[ SECRET POST #4422 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4422 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Jimmy Carr]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Gerard Butler and Craig Ferguson]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Harry Potter]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Doctor Who]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Stargate Atlantis]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Harry Potter]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Image Source]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 27 secrets from Secret Submission Post #633.
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.

Comments

[fscom]

04. https://i.imgur.com/JRAM4Ub.jpg
[Harry Potter]

[(Anonymous)]

Unfortunate but true

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe she sees and doesn't care?

[(Anonymous)]

She was a very normal head of house for the kind of Victorian-Edwardian public school story that Hogwarts is directly based on, when bullying was completely normal and institutionalized

and tbh I think, even by today's standards, and even in a fantasy novel, a school administrator being good at dealing with bullying would be a touch unrealistic

[(Anonymous)]

I agree. Growing up I can’t think of one instance where a school official was able to make kids stop bullying or protect bullied victims all on their own. And it wasn’t because they were incompetent or anything. Bullying is just a really difficult situation.

[(Anonymous)]

That's a crock of shit, and enablers are just as undeserving of protection as the bullies they shelter.

[(Anonymous)]

It's definitely difficult, but there are also a lot of teachers and authority figures who just seem not to care or not to notice. That's the other part of the reason it's unrealistic tbh

[(Anonymous)]

what a hot new take on "James Potter was a bully." can't get traction insulting him, so you go for McGonagall?

[(Anonymous)]

I mean , James Potter was a bully, that's a fact.

[(Anonymous)]

Troll in the dungeon.

[(Anonymous)]

Who mentioned James? Why are you so paranoid?

[(Anonymous)]

I attribute this to Rowling's sloppy writing. She very clearly doesn't mean for the character to come off this way, but hasn't followed through with making sure her character behaves consistently to match what Rowling intends. That's true for so many of her characters.

[(Anonymous)]

In my opinion, the thing about the Harry Potter books, especially the early ones, is that JK Rowling tended to write the adult characters in a way that resonates with child readers, and makes sense to child readers.

Children may feel that they've had a teacher who just didn't like them, or even a teacher who had it in for them. Was it actually that extreme? Probably (hopefully) not. But the child reads about how Snape treats Harry (and most of the Gryffindors) and relates to it very strongly.

Likewise, I think where bullying is concerned, a lot of kids tend to have an innate sort of feeling that they're on their own. Their peers can stand with them, giving them a stronger social stance and making the bullying hurt less. But the adults are out of it. The adults don't know, and wouldn't properly understand it if they did know, and can't be trusted to react as desired even if you told them. A lot of the professors (and perhaps especially McGonagall) reflect that childhood perception of adults. They're like living with elephants: power-having beings who sometimes come to your aid, sometimes are entirely oblivious, and sometimes crush you (while insisting they're crushing you for your own good).

Similarly, I think from a childhood perspective, the adult who low-key conspires to involve you in stuff that other adults shut you out of "for your own good," is a super cool adult who understands you and is probably, like, really wise. And you especially love them if it seems as though they favor you above many of your peers - the cool adult likes you the best, you must be special.

It's only as adults that we gain much real understanding of the nature of adult-child interaction; what responsibilities adults have towards children, and how being an adult rightfully shapes the goods and bads, rights and wrongs of interacting with children.

As adult readers, we recognize that the adults of Harry Potter often do not interact with children as an adult should: Snape is emotionally abusive. McGonagall is often negligent (when it suits the plot) or overly harsh (also when it suits the plot). And Dumbledore allows children to be involved in incredibly dangerous situations, yet doesn't give them enough information to be able to understand what danger they're really in. And he shows pretty blatant favoritism. And I'm sure similar arguments can be made for most of the other adult figures.

But the inappropriate behavior of the adults in Harry Potter has never really bothered me that much, because in my opinion, from a child perspective it feels true and relatable. Perhaps if I hadn't read the books until I was an adult, it would bother me more. But I read the first four books as a 12-year-old, and none of it gave me pause then.

[philstar22]

This is true. But I would add that the later books are trying to be more adult. They have more adult events and plot points. And yet the writing style remains the same. So it gets a little disjointed and weird in time because it seems like Rowling is trying to have it both ways.

[(Anonymous)]

this is such a great comment and i just might nab it for future reference. they were definitely great children's books and while "growing up" alongside the protagonist was great, it also meant they developed a massive tonal dissonance.

the first books are whimsical, fantastical and i think they do that incredibly well. sending a child into an abusive home is horrifying! but maybe it was more about the feeling that no one cared and no one understood and that it was boringly normal, in contrast to the amazing revelation that actually you're a wizard and rich and famous and your *real* parents were perfect cool people

[hey_hey_hey]

christ you people take the HP books so fucking seriously.

[(Anonymous)]

That's because our lives are otherwise hollow and devoid of meaning or pleasure.

But hey, it could be worse! We *could* be spending our time telling other people what to talk about :D

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, backlash/turning of the tide/whatever you want to call it that's been happening over the last few of years, towards the HP books is...really intense.

All anybody seems to what to talk about is how all the once-beloved characters are actually the worst, the once raved-over world-building is actually garbage, and the plots people stayed up all night in a state of ecstatic fanaticism to see through to the end, are actually lazy and lame.

It's not a response I can relate to at all. Maybe it's because I was a fan of the books, but never a "Fan" in the fandom sense of the word. I've never thought the books were perfect, but I always thought the series was an exceptional phenomenon I was lucky to experience as it occurred, and that's still how I feel about it.

[(Anonymous)]

I get where you're coming from but I also get why, in this example, somebody would have an issue with the bullying stuff in particular.

[(Anonymous)]

I am so grateful the Potterverse wank has never spilled over onto the Galbraith books. Because Jesus Christ.

[(Anonymous)]

So I have no idea what the Galbraith books are, so I googled 'Galbraith'. All the top results are about an economist.

So maybe the wank never spilled over because no-one knows or cares enough.

[(Anonymous)]

Sent this as a Snapchat to some friends preceded by a Snap that read: "Fandom!Secrets serves its tea boiling, apparently."

Anyway, thanks for that. Have a great day, OP.

[(Anonymous)]

I read that as "Snapechat" and had a very puzzled second there.

[(Anonymous)]

Very good point there. I also didn't think she was a very good gryffindor either...

[(Anonymous)]

Her characterisation died after she called Harry's crucio gallant, tbh.