before going to beg Dumbledore to keep her safe as he did not trust Voldemort’s word that he would spare her.

Based upon Snape’s report, Dumbledore has the Potters put under fidelius.

We know from information we get from Prisoner of Azkaban that Peter Pettigrew turned spy at some point between the prophesy being given and October of 1980 as he’d been spying for a year before the Potters’ deaths.

We as readers know that Voldemort fully intended to keep his word to Snape and spare Lily as he asks her to move 3x before killing her.

We also know that a parent dying for their child is not enough to cause an Avada Kedavra to rebound. (James’ death does nothing, and Molly says that ‘any mother would’)

I’d like to take a moment to point out plainly that Snape had no clue whatsoever that Voldemort would even attempt to keep his word. He has no clue that his actions and request are what facilitated Lily’s choice to sacrifice herself.

Because, yes, Lily’s actions are what give Harry his Power. Her love. But in order for it to work there had to be an actual choice to do otherwise or James’ death would have protected them both, if love was the only prerequisite.

Now we also cannot forget that Voldemort wouldn’t have known about the prophesy at all without Snape, but what would that mean as far as Voldemort’s first war?

When Sirius tries to explain what the last war was like to the trio he speaks of the fear, the unknown threat that could come from anywhere or anyone as they had no way of knowing who Voldemort’s supporters were. The chaos of the Ministry of Magic simultaneously trying to keep everything hidden from the Muggles while the war affected both sides of their worlds. Aurors being given the power to kill rather than capture. The fear. The chaos. The bloodshed.

Without Trelawney’s initial prophesy being overheard and reported, it never would have been put into motion. And, if Voldemort’s reign had continued in that fashion, who’s to say that he wouldn’t have succeeded entirely? Dumbledore himself asks Harry if he believes that every prophesy in the Hall of Prophesy has been fulfilled and goes on to emphasise ho it’s Voldemort’s choices in the wake of Snape’s report that sealed the means for his demise.

But let’s move on the Trelawney’s second prophesy, which is practically two entirely different prophesies between the film and book.

Prophesy 2 - Voldemort’s Rebirth (6 June 1994) Life

Film Prophesy: He will return tonight. Tonight he who had betrayed his friends, whose heart rots with murder, shall break free. Innocent blood shall be spilt and servant and master shall be reunited once more.

(I’m quite amused that the film prophesy OPENS with an absolutely inaccurate statement considering 1- Pettigrew isn’t really returning from anywhere and 2- Voldemort definitely didn’t return on this evening. Yet another reason I’ll pretty much be ignoring the film prophesy entirely)

Book Prophesy: The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers. His servant has been chained these twelve years. Tonight, before midnight. The servant will break free and set out to rejoin his master. The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant’s aid, greater and more terrible than ever before. Tonight. Before midnight. The servant. Will set out. To rejoin. His master.

A basic breakdown:

Voldemort is alone, no other followers with him

Servant has been chained/contained for 12 years

This will happen before midnight on this specific day

Servant will break free and seek out his master

The Dark Lord will definitely rise again with this servant’s aid

Dark Lord will be greater and more terrible if this comes to fruition

We, as readers, know that Voldemort’s shade has been out in the world (Dumbledore says that he’s in Albania, but who knows how long that’s been the case) and that his followers either disavowed him to stay out of Azkaban, or are actually in Azkaban. There are, of course, people who have similar beliefs- or support them in political if not overt ways- but they aren’t the type of people to seek out the Dark Lord.

Even Quirrel was a teacher who went on a journey the year before changing subjects from Muggle Studies (which is notoriously out of date and likely prejudiced if the average wizard’s understanding of the muggle world is to be believed) to Defense Against the Dark Arts and just happened across the Dark Lord. He was likely a sympathiser prior to their encounter, but since the events of Philosopher’s Stone, Voldemort has been on his own once again.

We as readers know that Pettigrew has been a rat, and has been with the Weasley family, for years. He likely hasn’t been with the Weasley family for the full twelve years since that fateful Halloween as he sped down into the sewer after his confrontation with Sirius. But, that aside he’s definitely been a rat or at least in hiding for the last 12 years.

Luckily for us this prophesy is explicit as far as the timing of these events- before midnight- and we know that, time turner adventure included, everything is over and done with by 5 minutes ‘til midnight as that’s when Dumbledore locks them into the Hospital Wing.

We know that in the chaos of Lupin’s transformation Pettigrew grabs Lupin’s wand and breaks free from the bindings Lupin put on him, stuns Ron and Crokshanks, and runs off into the night.

We know that Pettigrew finds his way to Voldemort following information he gathers from rumour and rat alike.

We, in the context of the greater series at hand, know that without Pettigrew finding Bertha Jorkins, they wouldn’t have known about or found Barty Crouch Jr (though Barty would likely have found his way to Voldemort eventually, if the Imperius curse from his father continued degrading) and that, without Barty, the TriWizard Tournament would not have ended in Voldemort’s resurrection.

We also are privy to this prophesy when Snape absolutely was not. He was not present or eavesdropping when it was originally ive, and he was most definitely not told of it later on by Dumbledore as it was no longer relevant. He’s not in the business of sharing information for no reason.

Now, Snape’s influence on the fulfilment of this prophecy is just as tangential as the last one. Mostly centred on the Wolfsbane Potion, which must for a week be consumed once a day leading up to the full moon. There is nothing that states it must be consumed at a specific day- just once a day. In fact, we see Snape deliver a dose of the Potion in the middle of the day when Harry is unable to go to Hogsmeade and ends up in Lupin’s office.

If Snape had brought Lupin his dose earlier in the day, would Pettigrew have had an opportunity to escape?

Alternatively, if Snape had brought the Wolfsbane when Lupin had been watching the Map, would Lupin have gone to the shrieking shack in the first place? Would he have seen? Sirius would likely have killed Pettigrew, which would have stopped the resurrection- or at least delayed it for a long while.

So by delaying the delivery of the Wolfsbane Potion, most assuredly due to his distaste of Lupin (which was not at all curtailed by Dumbledore, and likely was made worse by his blatant favouritism which followed from their school days) Snape inadvertently provided the opportunity for this prophesy to come to pass.

Now let’s jump back to the first prophesy, which is still only half-fulfilled.

Prophesy 1 - Voldemort’s Final Defeat (Prophesy from 1980-1981, Completed 2 May 1998) Death

So what’s left?

The Power the Dark Lord knows not

One must die at the hands of the other

Now, we as readers know that the power the Dark Lord knows not is love, both the love others have for him (Lily’s sacrifice) and the love Harry has for others (the love shield Harry is able to give to Neville and the others at the Battle of Hogwarts after his trip to King’s Cross) because Voldemort may understand intellectually the concept of love, may claim to know it, but he has no true understanding of what it means to love someone or something. 

This lack of true understanding is also why Narcissa is able to do what she does, and lie to his face.

If Voldemort actually understood how Lily’s sacrifice worked then he wouldn’t have killed Harry the way he did.

We know that without Snape giving his memories to Harry (which already barley happened) Harry would have continued trying to search for Horcruxes blindly, not making he connection about his scar which could have caused any number of problems. Let’s say that Voldemort was somehow defeated- he’d just have come back again later. Or Harry got killed by someone not Voldemort- we don’t know what would happen with the Horcrux in his scar in that case.

Another repercussion of Snape’s memories is that Harry knows not to fight back when he encounters Voldemort. Harry knows how his mother sacrificed herself and is able to emulate it. Harry doesn’t expect to survive the encounter, everything he knows of Horcruxes says that the vessel/receptacle must be damaged beyond repair. With a living being, this would logically mean dead. And Harry’s actions from The Prince’s Tale to King’s Cross are taken with this presumption.

There is also this interesting way of interpreting the last bits of the prophesy- that Voldemort exists in a schrodinger-esque state of neither life or death while there are Horcruxes in existence. He can neither live or die as long as there are Horcruxes, and thus only begins living once Neville has killed Nagini because Harry told him to, not knowing the significance of that action.

Harry is merely surviving as an object, the host to the fragment of Voldemot, and only starts living once Voldemort hits his body with a killing curse and accidentally destroys his own Horcrux.

When Harry and Voldemort face off after everything, that final duel is the first time that they are both truly alive- and thus the first time that one of them even could die at the hands of the other.

Now, could these prophesies have come to fruition without Snape? Maybe!

But how?

[wrockingwriter]

Great Man, Dumbledore

I’d like to think that we all can agree that Albus Dumbledore did many Great things for what, ultimately, were mostly Good reasons. But the more that I think about him and the seemingly infinite, intricate, ways his actions and inactions impacted the Wizarding World I can’t help but think of Ollivander- ‘Terrible, yes, but great.’

At University I did a paper about how Albus Dumbledore exemplifies the Nietzschean concept of a Noble Man. A Nietzschean Noble Man doesn’t wait to be assigned a task or a burden and instead simply takes on those things and then makes decisions/takes actions based solely upon his own judgements. Most all of Dumbledore’s titles and responsibilities in the Wizarding World were handed to him in the wake of actions he took entirely of his own accord and that only reinforced his belief of being correct in those courses of action no matter the other consequences.

If we start in Dumbledore’s youth there’s another Nietzschean belief that he fell prey to: that the world operates solely by the exploitation of the weaker by the stronger. The way Dumbledore writes to Grindelwald that ‘yes we have been given power and yes, that power gives us the right to rule,’ is the starkest evidence that the young and fresh-from-Hogwarts Dumbledore believed that the presence of magic was evidence enough to prove an intrinsic right to rule over those without.

There was definitely an intense shift in his beliefs in the wake of Ariana’s death and the uncertainty of where the final blow originated. It was not due to suddenly seeing muggles as equal to wizards, that change of heart surely came later, but due to a personal loss, the ensuing guilt, and the doubt that came with those circumstances. Nietzsche believed that a Noble Man creates himself from a loss of surety and Dumbledore certainly remade himself starting here.

However, for all the changed that Dumbledore went through from this point, it is obvious to me that he never truly relinquished the notion that he alone knew what must be done for ‘The Greater Good’ for all that Grindelwald commandeered the phrase.

Many argue that Dumbledore’s refusal to kill Grindelwald in their duel was a mercy, a testament to his absolute dedication to the Light. But I would argue that it’s easily one of the most selfish things that Dumbledore does. He doesn’t kill Grindelwald- not because of it being a Dark action, or somehow unjust, but because he does not want to lose the reminder of what he almost became, or could still become.

Let me explain.

From Ariana’s death forward, Dumbledore handicaps himself- though most obviously after he obtains the Elder Wand. He becomes a professor who is held in line by the rules and limits of the school but still able to influence people (specifically the next generation). This position leads to his becoming Headmaster who is affected by the Board of Governors but is also able to direct the climate of the school (the continuing disparagement of Slytherin House could easily have been curtailed, inter-House unity could have been promoted more overtly).

As Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot he did not press for a trial for Sirius Black, instead allowing him to stay in Azkaban without a conviction because it allowed his plans for Harry to utilise Lily’s sacrifice as protection to continue and he did not have to face the consequences of his inactions and trust directly.

It also kept him safe from the knowledge of how much he could do within the system before he was questioned. Or stopped. It kept the true breadth of his power and influence vague enough that he was not tempted to fall into old patterns.

Well, perhaps not entirely. Dumbledore’s justified fear of what he could become doesn’t stop the man from playing the Chessmaster with those under his influence. He doesn’t stop believing that he knows best and the Wizarding World continues to confirm that for him so he spares little though to ‘should’ and instead jumps straight to ‘how’ because as long as he can justify an action, manipulation, or inaction as being for the good of the Wizarding World then he can feel securely that he’s not doing those things for selfish reasons.

Except those concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Now we cannot ignore that Dumbledore’s selfishness pretty exclusively comes from caring, love, a desire to protect, or some combination thereof- but he continuously made decisions on behalf of not just individuals but the entire Wizarding World based almost entirely on information and assumptions that only he is privy to. And he did not share any of those thoughts, ideas, or discoveries until and unless there was no other choice in the matter.

And many of those decisions had far reaching consequences- had he handled the Willow incident when Snape was a student differently, would his animosity have provided the means for Voldemort’s return through Pettigrew? If Dumbledore had helped Tom Riddle get out from the Orphanage, would he have become Voldemort at all? If he’d killed Grindelwald, would the Elder Wand have ever ended up in Voldemort’s possession? If he’d worked harder to prompt inter-House unity, would Voldemort have been able to gain traction so quickly upon his return? If he’d been more forthcoming with answers when asked, how many people might not have had their lives touched or ended by tragedy?

But all of that wondering is secondary to the immediate conflict or potential crisis that he knows precisely how to navigate.

The very first thing we see Dumbledore do is leave Harry at Privet Drive, which Dumbledore himself made necessary based upon the belief that Voldemort would return that only he had. Oh, he’d definitely made comments to Snape, but comments or even agreeing with comments doesn’t equal belief- just a willingness to do as instructed in the wake of personal tragedy. Now, McGonagall’s immediate reaction to leaving Harry at Privet Drive was astonished disgust, but she doesn’t fight Dumbledore very hard on the matter. Dumbledore is still considered a hero of the Wizarding World, and his past accomplishments made people easier to sway to his way of thinking (notable exceptions being Fudge, who was erroneously convinced that Dumbledore wanted his job, and any sympathisers to Voldemort’s cause).

Dumbledore beings the Philosopher’s Stone to Hogwarts as a lure for Voldemort and a trial for Harry in what he believes are controlled circumstances based on some source somewhere making Dumbledore think that the risk is worth it. Not just the risk of the Stone being kept in the castle where there are children between- potentially- Voldemort and his prize, but the risk of his presumed friends being able to live as it was literally keeping the Flamels alive.

All this happens the year Harry arrives at Hogwarts; a Harry who, by Dumbledore’s own design, has little to no connection to the Wizarding World (and doesn’t that seem eerily similar to Tom coming from the orphanage? Was Dumbledore also seeing or creating the ways that Voldemort and Harry were similar beyond their blood status?). If Harry’s protections from Lily’s sacrifice had been any different in its effects, if the stone had fallen into Quirrelmort’s clutches, it would have spelt certain doom for the Wizarding World but Dumbledore felt the risk was worth the lessons imparted and confirmation that Voldemort was still a threat despite his disappearance.

Dumbledore seems to have two settings: absolute distance, or absolute attachment and the latter’s the source of Dumbledore’s most selfish actions and questionable hesitations. He thinks of people as tools as much he does the wand in his grasp; he says only as much as he needs to convince someone, and does his best to be in the right place at the right time to keep people grateful for his presence (Hagrid with Buckbeak, Harry with his Wizengamot hearing) so his good is never forgotten.

In the beginning it’s obvious that Dumbledore sees Harry the same as he sees the rest of the Wizarding World likely until Harry asked why Voldemort was after him in the Hospital Wing post-Quirrelmort and from there Dumbledore lost himself to selfish sentiment (though he denied it even to himself until shortly before Sirius’ fall through the Veil) which he reveals in the conversation that follows Sirius’ fall where he claims to tell Harry everything.

Dumbledore does admit to many things in this conversations- to knowing he was condemning Harry to ‘10 dark and difficult years’ at the Dursley’s (which is a very strange way of saying ‘abuse’), to valuing Harry’s happiness and peace of mind over his knowing the truth or Dumbledore’s own plans. But most significant to me is that he admitted to caring more for Harry’s life than the lives that might be lost if his plan failed. That the wants for (not of, as Harry was not made aware of these things) an individual outweighed his beliefs for the Greater Good until there was no other choice but to reveal his knowledge and share the burden (the protection of the Wizarding World) that he’d taken entirely of his own accord.

Like with Grindelwald during his war, Dumbledore hesitates to do what needs to be done for his own sentiment. Love. Which, yes, is a core theme in the story- but does the cause of his actions being love for an individual truly excuse the actions that affected the entire Wizarding World?

And all that besides, despite how much Dumbledore reveals to Harry in that conversation it is still only a fraction of the truths that lead to Harry’s sacrifice, revival, and the ultimate end of Voldemort.

And the trend of partial truths isn’t even confined to Dumbledore’s own lifetime as the portrait was equally guilty of sharing the minimum. He didn’t give Snape the full reasoning for asking him to teach Harry Occlumency instead of teaching it himself. He didn’t tell the Order what they were guarding in the Department of Mysteries, just that Voldemort desired it. He didn’t tell Snape the full truth even as they planned out his death together.

One could argue that the ends justify the means, but it still feels like there is too much reliant on one man and if it weren’t for literal happenstance (Harry wrestling the wands from Draco’s grip at Malfoy Manor) it all would have fallen apart because no one knew more than a few fragments.

How many lives could have been spared tragedy if Dumbledore had been a bit more forthcoming? If he had shared just a bit of the burden?

I don’t think Dumbledore was a Bad man.

Nor do I think he was a Good one.

I think he had Good Intentions that often had complicated consequences.

I think that he often accomplished Great Things in Terrible Ways.

[leerans]

It’s wild how like… JKR is so skilled at so many aspects of writing, especially in little character moments, but when it comes to implications of throwaway lines she just… not a SINGLE thought. 

Like in Chamber of Secrets, when Harry is talking to Tom / Voldemort and is like, you Framed Hagrid, Tom is like, yeah he was always trying to raise monsters, 

he says that Hagrid tried to raise werewolf cubs under his bed like… 

oh you mean like, children? like human children? 

[thebisexualbooknerd]

I can’t stop laughing, how did I never pick up on that

[wrockingwriter]

To Be, or Not to Be: Canon

Before we dive into everything, I want to be sure that we’re all on the same page when we discuss what is and is not Canon. So, a couple definitions:

Fanon is the collection of widely agreed upon information that has little, if any, supporting evidence in the source material. Think things like Hermione’s Parents’ names, or calling Harry, Ron and Hermione the Golden Trio.

Canon is the collection of information found in the source material or from the author/scriptwriter directly. Character names, romantic pairs seen in the books/films, etc.

This panel comes from there being too many different sources of information (original books,  film adaptations, side books (Beedle the Bard, interviews (pre 2009, post 2016, etc) twitter, Pottermore, video games, the Play (which is a debate all its own), the new film franchise) where not all the information adds up. There is conflict, or a character acts in a wholly different way between mediums (Ron) and if you haven’t interacted with all of the material (or sometimes just not enough, or in the same order, as someone else) you could have an entirely different opinion of a character or situation. SOmetimes to the point that you could be having two entirely different conversations at the same time about a single subject and BOTH  be correct.

So I’m going to use a few character examples, and a couple object examples of things that vary wildly between the various pieces of the Wizarding World we all know and love; then I’ll turn the floor over to you guys!

---

I think there are two examples of film-to-book differences that make me the most angry when it comes to characters. First, easily, is Regulus Black, and through him Kreacher. These I’m counting as my first example, as you can’t have one without the other- they’re too connected. 

Regulus Black is often referred to as a more acceptable example of a Slytherin who became a Death Eater and regretted it than Severus Snape (though honestly I don’t see them as particularly similar outside of that). In the films, Regulus is barely a footnote in a conversation, but in the books (despite how similarly brief his story really is) there is so much more depth.

In the film, Kreacher says Regulus ordered ordered him to destroy the locket and he couldn’t. That’s it. I watched that scene a dozen times. What a disservice.

In the books there’s more to it than that. We get a picture painted for us. Sirius had told Harry that Regulus had joined up young, gotten cold feet, and been killed for it. We’re brought into his bedroom, still obviously done in the style of a kid- and one trying to emphasise just how much he was a ‘proper’ Black compared to Sirius. Regulus’ room is entirely done in Slytherin colours, a mural of the Black family crest and motto above his bed, a collection of Daily Prophet clippings about Voldemort… a fanatic.

Kreacher, under duress from Harry’s orders to answer everything truthfully, reveals that Regulus joined Voldemort at 16 and tells the story of the locket. 17 year old Regulus telling Kreacher that he’d volunteered him for a special task, and he was to come home after. We, as readers, know what happened in the Cave- and Kreacher told Regulus all that transpired, and Regulus’ reaction was to be worried for Kreacher, order him to stay hidden/not leave the house, and then go research. Some small time later, Regulus came to see Kreacher while ‘strange, disturbed in the mind’ and ordered him to bring him to the Cave.

Kreacher tells the trio that Regulus sacrificed himself in the Cave. He drank the potion himself, has Kreacher switch the lockets, and ordered Kreacher to leave without him and to never tell his mother what happened.

Regulus Black learned of the Horcrux, and made the choice to not only take what he thought was the ONLY Horcrux and replace it with a fake, or simply ensure (or so he thought) its destruction, or just save his elf from having to endure the potion twice, but he ensured that Voldemort would never discover what he had done via legilimency of himself or his family by dying in the act and ordering Kreacher to never tell his family what had happened.

And, because of all these actions on Regulus’ part, at the battle of Hogwarts Kreacher rallies the House Elves of Hogwarts in Regulus’ name.

---

In the same vein, I’m going to talk about Severus Snape. The films did a great amount of lightening of Snape’s horrid actions- and also did a great disservice to his character with their adaptation of The Prince’s Tale.

So let’s start with the ugly.

Snape is a childish, surly, bully; he took the awful things of his youth and instead of acting against them he allowed himself the awful actuality of becoming that which had so tormented his youth. Instead of refuting, or rising about the bullying, he went to the opposite extreme: make others suffer as I have suffered. He’s worse to some characters- the easiest to name are Harry, Neville, and Hermione. Harry, the (seeming) spitting image of his his bully father; Neville, the other choice for Voldemort that may have spared Lily’s life (though, as we know, the fate of the Longbottoms was no less gruesome, and in some ways more tragic); and Hermione, a brilliant muggleborn witch that likely reminds him very much of Lily.

There is no excusing the deplorable way he treats children. There are reasons, but no excuses, and certainly to forgiveness. The films took great care to not portray some of the worst actions Snape takes with these characters: telling Hermione that he ‘sees no difference’ from the effects of Draco’s curse, telling/instructing Neville to test his Shrinking Solution on Trevor while saying it would likely be poisonous if improperly made; honestly, he was a child’s BOGGART for fuck’s sake. The films made light of these things.

I’ve held lots of Snape panels about Snape’s character; how his morals and emotional maturity (or lack thereof) were shaped by his past, but that’s an entirely different talk. But what makes me most angry is how they handled The Prince’s Tale. The film pretty much erases all of his growing up with Lily, the ways he interacted with Petunia- it gave the very bare bones and then interspersed it with these bits of him cradling Lily’s dead body. Let’s ignore the moments before, of Lily telling infant Harry that he’s loved, as they literally make no sense as he wasn’t there.

Actually, the whole sequence makes no sense. But the memories they chose to keep tell a fraction of the story. They shift the viewer’s opinions from being based upon his actions with the kids/sacrifices in the wake of the Potters’ death to being about his ignoring a crying infant child to cradle the body of his dead ex-friend which didn’t actually happen.

Yes, I have some strong opinions about this.

---

We also, going by the films, know literally none of the essential information about Tom Riddle. We’re also robbed of the moment the Wizarding World sees the monster they’ve feared all this time was only a man all along. There is no explanation of the Defense Against the Dark Arts curse, or how the Horcruxes were chosen. 

By this point in the films, they assume that the viewer has read all the books and can fill in the (copious) holes they’ve left themselves. Merope who? Morfin? Mrs. Cole? Hepzibah Smith? Hokey?

The films made Voldemort into an inhuman monster, which completely derailed so much of the series’ messages about growth, humanity, choice, and change. From Dumbledore to Harry to Voldemort, we are shown all these moments that shape them and those just don’t exist in the films.

---

What about items? 

I’m skipping over the Horcruxes entirely to jump to the item whose entire existence in the films frustrates the crap out of me: the Mirror. Sirius’ mirror, the ‘small, square, old-looking mirror’ that Sirius and James would use to talk to one another while in separate detentions. The one that’s supposedly the size of a book. 

What the hell is the serving tray that’s hanging on Aberforth’s wall in the Hog’s Head?? Even more importantly, where did movie!Harry even get the Mirror shard in the first place?

Time Turners! Let’s not forget the Time Turners that were all destroyed FOR A REASON in the Battle of the Department of Mysteries. If we go by Pottermore information, (which I do so lightly) the Hour-Reversal Charm that’s encased in the sand is an incredibly unstable bit of magic. Realistically, how could 19 years not only stabilise the Charm but amplify it exponentially to the point we see in The Play? We don’t know how long it took to develop the Charm in the first place, but with Croaker’s Law forming the 5-hour limit, why/how could someone have developed a device that went that much farther back without notice if the 5-hour limit is due to serious harm befalling both the traveller and time itself?

---

Though not items, the repeatedly Ghosts and House Elves are entirely ignored by the films until they were needed in a way that couldn’t just be passed on to another character (cough, Neville having all of Dobby’s important moments, cough) and Peeves is erased entirely. These characters were important and helped shape out characters into people. Dobby and Winky’s lives brought forth Hermione’s anger at perceived injustices; Harry’s talks and overall odd relationship with Nearly Headless Nick display his wanting to be as kind and helpful as he can be; Peeves’ relationship with the Weasley Twins was just… so much.

It’s understandable that things got cut, it’s natural, there is no way to tell both a complete narrative from a book-perspective in a film and have a decent film. It’s just not possible to have it all in there. But the problem is WHAT got cut- Helena Ravenclaw was important. Hokey the House Elf, Merope- they were important. Why didn’t they just ask JK more often what was important to keep??

Any gravitas and heartbreak you’re supposed to feel for Dobby when he dies just isn’t there because we don’t know him.

---

But enough on that end- let’s get to the other layers of this talk.

How many kinds of informational sources are there for the Wizarding World?

*This is MY breakdown:

Tier 1: Word of God (circa early-2009 and before), books 1-7, Quidditch Through the Ages, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them textbook, Tales of Beedle the Bard, JK site reveals (WOMBAT, family trees, etc) and the current Fantastic Beasts films.

Tier 2: HP film adaptations, Pottermore, JK interviews post-2009, video game information

Tier 3: Cursed Child, JK Twitter, deleted scenes from the films that were not in the books.

FOR ME this works, because I feel like things like interviews and such depend so much on the context and timing of being said. Is the author in that headspace, where they know all the extraneous information that never made it into print? Or are they making snap decisions without research into their own world? Even Philip Pullman (Golden Compass) needed to refer to an outside compendium of information while writing the newest books in the series.

As a writer I know that it’s hard to keep track of everything in my universe at whim, so I take timing into account. Especially when things conflict- like Minerva McGonagall in Crimes of Grindelwald but I’m hoping there’s a better explanation for her presence than JK not knowing how time works a la Prisoner of Azkaban.

---

The question, from what I can see, becomes less of a ‘what’s true’ and far more of a ‘what counts.’ Do we go by what was said, or what she’s saying? Where do we, the community that’s taken the World and made it ur own, draw the line between Canon facts and Fanon fiction? And how can we bridge the gap between people whose core Canon understandings differ hugely from our own?

In a circumstance like this, where the universe is still an ever-expanding thing, to know Canon from Fanon is incredibly difficult. Adaptations alone are both blessing and curse, but at least there one can say that there is a definitive source material- or make very clear that one is vastly different from the other (like Walking Dead, by having the series take a different choice at a crossroads).

But with a creator who continuously expands the world, and reimagines the things that we know (or assume to know) as true, there seems to e no way to say that something is 100% true- even once it’s been recorded in black and white.

It seems, to me at least, that the only real solution is for each of us to make the decision for ourselves- and that isn’t really a solution at all. But until a least the things we could consider to be common knowledge stop changing, I don’t see another solution.

But do you?

[wrockingwriter]

Dumbledore and Abraham: The Greater Good

An older man guides a younger man, based upon information only he knows, toward sacrificing their life toward a greater purpose.

Who am I talking about, here?

I assume, given where we are, that we are all familiar with Dumbledore- so I’m going to start with Abraham, and double back later. Not everyone simply has a knowledge of these things.

The simple story, is that God, several years after gifting Abraham with a miraculous child, asks Abraham to sacrifice this son to God at a location of His choosing, several days journey away. The next day, Abraham gathers everything necessary for the sacrifice and sets off. A couple days into the journey, Isaac asks his father where the lamb is for the altar- and Abraham replies that God will provide one when they get there. They arrive at the location, build the altar, and Isaac gets tied to the altar by Abrham. Abraham pulls out the sacrificial knife and starts to approach Isaac, but just before he takes action an Angel shows up. The Angel tells Abraham that God didn’t actually want him to sacrifice his son- he just wanted to know that he would if God asked him to. The Angel leaves, a ram pops out of some nearby bushes to make Abraham not a liar that one time he told ISaac that God would provide the sacrifice, they do the ritual, and they go home.

Now, unfortunately for us, the Bible doesn’t actually give us any real insight as to what Abraham was thinking/feeling throughout this ordeal- but that’s okay, because Kierkegaard does.

Kierkegaard was a philosopher who argued that life was only worth living if you had total Faith in God and made distinctions between Belief and Faith.

Belief was based upon evidence and proof.

Faith was specifically for things that had no evidence at all.

Kierkegaard has a collection of writings that featured a breakdown of Abraham in these moments. He had four main ideas of what Abraham went through in these gaps that the BIbles’ text leaves, but I want to draw our focus to the third.

In this portion, Kierkegaard thinks that, after the ordeal is done and Iaac is home safe, Abraham goes back to the site of the altar and begs forgiveness. He does it often, and never truly forgives himself. He believes that the only thing that kept his willingness to sacrifice Isaac from being unforgivable was his love of his son- and isn’t that familiar reasoning?

---

Dumbledore kept information close to his chest up to and even past his death. Every time that Harry asked about Voldemort, or why he was being targeted, Dumbledore either denied or delayed answers until the very last moment, Even once he told Harry ‘I’m giving you everything’ in Order of the Phoenix, he only gave the things that were undeniable, and nothing beyond that. None of his theories or the bits of evidence that he had no conclusion for yet- just what was solid and undeniable.

Dumbledore heard the Prophecy directly, Snape went directly to him to beg some kind of protection for the Potters, and anything the Order did was obviously done at his suggestion. He was a hero, the defeater of Grindelwald and defender of the Wizarding World, so his knowledge and suggestions were likely not questioned much before being acted on.

Both Dumbledore and Voldemort had Faith in Prophecy, though Voldemort thought he could prevent it from coming to fruition. But through Voldemort’s actions, Dummbledore had the evidence to go from Faith to Belief in the Prophecy.

So Dumbledore’s actions with Harry, from his defeat of Quirrel onwards are all based on this Belief.

Unlike the Bible’s Abraham, we do have some insight into Dumbledore’s thought process when it comes to Harry- and love is once again the crux of it all.

After Sirius’ death, Dumbledore explains the full Prophecy. And his actions/reasons for those actions in the wake of that information.

He admits to knowing that the Dursleys wouldn’t treat him well, he tells Harry that he had to make his decisions based around his Belief that Voldemort would return, and wouldn’t rest until he’d killed Harry. Dumbledore admits that he thought eleven was too young for such a burden, and says he should have known he was too happy about coming to that conclusion. He talks his way through each time Harry asked for answers, those first two years, and tells Harry that he fell into a trap he’d long forseen and known to avoid: he loved Harry too much. He did not want to give Harry the burden of Voldemort, but by Prophecyhe knew that he had to do so. At the end of that chapter, Dumbledore is crying- a tear trickling into his beard.

At King’s Cross, Dumbledore openly begs for forgiveness for not explaining everything; the Hallows, the Horcruxes, everything. He shares his fears that held him back and begs forgiveness, much in the way Kierkegaard thought Abraham would.

Abraham followed the word of his God that only he heard.

Dumbledore followed the word of the Prophecy only he knew the full context of.

But both Isaac and Harry survive their stories.

Isaac, going by the Biblical text, asks his father about the sacrificial lamb, accepts his father’s answer, and listens to his father as he binds him to the altar they built together for their God. One of Kierkegaard’s explanations suggests that, seeing his father’s struggle and despair while wielding the knife, Isaac lost all Faith in his God. He couldn’t reconcile the anguish his father was put through with the caring God he’s known before.

Harry asks repeatedly about Voldemort’s obsession with him, and accepts the things Dumbledore told him almost blindly until The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore called the things he thought he knew into question. But, Dumbledore’s eventual sharing of information about the Horcruxes directed Harry’s focus from his confusion/betrayal with the revelations about Dumbledore’s character to the Prophecy that had guided the man he knew. By the time Harry obtains the memories from Snape with the very last pieces of Dumbledore’s plan, in the midst of all the death and loss, he’s all but ready to give himself up if it would save the rest of those fighting. Harry is determined to destroy Voldemort, and is able to use his love to both shield those he cares for and fulfil the Prophecy that had directed his life via the actions (both terrible and commendable) of Voldemort and Dumbledore.

Both Abraham and Duumbledore were doing what they thought was right, and that gives reason to their actions- but does it excuse them?

[wrockingwriter]

Obscurus and Patronus: Expressions of the Soul in the Wizarding World

If you’ve read my previous post about Obscurials, you know that I have this theory that Obscurus and Patronus are flip-sides of the same coin. It kind of consumed my panel in 2018 in the best of ways, so I wanted to explore this further with the new bits of evidence we get from the Crimes of Grindelwald film.

We are shown and told time and again that powerful magic takes conviction and strong emotion- and I’m here to claim that the Obscurus and Patronus are no different- merely the Light and Dark equivalents of one another. A protector, though ones with wildly differing means of doing so.

Let’s start with the bit of magic we know a fair bit about: The Patronus Charm.

The Patronus Charm (incantation: Expecto Patronum (literally ‘I summon a protector’)) is an ancient and mysterious charm that conjures a magical guardian. A projection of all of your most positive feelings. It is difficult, and many witches/wizards are unable to produce a full/corporeal Patronus, a guardian which generally takes the shape of the animal with whom they share the deepest affinity. You may suspect, but you will never truly know what form your Patronus will take until you succeed in conjuring it. -Miranda Goshawk’s overview

So there are two forms of Patronus- the basic Incorporeal, which is simply a projected shield and is confined to the range of one’s wand; and the advanced Corporeal, which takes the shape of a full animal (which is supposedly the animal one has the deepest affinity for) and can be directed to do tasks at a distance (send messages, guide, direct, distract).

To cast a full Patronus, you need two things:

An intensely happy memory (or fantasy, it seems, going by Harry’s ability to conjure a Patronus for his OWL by imagining Umbridge being sacked.

A confidence that it can be done. Perhaps just an overall surety of self, going by Harry was unable to fully cast a Patronus until he had evidence that he had already been able to do so. Hermione has trouble when she doubts herself.

It’s also shown that a Patronus can change form if the caster goes through an emotional upheaval- falling intensely in love, trauma (perhaps) etc.

James and Lily Potter are said to have had complimentary Patronuses, which implies either their souls deepest affinities are very similar, or Lily’s Patronus changed shape in the wake of falling for James.

A Patronus and an Animagus can take the same shape (which lends itself to the ‘deepest affinity’ portion of Patronus shape explanations, but not to a Patronus shifting shapes) as we are shown with McGonagall, Lupin, and James.

JK, in the days I still think of as Canon (interviews pre 2009, but this is a whole different topic) was once asked about James and Lily’s Patronuses being a set and she replied that ‘the Patronus often mutates to take the image of the love of one's life, because they so often become the 'happy thought' that generates a Patronus.’ so the thoughts that are used to form a Patronus CAN influence a Patronus Guardian’s shape.

But back to technicalities, a Patronus is only active while the caster is focusing on it- it’s a conscious directive by the caster that has to be held until it’s been done, else the Patrons dissipates.

If a Patronus Guardian is not actively facing a Lethifold/Dementor, it seems to take on traits of the animal they resemble- a semblance of sentience (Prongs approaching Harry after he’s first summoned)

As an audience, we are told repeatedly through the older witches and wizards that the Patronus Charm- a fully formed, corporeal, Patronus- is incredibly rare and difficult. We’re actively told by Lupin when he starts to teach Harry, Amelia Bones when she is so impressed by his conjuring one at the trial, Professor Tofty when he is so admiring of Harry’s ability to produce it during his OWLs. It’s also made clear through the disbelieving reactions of Fudge and Umbridge.

We are also shown, though, MANY characters who can cast the Charm fully, especially in the DA- but is that a show of how many powerful wizards Harry is surrounded by, or is it a way to show that there is a huge misconception about the difficulty of the Charm itself? (This is, of course, ignoring the ungodly amount of contradictory information to be found through Pottermore, the Wonderbook game, later JK interviews, etc)

So if we throw all this together, we know a Patronus Charm is:

Unique to the caster

More powerful when corporeal

Only able to be active while consciously cast

A passive protector (does not destroy anything, simply drives it away)

Made of light

A projection of the caster’s most positive feelings

---

The Obscurus is new to us with this Fantastic Beasts franchise, but with some (over) analysation we can pull together quite a bit about them!

And Obscurus is a Dark force that develops and grows inside a witch or wizard who must hide or suppress their abilities. Children who develop this seemingly parasitic force have lived through a trauma that’s associated with magic, and their shame/fear/etc causes them to attempt (and succeed) in suppressing their magic on a regular basis.

In the newest film, Crimes of Grindelwald, Dumbledore says that an ‘Obscurus grows in the absence of love as a dark twin, an only friend.’

In the first Fantastic Beasts film, Newt describes the circumstances that caused Obscurus to form in the past as ‘young witches and wizards sometimes tried to suppress their magic to avoid persecution. Instead of learning to harness or to control their powers, they developed an Obscurus.’ Tina, in this same moment, describes an Obscurus as ‘an unstable, uncontrollable Dark force that busts out and attacks- and then vanishes.’

In the confrontation with GrindelGraves (cos that’s what I’m going to be calling him) where he asks about the Obscurus he found and removed from the case (which, by the way, the fuck happened to it? Newt did say it couldn’t survive outside of the box/bubble, so what happened???) and states that ‘it’s ‘useless without the host.’ And that makes Newt explode, calling the Obscurus a ‘parasitical magical force that killed a child.’

There is a seeming throwaway comment from a witness at the beginning of Fantastic Beasts, saying the thing was ‘like a wind with shining white eyes.’

There is no record of an Obscurial (the host of an Obscurus) surviving past the age of 10, but that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happen- simply that it hasn’t been recorded.

When we see the Obscurus in action, it is near ALWAYS in response to a negative event that happens to Credence. (the notable exceptions are a deleted scene in Crimes of Grindelwald, and the scene we arrive to in Fantastic Beasts, though there is no way to know for sure without context)

Senator Shaw, at the newspaper, focuses on Credence explicitly at two key moments: when he calls ‘and take the freaks with you’ and when the flier falls he call Credence over to take it back, and then says ‘here you go, freak- why don’t you put that in the trash where you all belong.’

Shaw himself is directly targeted after this, other people at the event are tossed about and perhaps scared or minorly wounded- but Shaw is lifted up into the air, thrown against his own poster, and is dead and brutally scarred by the time he hits the ground. The poster itself is also destroyed before the Obscurus leaves, wreaking havoc in its wake.

Mary Lou Barebone is both stated and shown to be beating Credence for as long as she’s had him- and far worse than she treats the other children in her care. But the beatings alone are not enough to bring out the Obscurus- it’s not until Mary-Lou denies all connection/affection for Credence and insults his unknown biological mother all in one fell swoop (I’m not your ma! Your ma was a wicked, unnatural, woman!) that the Obscurus sees her as an active threat.

After the belt that Credence had only moments before handed her whips its way out of her hand and slithers away, there is a dark mass. It covers Mary Lou and throws her backward through the building, and by the time she lands on the ground she is already dead- and shares the scarring Shaw had.

GrindelGraves has, for an undetermined amount of time, been a positive in Credence’s life. He’s been shown healing his hurts, providing comfort when he feels overwhelmed, and we find out that he had promised to teach Credence magic. He snaps the trust Credence had in him like a twig, thinking that Credence is of no further use to him. (You’re a squib, Credence. I could smell it off you the minute I met you. You have magica ancestry, but no power. You’re unteachable. Your mother’s dead; that’s your reward. I’m done with you.’

We all know that this is the point at which Credence stops fighting, when he gives in to the Obscurus entirely (I don’t think I want to, Mr. Graves). Both the figurative and literal walls between them crumble, the Obscurus bursts from Credence, and his grief, rage, and betrayal fuel him as he lashes out at everything and everyone. This is the difference, I think, between Credence and other Obscurials- but that’s a different talk. The Obscurus, as we know, is at its most powerful in these moments where Credence has fully given in. The lashing out at the person who betrayed him, the city that degraded him, and the overall expression of his hatred of all the injustices this life has handed him.

During this confrontation Newt and Tina are able to talk Credence out of the Obscurus by being patient and understanding, by sharing in his hurts and not trying to fight him. These efforts are, of course, foiled by GrindelGraves and later Madame Picquery who only know how to appeal to the power of (GrindelGraves) or eliminate (Picquery) things outside of their direct control.

In Crimes of Grindelwald, we only see the Obscurus once- when Grimmson fires the killing curse while Credence is talking to Irma, keeping Credence from being hit.

Looking at this set of instances it seems obvious, at least to me, that the Obscurus growing within Credence was reacting to harm that came to Credence- whether physical or mental- and removing the threats presented. Once Credence loses himself to his grief and heartache it’s less focused- like Harry was when destroying Dumbledore’s office in the wake of Sirius’ death- but Tina and Newt’s kindness and care do calm the Credence and thus the Obscurus.

Happiness, hope, kindness, sympathy- these seem to contain/calm the Obscurus. And they’re the things that help when healing from trauma.

Putting this all together, we know that an Obscurus is:

Unique and dependent on the host

Instinctively/subconsciously directed

A dark mist with glowing white eyes

A destructive force to any perceived threat

Fuelled by an absence of love and the presence of fear

Formed through trauma

Leaves scars on the victims that are unique to Obscurus as a phenomena.

If a Patronus is meant to symbolise the healing strength of joy and contentedness in a soul/person, then an Obscurus (to me) is obviously meant to symbolise the destructive strength of anger and fear in a soul scarred by trauma.

To recap, a Patronus is:

Unique to the caster

More powerful when corporeal

Only able to be active while consciously cast

A passive protector (does not destroy anything, simply drives it away)

Made of light

A projection of the caster’s most positive feelings

Whereas an Obscurus is:

Unique and dependent on the host

Instinctively/subconsciously directed

A dark mist with glowing white eyes

A destructive force to any perceived threat

Fuelled by an absence of love and the presence of fear

Formed through trauma

Leaves scars on the victims that are unique to Obscurus as a phenomena.

Despite all their differences, their 3 key defining characteristics as powerful magic are the same: They are protective forces, unique to the magic user, that are powered by strong emotion.

Are you convinced?

[wrockingwriter]

Trelawney and Snape: Unwitting Allies

Trelawney had, from what we are shown, 2 True Prophecies over the course of Voldemort’s wars- and both of them were able to come to fruition with assistance from Severus Snape. Not that he had any idea of that, but the point remains!

I’m going to break down the first prophecy into two pieces, for Voldemort’s initial downfall and then his actual death- and the Rebirth Prophecy is going straight in the middle.

If you’ve got questions, feel free to send/comment/whatever. Let’s talk.

Pt 1, Trelawney’s Prophecy at the Hog’s Head, 1980

‘The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches. Born to those who have thrice defied him. Born as the seventh month dies. And the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not. And either must die at the hands of the other for neither can live while the other survives. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies.’

We know that Snape only heard until the first ‘born as the seventh month dies’ before being ousted, and he reported all that he heard to Voldemort.

But, for the sake of clarity, let’s break down all the pieces of this prophecy:

The one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord is coming.

He’s going to be born to those who have 3x defied that Dark Lord.

As the seventh month dies.

Dark Lord will mark him as his equal.

He will have a power the Dark Lord knows not.

One must die at the hands of the other.

We are told that the first bits of the Prophecy, the ones that Snape heard, apply to two Wizarding Families: the Potters, and the Longbottoms. We know that Voldemort settles on it meaning the Potters, and that Snape asks Voldemort for Lily’s life at some point prior to his going to Dumbledore to beg the same.

From here, what do we know?

We know that the Potters were only put under the Fidelius Charm from this point, and that prior to that both families had simply been protected.

We know that Pettigrew had turned to the Dark Lord at some point in 1980, as Sirius makes the comment about his having been passing information for a year during his confrontation with Pettigrew.

We know that Voldemort had actually intended to spare Lily, as when we get his memories of that night he asks Lily to step aside 3x despite having killed James immediately upon entering the house.

We know that the simple act of a parent dying for their child is not enough to spark the Love Shield, both from James’ death doing nothing to protect Lily and Harry and from Molly Weasley’s correctly pointing out that any mother would die for their child.

Therefore 

1- Without Snape’s requesting that Voldemort spare Lily (no matter the motivation) when he went after the Potters, Lily’s sacrificing herself for Harry wouldn’t have created the Love Shield that caused Voldemort’s initial downfall

2- Without Snape having eavesdropped and reporting to Voldemort in the first place, Voldemort would not have targeted the Potters (or Longbottoms) in particular at all.

Would this Prophecy have come to pass without Snape’s actions?

I don’t think so, personally- not for THIS Dark Lord, at least. There are too many minor instances of Choice building up into this power, and without the Choice being there it would not have worked. It would just be another massacre. 

It’s also mentioned, in Order of the Phoenix, that many Prophecies never come to pass- and outside of the births, none of this Prophecy is particularly time-specific; surely there have been other Dark Lords, and there most certainly will be more in the future.

---

Trelawney’s Prophecy During Harry’s Divination Final, 1994

‘The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers. His servant has ben chained these 12 years. Tonight, before midnight. The servant will break free and set out to rejoin his master. The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant’s aid, greater and more terrible than ever before. Tonight. Before midnight. The servant. Will set out. To rejoin. His master.’

Film Prophecy

‘He will return tonight. Tonight, he who betrayed his friends, whose heart rots with murder. Shall break free. Innocent blood shall be spilt. And servant and master shall be reunited once more!’

Now, this is where my interest was peaked! Disclaimer, I will be focusing on the book Prophecy for a couple reasons: first, the film prophecy isn’t really about Voldemort at all- just Pettigrew; second, it’s pretty cut and dry as far as Prophecies go. Contrariwise, the book Prophecy is actually about Voldemort and only really talks about a servant as a tool- which is what Pettigrew was.

Snape literally heard none of this Prophecy not as it was spoken, and was likely never told of it at a later date by Dumbledore- I mean, Dumbledore doesn’t like sharing information at the best of times. He likely kept the actual information to himself and cryptically told Snape to be prepared for Voldemort’s return with no specifics whatsoever.

But back to the point, let’s break this down:

Voldemort is alone and abandoned.

The servant in question has been chained for 12 years.

This will happen tonight before midnight.

Servant will break free and rejoin master.

The Dark Lord will rise again with the servants aid

The Dark Lord will be greater and more terrible.

From here, what do we know?

We know that the shade of Voldemort (because what else do you call the bodiless fragment of a soul outside a horcrux?) disappeared after book 1, and no one really believes he can return besides Dumbledore.

We know that Pettigrew has been in his rat form for 12 years while living with the Weasleys.

We know that everything is over by 5 minutes til midnight, as that’s when Dumbledore locks the Hospital Wing.

We know that Snape only comes to the Shrieking Shack after having gone to Lupin’s office to give him the Wolfsbane Potion and spotting the Map.

We know that, in the chaos of Lupin transforming, Pettigrew grabs a wand and breaks free from his bonds before running off.

We know that Pettigrew ends up in Albania, following information that he gets from rats and rumours alike before eventually finding Voldemort.

We know that, without Pettigrew finding and tricking Bertha Jorkins, they wouldn’t have found and freed Barty Crouch Jr.

We know that without Barty the Triwizard Tournament would not have ended in resurrection. 

So, we (or just me, I dunno) have some questions

1- if Snape had brought the potion while Lupin was watching the map, causing him to close/hide it from Snape, would Lupin have gone to the Shrieking Shack at all?

2- if Snape had brought the potion earlier in the day instead of at the last bloody minute (honestly Snape it tastes awful and just needs to be taken once a day for a week leading to the full moon- wouldn’t a BEFORE breakfast administration have been more miserable for the poor man?) would Pettigrew have had the opportunity to escape? Without the distraction of Lupin’s violent transformation and loss of control, would Pettigrew have had the opportunity to snatch a wand and break free? 

It seems clear to me that Snape’s aversion and distaste for Lupin gave the opportunity for this Prophecy to come to pass as well.

---

Pt 2, Trelawney’s Prophecy at the Hog’s Head, 1980

‘... he will have power the Dark Lord knows not. And either must die at the hands of the other for neither can live while the other survives.’

Since we’ve already gone over the major text of the Prophecy, I’m going to focus on the parts that are exclusively about the active defeat of Voldemort.

So what we have left is pretty simple at first glance, but with further thought are actually the most complicated portions of this whole shebang:

The power the Dark Lord knows not.

One must die at the hands of the other.

We know at this point that the power Voldemort knows not is love. Both the love Harry holds in his heart for other people, and the love that others feel for him. Voldemort knows about the idea of loving sacrifice, but he doesn’t truly understand it (and honestly, who outside of Harry does) or he wouldn’t have killed both Lily and Harry the way he did. His arrogance keeps him from realising his fatal mistake.

We know that if Snape had not had the opportunity to give Harry those memories, Harry would have continued to search for the horcruxes. The battle would have lingered and continued on, with a good chance of Harry dying by someone’s hand that was not Voldemort’s. 

We know that Harry would have gone down fighting (as all of his actions in the final battle show) and while he was still a horcrux his death would have done nothing but prolong the war. Once people began to believe in Harry as the Chosen One again, when they started putting all their hopes on him again… they never bothered to think of ways of defeating Voldemort themselves. Voldemort was someone else’s problem, even if the Death Eater’s were after everyone, and since Dumbledore was dead that just left Harry. I find it highly unlikely that anyone else with real skill would even bother to try- let alone succeed- to defeat Voldemort without Harry. Dumbledore’s army would try- but what kind of a chance would the group of kids have?

But this doesn’t even touch on my favourite bit of phrasing with the Prophecy: ‘... either must die at the hands of the other for neither can live while the other survives.’

My family and I have this fascination with Schrödinger- the physicist dude with the cat who is either both alive and dead, or neither alive or dead, based on whether it’s been observed by the outside world. It’s a thought experiment about what one can assume to be true. When is something true, when it is seen/catalogued/observed by an outside person- or are the people (or in the original case, the cat) directly involved with the moment in question enough to decide on the truth. 

Most people understand Schrödinger’s cat, but I wanted to put it out there in case you don’t! 

But back to the point!

This one little bit of the Prophecy can be interpreted as Voldemort being in a Schrödinger-like state of neither life or death while he has horcruxes. Harry is simply surviving with the prophecy hanging over his head, the weight of the world on his shoulders, and the Horcrux in his brain. Voldemort can neither live or die as long as Harry survives with the shard of Voldemort within him.  Neither is living while the other is surviving; Voldemort only starts living when Harry dies, and therefore stops surviving, and only then can one of them truly die at the hands of the other.

---

To try and summarise how all of this (as I have no self control whatsoever) connects Trelawney’s Prophecies and Snape:

He eavesdrops on the first prophecy, causing Voldemort to target the Potters/Longbottoms

He requests Lily’s life from Voldemort, giving her the choice/opportunity to make the love shield

His childhood grudge/fear of Lupin delayed his delivery of the Wolfsbane potion, Pettigrew escapes

Gives Harry the memory about the horcrux within him, two-fold giving Harry the means to remove the horcrux and give his friends the same kind of love shield he was given by his mother.

Could these prophecies have come true without Snape’s actions? Who knows, to be honest. I doubt it, considering how close to victory Voldemort was in 80/81, let alone 97/98. Maybe they would have found a way to come about (cough, Dumbledore, cough), or maybe they would have simply ended up added to the vast collection of Prophecies Unfulfilled.

(2019)

[wrockingwriter]

Unbreakable Vows: What is the Truth?

So, let’s start somewhere familiar: Snape and Narcissa’s Unbreakable Vow. From this chapter/scene in the books/film we get a pretty straightforward explanation of what a Vow is and how it works.

Bellatrix is shocked into silence when Snape agrees to the Vow. Her mouth drops open, it’s actively described that Snape kneels across from Narcissa beneath her ‘astonished’ gaze as they grasp right hands. It’s repeated throughout the actual process of the Vow that she is astonished, that she is shocked, that her eyes are wide; that she is astounded that this Vow is taking place. That it’s working.

Narcissa requests: 

1) Watch over my son, Draco, as he attempts to fulfil the Dark Lord’s wishes.

2) Will you, to the best of your ability, protect him from harm.

3) Should it prove necessary, if it seems Draco will fail, will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform.

With each Request, there is a tongue of brilliant flame that coils around their hands.

The first is like a wire.

The second entwines itself both around their hands and with the first flame to make a chain from wire.

The third shoots from the wand, entwining itself with the others to make a rope from the chain, and is bright enough to light Bellatrix’s face in glowing red.

In the films there are three small flame strings that sink into the skin and leave behind scars- there is no proof that the book version leaves behind marks, but for the sake of consistency let’s say that it does- for there is no proof of otherwise, either.

Based on this, A Vow seems to require: 

3 people: Bonder (who holds the wand) Requester (who voices/asks for the Vow) and Bondee (who is held to fulfil the Vow)

3 terms: especially in this circumstance it seems to be a bit excessive to say three statements that equate to the same general task of protecting Draco if it weren’t a requirement.

The Bondee and Requester to hold dominant wrists/hands, with the Bonder’s wand touching where their hands are clasped.

I think it’s interesting to note the use of the number 3- it’s seen as the divine number in many religions, and so many things come in threes (past/present/future, faith/hope/charity, heart/mind/body) that I think it’s safe to assume that the requirement for these sets of three is FACTUAL and not circumstantial.

These rules also apply to the circumstances Ron describes when he talks about Fred and George trying to trick him into a Vow when he was a kid. And the fulfilment of these circumstances probably heavily contributed to Arthur being so distressed when he caught them at it.

But, more to the point, all of the terms given in this example are worded vaguely- but both the Requester and the Bondee know what’s specifically being referenced (the Bonder does as well, but the role of the Bonder seems to only be to confirm the verity of the promise and channel the magic of the Bond)

We know quite a bit about Snape’s actions concerning Draco in the wake of the Vow- but they are given to us through the biased view of Harry, so we must take them with at least a grain of salt.

- Harry hears, while listening at the keyhole, Snape berate Draco for ignoring repeated summons. Snape states plainly, in this moment, that he is trying to help- that he swore to protect him, that he took a Vow with Narcissa.

- Harry hears Snape sounding almost desperate in how he presses for information (what is your plan, if you tell me what you are trying to do, I can assist you, then why not confide in me)

- Hagrid lets slip (as he is wont to do) that Snape and Dumbledore had a disagreement (Snape saying Dumbledore took too much for granted an’ maybe he- Snape- didn’ wan’ ter do it anymore… Dumbledore told him flat out he’d agreed to it an’ that was all there was to it)

- Snape healing Malfoy after Sectumsempra (which likely would have happened regardless, but it’s still protection within his ability. Honestly, how did he know to come to that bathroom right then? Myrtle hadn’t been screaming loud or long enough to be heard from the dungeons, so what prompted him??)

- Dumbledore reveals during his confrontation with Draco that Snape was watching over him on his orders as well.

- Also during the Lightning Struck Tower, Dumbledore states plainly that Draco is hesitating, and Draco replies that he has no options

- Only after the series is over, once we have The Prince’s Tale, do we as the reader understand the truth of the line ‘it is my mercy, and not yours, that matters now.’

- ‘Draco’s hand was shaking so badly he could barely aim’

- Dumbledore pleading with Snape (Severus, Severus please) as he gets to the Tower

- Snape actively pushing Draco out of the way, making his way forward with a look of revulsion and hatred ‘etched in the harsh lines of his face.’

- Snape killing Dumbledore

- Snape, after Dumbledore is dead and they are making their way from the castle, directly guiding Draco by the scruff of his neck.

- Snape yelling for Draco to run before turning to duel/fight with Harry.

The latter two could have simply been general care for Draco’s well being, but as these actions are particular to Draco I’m going to keep them on this list.

Now, the Vow didn’t directly do anything of significance that Dumbledore did not also desire. Snape might not have been as tuned in to Draco if not for the explicit ‘watch my son/keep him from harm’ portion of the Vow- but everything else would have been the same.

Has the Vow been fulfilled at this point? It depends on how we define the terms, and/or if (somehow) the Vow can understand that it’s confined to the year/specific task of killing Dumbledore without it being explicitly worded that way.

- Snape certainly watched over Draco as he attempted to fulfil Voldemort’s wishes for him to kill Dumbledore- but Voldemort will certainly have other wishes/tasks for Draco to accomplish in the future.

- Snape definitely did all he could to keep Draco from harm- but there’s a war on. One Draco just solidified his position in- so harm is closer at hand outside of these exact circumstances.

- There is no denying that Snape carried out the deed Voldemort had asked of Draco when it would seem he would fail. But does the Vow apply to any task the Dark Lord asks of Draco?

---

Now that we have the familiar territory laid out before us, let’s dive into the relatively unknown: Yusuf Kama’s Vow.

We know very little about this Vow, so most of this is extrapolation- to be perfectly frank,  the only thing we truly know about this Vow is that it exists.

But that doesn’t mean that there are not clues scattered throughout these new films- though we knows what will matter in the long run.

What do we know?

- Kama’s father Mustafa charged him to take revenge; that he charged him to kill the person Lestrange loves best in the world in his madness and grief.

- Yusuf was 12 when Lestrange took his mother (who died in 1901ish, 3 months prior to the new wife based on the years given in the screenplay) and that learning of his stolen wife’s death drove Mustafa to madness.

- We know that Yusuf was 17 or so when his father charged him with the Vow, as Laurena was stolen in 1896 and she died in 1901, so he was an adult.

- Yusuf has been searching for the subject of his Vow with his father for an undetermined amount of time.

- Yusuf Kama has been using the Predictions of Tycho Dodonus to justify his coming to the conclusion that Credence is the person he needs to kill.

Now that seems like a lot, but it all boils down to two things we know about Mustafa’s Vow:

1- To seek revenge for his mother’s abduction and death

2- By killing the person Lestrange loves best in the world.

If we take the rule of 3 into account, then we are missing 2 key ingredients to this Vow: a third term, and a Bonder.

Yusuf Kama came to his conclusion about Credence’s identity and managed to track him down to the Circus Arcanus (and then the mausoleum) within a year. This implies that he didn’t stop searching for Corvus after the boat sank in 1901- that he was always on the lookout.

Which would mean that the Vow has, without any seeming direct action toward being fulfilled, been sitting idly within Kama for at least 27 years.

We don’t actually know anything of substance about Yusuf Kama. We know his family history, and we know he’s made a Vow. That’s it.

In what ways could the Vow have impacted/directed Kama’s life? The career he chose? The skills he learned? Where he travels/lives? His very morals? Having taken a Vow at such a young age, who is to say that he’s made any significant decisions in his life without them being impacted by the Vow?

And, more importantly, can/does an Unbreakable Vow let the Bonded person know that they terms have been met? Can they tell when they’ve fulfilled their Vow? Or could a person accidentally fulfil their Vow and never know?

---

With all the textual bits out of the way, I’m going to throw the philosophy in here- we are here to figure out the Truth, after all.

To start, there are two basic kinds of truth: Objective, and Subjective.

Objective Truth is fact. The kind of statements that can’t be argued. Think along the lines of ‘humans need air to live’ or ‘water freezes.’ Objective Truths are universal, whether or not they are acknowledged/known to an individual/or recognised to be true. (Like with flat-earther’s, ignorance does not change these statements. They were true before discovery/acknowledgement.)

Subjective Truth is more personal. It’s the kind of judgement that may be true for the individual making the statement, but not for everyone. A more personal knowledge- think ‘it’s cold in here’ which, while true for you, may not be so for somebody else. Beauty is subjective- and even if there are widely accepted ideas of such things, they change wildly over time.

So when it comes to an Unbreakable Vow, what is the Truth??

Is it what the Bondee believes to be true?

Is it what the Bonder believes to be true?

Is it what the Requester believes to be true?

Or is it what is fact to the world/magic as a whole, whether known to any of the 3 involved in the Vow or not?

If a Vow is to be taken literally, as to-the-letter instructions, how are the Bondee’s actions judged? By their intent, or by the action itself?

If a Vow has somehow become defunct (if that’s even possible) what does that mean for the person who is Bound by it?

What circumstances cause the magic to kill a person?

---

Taking the things that we now know, or understand, of Truth- et’s try to make some judgement calls.

Severus Snape fulfills his Vow. He observes and watches over Draco’s actions, attempts to talk to Draco repeatedly, offers his assistance, kills Dumbledore in his stead, and directs him away from the battle (harm) in the wake of the murder.

Yusuf Kama is less clear. He has tracked Credence to the Circus Arcanus, kidnapped Tina to prevent her interference, pities the child but is entirely willing/desperate to kill not just the kid but anyone who would prevent him from doing so- but with the seeming-reveal of Corvus’ death, is more than willing to help protect Paris from Grindelwald’s Protego Diabolica with the very people he nearly murdered before.

How is Yusuf Kama alive?

There are a few possibilities:

1- Corvus Lestrange Sr. loved someone else most.

2- Corvus Lestrange Jr was already killed by Yusuf unknowingly.

3- Corvus Lestrange Jr is still alive somewhere (Grindelwald interference/manipulation?)

4- Corvus Lestrange Jr is already dead, as the text/film displays, with no connection to Yusuf at all.

Which brings me back to the big question- what is the Truth?

Does the Unbreakable Vow simply stop working if it becomes impossible to fulfil? Can magic itself tell if a Vow is still viable- does it already know if Corvus is truly alive or dead, or even the actual subject of Mustafa’s terms?

Is there a way to tell if a Vow has been completed?

Or do we just have to assume?

(2019)

[wrockingwriter]

Obscurials: Before, During... After?

What we know about Obscurus and Obscurials is very limited.

We know:

- An Obscurus is NOT a magical creature, so it’s not like a dementor or lethifold. It’s not a beast at all, there are not wild Obscurus, which means that they are unique to their Obscurial and tied to them entirely.

- An Obscurus is formed when someone with magic represses their magic entirely; that person is called an Obscurial.

- An Obscurial has to have trauma/fear driving the repression; fear is essential to an Obscurus forming

- Obscurus were more common before the International Statute of Secrecy, when magical people feared the repercussions of being found by people who would cause real harm to them.

- Common knowledge in the universe (according to the MACUSA) is that there hasn’t been an Obscurus/Obscurial in centuries, which is obviously false based on both Credence and the Sudanese girl Newt encounters.

- Obscurus are destructive, and at least vaguely parasitic in nature, fuelled by fear and anger and hate.

- There is NO record of an Obscurial surviving past 10 years old.

--- So, knowing that, we have a few characters that we already know of in the original Harry Potter series that had the potential to be Obscurials, just based on their having dark and potentially abusive pasts, but did not:

Harry Potter: Obviously lives in a negative situation, but doesn’t show any signs of being an Obscurial. Violent things don’t happen around him, his magic always acted in ways that protected him in passive ways far more like accidental magic. Also, as part of a running theme of the series, Harry Potter is Oblivious to anything that directly affects him. He ends up on a roof while running away from bullies, that’s cool. His hair grows back overnight, at least he doesn’t have to go to school with that shitty haircut! The glass disappears at the zoo, and he thinks it’s weird but doesn’t think he had anything to do with it.

Harry’s noticing/realising that there was anything in common between those magical experiences is what I think stopped an Obscurus from forming. He wasn’t repressing anything because he did not think he had anything to repress- his obliviousness saved himself.

Tom Riddle Jr.: Lives in an orphanage, which we’re not shown in a favourable light. But, Tom Riddle doesn’t ever view his magic as something negative. He saw it as a tool that would make him more powerful than his bullies. He saw it as something positive that made him unique, instead of it being something that set him as a bigger target for the older children/bullies at the orphanage.

Tom not viewing his magic as negative, or something to be hidden, is what I think stopped him from becoming an Obscurial and forming an Obscurus. His circumstances were negative, but he never allowed fear to dominate his thoughts when it came to the unknown power that made him unique

Merope Gaunt: Probably the one character who came closest to becoming an Obscurial, Merope lived in a heavily emotionally (and physically, going by the attempted strangling Bob Ogden stops) abusive household. Her father Marvolo and her brother Morfin are shown repeatedly calling her a squib and blood traitor. Albus Dumbledore himself says that powerful negative emotions endured on a chronic basis can interfere/drain on a person’s powers, and this certainly applies. They call her a muggle, ask what her wand is even for, and this obviously has taken a toll on her. She’s shut down, barely able to control what little magic she exhibits, when Bob Ogden visits.

Merope’s sources of trauma/fear/abuse are removed from her home and thus her life. During the time they were gone she was able to try and use her magic, eventually snagging Tom Riddle Sr. through duplicitous means. Whether it was by potion or Imperius curse doesn’t really matter, she used magic to get this end. I think that the fact that she had examples of magic that weren’t inherently tied to abuse probably helped her to not entirely repress her magic because of her fear. And thus prevented an Obscurus from fully forming. (Though I DO think her years of not really accepting her magic (mostly due to her family’s abuse) caused a strain on her body that her months in squalor following her releasing Tom Sr. from his mental slavery assisted in causing her death right after giving birth to Tom Riddle Jr.)

--- We’ve only got two examples of character that were/are for SURE Obscurials: 

The Sudanese girl Newt encounters at age 8, a few months prior to the first FB film, whose Obscurus is likely the one inside Newt’s trunk held in the stasis bubble. This would explain why Newt is under the impression that he could separate an Obscurus from the Obscurial, as he managed to contain this Obscurus though the Obscurial still perished.

Credence Barebone who we encounter in young adulthood, around age 20. Which is FAR beyond the recorded age Obscurials reach. Double that, in fact. Lives in an incredibly dark situation; surrounded by the New Salemers and their rhetoric, being raised by their leader who hates the concept of magic, and being scorned upon by the general populace because of his adoptive family.

He’s shown to be in at the very least an emotionally abusive household, adopted by a woman who takes corporal punishment way too far. Mary-Lou Barebone says to Credence ‘Your mother was a wicked, unnatural woman!’  which implies that she knew Credence’s birth mother. She beats him often, to the point where Credence doesn’t offer any reasons or excuses when Mary-Lou extends her hand for his belt.

Credence sees magic as a way to escape the life he’s currently leading. He willingly spends time searching for the child Graves (Grindelwald) asks him to find, under the impression that if he succeeded Credence would be taught magic. That he would be able to escape from his current living situation. He fears Mary-Lou and her beatings, but sees Graves (Grindelwald) and his talents as positive (though we don’t know how they came into contact), and truly views himself as being without magical talent.

He knows that anything that sets him apart from anyone else in Mary-Lou’s eyes is cause for a beating. Even without knowing he has magic, he knows anything different is going to cause him pain and thus should never be expressed. He suppresses any kind of individuality, doing and wearing whatever Mary-Lou instructs.

In the newest trailers for the Crimes of Grindelwald, it’s revealed that Credence is a Lestrange (his bloodline will likely play a large role in his surviving as an Obscurial/controlling the Obscurus for so long) but the circumstances surrounding his adoption are still unknown. He obviously doesn’t remember his family of origin, but each time he tried to address Mary-Lou in a familiar way he is rejected, though she doesn’t do much to dissuade him from thinking of Chastity and Modesty as his siblings, she still beats him far more than any of the other children she’s adopted. Which seems to imply that he was quite young when he was adopted, and Mary-Lou likely beat him for any accidental magic without explaining what had caused the punishment.

The Obscurus we see in the film shows us exactly how destructive they can be. First destroying a No-Maj residence, then killing Henry Shaw Jr, and later Mary-Lou/Modesty,  all leading toward the final confrontations at the end of the film. Credence has no memory of any of the actions taken by the Obscurus, still believing himself as being powerless until he seemingly has a moment of connection when GrindelGraves says that he has no further use for him when Credence leads him to a frightened Modesty after Mary-Lou’s death-by-Obscurus and Modesty’s death in the wreckage of their building.

Credence seems to have a moment where his conscious wants (escape, magic) and subconscious desires (freedom) meet and agree with one another in Credence’s rage at GrindelGraves. From what we can see, an Obscurus is a separation of the magic of a person from their body. The Obscurus takes actions that align with the subconscious desires of the Obscurial they’re attached to (Henry Shaw’s death is the clearest example of this) but doesn’t seem to leave the Obscurial with the memories associated with those actions. So this anger seems to cause the knowledge of having this power to awaken, and in his rage he’s able to have some semblance of control over the force he’s unleashed.

At the panel I hosted at LeakyCon 2018, at several points people who studied and work in Psychological fields, or in Family Law, talked about the kinds of ways younger minds cope with awful situations. How dissociation breakthroughs, when the affected people start to reconnect these facets of themselves, usually came with emotional extremes. Being pushed to a limit. If we think about Credence and his magic like two facets of someone with a dissociative disorder, those things match up. Credence is a prime example of the repercussions of an abused child and the lengths they go through to survive.

Throughout the final confrontation with the Obscurus, appealing to Credence as a person, showing care, seemed to bring Credence more into himself- he almost calms down completely under Newt and Tina’s affections and promises of protection! But GrindelGraves interrupts their attempts with more violence, immediately bringing Credence back into the fight AND flight response the Obscurus channels in him.

At the end of the film, there’s a focus on one wisp of the Obscurus- and we now know that Credence is not only IN the Crimes of Grindelwald film, but is central to the film. He’s a person again, coming back from being a smoke manifestation of destruction, but we have no knowledge of how much he remembers from that last confrontation.

--- The final person I want to talk about is the one we’re all pretty much positive was an Obscurial

Ariana Dumbledore: Violently attacked by three muggle boys at the age of 6 for accidental magic, their father Percival went to Azkaban for going after the boys in question and Kendra moved the family to Godric’s Hollow. There they kept Ariana out of public view, and many people either didn’t know about the Dumbledore daughter or thought that Kendra had produced a squib.

Aberforth describes the aftereffects of it as ‘it destroyed her… She wouldn’t use magi, but she couldn’t get rid of it; it turned inwards and drove her mad, it exploded out of her when she couldn’t control it, and at times she was strange and dangerous. But mostly she was sweet, and scared, and harmless.’ He speaks of how he was able to calm her when no one else could, but that she was unbalanced and had magic exploding out of her at moments she couldn’t hold it in any longer.

During one of her fits of seething rage/uncontrollable magic that Aberforth was not there to curtail, their mother Kendra ended up dead. Only a few months after her death Albus, and Gellert had the argument/duel that ended with Ariana’s death. Ariana is 14 at the time of the event.

The isolation from people outside of the family likely contributed to her fears, but also kept her aware of magic outside of herself not being inherently bad. Traumatic experiences are even more so to the mind of a child- at least, the things that went wrong for me as a child seemed impossibly huge and awful. Actually, most emotions seemed incredibly powerful and extreme from my view as a kid. Everything is the ____ thing EVER, which I can see contributing heavily to Obscurus forming. They’re formed by repression and intense negative emotion- and few have as intense emotions as children.

Aberforth is under the impression that Ariana was attempting to help during the duel, and lost control- but there’s also the distinct possibility that this was her moment of clarity, where her conscious wants (for the fighting to stop) and subconscious desires (for her brothers to get along again) met and she saw no reason to restrain the force within anymore.

Ariana being an Obscurial, and losing control in the duel between Albus and Gellert to reveal this power concealed within her, would also explain Grindelwald’s obsession with Obscurus and Obscurials in the film. There’s little else that could connect the to film series’ together as strongly as the (mostly ignored) Dumbledore past and the Dark Lord who inspired Voldemort.

(I have a silly side theory that Ariana’s Obscurus, after her death, whatever little bit of it had thought, put itself into the Hog’s Head portrait. Why else would Aberforth have a portrait of her when she was so helpless instead of when she was happy?)

Credence and Ariana both have positive associations of magic (Ariana with her family, Credence with GrindelGraves) while having a great fear associated with it (Ariana’s attack by the muggle boys, Credence’s adoptive mother beating him) and a clear preference for one sibling over another (Aberforth, for Ariana, and Modesty for Credence) and their magical explosions accidentally killed someone they cared for (Kendra Dumbledore and Chastity Barebone).

--- Obscurus, what are they in relation to Obscurials?

As an Obscurus is NOT a magical creature, and instead is a parasitic manifestation of magic, they’re unique to the person they’re formed from.

I’m pretty positive that they’re the actual separation of magic from the magical person. They’re the negative manifestation of their magic, destructive and influenced by the subconscious thoughts of the person they’re attached to.

- This tenuous connection of thought between the Obscurus and Obscurial had some attendees ask if, maybe, an Obscurus is kind of like an accidental Horcrux, but without a container it can’t exist for very long. Which would explain the historical reports of Obscurus appearing, causing a lot of damage, and disappearing. It would also kind of explain the near-compulsion Kowalski had when he saw it in the trunk to approach it.

- This connection also bring into question- does an Obscurus who, for lack of a better word, consumes their Obscurial consume the body as well?           I think that, if it’s a purposeful giving over to the emotional overload, the Obscurus will use all the energy available to them- including their life and the bits holding their body together.           But I also feel like an Obscurus gets to the point of being able to take over the Obscurial, just overwhelming them without their agreement or relinquishment of what little control they have, that the Obscurial dies as a result of the SHOCK of their magic completely separating from their body.

Can an Obscurus exist without their Obscurial?           I don’t think they can take action, or exist for very long. I think that an Obscurus, as a manifestation of subconscious intent and repressed magic, cannot exist without a purpose. I think an Obscurus would exist for a moment, but without a target/mission would dissipate. I think the Obscurus in Newt’s trunk, if released from the stasis bubble thing, would have a moment of action before falling apart.

Can a forming Obscurus be destroyed/reintegrated with their Obscurial?           I think that an Obscurial, early in the stages of developing an Obscurus, could halt and likely even reverse the process by no longer repressing their magic. An acceptance of their magic could likely stop an Obscurus from forming because it wouldn’t be repressed, and the person in question would no longer have strong negative emotions associated with their magic either.

Can Credence control his Obscurus?           I think his ability to do so is going to rely a lot on his bloodline, probably. I also think that, in order for him to even begin to do such a thing he’s going to have to confront and accept his past. Not forgive, but accept that it happened to him and learn from it and build from it.           I think Credence’s story is going to be about accepting and recovering from horrible trauma, and that the things that mark you as a target aren’t necessarily negative things. Credence’s story is going to be about acceptance and growth past trauma and fear, and the things you can build from it.

BUT NOW THAT WE’VE COVERED THESE THINGS I HAVE A THEORY FOR YOU!

We have many examples of light and dark magic in the series, and the differences between. We know that dark magic is destructive and light magic is mostly passive.

I’m going to claim here that an Obscurus is the opposite of a Patronus- or, rather, that they’re flip sides of the same coin. Magical protectors inherently tied to one magical person in particular.

- Both Obscurus and Patronus are powered by intense emotion- an Obscurus by fear and a Patronus by happy memories. Both are protective, though in different ways- a Patronus is a shield, where an Obscurus would be a sword.

- An Obscurus is destructive, seemingly only in relation to something negative happening to their Obscurial (Henry Shaw, Mary-Lou) where a Patronus is inherently passive in their protection, not destroying anything but instead pushing at any dark force until it is a safe distance away from their caster.

- An Obscurus is seemingly directed by subconscious intent, the longings that go unspoken and unacknowledged/repressed. A Patronus is directed by conscious intent, it has to be purposefully summoned and directed by the caster.

- A fully formed Patronus is a beacon of light displaying the caster’s soul, where a fully formed Obscurus is literally hiding the caster as fully as it can in smoke.

This theory then brings up a whole new kind of conversation, if we run with it.

If someone used a Patronus against an Obscurus, what would happen?           I’m of the opinion that it would entirely depend upon the strength of the Obscurus and the caster of the patronus involved. I don’t think an Obscurus would EVER be destroyed by a Patronus, but I think a powerful enough Patronus could probably CONTAIN an Obscurus. Bring the Obscurial back to the forefront and thus get them into person-form again.           Like, if you think about it in terms of an Obscurus being depression/ptsd and a Patronus being happiness and acceptance, the fact that they’re two different people would be like a depressive person surrounded by positive people. It doesn’t make it any better, but it does make those burdens easier to bear. At least in my experience it does. So an Obscurus being surrounded by the very personification of their happiness would probably cause an Obscurial to become more aware of what’s going on in that moment.           Someone else’s good fortune won’t solve your problems, but it can remind you of the moments of light, if that makes sense.

If it’s a weak Obscurus against a strong Patronus, it could likely help the Obscurial accept their magic and such, if it’s the other way around then I’d expect no affect.

Is the bubble holding the Obscurus in Newt’s trunk made from Patronus energy, then?           Well, it certainly looks it to me. The same silvery smoke that is a Patronus before the caster has enough power/memory to give it form. Or the control to choose not to do so. But we certainly don’t know for sure.

On that note, though, I’m going to open the floor- who wants to jump in? 

Comments, questions, concerns? 

LET’S TALK!

(2018)

[revelsinmalevolence]

An Obscurus is the opposite of a Patronus

change my mind

[snapedefender]

anti: snape only lusted after lily, he never had any real feelings for her

me, looking through all seven books for actual evidence: um 

[wrockingwriter]

#severus snape#evidence that he liked her? sure#evidence that he cared about her feelings? sure#evidence that he only felt lust for her? lmao no#no evidence that felt any lust for her at all tbh so whats with this determination to make him out as some lustful rapist....????#once again.... if he actually WAS as gross as y'all claim he could've pulled a merope gaunt?????????#snape and lily

[wrockingwriter]

Okay, so, we know that Harry’s protection from Voldemort, what made him able to survive, was Lily’s loving sacrifice, right? ('He didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign … to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever.')

Now if the only prerequisite was love, then James’ death should have been sufficient protection- but it was Lily’s that gave Harry his shield from Voldemort.

Love, yes? Love and sacrifice.

So what’s the difference in their deaths that night? James certainly faces Voldemort bravely ('straight-backed and proud, the way your father died' as Voldemort himself tells Harry on the night of his resurrection) and sacrifices himself in the hopes of his wife and child getting to safety.

He faces Voldemort WITHOUT A WAND ('… he had not even picked up his wand…') or means to defend himself, and yet that is not sacrifice enough for this love shield thing.

Lily stands in front of Harry’s crib, she stands directly between Voldemort and her son and begs for him to kill her instead. ('At the sight of him, she dropped her son into the cot behind her and threw her arms wide, as if this would help, as if in shielding him from sight she hoped to be chosen instead.')

Voldemort refuses, he tells her 'Stand aside, you silly girl… stand aside, now…' and 'This is my last warning,' and 'stand aside- stand aside, girl' and she continues to refuse until Voldemort gets frustrated and kills her to get her out of the way as it was 'more prudent to finish them all.'

Harry, similarly, is given this choice by Voldemort- to give himself up to stop the battle and thus save his friends. ('I shall wait for one hour in the Forbidden Forest. If, at the end of that hour, you have not come to me, have not given yourself up, then the battle recommences.') Harry goes only after he learns that he is a Horcrux, after viewing Snape’s memories, and he knows that the only way to destroy a Horcrux is to destroy the vessel it is hidden in.

Harry knowingly sacrifices himself to save his friends, as Lily died knowingly to save her son even if only for those few moments before her death and his.

Now, normally, would Voldemort have even entertained the idea of allowing a muggleborn witch to live? Of course not.

So, what makes this event different?

Severus Snape. Severus Snape and his unrequited (and obsessive, though from a distance) love for Lily Potter (nee Evans).

Snape asked Voldemort to spare her life ('I have- I have asked him-'), and Voldemort, being grateful and wanting to keep his loyalty after Snape gave him the prophecy and the means to be sure it never came to pass, agrees.

Obviously Snape does not truly believe that Voldemort would spare a powerful muggleborn witch on the request of one of his followers, and thus goes to Dumbledore.

Not only does Voldemort agree, but Voldemort surprisingly keeps his word to the best of his inhuman ability and legitimately makes an effort to keep her alive until his frustration and lack of humanity wins out.

THEREFORE

Would it not be truth to say that it was Severus Snape that unknowingly caused Lily’s loving sacrifice to work, and thus Voldemort’s initial demise? References- Book 1, American first edition, page 299 'Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign … to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is in your very skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good.'

Book 4, American first edition, page 660  'straight-backed and proud, the way your father died'

Book 7, English first edition, page 281, page 529, page 543 '… he had not even picked up his wand…' 'At the sight of him, she dropped her son into the cot behind her and threw her arms wide, as if this would help, as if in shielding him from sight she hoped to be chosen instead.' '…more prudent to finish them all.' 'Stand aside, you silly girl… stand aside, now…' and 'This is my last warning,' and 'stand aside- stand aside, girl' 'I shall wait for one hour in the Forbidden Forest. If, at the end of that hour, you have not come to me, have not given yourself up, then the battle recommences.' 'I have- I have asked him-'

[ensnapingthesenses]

The difference between James’ and Lily’s death is that James was butchered without a second thought, while Lily had a choice: she could have survived if she wanted to, which is why she is the only one sacrificing herself here. James died for Lily and Harry, but he didn’t sacrifice himself, because that implies having a choice in the matter. So, yeah, of course this is derivative from Snape asking Voldemort to spare her, but Snape would have had no part in sacrificing her, so no, I don’t think he can be said to have caused it. He does, however, sacrifice himself for the same reason in the end.

[wrockingwriter]

I used my words very carefully here, unknowingly causing something is still causing it.

It IS a derivative of Snape having told Voldemort the prophecy in the first place, but I don’t really see how you’re disagreeing with me?

I never said he sacrificed her, or was directly responsible, I am claiming that Snape’s request to Voldemort resulting in giving her the CHOICE to sacrifice herself caused said sacrifice to work. Lily would not have had the chance to sacrifice herself without Snape’s request, as she would have been butchered without a second thought just like her husband. Also, on a side note, James standing in front of Voldemort, and facing him without his wand, to give even the semblance of a chance to his wife and child certainly seems like a sacrifice to me. He still gave his life, without fighting as he died too quickly to even pretend to do so, to try to give his wife and child a chance. I don’t like James as a character, but this much I know to be true of him.

[ensnapingthesenses]

First of, I thought about the James thing better, and I stand corrected. Thinking about the quote “take Harry and go” and putting myself in that position made me realize he does have a choice, because in that split second, I wouldn’t have made the same call. Anyway, I didn’t mean it in a “James is worthless” way or anything! It is a defining moment for James’ character, and for his Gryffindor nobility (I say this without a hint of malice or sarcasm, believe me).

I don’t disagree with the premise of your post, of course Snape’s action is necessary to set in motion what follows: what I meant is that Snape’s action preceding Lily’s choice does not really cause it. The first is narratively necessary so that the second can happen, sure: but saying it was because of Snape that Harry’s protection fell in place is a bit misleading. I do believe that Voldemort would have killed Lily immediately otherwise, but we don’t know whether her love would have protected Harry anyway or not (symbolically, the reiteration of her choice when Voldemort tells her to step aside is necessary to bring the point home, but it’s not her words that protect Harry, but…her actual love?).

Would it not be truth to say that it was Severus Snape that unknowingly caused Lily’s loving sacrifice to work, and thus Voldemort’s initial demise?

Basically, I take issue with the wording because it diminishes Lily’s choice in the matter. The tragedy of Snape’s involvement is that it can be read as both the cause of her death, and the cause of Harry’s survival. The way I see it, Snape is a distal cause to the attack - or more accurately, its catalyst - but not the cause of Lily’s protection. That’s what I meant.

[wrockingwriter]

Snape is certainly the catalyst for all of this to happen- he did tell Voldemort the portion of the prophecy that he heard, after all. I mean, there would be no reason for Voldemort to look for or attempt to kill an infant born at the end of July in the first place without the prophecy. So the circumstances involved would never have occurred either way without Severus Snape.

Remember in Order of the Phoenix when someone ( don't recall I'll look it up later) said that there are thousands of prophecies that never come to pass? Without all of this happening, without Snape having told Voldemort OR having asked him to spare Lily, the prophecy would never have come to pass and Voldemort probably have won the first Wizarding War unless Dumbledore managed it somehow while knowing of this prophecy.

But there's still the circumstance of that choice having been given to her by Snape's request. It's not that he caused Lily to MAKE the choice, but that he caused the opportunity for the choice in the first place. I mean, if it were merely a mother's love and the decision to not leave in a surely fatal circumstance, wouldn't there be many other children that survived the killing curse?

Doesn't Molly even say that any mother would have done the same, and it's displayed through Narcissa that a mother would to anything to get to or protect their child?

If it were merely a mother's love that made the shield it would be far less extraordinary than it is for Harry to have survived the killing curse. They were in a war, they were in a war and Voldemort was at the height of his power and surely there were parents who were forced to make the same decision and did so. But no one else survived the killing curse.

It wasn't the existence of love being there, but the offered choice and consequent decision that in an obviously fatal circumstance to take the blow rather than the one(s) you love. Else it would be something everyone would know and act upon in those circumstances.

[wrockingwriter]

Okay, so, we know that Harry’s protection from Voldemort, what made him able to survive, was Lily’s loving sacrifice, right? ('He didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign … to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever.')

Now if the only prerequisite was love, then James’ death should have been sufficient protection- but it was Lily’s that gave Harry his shield from Voldemort.

Love, yes? Love and sacrifice.

So what’s the difference in their deaths that night? James certainly faces Voldemort bravely ('straight-backed and proud, the way your father died' as Voldemort himself tells Harry on the night of his resurrection) and sacrifices himself in the hopes of his wife and child getting to safety.

He faces Voldemort WITHOUT A WAND ('… he had not even picked up his wand…') or means to defend himself, and yet that is not sacrifice enough for this love shield thing.

Lily stands in front of Harry’s crib, she stands directly between Voldemort and her son and begs for him to kill her instead. ('At the sight of him, she dropped her son into the cot behind her and threw her arms wide, as if this would help, as if in shielding him from sight she hoped to be chosen instead.')

Voldemort refuses, he tells her 'Stand aside, you silly girl… stand aside, now…' and 'This is my last warning,' and 'stand aside- stand aside, girl' and she continues to refuse until Voldemort gets frustrated and kills her to get her out of the way as it was 'more prudent to finish them all.'

Harry, similarly, is given this choice by Voldemort- to give himself up to stop the battle and thus save his friends. ('I shall wait for one hour in the Forbidden Forest. If, at the end of that hour, you have not come to me, have not given yourself up, then the battle recommences.') Harry goes only after he learns that he is a Horcrux, after viewing Snape’s memories, and he knows that the only way to destroy a Horcrux is to destroy the vessel it is hidden in.

Harry knowingly sacrifices himself to save his friends, as Lily died knowingly to save her son even if only for those few moments before her death and his.

Now, normally, would Voldemort have even entertained the idea of allowing a muggleborn witch to live? Of course not.

So, what makes this event different?

Severus Snape. Severus Snape and his unrequited (and obsessive, though from a distance) love for Lily Potter (nee Evans).

Snape asked Voldemort to spare her life ('I have- I have asked him-'), and Voldemort, being grateful and wanting to keep his loyalty after Snape gave him the prophecy and the means to be sure it never came to pass, agrees.

Obviously Snape does not truly believe that Voldemort would spare a powerful muggleborn witch on the request of one of his followers, and thus goes to Dumbledore.

Not only does Voldemort agree, but Voldemort surprisingly keeps his word to the best of his inhuman ability and legitimately makes an effort to keep her alive until his frustration and lack of humanity wins out.

THEREFORE

Would it not be truth to say that it was Severus Snape that unknowingly caused Lily’s loving sacrifice to work, and thus Voldemort’s initial demise? References- Book 1, American first edition, page 299 'Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign … to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is in your very skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good.'

Book 4, American first edition, page 660  'straight-backed and proud, the way your father died'

Book 7, English first edition, page 281, page 529, page 543 '… he had not even picked up his wand…' 'At the sight of him, she dropped her son into the cot behind her and threw her arms wide, as if this would help, as if in shielding him from sight she hoped to be chosen instead.' '…more prudent to finish them all.' 'Stand aside, you silly girl… stand aside, now…' and 'This is my last warning,' and 'stand aside- stand aside, girl' 'I shall wait for one hour in the Forbidden Forest. If, at the end of that hour, you have not come to me, have not given yourself up, then the battle recommences.' 'I have- I have asked him-'

[ensnapingthesenses]

The difference between James’ and Lily’s death is that James was butchered without a second thought, while Lily had a choice: she could have survived if she wanted to, which is why she is the only one sacrificing herself here. James died for Lily and Harry, but he didn’t sacrifice himself, because that implies having a choice in the matter. So, yeah, of course this is derivative from Snape asking Voldemort to spare her, but Snape would have had no part in sacrificing her, so no, I don’t think he can be said to have caused it. He does, however, sacrifice himself for the same reason in the end.

[wrockingwriter]

I used my words very carefully here, unknowingly causing something is still causing it.

It IS a derivative of Snape having told Voldemort the prophecy in the first place, but I don't really see how you're disagreeing with me?

I never said he sacrificed her, or was directly responsible, I am claiming that Snape's request to Voldemort resulting giving her the CHOICE to sacrifice herself caused said sacrifice to work. Lily would not have had the chance to sacrifice herself without Snape's request, as she would have been butchered without a second thought just like her husband. Also, on a side note, James standing in front of Voldemort, and facing him without his wand, to give even the semblance of a chance to his wife and child certainly seems like a sacrifice to me. He still gave his life, without fighting as he died too quickly to even pretend to do so, to try to give his wife and child a chance. I don't like James as a character, but this much I know to be true of him.

[wrockingwriter]

Okay, so, we know that Harry's protection from Voldemort, what made him able to survive, was Lily's loving sacrifice, right? ('He didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign ... to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever.')

Now if the only prerequisite was love, then James' death should have been sufficient protection- but it was Lily's that gave Harry his shield from Voldemort.

Love, yes? Love and sacrifice.

So what's the difference in their deaths that night? James certainly faces Voldemort bravely ('straight-backed and proud, the way your father died' as Voldemort himself tells Harry on the night of his resurrection) and sacrifices himself in the hopes of his wife and child getting to safety.

He faces Voldemort WITHOUT A WAND ('... he had not even picked up his wand...') or means to defend himself, and yet that is not sacrifice enough for this love shield thing.

Lily stands in front of Harry's crib, she stands directly between Voldemort and her son and begs for him to kill her instead. ('At the sight of him, she dropped her son into the cot behind her and threw her arms wide, as if this would help, as if in shielding him from sight she hoped to be chosen instead.')

Voldemort refuses, he tells her 'Stand aside, you silly girl... stand aside, now...' and 'This is my last warning,' and 'stand aside- stand aside, girl' and she continues to refuse until Voldemort gets frustrated and kills her to get her out of the way as it was 'more prudent to finish them all.'

Harry, similarly, is given this choice by Voldemort- to give himself up to stop the battle and thus save his friends. ('I shall wait for one hour in the Forbidden Forest. If, at the end of that hour, you have not come to me, have not given yourself up, then the battle recommences.') Harry goes only after he learns that he is a Horcrux, after viewing Snape's memories, and he knows that the only way to destroy a Horcrux is to destroy the vessel it is hidden in.

Harry knowingly sacrifices himself to save his friends, as Lily died knowingly to save her son even if only for those few moments before her death and his.

Now, normally, would Voldemort have even entertained the idea of allowing a muggleborn witch to live? Of course not.

So, what makes this event different?

Severus Snape. Severus Snape and his unrequited (and obsessive, though from a distance) love for Lily Potter (nee Evans).

Snape asked Voldemort to spare her life ('I have- I have asked him-'), and Voldemort, being grateful and wanting to keep his loyalty after Snape gave him the prophecy and the means to be sure it never came to pass, agrees.

Obviously Snape does not truly believe that Voldemort would spare a powerful muggleborn witch on the request of one of his followers, and thus goes to Dumbledore.

Not only does Voldemort agree, but Voldemort surprisingly keeps his word to the best of his inhuman ability and legitimately makes an effort to keep her alive until his frustration and lack of humanity wins out.

THEREFORE

Would it not be truth to say that it was Severus Snape that unknowingly caused Lily's loving sacrifice to work, and thus Voldemort's initial demise? References- Book 1, American first edition, page 299 'Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign ... to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is in your very skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good.'

Book 4, American first edition, page 660  'straight-backed and proud, the way your father died'

Book 7, English first edition, page 281, page 529, page 543 '... he had not even picked up his wand...' 'At the sight of him, she dropped her son into the cot behind her and threw her arms wide, as if this would help, as if in shielding him from sight she hoped to be chosen instead.' '...more prudent to finish them all.' 'Stand aside, you silly girl... stand aside, now...' and 'This is my last warning,' and 'stand aside- stand aside, girl' 'I shall wait for one hour in the Forbidden Forest. If, at the end of that hour, you have not come to me, have not given yourself up, then the battle recommences.' 'I have- I have asked him-'