Osian

Hello sweetheart 💕

Well… I actually like Snape? Is that an unpopular opinion around here? 🤔

Ah, Sirius Black, the walking contradiction. Yes, I have a few thoughts about him, even though I make fun of him a lot, deep down I appreciate him. This is going to be long, but that way I can compile it all in one post.

Walburga is a Scorpio like him, which is why they clashed so much. Scorpio is one of the most intense signs of the zodiac, and both Scorpio men and women are ruthless, but Scorpio women are the alphas of the zodiac and always dominate Scorpio men.

I like this idea because I think that deep down, the reason he and his mother got along so poorly is precisely because they had terribly similar personalities, the kind that don’t let anyone control them. Sirius wasn’t going to be tamed, and Walburga wasn’t going to let her authority be questioned, so they constantly clashed.

Sirius didn’t start having problems with his mother because of any blood purity ideals or that nonsense. Sirius is much deeper than that. He started having issues with Walburga because she was very dominant and imposing, and he had a naturally rebellious character that wouldn’t accept orders from anyone. As a child, he would do the opposite of whatever his mother told him, just to annoy her.

His idea of going to Gryffindor didn’t come about until he met James on the train. I mean, he knew he wanted to annoy Walburga, and thought that becoming best friends with a “blood traitor” would be a good way to do it. Plus, James was like him: rich and from a good family, so they would get along. If he ended up in Gryffindor, even better, because that would make his mother lose a lot of hair.

His rejection of his family’s ideals wasn’t ideological at first, but stemmed from the need to rebel against his mother. Over time, he rationalized those ideas and turned against them, but he never delved deeper into this aspect. That’s why, even though he said blood purity was wrong and that the Blacks were rubbish, he still had attitudes very similar to those of his relatives, just on “the other side.”

As children, he and Regulus had a fairly close relationship typical of older and younger brothers, where the older one always annoys the younger one, and the younger one tells them to piss off. But Regulus never forgave him for taking his rebellion to such an extreme and always thought he’d gone too far with the whole hanging out with Potter and going to Gryffindor thing.

He didn’t have major issues with his brother until he realized Regulus was getting close to Death Eater circles and was considering joining their ranks. They had a terrible argument about this, where Regulus accused him of spending years ignoring everything and everyone because he was too busy acting like an idiot with “his dear Potter,” and now he wasn’t in a position to lecture him on morality, basically telling him to fuck off. Sirius would never admit that this hurt him deeply; he just told Regulus to fuck off too, and they never spoke again.

Orion Black didn’t have much of a role in that house. He just watched what happened without saying anything because he was afraid of his wife, and Sirius always resented his father’s attitude, considering him a useless puppet.

His biggest goal in life was to annoy his mother, which is why he covered his room with everything that could drive Walburga crazy, while Walburga would give him all sorts of orders and punishments to make him do things he hated, just to annoy him. It was basically a competition between them to see who had more power.

People often speculate that he was abused and other nonsense, which is why he left home, but I think he made the decision for something much simpler: maybe they tried to betroth him to some pure-blood woman, maybe it was at a family gathering when they announced that Regulus was going to start joining Bellatrix’s circle to join “the cause,” or maybe it was a way to punish his mother after a big argument. Either way, I don’t think he intended to leave forever, but once he went to the Potters’ house and discovered what a functional family was like—rich, where he wouldn’t lose any comfort or privilege—he stayed.

Walburga spent years sending him threatening letters to come back, and he spent years secretly responding, telling her to fuck off. Eventually, when he finished Hogwarts, the letters stopped arriving.

He always said his brother died because he was an idiot and got involved where he shouldn’t, and repeated that he was stupid and had it coming. But when he found out about his death, he basically had one of the biggest drinking binges of his life, and obviously told everyone at the pub, while drunk, that his brother was an idiot and deserved to be dead, while crying uncontrollably, because that’s how Sirius Black confronts his cognitive dissonance.

He never told James that he’d done that.

Speaking of James, Sirius had a terrible dependence on him, very similar to Severus’ dependence on Lily. James was Sirius’ moral compass, and he looked up to him as an example of how he should be because, to Sirius, James was everything a pure-blood wizard should be.

He also had a crush on James that he wasn’t even aware of because he told himself it was just a brotherly attachment. In reality, he was totally obsessed with James, to the point that he got angry when James finally started dating Lily, claiming that “he’d become less fun,” which was basically a way of saying he was really resentful because they no longer spent all their time together, but Sirius was too in denial to admit it was jealousy.

He probably couldn’t stand Lily at first, but since Sirius is a loyal dog, he ended up being the third wheel in their relationship and came to care about her a lot because he wanted everything James appreciated by association.

Contrary to popular belief, Sirius didn’t give a shit about Remus or Peter. He only hung out with them because James did, but if he could use them or manipulate them for any of his Machiavellian plans, he wouldn’t hesitate. He didn’t truly start appreciating Remus until he got out of Azkaban, and even then, he did it in a very utilitarian way, basically because he felt lonely and James was dead.

Sirius had a very classist background. He knew the theory of equality, but didn’t apply it. He never questioned his privileges and never deconstructed the elitist and sadistic mentality his family had taught him since childhood, which is why he treated Severus like garbage or was pretty inconsistent between what he said and what he actually did.

Sirius did project onto James in Harry, just like Severus did, but while Severus projected hate, Sirius projected affection. However, he was also a dysfunctional adult who couldn’t see the kid as an independent person in himself, and anyone who denies this doesn’t understand how trauma works, sorry folks.

Sirius was bisexual, though he probably didn’t even realize it, because he never wanted to admit he had a massive crush on James.

The one who got on his nerves the most was his cousin Bellatrix, who ironically, was the one who resembled him the most in terms of personality.

He said he hated Snape because he was disgusting, liked the Dark Arts, and sucked up to people like his family, which seemed inconceivable to him. But the truth is, he subconsciously hated him because an aristocrat like Sirius Black, who reveled in abandoning that world for the “good,” couldn’t stand to see a working-class guy daring to climb socially to the sphere he had rejected. His internalized classism made such a thing inconceivable, so he projected all his frustrations onto Snape.

James was the one who started the bullying, but Sirius was the most sadistic and violent of the two. Sometimes James had to remind Sirius that there were certain limits he couldn’t cross because no one had taught Sirius limits; in his family, sadism was encouraged.

One of the reasons he was so disturbed by being locked in his childhood house with his mother’s paintings yelling at him all the time was because he had to face the reality that she saw him (even though it wasn’t really her) as a failure. He had to come to terms with the fact that, at 36, he was only a shadow of what he once was, and his mother, the one he’d always confronted and bragged about being better and doing better without, now saw him as a wreck. That was too much for him.

Sirius Black was a smoker and died a smoker.

He had problems with alcohol in his later days.

He kept telling himself to blindly trust Dumbledore and convinced himself it was the right path, but deep down, he’d been questioning a lot of things about the old man for a while, though he never said anything out loud.

Had he been a father, he’d say he’d prefer to have a boy, but deep down, he would have been the typical “girls’ dad” at heart.

Had he ever settled down, he never would have done it with a Muggle or a Muggle-born, he would have done it with a pure-blood witch from a rich family with a personality strangely similar to his mother’s. But he would have never admitted that, not in a million years.

I also think that most wizards don't think about theory as such, that's why we have what we have. they are more interested in politics, careers, teatalks or money than magical theory or slavery or feminism or other cool things. they're used to their lives, they're used to magic, and I can also assume that muggleborns adopt this behavior, or, more appropriately, don't think about the nature of magic either - it's there, and that's enough. people are extremely lazy by nature to seek knowledge.

and let's be honest - not all wizards as talented as Snape - most are still ordinary and do not have outstanding skills to think about something else. most people are like that, wizards are not much different in this.

however, the theory that the Ministry is an authoritarian structure and silences everything is possible fact and does not contradict the above. yk corruption and biggotry. and I am sure that it is easier for purebreds to apply for licensing (if it exists at all) of their work, of any nature

Like, they study very select parts of magical theory, I'd say. Like, they learn about Gamp's laws of transfiguration, they learn the Unforgivables require you to "mean them" but they aren't told what it means. They aren't told why any of what they learn is true, so I won't really call it as "studying magical theory". At least not properly.

Becouse even the bits of magical theory they do study is... well, it's flimsy and inaccurate at best and outright false at worst.

The official definitions of what is Dark Magic make zero sense:

Dark Arts referred to any magic that was mainly used to control, harm or kill its target.

I mean, Amoretentia and Obliviation are both mainly used to control someone, and they aren't considered dark. Why? You can kill a troll with Wingardium Leviosa (as proven in first year) and yet the killing curse is what's illegal and not the act of killing regardless of what spell you use. Diffindo is literally called "the Severing Charm" it's used only to harm the target (the target just doesn't have to be a person) and it's not dark magic. Many hexes and jinxes are considered dark, yet they are legal because they supposedly aren't as "corruptive" as other dark magic? Even though except Voldemort we don't see any dark wizard corrupted by dark magic and even Voldemort's supposed dark magic corruption is questionable.

What I'm saying is their terminology sucks. Even the difference between charms, jinxes, hexes, curses, and transfiguration isn't always clear-cut (quite often it isn't, actually) and there are many misclassified spells.

Like, the Tongue-Tying Curse is referred to as a curse even if it's clearly not as severe as most curses are and should probably be classified as a jinx or a hex. The Hardening Charm (Duro) is called a charm and it is referenced in a charms book although it's more akin to a transfiguration spell than a charm (hence why the mobile game Hogwarts Mystery placed it in transfiguration, an understandable mistake). The Anti-Alohamora spell is classified as a charm but for some reason, the Anti-Disapparation spell is classified as a jinx. None of this makes sense.

Basically, a lot of magical definitions are very arbitrary and have everything to do with ministry regulation and nothing to do with actual magical theory and how these spells work. The book by Slinkhard Umbridge assigns is an extreme example of this:

“He says that counterjinxes are improperly named,” said Hermione promptly. “He says ‘counterjinx’ is just a name people give their jinxes when they want to make them sound more acceptable.”

(OotP)

The book literally groups a bunch of spells that aren't dark magic as jinxes, and therefore, they are considered dark magic according to Slinkhard. Which fits what the ministry is trying to do. They are trying to make the population defenseless, to make sure Dumbledore doesn't have a student army (which is what Fudge fears). So they discourage casting counterjinxes (and other defensive magic) by redefining them as "dark". Like, Umbridge's whole shtick is to make sure they don't learn Defence Against the Dark Arts.

The above is an extreme example but all their school books have biases and inaccuracies. I mean, we also know Advanced Potion-Making that Slughorn assigned had many inaccurate recipes and that Snape altered almost all of that book to make it correct (even on the theory aspects). And it was used for teaching at Hogwarts for years! And no one had an issue with that!

Like, I just know the Magical Theory book they had in first year doesn't really explain why spells need to be said a certain way or why a wand needs to be waved one way or another. Like, the magical theory they know is very limited and shallow. They know the rules of how spells and potions work on the surface, but they don't know why it works this way. They have no clue how magic actually works. (If Hogwarts was teaching it, they'd be learning Latin which most of their spells are based on in the UK).

That's why I blame the ministry and Hogwarts curriculum for hiding information. It's not just that they aren't teaching magical theory, they are teaching factually incorrect magical theory and misclassifying spells constantly.

And sure, the wizarding population in general is academically lazy, but a government and education system affect how "lazy" a population is and a good education system can improve the general understanding of people and their critical thinking. People aren't as naturally lazy as you think, the systems in the wizarding world encourage them to memorize instead of think and to be lazy. There are cultures that are more academically inclined than others due to cultural and systematic factors. How lazy their society is is an issue with their system.

Not to mention the fact the only government-approved path to academically study magic is to become unspeakable. The whole point of Unspeakables is that they are unspeakable — don't talk about what they study — and yet they are the only ones studying the nature of magic and magical theory. It is clearly hidden from the public if the people studying it are sworn to secrecy. I mean, they wouldn't be sworn to secrecy if there wasn't something shady and corrupt going on, after all, it's not a matter of security like in the DMLE, it's a matter of science. You'll only silence the scientists when you don't want the people to know how the world works for some reason or another.

What I'm saying, is that everything in how their world operates suggests an authoritarian, controlling government that maliciously manipulates their culture's understanding of magic. And, well, there's a reason Fudge sent Umbridge in at year 5 — the year in which he fears he'd lose his control over the population. Because a misinformed & defenseless society is easier to control.

As an aside, since you asked about it, there is a registration process for spells you make up to be approved for use:

“Why does it matter if it’s handwritten?” said Harry, preferring not to answer the rest of the question. “Because it’s probably not Ministry of Magic- approved,” said Hermione.

Like, Rita Skeeter as a character — I love her. I think she's lots of fun, and I always found her incredibly entertaining. She's actually one of the smarter characters in the series and isn't given nearly enough credit for how many things she gets shockingly right (when she cares to write the truth and isn't just after a good story, but even then she's hilarious).

Like, I'd buy her books 100% just for the entertainment value. Like, I wish in the set of the Hogwarts library books like Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts we also had the Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore, as in, the whole book.

That being said, like all the press in the Wizarding World, she's crocked as shit.

I mean, The Prophet publishes whatever the minister & Wizengamot tell it to publish. There isn't really freedom of the press since all the large newspapers (yes, even Witch Weekly to a degree) are authorized by the government and push whatever agenda the government wants to push.

Year 5 (and later year 7) are the most glaring examples of that. With Fudge and the ministry going all: "there's no war in Ba-Sung-Se" on Voldemort’s return during Harry's fifth year. Tbh, the moment the official government-founded newspaper started publishing with the intent and purpose of discrediting a 15-year-old more eyebrows should've been raised by literally everyone. Like, no self-respecting would do what they did unless they're lying/hiding something big. (Like, no self-respecting politician with actual power who's secure in their position would do the shit Fudge pulled in year 5. That's like, classic desperation, and grasping to his little remaining power with the skin of his teeth moves. Like, these are moves you do when you know your time's up)

How easy it was for the Death Eaters to take over the press and the ministry is another example of how authoritative the Ministry of Magic, and by extension its press is. They regulate everything from what spells you're allowed to cast, the education, the exams, and travel (portkeys and floo networks can only be set up through a ministry office + apparition license), they regulate the importation and deportation of goods, and almost all of the population works in the ministry or with the ministry in some capacity. They then, of course, control the press completely and the Prophet only publishes what the ministry allows it to publish.

Yes, Rita criticized the ministry after the attack at the Quidditch World Cup (rightfully so, might I add) but that was allowed criticism. You don't see how much control the ministry has over the press when it's business as usual because Fudge knows a story like this would only require a performative slap on some random ministry official's (that isn't him) wrist. It's criticism that affects nothing and doesn't require anything from him, nor does it undermine him personally, so it is allowed. But the moment the ministry needs the Prophet in line, it falls in line. I mean, we see in OotP when Rita doesn't fall in line with the new orders she gets fired:

none other than Rita Skeeter, ex-journalist on the Daily Prophet and one of Hermione’s least favorite people in the world.

(OotP)

I saw this post by @iamnmbr3 and @kittenjammer talking about wizarding fashion and I wanted to talk about this for a while, so I'm going to give my own two cents on it based on fashion history. I love history in general, but fashion history and historical architecture are two I’m incredibly passionate about. So, here we go (post with a lot of pictures ahead):

Fred & George Weasley: A Short Character Analysis

Right, so first off I’m a big fan of the twins: both twins, not just Fred. I’ve always appreciated both as separate characters and I’ve never really understood how so many people never picked up on their differences. So I decided to do what I do best - RANT (wayhey!). Keep in mind this is just my own opinion based on what I’ve read in books 1-7. In the first place it’s important to know and understand the twins’ differences, especially if you’re writing a story that puts particular focus on them. Yes, both twins are bonkers, fun-loving, flirtatious, stubborn and lest we forget both in the possession of a razor sharp wit. The books may describe them as identical right down to the last freckle, but this doesn’t mean that they are one hundred percent identical in personality - no twins are. In fact, if Fred and George were the same they wouldn’t make such a good team. Fred and George are a perfect double act and in any double act you have to have an alpha and omega. Can you imagine the battle of egos there would be if George was an exact duplicate of Fred (dear gods, the humanity…)? But that certainly doesn’t mean one is a “lesser person” than the other. On the contrary. Fred may be the ringleader, as JKR states, but I believe he relies heavily on George to have his back. These are two people who continually bounce off each other - it’s the subtle differences in their personalities that allow them to work as such a good team. And that’s what makes them fascinating characters for me. Here’s a very brief breakdown of the twins’ personalities: Fred: Confident, fun-loving, stubborn, the ring-leader, more daring, driven by instinct, has less of a regard for the rules than George, less sensitive, arrogant, reckless, but knows when to get serious if a situation calls for it. Some moments of significance: the Potterwatch ‘better safe than sorry’ speech (DH), supporting Harry the “seriously evil wizard” (CoS), his argument with Sirius (OotP), forgiving Percy (DH) George: Confident, fun-loving, protective, stubborn, more grasping/sensitive of people’s feelings and needs, more cautious, thinks more logically in comparison to Fred, always has Fred’s back covered. Some moments of significance: arguing with Fred over blackmailing Bagman (GoF), “I’m holey, Fred, geddit?” (DH), punching Malfoy (OotP)

George Weasley mini Analysis I’ve read a lot of stories where George is overly sensitive, even weepy, and I find this to be very out of character. George is more emotionally in tune than his twin - that is to say, he is more sensitive and perceptive of people’s feelings, certainly not a cry-baby. Remember he can be a fierce protector of his family and is not above punching certain ferrety Slytherins in the schnozz if they insult him, his friends or his family. George is also aware of the possible consequences of his and Fred’s actions, as evident in his argument with Fred over blackmailing Ludo Bagman in GoF, suggesting that he is a more logical thinker than the latter. In addition, I would argue that George is the more patient of the two, having earned one more O.W.L than Fred. Course, we have to keep this all in context. I’m not arguing that George is an especially emotional, patient or logical character, but rather that these are some of the qualities that make up his personality; qualities that Fred doesn’t exactly share to the same degree. I think some readers ignore George as an individual because the more subtle aspects of his personality are surpassed by Fred’s louder, in-your-face character. I often wonder if we are to believe that this is also how the HP cast see the twins, with Fred being slightly bolder and George the more logical, or if they are so flawless a team that they are seen to be practically interchangeable. Personally I think it’s a bit of both. I think the twins’ closest friends/family can and do tell a difference, as seen in DH when Ron recognises Fred’s voice on Potterwatch. If JKR labels Fred as the ringleader of the pair (or perhaps the trio if we include Lee Jordan), then I’m sure George is aware of this. But as far as we can tell in the books, Fred’s role as ringleader doesn’t upset George in the slightest, because he’s that bit more mature and completely confident in himself (and seriously, what’s sexier than that? XD). It’s difficult to imagine George as a jealous character - he’s just too laid back for that. Fred may be ringleader, but George is definitely not a sidekick. He is every bit as quick witted and crafty a prankster. I think my respect for George really escalated during Deathly Hallows. Despite being in shock due to the trauma of losing an ear and a lot of blood, he still manages to crack a joke for the benefit of his family and friends. Family, and the friends he considers family, come first to George and I think he’d do just about anything to make them smile. That shows real character strength. Selfless bastard. Fred Weasley mini Analysis Fred is a bit more wild, and could likely win any argument with his frequent witticisms and blinding flamboyancy. In an interview, JK described him as the funnier, crueller twin. Why crueller? He is definitely willing to risk more to get what he wants, as evident in the Ludo Bagman case. Thinking on it, a lot of similarities can be drawn between Fred and James Potter, except for one important point. Fred may be the crueller twin, but he is never shown to be a bully as James Potter was. Fred is observant enough to know when someone is upset, but unlike George I think he tends to believe people just take care of the emotional stuff by themselves (e.g. St Mungos scene, OotP), but that’s not to say Fred isn’t supportive. Fred is severely protective of his friends, as demonstrated several times throughout the series, but he’s more likely to offer support via a joke or hexing your enemies, rather than a big comforting hug. His ego and pride is a little more inflated than George’s, too. A good example of Fred’s more arrogant side takes place in GoF when he asks Angelina out. At first I thought it was a bit off that George wasn’t shown to have a date. He may not be quite as smarmy and bold as Fred, but he’s still pretty damn charming. So why not mention George asking some pretty little witch out, eh? Well thinking on it, it allows a better insight into the twins’ personalities and differences. The “Fred asks Angelina out” scene emphasises his boldness and arrogance, especially as he simply assumes Angelina will say yes before he asks her. We get a similar scene in Deathly Hallows when Fred steals away the two French girls from George. Fred as a leader? Yes, I do think he makes a good leader to an extent. He’s good at rallying the troops, being confident, outspoken and well-liked. People react to that (e.g. Potterwatch and the final battle of Hogwarts, DH). But try imagining Fred without George. I said before that George is the more logical thinking twin. To parallel that, Fred is driven by instinct and perhaps even a little by greed and a desire for glory (e.g. GoF, Bagman and the Triwizard tournament), which is why he needs George who is that little bit more grounded and mature. Without George, he’d probably make quite a wreckless leader. Fred prefers to think on his feet, enjoys taking chances and, I’m guessing, puts a little too much faith in his own luck, which is probably why JKR bumped him off. “I always knew it was going to be Fred, and I couldn’t honestly tell you why,” - JK Rowling Fred’s specific character archetype more often than not dies in stories for two main reasons: 1). The age old folktales of cocky pranksters who cried wolf and thus met an untimely end have been used as cautionary tales for children for centuries, and are therefore deeply ingrained in our psyches, which probably explains why JKR knew ‘instinctively’ that Fred had to die. 2). Comedy is often used to emphasise tragedy. The death of the comic who so enjoyed life, and thus embodies it, really hits the reader with the sheer, harsh reality of war. That’s why it is far from uncommon for characters like poor old Fred to be bumped off. Our muses often draw on such popular tropes, cliches and social norms. That’s why muses are dangerous things. (And incidentally, these are some of the main reasons I hate Fred’s ‘DeFredding’ - poor way to treat a character, turning them into an overused trope and emotional shock device). Fred is one of the more passionate, instinctual characters in the series. What I truly love and admire about his character is that despite being a bit of a chancer, he’s not so daft or arrogant that he doesn’t know when to stop fooling around and be serious.

Haven't been able to stop thinking about how I'd design the Marauders era characters so I went and did it

Reasoning for bigger deviations under the cut:

We talk about Potter as a timeless series, as quills and parchment will never date, but there are a few key elements which are of their time, and I sometimes suspect that eventually, their original meaning may be lost.

Snape’s house in Spinner’s End is one of these.  If you visit Surrey, a house akin to Number 4 on Privet Drive can be found on hundreds of identical estates.  Indeed, the three-bedroom house with a garage, and both front and back gardens, situated on a private housing estate in leafy surburbia is one that most British people will have strolled through at some point.

But Snape’s house in Spinner’s End is the opposite of the Dursleys’ aspirational abode, and is somewhere that few modern readers will have seen in its original form with their own eyes.  Snape’s house in Spinner’s End is a traditional two up, two down through terraced house, mired deep in a maze of identical cobbled streets, overlooked by a looming mill chimney, and seemingly – by the 90s – entirely abandoned.

The difficulty that some may have in accurately picturing this scene is because these houses, in this state, no longer exist.  A large percentage of two up, two down terraces were demolished as part of slum clearance, which should tell you all that you need to know about the state of the houses.  

Those which remained have been extensively modified – usually knocking down the privy (outside toilet), and then building a two storey extension across the bulk of the yard to create a third room downstairs, and a bathroom upstairs.  Some houses only have a single extension; it is rather common in some areas of the Midlands to have a bathroom that leads off the kitchen downstairs – because the bathroom was the missing room, and it was cheaper to build one storey than two.

Pottermore had an article earlier in the year which explained how the filmmakers originally wanted to film on location, but could not, because the houses simply did not exist in their traditional state.

The houses were typically constructed with two rooms downstairs and two rooms upstairs with a tiny backyard entry leading to the outhouse. Craig actually considered shooting on location, but even though the buildings were intact, they had been brought into the modern era, with up-to-date kitchens and plastic extensions, so the set was built at the studio.

Throughout the 20th century, cobbled streets were routinely replaced by various other road surfaces, namely tarmac and asphalt – and, of course, the scarcity of cobblestones now means that such streets are aesthetically desirable.  However, the cobblestones in Spinner’s End are not an indication of affluence, but an indication of an area left behind. This is further illustrated by the rusted railings, the broken streetlights, and the boarded up windows.

These were workers houses, often funded by the owners of the mill, and therefore tied – meaning that rent was deducted from your wage before you received it.  There were benefits to being in tied accommodation, including being close to work and having a guaranteed landlord – but that was as much benefit to the mill owner as the worker.  Seeing great competition, some mill owners invested in their properties to entice workers – but Spinner’s End is not an example of this; Spinner’s End would’ve been regarded as little better than a slum even when fully occupied.

The narrow streets are indicative of when these houses were built, presumably in the late 1800s – cars were not a concern, and the attitude was to build as many houses on as small a piece of land as possible.

By the time the 90s roll around, and we see Narcissa and Bellatrix descend upon the street, Spinner’s End appears to be mostly deserted.  With the closure of traditional manual industries, families would be keen to relocate to where work could be found.  Estates which hadn’t already been cleared by the 60s would find themselves left to rack and ruin, their former occupants long gone – whether seeking a new life elsewhere, or having died.

For once, Bellatrix is not being anti-Muggle when she sneers at the Muggle dunghill; she is unnervingly accurate. It is a slum by her standards, but most importantly, it was a slum by everyone else’s standards as well.  By the time Severus was born, work should’ve been well under way to clear the area, or to renovate it.  This evidently did not occur – which itself explains how undesirable the area is; nobody wanted to spruce it up - they wanted to leave.  There were no jobs, no amenities, no services – and eventually, no people.

Americans especially don’t have a native understanding of this – for Americans, these kinds of industrial slums were largely already a thing of the past by the 1950s, when America was experiencing a post-WWII economic boom.  This is not to say that no American in the 1950s was trapped in poverty, but overall American society was made richer by the war.  British society, on the other hand, was still recovering from wartime scarcity, rationing, and destruction, and industrial slums were still very much a part of its makeup.

Indeed, you don’t have to go as far as public school for this to be true; Snape is of the grammar school era.  Snape is the kid who comes from the sink estate who passes his 11+ entrance exam against all odds.  When he reaches the school, where he’s fairly earned his place on intellectual merit (or in Hogwarts’ case, magical ability), he sticks out like a sore thumb.  He has the aptitude, but not the social background.

It’s why the depiction of James is equally important.  He’s similar to Snape in his magical ability - but he’s got the background that Snape hasn’t.  He’s wealthy, pampered, entitled.  James meets Snape and simply can’t comprehend why such a boy is also at the same school - remember, he meets Sirius at the same time, who also states that he’s from a Slytherin background and James’ reaction isn’t quite the same as it is with Snape.  “Blimey, and I thought you were all right.”  (or similar)  James had already made that value judgement; he’d already recognised that Sirius is from a similar sort of background.

When their journeys start, both boys are brimming with confidence (remember how Harry saw Snape by the river as cutting an impressive figure), but it doesn’t take long for James to be the boy who is regarded as popular, sporty, talented etc whilst Snape visibly wilts.  He’s twitchy, anxious, an oddball…as the text says, it’s as if he’s a plant kept in the dark.

Indeed, it’s no mistake that James - and in the modern era, Draco - is talented on a broom.  It’s no mistake that Harry, as a toddler, is given a broom.  It’s no mistake that the Weasley family are all talented with broom in hand, their prowess at Quidditch undeniable.  It’s no mistake then, that Snape picks up a broom and fails - some will claim it’s talent, but we see him mastering flight as an adult…it feels to me that this is a very clear indication that Snape wasn’t given the same opportunities.  He got to the school, but he didn’t have the extra-curricular assistance that others had the benefit of.  

There is a very important parallel that James and Sirius don’t accept Severus because Severus’ background makes him other - just as the Death Eaters and their ilk don’t accept Lily because Lily’s bloodline makes her other.

Yeesss! I chose her birth date a long time ago, but I never wrote about it. Now I will! Disclaimer: I am not a professional astrologer, this is just a very basic interpretation that I personally liked :)

Walburga Black: Sun in Taurus (10), Moon in Scorpio (4), and Leo rising.

She is stubborn and wilful. Very proud, even haughty, and somewhat showy in her pride. She consciously desires a stable and secure life, but subconsciously she is restless, easily excited and internally conflicted. Although she seems stable, she is inclined to take risks, with great emotional intensity and a passionate temperament. She constantly seeks emotional release and conflict, but the reasons for her conflicts are not trivial — they are "serious, high-class" conflicts. Because you know, she is not a street lady, she has noble blood :D She is a very provocative Taurus with a desire for thrills, and I think she often released her pent-up emotional excitement through Sirius because, in my HC it was very difficult to provoke Orion.

Without any spiritual growth (which Walburga definitely lacks according to the canon), this makes her quite cruel to others. Considering her other solar aspects, she has a habit of hurting innocent people, especially during failures — the worse her situation, the more aggressive she becomes. She also has a clear desire to dominate weaker and simpler people to finally feel her power, which is fuelled by an eternal sense of inadequacy.

She is obsessed with two things — family and status, money (a lot of money), beauty and comfort. The Sun in the 10th house adds importance to her reputation and how society sees her, as does her Leo rising, but her ascendant creates many difficulties in this regard. She is never satisfied with what she has — she always wants more. She is ambitious, wants to leave a mark on society, including through her children — being a Black is very important to her. (I headcanon that she insisted on marrying Orion, despite being older than him, because she didn't want to lose her last name.) And she chooses reliable people for marriage, who often hold high positions in society and have status, power, and confidence — Orion fits this, as he is an heir.

She is afraid to show herself without glamour, without shine, without status. She strives to be higher, better, stronger, to maintain pure blood and greatness, often through quite harsh and cruel methods. It was likely she who was more on Voldemort's side than Orion. She subconsciously feels constantly unsafe. Her Moon indicates such distorted emotional experiences that she feels the whole world is against her, and people are not to be trusted. There are aspects indicating a late marriage or late children (she likely married early but had children late).

Home and family are the most important but also the most problematic. They cause the greatest emotions and stress. She cares for her family and is devoted to them until her last breath. Perhaps she took responsibility for her relatives early in life. Saturn in Scorpio in the 4 house indicates complicated family relationships and deep emotional experiences related to home and roots. There are deep family conflicts, emotional closeness issues, and a sense of isolation within the family. Her loneliness in the end may also stem from this.

So, her chart indicates she is very family-oriented. She probably loved her children very much, and the Scorpio Moon in the 4th house also shows how she wants to protect her home and inner world from outsiders (esp Muggles). At home, there is always order, some control and various rules she believes will keep her family safe.

Additionally, the opposition of the Sun and Saturn in Scorpio — this feeling of inadequacy, which she compensates for by striving for control, power, and asserting herself and her family, leads to pessimism. She tends to be pessimistic. The square with her Ascendant adds constant tension in trying to showcase her or her family's talents, gain recognition, and establish status and prestige, and this habitual aggression only scares people away. Mars in Gemini in the 10th house shows she is strongly driven to achieve goals through public activities but tends to conflicts and aggressive behaviour. She may be intolerant and prone to creating conflicts in society. She has a desire to dominate, asserting her authority not through actions but through a commanding manner, her "royalty and nobility." She acts very regally, but during scandals, this regal demeanour disappears, revealing an aggressive communication style. She is argumentative and can be sharp, which fits her canon character well.

Overall, her chart indicates such a person is often very attractive and beautiful, aristocratic, and regal. More regal than Sirius. :D

I wanted to explore one of the most interesting details of Voldemort’s characterization: the extensive protections around the Slytherin locket horcrux, which exist as a step-by-step re-enactment of Merope's suffering - referencing his mother's actual death, but perhaps more prominently, her state of drowning in despair in the Gaunt home due to her family.

The Locket's Significance

Tom Riddle initially hears of it from his uncle:

“Ar, he left her, and serve her right, marrying filth!” said Morfin, spitting on the floor again. “Robbed us, mind, before she ran off! Where’s the locket, eh, where’s Slytherin’s locket?” Voldemort did not answer. Morfin was working himself into a rage again; he brandished his knife and shouted, “Dishonored us, she did, that little slut! And who’re you, coming here and asking questions about all that? It’s over, innit.... It’s over....” He looked away, staggering slightly, and Voldemort moved forward.

Making his uncle look at him to Legilimize him, Tom views the Bob Ogden memory - and later wipes his uncle memories till that point. (I assume LV got all the same Merope details and memories that Dumbledore shows Harry in HBP, and likely even more.)

tldr: bill and charlie spent very little time with their younger siblings so percy acts as the eldest with ron and ginny, and they likely view him as such (as least as far as sibling dynamics are concerned). this also creates a weird dynamic with the twins, since they're in a limbo of percy acting as their eldest brother while still knowing bill in that role as well.

-

okay so in birth order there's:

bill - november 29, 1970

charlie - december 12, 1972

percy - august 22, 1976

fred & george - april 1, 1978

ron - march 1, 1980

ginny - august 11, 1981

(i lied, it wasn't quick, hence the tldr so you know what you're getting into)

Percy's spot in the birthing order really adds to the dysfunctionality of the family. As you said, he is almost four years younger than Charlie and almost six years younger than Bill. That means that he was just a little too young to form a meaningful sibling bond with them when they were growing up. He was just a little too young to understand things on a similar level they did, and just a little too young to really play with them. So he probably ended up in the role of "our stupid young brother, that mom wants us to look after".

I mean, just from his behavior I feel like it was pretty bad. I talked about it a bit before and he's very aware he is being mistreated. Harry literally makes a joke about Vernon beating him:

“You don’t seem to need many qualifications to liaise with Muggles. . . . All they want is an O.W.L. in Muggle Studies. . . . ‘Much more important is your enthusiasm, patience, and a good sense of fun!’ ” “You’d need more than a good sense of fun to liaise with my uncle,” said Harry darkly. “Good sense of when to duck, more like . . .”

(OOTP, 657)

As for the abuse itself:

Dudley and his friends beat him often. As mentioned repeatedly.

He slept in a cupboard under the stairs until the Dursleys thought someone else might notice. Only when they got the Hogwarts letter that mentioned the cupboard did they move Harry to Dudley's second bedroom. (The title of the room itself and where Harry was sleeping show how much of an afterthought he was).

The house had no pictures of him, no belongings, no sign Harry lived there, he only got Dudley's cast-offs.

So, yeah, it's definitely neglectful to an insane degree.

As for the more fanon portrayals of the Dursleys' abuse.

They did starve him as a form of punishment:

Uncle Vernon waited until Piers was safely out of the house before starting on Harry. He was so angry he could hardly speak. He managed to say, “Go — cupboard — stay — no meals,” before he collapsed into a chair, and Aunt Petunia had to run and get him a large brandy.

(PS, 23)

And Harry didn't get much food at the Dursleys in general:

This was their encounter with the fact that a full stomach meant good spirits; an empty one, bickering and gloom. Harry was least surprised by this, because he had suffered periods of near starvation at the Dursleys.

(DH, 250)

But he did get to eat with them at the table when he wasn't being punished, seen with Aunt Marge, and when the Dursleys didn't have guests:

Harry, who could see a huge Dudley tantrum coming on, began wolfing down his bacon as fast as possible in case Dudley turned the table over.

(PS, 19)

That being said, Harry seems to be punished at the Dursleys pretty often. (Although, Harry considers sitting with them at the table punishment enough)

So the fanon portrayal of getting locked in the cupboard/his room with no food for who knows how long (or just, not enough food, like in CoS when he shared a canned meal with Hedwig) is actually canon.

He gets physically abused by Dudley, but also by Vernon and Petunia. We saw Petunia try to hit him with a frying pan.

Aunt Petunia knew he hadn’t really done magic, but he still had to duck as she aimed a heavy blow at his head with the soapy frying pan. Then she gave him work to do, with the promise he wouldn’t eat again until he’d finished.

(CoS, 17)

The above qoute mentions how he was forced to do chores with the threat of no food until he's done with his chores. So, yes, he was forced to work at the Dursleys. Another quote indicating he had plenty of practice cleaning over at the Dursleys:

“Filch’ll have me there all night,” said Ron heavily. “No magic! There must be about a hundred cups in that room. I’m no good at Muggle cleaning.” “I’d swap anytime,” said Harry hollowly. “I’ve had loads of practice with the Dursleys. Answering Lockhart’s fan mail . . . he’ll be a nightmare. . . .”

(CoS, 114)

That being said, we see Petunia cooking more often than Harry, and she's also mentioned cleaning on occasion:

At last, at long last, the final evening of Marge’s stay arrived. Aunt Petunia cooked a fancy dinner and Uncle Vernon uncorked several bottles of wine.

(PoA, 26)

“Right — I’m off into town to pick up the dinner jackets for Dudley and me. And you,” he snarled at Harry. “You stay out of your aunt’s way while she’s cleaning.”

(CoS, 14)

I think he wasn't constantly worked like a house elf the way the fandom sometimes portrays it. He was made to clean often enough but he didn't cook that often. The breakfast in PS is likely more of an exception than the norm as whenever any fancy dinner, like with Marge or the Masons, it's always Petunia cooking it, not Harry. So, I don't think Harry cooked or cleaned for them since he could walk, I mean Petunia is a perfectionist about how her house looks, so she wouldn't let a small child who'd do a subpar work do it.

But he was definitely put to work as either punishment or when the Dursleys wanted him occupied. And considering he mentions "plenty of practice" when he's 12 and he spent the last two years at Hogwarts, he likely started doing chores earlier than that, but old enough to use a mop properly. So, I'd guess he started helping to clean the house around the time he was 6 or 7 years old, and started cooking on occasion only very recently before the books start in all likelihood.

The really shitty thing about all his chores is that Dudley isn't doing anything and it's just Harry. This difference is one Harry was always aware of and considers unfair, because it is incredibly unfair. The fact he is forced to do work and gets punished when the other child in the house doesn't adds to the sense of worthlessness the Dursleys already make Harry feel.

Uncle Vernon in general is pretty violent towards Harry, shown in the first quote in this post and in others:

Harry ran down the stairs two at a time, coming to an abrupt halt several steps from the bottom, as long experience had taught him to remain out of arm’s reach of his uncle whenever possible.

(HBP, 45)

I wanted to add the imprisonment in CoS, because the treatment is truly subhuman:

The following morning, he paid a man to fit bars on Harry’s window. He himself fitted a cat-flap in the bedroom door, so that small amounts of food could be pushed inside three times a day. They let Harry out to use the bathroom morning and evening. Otherwise, he was locked in his room around the clock.

(CoS, 28)

They treat him like an actual prisoner. They let him out to the bathroom twice a day! Like WTF! This is so not okay I don't have words.

As for not calling him by his name...

“We could phone Marge,” Uncle Vernon suggested. “Don’t be silly, Vernon, she hates the boy.” The Dursleys often spoke about Harry like this, as though he wasn’t there — or rather, as though he was something very nasty that couldn’t understand them, like a slug.

(PS, 19)

They usually refer to Harry simply as "boy" or "the boy", they also use "you" when talking to him or "him" about him, but not his name, except one time in PS when Vernon is faking being nice:

“Er — yes, Harry — about this cupboard. Your aunt and I have been thinking…you’re really getting a bit big for it…we think it might be nice if you moved into Dudley’s second bedroom.

(PS, 30)

Considering how Harry mentions they often don't speak to him, but at him or about him, definitely suggests they don't use his name often. Vernon seems very odd about using Harry's name, and we see it isn't something common, but it does happen. I think Harry did always know his name though, I'm sure he asked, and regardless of how awful the Dursleys are, Petunia likely told him his name in the same breath she talked about how his father was a drunkard that got both him and Lily killed.

We also know they don't do anything for Harry's birthday, and Harry doesn't think they remember it:

The lighted dial of Dudley’s watch, which was dangling over the edge of the sofa on his fat wrist, told Harry he’d be eleven in ten minutes’ time. He lay and watched his birthday tick nearer, wondering if the Dursleys would remember at all, wondering where the letter writer was now.

(PS, 35)

So, it's very plausible the Dursleys never told Harry when his birthday is and that he had to discover it himself somehow.

TL;DR

Harry's abuse at the Dursleys was awful. It included physical abuse from all three Durslesy and periods of starvation.

He was put to chores like cleaning the house, but it wasn't a constant thing where he worked like a house elf. It actually seems Petunia did most of the cooking.

He probably only started cleaning when he was 6 or 7 at the youngest. And cooking is likely a later development.

Harry was allowed to sit at the table and even watch TV on rare occasions but usually didn't get to choose what to watch. It means Harry should be somewhat aware of muggle pop culture at the time.

Harry, in general, wasn't really treated as human. Not having his name used, only talked at, not having his birthday celebrated, not getting pocket money or anything of his own. Not to mention being forced to sleep in the cupboard or on the floor (in the shack on the sea in PS) and getting his food through a cat flap on his bedroom door like an actual prisoner in CoS.

I would like to add that the first two or three books really are children of their time. They belong to a very specific kind of children's literature that was still popular when they got published. In this type of literature, violence and abuse get exaggerated. The goal is to make them absurd and hilarious instead of serious and disturbing.

So the violence the Dursleys commit against Harry is basically supposed to cross the line twice. The Dursleys cross the line the first time, because they abuse him. But then their methods are so exaggerated, that the whole thing loops back around and crosses the line again. The scene with the frying pan and the cat flap aren't supposed to be taken literally. They are on the books to take off the edge of abuse.

I think a big factor in this, that the early books were written in the 1990s, when corporal punishment of children by their parents/guardians was legal and normalized. No, FUCK THAT, it's still legal and normalized in England to this day. And it is also legal in way to many other countries, too. (My country started to prohibit it in the 1980s, but they had to rework the law to include all forms of corporal punishment. And then they had to rework it again, to drive home the point that No, it's not legal for you to hit your kids. No, not even if you only hit them a little bit. What part of No do you not understand?!)

So, a lot of readers grew up in an environment, where they themselves were hit by their caregivers and where this form of punishment was considered to be normal. Including Rowling herself. So she needed a way to show that the abuse Harry suffered, exceeded the abuse that was considered normal and socially acceptable, back then. That's where stuff like the frying pan and the barred window come in. It shows that the abuse exceeds the societal limits, without scaring the target audience and without being "too close to home".

I think that's the mistake some fanfic writers do, when they try to portray the abuse Harry suffered as realistic. If one wanted to portray this in a more realistic manner, the abuse would need to be toned down, not dialed up even more. (Because the abuse is already horrible in an absurd kind of way. Making it even worse doesn't make it more realistic. Often, it makes it even more absurd instead.)

That said, I'm personally not very happy about how the books handled abuse. The absurd punishments the Dursleys dish out in the first books may fit the genre, but they really clash with the more serious, less whimsical tone of the later books.

What irks me more, is the parentification (if you can call it that, in Harry's case, because they didn't treat him like an additional parent, but more like a servant), so him being forced to cook and clean for them.* Because that shit isn't dealt up to eleven, but portrayed pretty realistic instead. I have the feeling that this is caused by Rowling not really understanding non-physical forms of abuse. Because, let's face it, the Weasleys were parentifying their kids, too, but it isn't portrayed as bad in their case.