It’s the first time someone has ever fallen off the Forbes's billionaires list because of how much they donated to charity.
Admitting when you mess up and trying to put it right is one of the bravest things anyone can do.
I also feel like breaking away from what is obviously a very close-knit family is also pretty brave. It takes backbone to stand against your family regardless of the reasons.
Let’s face it, it takes bravery to be different and be the intellectual in a family that, as a rule, are more boisterous than quiet and studious too. Bravery isn’t always a good thing. Every Hogwarts house trait has it’s good side and it’s bad side and Gryffindors being brave to the point they make impulsive and reckless decisions and stick to them stubbornly, is the bad side. Then Percy owning up and dealing with it represents the good side of being brave.
the real question is how peter pettigrew got into gryffindor
It takes the worst kind of bravery to betray the people you care about, let alone Albus Dumbledore. He had to know how Sirius, James and Remus would have reacted if he got caught, let alone the rest of the Order. That took some balls.
idk if I buy that. he didn’t act brave from what we saw of him, just cowardly and begging & pleading to be protected by whomever was nearest. I think more could have been made of the character — like if Peter had actually betrayed them because of profound beliefs or loyalty to the big V, but the impression I always got was that he was a weak, easily manipulated coward who betrayed them to save himself. but I doubt we’ll ever know what was really going on there.
JK Rowling’s inability to write Peter Pettigrew in any sort of logical manner is one of the greatest failings of the series. We’re given very little reason in Canon as to why MPP would keep him around beyond “fanboys are an ego boost! :D”, and that’s nowhere near enough to convince me they would logically have put the Potters’ lives in his hands. I don’t think you can treat Peter logically by only looking at what’s in Canon — you have to stop and think, “Well, how COULD he pull this off? How would he rationalize this? Why would they keep him around?” and dramatically expand the character from there.
It was the meeting of two kinds of - if you call what Bellatrix feels for Voldemort love, I guess we’ll call it love, she has a kind of obsession with him, it’s a very sick obsession … and I wanted to match that kind of obsession with maternal love… the power that you give someone by loving them. So Molly was really an amazing exemplar of maternal love. … There was something very satisfying about putting those two women together. - J.K. Rowling
please tell the class your feelings on this business.
THIS FUCKING QUOTE.
This quote gives me all the fucking feelings.
Because no, JKR. No. Let me break this down for you.
Bellatrix Lestrange is evil because she is a racist genocidal lunatic.
Bellatrix Lestrange is evil because she likes to torture people, sometimes to irreparable states of insanity.
Bellatrix Lestrange is evil because she is the most loyal zealot of a fascist egomaniac with no moral compass who wants to take over the world and crush the weak under his heel.
Bellatrix Lestrange is not evil because she has a sexual desire for that fascist.
Bellatrix Lestrange is not evil because she doesn’t love her husband.
Bellatrix Lestrange is not evil because she is the only pureblood witch who never had kids and doesn’t give a shit about kids. (It’s of particular interest to me that the fertility issues among the Black Sisters — alluded to by Sirius — is linked explicitly in the text with their being ‘inbred’ and with their various mental illnesses.)
This is a complex woman with complex motivations — family loyalty, ingrained bigotry, a devotion to nostalgic history, a straight up psychotic desire to cause pain — utterly distinct from her love for Lord Voldemort. To toss all that aside in some effort to make a point about motherhood is bizarre.
I shouldn’t have to do this. I shouldn’t have to defend Bellatrix Lestrange for the sake of feminism, for god’s sake, because let’s be real: she’s certainly not a character who prides herself on progressive politics. But to step out of the text and look at this critically, it’s utterly grotesque to turn Voldemort’s right hand into a stock Bad Woman, a wretched Medea that some ‘exemplar of maternal love’ can snuff out for the sake of uteruses everywhere.
These two women have no connection to one another. There is literally no narrative reason to have Molly kill Bellatrix except to make a qualitative statement about maternity. Molly could have just as easily ‘had [her] moment’ by killing Dolohov, or Yaxley, or one of the Carrows. More importantly, this choice is an utter disservice to the narrative, because depriving Neville Longbottom of his final confrontation with the woman who tore apart his family is just fucking bizarre.
Moreover, it’s ridiculous: Bellatrix Lestrange is the most accomplished duellist we ever meet in these books bar Voldemort and Dumbledore. The text goes on and on about this. Harry is fucking terrified of her, and with good reason. The only people portrayed as intimidating her whatsoever are Voldemort and her sister Narcissa. So unless she was drunk at the Battle of Hogwarts, the idea that Molly Weasley of all people could kill her with a single hex is beyond ridiculous. If Molly Weasley is that big a badass, why the hell has she been folding laundry and planning weddings while there’s a war on? This all makes entirely no sense, and this whole choice is one of the biggest cock-ups in the books.
Apparently making a point about Bad Women and their disgusting sexuality was that important to JKR. The mind boggles.
so in conclusion:
HOLY SHIT YOU ARE AMAZING. REBLOGGED FOR COMMENTARY.