Tears In My Togachaco Eyes ,,,

#6.

I love when people go "Remus should've raised Harry" like babe he didn't want to raise his own biological son

The Class Dynamics between James Potter and Severus Snape: A Critical Analysis:

This is a dedication to all those who say that class has nothing to do with the bullying that James exerted on Severus, to those who claim that James couldn't be classist because "he never proactively despised anyone for being poor" or because "he was friends with Remus," to those who say "Snape also attacked him" or suggest it was a "rivalry" and that they were on equal footing, or simply to those who say they are "fictional characters" and that fiction has nothing to do with reality, blah blah blah. This is something I have written with bibliographical references because, once in a while, I can stop being a simp goof and show off my university degree in political science. And yes, I am going to be an authentic pedant because I can, and because many people seem to live in a candy-coated world regarding these issues, and it wouldn't hurt them to get a bit educated. That said, here goes my essay:

When analysing the interactions between James Potter and Severus Snape in the "Harry Potter" universe, it is common to find vehement defences of James, arguing that his bullying was not class-motivated. However, it is crucial to untangle how class dynamics operate structurally and how this influences interpersonal relationships. James Potter, as a member of a wealthy, pure-blood family, represents the dominant class, while Severus Snape, coming from a poor, working-class background, embodies the subordinate classes. In the magical world, pure-blood lineage is associated with inherited privileges similar to aristocracy in the real world, where blood purity is a marker of status and power. Authors like Anderson and Löwe (2006) have explored how heritage and lineage have been determining factors in the distribution of power and privileges throughout history, both in fictional and real contexts. This socioeconomic background plays a crucial role in the power dynamics between characters like James and Severus, highlighting how class structures affect their interactions and perpetuate inequality.

Social class, according to Marxist analysis, is a structural category that determines individuals' positions within society based on their access to the means of production. In "Harry Potter", pure-blood status equates to magical aristocracy, while Muggle-borns, Half-Bloods with muggle parent and those from humble origins, like Snape, represent the working or marginalised classes. James Potter, on the other hand, embodies the privileges of the elite, not only through his wealth but also through his lineage, which grants him a status that influences his interactions with others.

The bullying James exerts over Severus cannot be disconnected from its socioeconomic context. Although James may not have explicitly expressed disdain towards Severus for being poor, the way he exploits his superior position to humiliate and subdue Severus reflects power dynamics based on class. Pierre Bourdieu describes how power structures are reproduced through symbolic violence, where the dominant classes impose their cultural and social legitimacy over the subordinate ones, perpetuating inequality. In the context of 'Harry Potter', this symbolic violence is reflected in how the magical aristocracy imposes its values and norms on those of humble origin. The public humiliations James inflicts on Severus are not just acts of bullying but also manifestations of a structural power that favours the privileged like James. Besides Bourdieu, other theorists such as Michel Foucault could provide complementary perspectives on how power is exercised and perpetuated in institutions, in this case, Hogwarts as a microcosm of magical society.

In James and Severus's case, this symbolic violence manifests in the public humiliations James inflicts on Severus, using his status to ensure there are no significant repercussions. James's position as a popular and privileged student grants him social immunity that Severus, due to his humble origin, cannot counter. This demonstrates how class structures influence the dynamics of school bullying, where resources and social capital determine which behaviours are acceptable and which are not.

The "Harry Potter" fandom often minimises James's actions, portraying him as a mere prankster without malice, while pathologising Severus's response, attributing it to resentment and bitterness. This narrative reinforces the whitewashing of the actions of the rich and popular to the detriment of the poor and marginalised. Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, in their "Dialectic of Enlightenment", explain how the culture industry and hegemonic discourses contribute to naturalising domination relationships, presenting them as inevitable or even fair. Their analysis reveals that modern media perpetuates class dynamics by presenting power structures as natural and immutable. This can be observed in how the dominant narrative in the 'Harry Potter' franchise tends to glorify high-class characters like James while marginalising figures like Severus, whose resistance to the system is viewed with suspicion or disapproval. Contemporary studies, such as Mark Fisher's "Capitalist Realism" (2009), also highlight how media reinforces the current economic and social status quo, making it difficult to imagine alternatives to the existing system.

By justifying James's bullying as mere youthful pranks, the fandom perpetuates a narrative that excuses the abuse of power and classism, ignoring the impact these actions have on individuals like Severus, who are already in a structurally disadvantaged position. This reinforces social hierarchies and strips victims of their agency and dignity.

Severus's portrayal as a bullying victim is intrinsically linked to his social class. His marginalisation is not just a product of his actions or personal choices but a consequence of social structures that privilege figures like James Potter. Antonio Gramsci's theories on cultural hegemony are useful here to understand how the dominant class's ideas are imposed as normative, silencing the oppressed voices and legitimising the violence they suffer. In the 'Harry Potter' narrative, this hegemony manifests through the glorification of the values and behaviours of pure-blood characters like James, while the perspectives of the marginalised, like Severus, are dismissed or vilified. For example, the Marauders, led by James and Sirius, both rich pure-bloods, are portrayed as mischievous heroes despite their aggressive behaviour towards Snape, who is depicted much more negatively even when acting in self-defence. This reflects how cultural hegemony shapes public perception, perpetuating a value system that favours the privileged and marginalises the oppressed. Authors like Stuart Hall have explored how media and popular culture reinforce these hegemonic structures, underscoring the need for critical analysis to dismantle these dominant narratives.

Severus, in this sense, represents those who are constantly repressed by power structures and whose narrative is distorted to fit a worldview that favours the privileged. His resistance and eventual adoption of extreme ideologies can be understood as a response to this marginalisation, a desperate attempt to reclaim agency systematically denied to him.

To fully understand the relationship between James Potter and Severus Snape, it is essential to acknowledge the influence of class structures on their interactions. The narrative that minimises James's bullying and blames Severus perpetuates a simplistic and biased view that ignores the complexities of social inequality and power. By applying a critical analysis based on Marxist theories, we can unravel how classism permeates these relationships. Studies on young adult literature, such as those by Maria Nikolajeva, and the analysis of victimisation frameworks in popular culture by Henry Jenkins provide a theoretical framework that reinforces the need to re-examine fandom's conceptions to avoid perpetuating these structural injustices. These investigations highlight how narratives of power and oppression are often shaped by dominant interests and how this affects the public's perception of marginalised characters like Severus.

Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville and even to some extent Severus were heroes. What did James do to contribute against a war? Fought a few death eaters? Alright many of other order members did that, even if they weren’t as strong as James.

But why do people call him a hero? For standing straight against Voldemort? That's it? For trying to protect his son? I suppose Narcissa is a hero too then.

James is the perfect example of a man who wants to appear noble and heroic, but is only reckless, arrogant and idiotic in reality. His character is so shallow. I have a hard time seeing him as the good guy, because we didn’t see his change and because the only things we know about him are decent at best.

Don't downplay the effort of spending years stalking a girl, chasing after her even though she told him to get lost, lying to her by saying he wasn’t a bully anymore just to be with her—when he actually still was—getting her pregnant before turning 20, and contributing his sperm to the creation of a fetus. It’s a super elaborate plan that took him about 10 years; it’s quite impressive that it worked out. Too bad he ended up dead for being an idiot.

heyo, its been a long time since i did an analysis!! this time on a more controversial subject: Rook Blonko. And how I think he was robbed.

When you actually look at the way Rook is written in omniverse, they dont give him very much to work with. like revvonaganders and their culture are cool, but rook feels so underdeveloped as a person outside of his culture. hes kind of a gwen in a way; hes got bare minimum flaws but he's treated like hes in the right when hes doing something actually flawed. hes never condemned for treating ben the way he does and he doesnt even have a consistent arc. he doesnt feel like a teenager, he doesnt feel like he has any sort of character progression, hes just kinda there, and his lack of depth in character-to-character situations is only amplified by the lack of holding him accountable for negative traits he possesses, instead punishing ben or ignoring the behavior. Instead of writing a scenario where Rook is in the right and ben is in the wrong, or showing rook behaving poorly and have him learn from his actions, i can hardly think of a time where rook was shown to be wrong for his treatment of ben.

For example in a scenario where Ben is keeping personal information from Ben, and rook wants to know it for the sake of their partnership, instead of portraying Ben in the wrong properly by showing his keeping of said information being harmful to the public or his friendship to rook, or have the information be personally important to rook making Ben's keeping of it harmful, instead rook has scoured Ben's file for all information and is asking about something that is of no matter to him entirely because he doesn't know it. He pesters Ben incessantly even when Ben has told him firmly no. Tjis is a recurring issue, where it seems like the story wants rook to be right but is ignoring context and the way he goes about it.

This would be an aggravating issue but ignorable if rook had anything resembling a consistent arc, but he doesn't. the conflict of rook idolizing ben and meeting him and realizing hes not what rook thought he was is interesting, but its always treated as if bens in the wrong for not living up to rooks expectations. rook overstepping his boundaries with ben due to being a huge fan and maybe cultural differences is interesting, but its never portrayed as a flaw on rooks end, more like bens fault for keeping the information. his struggle with his culture and staying connected with it, his conflict with his father about his career path, his relationships to his siblings, him slowly watching revvonah be plundered for its resources as the series goes on, i love that, thats genuinely interesting. but they never talk about it outside of those episodes. rook is in the wrong often and it brings up a lot of interesting questions about him as a person, but they dont talk about that in favor of treating him as bens babysitter, or setting up a joke where ben is the punchline.

It's disappointing to me that rook was never given the attention he deserved. Like i said, there's a lot of good stuff in his framework that's just begging to be explored, but his lack of an arc makes him feel so one note after a while and really dampens his relationship with ben. Since rook is not a character on the same level as ben, he feels less like an equal like they tried to illustrate and more of a plot device. They even threw away the most interesting conflict between ben and rook; rook being book smart and ben being street smart, experience over training. Ben and Rook hardly ever have issues based on this other than rook misunderstanding a joke. This is why rook and ben feel like such a flat relationship to me.

all of this to say: rook fans. Please, for the love of god, work your magic. He's got all the pieces there, and i am certain you can do something special in fanworks about him. Don't let the show being lackluster hold you down.

ben and his big chill kids big chillin' because nobody i ask remembers ben 10 had kids

“i’ll make sure you won’t become a hero.”

“you’ll become a hero?”

“you won’t become a hero?”

“i’ll make sure you’ll become a hero.”

currently thinking about mary 'female casanova of gryffindor tower' macdonald & sirius 'casanova of hogwarts' black and their LOSER partners. marlene is scared of dragonflies and gets attached to worms and remus is a complete pushover who's so scared of hurting people he stays alone and quiet. UGH. im SICK.

I did it

I know that we often criticize JK Rowling's writing (and with good reason), but there's one thing I believe she got right: how she portrays Harry finding out about his father's bullying.

Since the beginning of the books, we see Harry's parents as these perfect heroes, who gave their lives to save their son. So, obviously, this orphan child idolizes his parents - and so do we, as readers.

The only person who goes against that idea is Snape, who only ever says bad things about James Potter. However, Harry doesn't believe him, and neither do the readers.

And then, we see Snape's memories and find out that he was right all along. That James wasn't a perfect hero, but used to be a violent bully who tormented people for fun. Just like Harry, we get disenchanted, like we have been deceived this entire time.

Harry idolizes his father, but he's still capable of recognizing that his actions were cruel and inexcusable. Harry hates Snape, but still acknowledges that he didn't deserve that kind of treatment. It's a good message to show that people aren't just "good" or "bad".

And because of that, it's even more frustrating when fans try to defend James' actions, by saying: "Actually, no, Snape was a bad person, so he deserved to be bullied".

Even Harry HATES Snape and is able to see that what his father did is horrible. Harry adores Sirius and adores Remus, and yet he tells them to piss off when they try to justify the bullying. The purpose of that scene is for Harry to demystify his father, to learn that he wasn’t perfect, and to start doubting the adult figures of his childhood. It’s a way to break away from childish innocence and to make the protagonist understand that not everything is black or white, and that even good people can do horrible things, and it’s not right to idealize anyone.

The scene is designed to seem horrible. Harry finds it horrible. Harry. James’s son. Sirius’s godson. Harry finds what they did disgusting, and they’re doing it to someone Harry hates. This isn’t accidental; narrative and storytelling aren’t accidental things. The scene is set up this way, and the protagonist’s reaction is what it is because Rowling is telling the reader that it was horrible, that James and Sirius were bullies, and that Snape was their victim. Denying this goes against the narrative. But justifying it with absurdities like saying it was Snape’s fault for not wearing pants?? I get that they are kids saying these things, but one day they’ll wake up at 25 and realize the nonsense they said online, and they’re really going to feel terrible shame.

The worst part is that they’re not interested in understanding other points of view. Like, you share links or articles with different perspectives, and they don’t care. They don’t give a damn about the canon; they literally deny it. The mental gymnastics they do to justify the abuse? But then they say the scenes are open to interpretation, like, hello? They’re not? The scenes are designed to convey a message, and the message is clear. That they need to deny it over and over again to avoid admitting they’re whitewashing and justifying wealthy abusers is their cognitive dissonance running wild. Honestly, what a damn shame these people are; I don’t care if they’re kids, I had more than two neurons at 15.