Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2014-04-30 07:04 pm
[ SECRET POST #2675 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2675 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06.

__________________________________________________
07.

__________________________________________________
08.

__________________________________________________
09.

__________________________________________________
10.

__________________________________________________
11.

Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 033 secrets from Secret Submission Post #382.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Re: this post made me roll my eyes so hard it hurt
Still. Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry may be the most obvious example. Okay, Snape is not supposed to be a "good" person, but it still sounds like the main reason he's been fighting against the Death Eaters is because of Lily. And we are supposed to see that he might have been a nasty human being, but in the end he also had great courage and moral values that helped him to choose the "right" way to act; but if his main motivation was his obsession with his dead high-school sweetheart, it... does rather undermine just about every good thing we know about him.
Dumbledore. Just, don't even get me started on Dumbledore. The problem with him is that he would normally (in a non-Rowling world) be absolutely irredeemable. Even if we do not talk about his sacrificing a seventeen-year-old (arguably, he had no choice), his choice of teachers for Hogwarts is still so incredibly fucked up that I'm sure many kids walked out of that school forever traumatized. Snape should have never, ever, ever taught anyone, let alone eleven-year-old kids. Kids tend to be vulnerable. His relationship with Dumbledore is adorable and all, but they are adults and hence equals. They can defend themselves and they aren't hurt by each other's coldness/maltreatment the way students are hurt by them. There can be no justification for keeping Snape in Hogwarts as a teacher, kindness or no kindness.
And Harry. Harry naming his kid after Snape and Dumbledore after they both have been such spectacular assholes to him. Is he a saint? I mean, yes, he is an incredibly forgiving person, but wouldn't that be super unhealthy IRL?
So, it seems to me that either a) Rowling made a conscious choice to write every single character as an asshole or b) the wizarding universe is so dystopian that healthy relationships and/or characters appear implausible.
Re: this post made me roll my eyes so hard it hurt
Someone on FF.net has a huge long essay on the profile about how details in the early books written as comedic kid's books' exaggerated situations really fall down as the series starts to get more dark and serious in the later books.
Things like how the Dursleys treat Harry get waved off as being "Not That Bad" and apparently somewhere she said something about uncomfortable dinners Harry's family would have with them later in life. No, if someone was treated the way Harry was IRL, not only would they not be half as mentally healthy as Harry, but they would either cut ties with that family totally, or there is really something even more wrong with them that they continue subjecting themselves to that, not to mention subjecting wife and children to those relatives.
That's not even touching the problems with the romances, which none are shown to have decent development. That is probably the reason Harmonian writers are so very fond of accusing Ron and Ginny of dosing Harry and Hermione with potions.