COME ON LET’S GO AND CONQUER
WE NEVER DO THAT ANYMORE
JUST USE THE FORCE
THE SITH LORDS GET THEIR WAAAYYYY
If the multiverse theory is true, then there’s a universe where it isn’t.
Multiverse theory doesn’t cover paradoxical situations
Except in the universe where it does
Listen here you insolent little shit, did you read the comment before you? Do you realise that by posing a paradoxical question to a statement that explicitly puts forward the fact that something does not support paradoxes, you are effectively saying something the same as “Water puts out fire, but what if you lit a match underwater?” Don’t even come back to me talking about deep sea welding and things like that because you know exactly what I mean and I am not amused by your willfully dense attitude. If a theory concerning the nature of existence across multiple probability diffusion pathways does not account for paradoxes, you are no more likely to blow a hole in the entire thing than someone trying to question the theory of evolution by saying “ok but if we came from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist”
I am not willing to put up with this kind of shit today thank you very much.
So I could potentially be doing a really really cool thing related to agender representation this summer, wooo! I’ll post about deets once it’s been confirmed and I have them and stuff, but for now I’m just gonna be super super super excited about it.
Here’s my theory. The Harry Potter trio are actually representations of the other houses. Hermione is Ravenclaw. Ron is Hufflepuff. Harry is Slytheryn. They’re all in Gryffindor because they asked. In fact, everyone in that house could have been in another house if they hadn’t asked to be in Gryffindor. You have be ask to be in Gryffindor because their most defining feature is bravery and anyone can choose to be brave.
I fuck with your theory, marry me.
I was feeling so, so much better for most of today (like, still not right, but more like the severity of a bad cold, so that’s an improvement) and I just sort of ran out of energy about two and a half hours ago and started sleeping and I’ve woken myself up to do some work and the pain is back. Hopefully the grogginess is just that post-nap feeling, but eeeww noooo paaiiiinnn.
Okay, okay, I’m going to tell you what Hermione sees in Ron.
A trio is a balancing act, right? They’re equalizers of each other. Harry’s like the action, Hermione’s the brains, Ron’s the heart. Hermione has been assassinated in these movies, and I mean that genuinely—by giving her every single positive character trait that Ron has, they have assassinated her character in the movies. She’s been harmed by being made to be less human, because everything good Ron has, she’s been given.
So, for instance: “If you want to kill Harry, you’re going to have to kill me too”—RON, leg is broken, he’s in pain, gets up and stands in front of Harry and says this. Who gets that line in the movie? Hermione.
“Fear of a name increases the fear of the thing itself.” Hermione doesn’t say Voldemort’s name until well into the books—that’s Dumbledore’s line. When does Hermione say it in the movies? Beginning of Movie 2.
When the Devil’s Snare is curling itself around everybody, Hermione panics, and Ron is the one who keeps his head and says “Are you a witch or not?” In the movie, everybody else panics and Hermione keeps her head and does the biggest, brightest flare of sunlight spell there ever was.
So, Hermione—all her flaws were shaved away in the films. And that sounds like you’re making a kick-ass, amazing character, and what you’re doing is dehumanizing her. And it pisses me off. It really does.
In the books, they balance each other out, because where Hermione gets frazzled and maybe her rationality overtakes some of her instinct, Ron has that to back it up; Ron has a kind of emotional grounding that can keep Hermione’s hyper-rationalness in check. Sometimes Hermione’s super-logical nature grates Harry and bothers him, and isn’t the thing he needs even if it’s the right thing, like when she says “You have a saving people thing.” That is the thing that Harry needed to hear, she’s a hundred percent right, but the way she does it is wrong. That’s the classic “she’s super logical, she’s super brilliant, but she doesn’t know how to handle people emotionally,” at least Harry.
So in the books they are this balanced group, and in the movies, in the movies—hell, not even Harry is good enough for Hermione in the movies. No one’s good enough for Hermione in the movies—God isn’t good enough for Hermione in the movies! Hermione is everybody’s everything in the movies.
Harry’s idea to jump on the dragon in the books, who gets it in the movies? Hermione, who hates to fly. Hermione, who overcomes her withering fear of flying to take over Harry’s big idea to get out of the—like, why does Hermione get all these moments?
[John: Because we need to market the movie to girls.]
I think girls like the books, period. And like the Hermione in the books, and like the Hermione in the books just fine before Hollywood made her idealized and perfect. And if they would have trusted that, they would have been just fine.
Would the movies have been bad if she was as awesome as she was in the books, and as human as she was in the books? Would the movies get worse?
She IS a strong girl character. This is the thing that pisses me off. They are equating “strong” with superhuman. To me, the Hermione in the book is twelve times stronger than the completely unreachable ideal of Hermione in the movies. Give me the Hermione in the book who’s human and has flaws any single day of the week.
Here’s a classic example: When Snape in the first book yells at Hermione for being an insufferable know-it-all, do you want to know what Ron says in the book? “Well, you’re asking the questions, and she has to answer. Why ask if you don’t want to be told?” What does he say in the movie? “He’s got a point, you know.” Ron? Would never do that. Would NEVER do that, even before he liked Hermione. Ron would never do that.❞