I saw them at a bookstore and they look amazing but really expensive.

Forget Snape, at least he doesn't abandon his class to take someone to the hospital wing. He smartly has another student do so.

She just abandons her class and doesn't have a way to just not lock down the brooms while she is away.

Also, at the start, there is no charm to limit the height of the brooms or for her to stop a student who is flying too high!!

She should be fired.

On the one hand Peter was a cowardly slob and I can see him staying a rat 24/7.

However from a more realistic perspective it’s hard to imagine he didn’t transform into a human at night on occasion or the rare occasions home alone.

You’d think you would do that every now and again to eat normally, take a stroll or a wash. Obviously these things aren’t worth the risk unless you are 99% sure you won’t be disturbed. If it was me I’d do it only a couple of times a year and only if there was nobody at home. An obvious one would be trips to diagon alley if scabbers ever got left behind. Night time might be too risky as the Weasleys had people like Fred and George who might be sneaking around.

The more I read the books, the more I think they weren't all that great. They actually, kinda suck. Please don't crucify me, or worse, downvote me. It's just an opinion.

Think about it though. They killed people. And their cause wasn't all that great. It took me 291738 rereads, but I'm really starting to think they're the bad guys.

What do you think?? 🤔🤔🤔

Just have a feeling. I know this gonna be unpopular. Please be open minded

I’m just kidding I love you guys and this sub, but I thought it made a funny edgy title cuz there’s a lot of Snape content. Love you! Keep reading! 🤓

They pitied Merope, and her abuse is often brought up, but it's important to acknowledge that she was not the victim here. Sure, Merope had a tragic life and was mistreated by her family, but that doesn't change the fact that what she did to Tom was essentially rape.

I'm glad that much of the fanbase recognizes this fact, but rereading Dumbledore's narration of it, I felt a bit troubled as he seemed to not acknowledge the severity of Merope's crime at all. In fact, he seemed to judge Tom Riddle Sr.'s actions harshly, implying cowardice or irresponsibility in fleeing Merope Gaunt.

If the roles were reversed, there would be no question! Imagine being trapped by an ugly, inbred man, only to find out he had held you hostage with a roofie/love potion for months and you were pregnant. How could it be considered wrong to terminate the pregnancy in this situation or run away? In this case, Tom Riddle Sr. had every right to flee and not trouble himself to find out what happened to his son, who eventually became Voldemort.

I can't help but feel like this aspect of the story is often overlooked in the series. Dumbledore's and Harry's focus is mainly on Merope's suffering, but little is said about the violation of Tom's autonomy and the consequences of that forced relationship.

When I first read the Harry Potter series as a kid, I remember feeling a bit miffed at Tom Riddle Sr. for what seemed like "abandoning" his son, especially given the way Dumbledore framed it. At the time, it felt like yet another example of a deadbeat dad running away from responsibility. But rereading the series as an adult—especially as a young woman—I was struck by how much darker and more horrifying the implications of Voldemort’s origin story really are.

* Since some people were asking for quotes referencing what I'm talking about , here are just a couple that stood out in my mind.

On Merope: “Your mother had a choice too,” said Dumbledore gently. “Yes, Merope Riddle chose death in spite of a son who needed her, but do not judge her too harshly, Harry. She was greatly weakened by long suffering, and she never had your mother's courage….”

On Tom Riddle Sr: "Within a few months of their runaway marriage, Tom Riddle reappeared at the manor house in Little Hangleton without his wife. The rumour flew around the neighbour­hood that he was talking of being 'hoodwinked' and 'taken in'... He left her, never saw her again, and never troubled to discover what became of his son."

I can't help but feel Dumbledore is a bit biased here and judged Riddle Sr too harshly for running away, while also downplaying Merope's part, rather seeing her as a weak victim who was simply lovestruck by a Muggle.

Have you guys seen this before? First time for me. 🤣

https://github.com/typoes/harry-potter-gen-z/blob/main/book_1/chapter_1.md

Personally, I don't dislike Snape character. He's actually one of my favorite HP characters because of how complicated and imperfect he really is. He's very unique and I like the double agent type of characters too.

But there are many out there, that really dislike Snape (which is okay because people have a right to their opinion), to the point that it would not be considered to be an unpopular opinion.

I actually sometimes feel like I'm in the minority for liking the Snape character because of how many people dislike him, which disliking him actually was the point of his character in the beginning.

You weren't supposed to really side with him, until the end of Deathly Hallows when you discover the truth about him.

Even many Snape fans used to dislike him at first until we find out he was working for Dumbledore.

So I say, disliking Snape is not an unpopular opinion.

Why does she set her free with just a promise to not write for a year? She could prove that Skeeter was breaking laws to sell false stories and take her down publicly. Revealing her secret could help make sure she couldn't "bug" people again.

I'm rereading the series again for the 3rd time this year and I'm really struggling to finish Order of the Phoenix. I just keep getting so angry and yelling at Harry. He's so miserable (rightfully so) and just wants to talk to Sirius. But he has the means all along. I know that Harry doesn't want to do anything to lure him out of the house by talking to him, but using the fireplace in Umbridge's office is WAY WORSE.

Why didn't Sirius tell Harry what it was initially (away from Molly literally anytime over Christmas). And maybe he didn't find it until that morning, but then WHY DIDNT HE TELL HARRY ABOUT IT WHEN HE SEES HIM IN THE FIRE?! Like maybe instead of talking about James in the most DANGEROUS way possible - putting ALL of the OTP at risk, Sirius could have said "Hey, know that gift I gave you for Christmas? It's a two way mirror, let's continue this chat in your dormitory and not through a risky floo network connection that could ruin our entire operation"

I know that if Harry knew about the mirror that the whole ending of the book couldn't have happened, but maybe Kreacher could have stolen the mirror? And then Harry tries the network again? I just find it so frustrating and heartbreaking. I keep thinking of Sirius alone carrying the mirror everywhere just /waiting/ for Harry. Which seems like all the more reason for him to have brought it up immediately when Harry appeared in the fire.

This is mostly a rant, but any insight to make finishing this book easier this time would be swell.

I'm serious.
I was like 14/15 when I read the books for the first time, and when we finally got Voldemort back in Hp4, I was expecting to get some more insight into his character. Like, why can't he just enjoy his life, instead of forming the wizzarding nazis?

Why couldn't he travel across the world, and build his reputation as the world's best monster hunter, or even auror? Plenty of action, and murder.....but it would be the bad guys. Kinda like Dexter, you know?

Why couldn't he just find himself a nice and willing wife, and settle down?
Didn't he ever consider being with anybody?
Does he not have a sex-drive?

Re-reading the books, after almost ten years.....I couldn't help but notice that a vast number of fans, for some reason, seem to view Snape as some sort of tragic character, with complex morals and inner conflict.

And that surprises me.
Because, from the very first moment we meet Severus, the impression he makes, is that of a bully. A man without sympathy for anybody else, safe for his own feelings.
I mean, even calling him a bully is being too kind........he is literally tormenting some of his pupils. Not just Harry, but others as well, like Neville, Hermione, and basically every other kid but Draco Malfoy.
We are talking about an adult man, who ENJOYS putting down little kids, who does nothing to help when he sees them being hurt.

He has no friends, and nothing positive to contribute. He also never makes an effort to better himself, to be a nicer, or more useful human being.

-----------

And we are supposed to feel sorry for him, because Lily Potter died?
He did not even love her, he was obsessed by her -- and only liked her, as long as she behaved and acted in a way that was to his liking. That's not love.
Had she not died, he never even would have stopped following Voldemort.

I mean....take away his love/obsession for Lily Potter, and what remains?
A cruel man, who enjoys making others suffer, who enjoys bullying helpless kids, who is, by all means, mean-spirited, arrogant and despises basically everybody he comes in contact with.
Where is the complexity in that?

He is a cruel man, a bully, who lacks morals, and never even seems to be sorry for being a member part of the DeathEaters to begin with.

Mainly older boys. A couple of girls are fine, but I'm needing help with older guys. Thanks!

Was Voldemort asexual? It is known that he cannot feel love because of the love potion that his mother gave his father.. Father, feeling love, and making love are two different things An immortal Dark Lord who can't stand his wand, not so scary

You mean to tell me the most powerful wizard of the world was not able to put two and two together, to solve the basilisk puzzle?

Myrtle was literally killed inside a bloody toillet, so just ask her. Along with everything else he knew at this point, solving everything should have been the easiest thing in the world.

- Mrs. Norris, the cat, was attacked just outside the bloody loo as well.
- given how this is close to where Myrtle died 50 years ago, you would think the smart adults would think of maybe, oh, I don't know...search the bloody toilets!

- just a close inspection of the place, and they would have discovered the snake on the basin.

It just irks me, how silly the adults kept acting in this book.

It's stated that slaughtering something as pure as a unicorn to drink it's blood would curse you.

But what if you don't kill it and drink its blood?

For example, Professor Grubbly-Plank and Hagrid both caught unicorns alive without harming them.

And people could cut their horns and use them as well as unicorn hair without harm, so we know you can use unicorn parts as long as you don't seriously harm them.

Well, a syringe doesn't do much harm, does it? Press the injection-spot fo a minute and you're fine! It's doubtful a creature as big as a unicorn would even feel the jab.

So if you used a syringe and only took as many blood as you could without harming the unicorn, so it wouldn't be killed and just gallop away a minute later, would you be able to use the blood without being cursed?

I also think, since wizards look down upon muggles so much, and also don't get common muggle illnesses, it's safe to assume they wouldn't have thought of that.

This is just meant as a start of a friendly discussion, so no harrasment please.

Lupin when he is trying to convince Harry that he should come with them and says I am sure this is what James would have wanted. People often bring up when Sirius lashed out at Harry and brought up James but I think it shows both in a time where they are clearly not mentally ok and don't have the support they need, can bring up James in a way that is not helpful.

They don't mean any harm and they both have only good intentions towards Harry but I think sometimes it is forgotten how complex Lupin is due to everything he has been through. Both are good people but very damaged

So let’s be honest. I have way too much muggle in my brain, and I’m married to someone who has to get food safety certification annually.

I’m having trouble with the unrefrigerated sausages in the hut in PS, and the meat pies stored under the bed in GOF.

Do wizards just not have to worry about food borne illness?

In the first book, Firenze the centaur lets Harry know how horrible a cost one pays for slaughtering something so pure as a Unicorn. A cursed life, a half life, etc. Do... we ever see the consequences of that?

Prisoner of Azkaban and Half Blood Prince are the only books in the series that are named after people: Sirius and Snape.

Both the people were respectively James and Lily's best friends at Hogwarts, and had to live their life in constant darkness all through their life after the couple's death.

As a collector I'll be picking them up, hopefully they will come in a box set. https://www.therowlinglibrary.com/2024/11/15/scholastic-to-publish-stenciled-edge-editions-of-all-harry-potter-books/

She picked up the book and then walked back past him into the tent, but as she did so, she brushed the top of his head lightly with her hand. He closed his eyes at her touch, and hated himself for wishing that what she said was true: That Dumbledore had really cared.

Yes, they weren't the canon couple, that was always Romione. But I never felt they were like siblings. Put the names of two siblings in their scenes and it's not gonna feel entirely right. Also, they shared too many emotionally close moments in the books to even count.

This is what JKR had said about Harry & Hermione:

"When I wrote Hallows, I felt this quite strongly when I had Hermione and Harry together in the tent! I hadn't told [Steve] Kloves that and when he wrote the script he felt exactly the same thing at exactly the same point.”

Whenever I read Sorcerer’s Stone, I’m always struck by the oddness of the scene where Harry is playing quidditch and we’re reading about Ron, Hermione and Neville in the stands watching the match/stopping the jinx.

I’ve tried and tried to find any other passage in any of the books that isn’t from Harry’s perspective within the same chapter. This seems to be the only time the narration switches to this particular type of perspective. Does anybody else find this as intriguing as I do? I know that technically there are chapters, especially in Deathly Hallows, where we read about other characters, but I don’t think any of them change between Harrys perspective and another characters in quite the same way.

I was listening to Prisoner of Azkaban just now, and got to this part:

‘Now, pay attention,’ said Dumbledore, speaking very low, and very clearly. ‘Sirius is locked in Professor Flitwick’s office on the seventh floor. Thirteenth window from the right of the West Tower. If all goes well, you will be able to save more than one innocent life tonight. But remember this, both of you. You must not be seen. Miss Granger, you know the law – you know what is at stake … you – must – not – be – seen.’

I understand that Dumbledore isn't fully explaining because they're under a time crunch and it's only really important that Hermione understands what to do so she can explain to Harry. Dumbledore is quite specific about essential details such as which window and how to find that window *from outside*. But why doesn't he just say "You can save Buckbeak too." instead of "you will be able to save more than one innocent life tonight"?

I know the real answer is more along the lines of "Rowling wanted to keep the plot semi-mysterious" but just for a bit of fun speculation, what in-universe reasons might Dumbledore have had for not just saying what he meant?

First of all - I love this book, I really do. And even though there are some massive plot holes in JK's books, it doesn't take away even a single moment from my enjoyment.
It's actually fun finding the numerous plot-holes, for some reason.

Anyways.....during my recent re-read of CoS, I kept wondering one thing...--.how the hell was Lucious even able to predict what was going to happen, once the diary fell into a pupils hands?
Think about it.
What id Ginny (or any other student he would have picked) would have simply thrown it away?
Are you telling me that Malfoy is honestly willing to simply lose this important artefakt?

- how did he know Riddle would re-open the chamber?

- how did Dobby know what Lucious had planned?

- who would Lucious talk to this about?

- why did Lucious 'plan' this in the first place??? He was safe, happy and rich. Why stir up shit for no reason?

- What exactly was it that took months to plan anyways? Because it sure as heck seemed like he alipped the diary to Ginny simply because she was the first kid available.

Because, for all we know, Tom could have just started killing off pupils left and right....Draco included.
You honestly mean to tell me that Lucious (and Narcissa, for that matter) would just risk his own son's safety over nothing? After all, the basilisk could have killed Draco by accident.
Again.....why????? Why is a grown man interested in Harry Potter, all of a sudden. I mean, I get the being curious part....but trying to actively kill him? Lucious would have literally nothing to gain wither way. The while concept is weird.

Harry went very hard on him which Hermione wouldn't have done but she still would have dissuaded him and told him he should go back but she would be gentler about it.

I’ve seen a lot of people defending Snape, especially after the whole "plot twist" in the later books, but honestly, I just can’t get behind it. The dude was a grown adult who couldn't get over his childish grudge against Harry just because he was James' son. Sure, his backstory is tragic, but that doesn’t excuse the way he treated Harry and others.

He bullied an eleven-year-old for no good reason—Harry wasn’t even doing anything to deserve that, and it wasn’t like Harry was some arrogant, spoiled kid. He was humble and didn’t know anything about his dad’s history with Snape. Snape had no excuse for projecting his trauma onto Harry, especially since Harry had nothing to do with it. It’s immature and shows a complete lack of emotional growth.

And the favoritism towards Draco? Seriously, what was that about? Snape let Draco slide and treated him like royalty when Draco was literally a Death Eater in training. Yet, he constantly gave Harry the cold shoulder for no reason other than a personal vendetta. It makes zero sense.

I see that he did great things later in his life, but I don't think it is fair to just say "poor little snape" when the fact is he still bullied an eleven year old over a personal grudge.

I would say the character had good development but i feel like people act like all he did is redeemed. Great actor tho and don't get me wrong I still like the character I just don't see him as someone who I was wrong about.

Did Dumbledore believe Harry would eventually win Voldemort because of the prophecy, Harry’s capacity for love, and the plan to destroy the Horcruxes, even though he couldn’t be certain of the outcome?

Under this theory, Piers was named for his father. Piers is an old Norman form of the name Peter. They also bear resemblance:

Piers was a scrawny boy with a face like a rat.

…

[Peter’s] skin looked grubby, almost like Scabbers’s fur, and something of the rat lingered around his pointed nose and his very small, watery eyes.

As schoolboys, father and son were both followers in a gang of boys:

[Piers] was usually the one who held people’s arms behind their backs while Dudley hit them.

…

“I, [Sirius Black,] a spy for Voldemort? When did I ever sneak around people who were stronger and more powerful than myself? But you, Peter — I’ll never understand why I didn’t see you were the spy from the start. You always liked big friends who’d look after you, didn’t you?[…]”

This is meaningless, but they both become less articulate after a shock:

Piers and Dudley could only gibber.

…

Pettigrew opened his mouth and closed it several times. He seemed to have lost the ability to talk.

More damningly, young Piers is a snitch, and not the golden kind:

But worst of all, for Harry at least, was Piers calming down enough to say, “Harry was talking to it, weren’t you, Harry?”

Though Piers’ mother is mentioned bringing her boy to the Dursley house, no father ever appears. Or does he? Methinks the timeline fits just right for a certain beleaguered marauder to have found comfort in the arms of a pitying young woman. Do I think this really happened? No, probably not, but there is space in Peter’s backstory for hidden depths. He did play spy for over a year before going into hiding.

In reality, Rowling probably just likes the name Peter, the name of her father, to whom she dedicated the fourth book.