Est

:C

Hmm. I’m honestly not sure if you’re trolling to give justification for headcanons or just didn’t look up the canon properly. But all right, I’ll bite, just in case this is just a genuine error on your part.

First mistake comes from the timing of the McKinnon family’s death and the photograph. This is fairly minor error, but it’s the McKinnons’ deaths that happen two weeks after the photo (as stated by Moody in OotP), the letter doesn’t happen at the same time. The letter is in fact quite explicit that the McKinnons died a fair bit earlier - Lily literally states ”I cried all night when I heard”. She isn’t describing something that happened yesterday or similar, only something that’s happened since her and Sirius were last in contact. With enough time for their deaths to go from immediate emotional reaction to ”yeah that happened”. That doesn’t give us a firm timeline but a week or maybe two tops would sound like a reasonable assumption. So the photo happened some 3-4 weeks before the letter.

The second assumption is a big one, and I’m frankly baffled where it might have come from. The bit about assuming that the Potters went into hiding after…what, the McKinnons were killed? After the photo? Where is this coming from? (It’s not about the Fidelius is it? That doesn’t happen until mid October and the letter was written in early August) It’s clearly stated that the Potters went into hiding after Harry’s birth, and extra materials specify that Harry’s christening was a rushed and private affair because that was the last public thing they did other than for their Order missions. Considering British christening commonly takes place six months after birth usually and we have no cause to think otherwise for the wizarding world, Lily and James have by the time of the letter been living at Godric’s Hollow and seen very few people for maybe 7-9 months, maybe a bit more if the christening took place really early compared to usual.

The third mistake/assumption I’m really curious about. What kind of a resistance would send a good chunk of their fighting force into complete isolation indefinitely? Even in the letter Lily mentions talking with Bathilda so they clearly aren’t strictly confined to the house even not counting the Order gathering. What is it about the gathering in specific that you think goes against them living in hiding? Not to mention that while the Potters are stated to have been full-time Order members and this not have to go to their day jobs, both Frank and Alice were Aurors. There’s no mention either of them having resigned. Therefore, the both of them were going to work (and presumably Order missions) while living in a secure location. Where is the contradiction here? Why would you think living in hiding means complete and total isolation?

but i DO think that the murder of the mckinnons taking place in early to mid july 1981 is a genuine mistake caused by connecting two very minor details mentioned in two different books written years apart. and as much as it is an honest mistake (i have plenty of other things to criticize), i think it creates some trouble for authors trying to write canon compliant fanfics set during the first war, and understanding character's motivations.

i will start by showing another example of a similar inconsistency in the books. this is an excerpt from lily's letter, just before she mentions the mckinnons:

James is getting a bit frustrated shut up here, he tries not to show it but I can tell — also, Dumbledore’s still got his Invisibility Cloak, so no chance of little excursions. If you could visit, it would cheer him up so much. DH, chapter 10

so here are lily and james hiding in early august, and james is frustrated because he can't live the house, since dumbledore got his cloak.

later on the very same book, this is what dumbledore tells harry about him having the cloak:

You have guessed, I know, why the Cloak was in my possession on the night your parents died. James had showed it to me just a few days previously. DH, chapter 35

a few days previously the potter's death would've been mid to late october. presumably, a little over week before, since, as you pointed out yourself, the fidelius was cast a week before the 31st, and dumbledore, not aware of the secret keeper switch wouldn't have been present for that.

but lily says he got the cloak in august, so what now?

a watsonian explanation would be: dumbledore misremembers it, he is lying, he's a figment of harry's imagination, he got the cloak twice (but then james wouldn't have "showed it" the second time around)

a doylist explanation would be: rowling wanted a time adverbial on the end of that second sentence because it makes it sound better, but forgot she had already mentioned dumbledore having the cloak in lily's letter, of forgot the timeline she had set up for that, it didn't get caught in revising and editing (did the last three books even get properly edited?)

keeping that in mind, let's take a look at the scene in which moody is showing harry the picture:

“There’s me,” said Moody unnecessarily, pointing at himself. The Moody in the picture was unmistakable, though his hair was slightly less gray and his nose was intact. “And there’s Dumbledore beside me, Dedalus Diggle on the other side . . . That’s Marlene McKinnon, she was killed two weeks after this was taken, they got her whole family. That’s Frank and Alice Longbottom — [...] Poor devils,” growled Moody. “Better dead than what happened to them . . . and that’s Emmeline Vance, you’ve met her, and that there’s Lupin, obviously . . . Benjy Fenwick, he copped it too, we only ever found bits of him . . . shift aside there, [...] That’s Edgar Bones . . . brother of Amelia Bones, they got him and his family too, he was a great wizard . . . Sturgis Podmore, blimey, he looks young . . . Caradoc Dearborn, vanished six months after this, we never found his body . . . Hagrid, of course, looks exactly the same as ever . . . Elphias Doge, you’ve met him, I’d forgotten he used to wear that stupid hat . . . Gideon Prewett, it took five Death Eaters to kill him and his brother Fabian, they fought like heroes . . . budge along, budge along . . . [...] That’s Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth, only time I ever met him, strange bloke . . . That’s Dorcas Meadowes, Voldemort killed her personally . . . Sirius, when he still had short hair . . . and . . . there you go, thought that would interest you!” OotP, chapter 9

it's quite noticeable that he adds a little commentary about everyone in the picture. to explain how they died, or how they look differently now. i can imagine writing this must have been like coming up with a small backstory about each character (the mckinnons, of course, had been dead since book one, they're mentioned by hagrid when he first meets harry, and brought up back again on karkaroff's trial when he names travers as someone who was involved in it).

i decided to show the whole moody commentary to put into perspective just how minimal is the detail about it being two weeks from taking the picture to the mckinnons being murdered. now, give me the benefit of the doubt and let's assume for a second that it was a mistake. what would explain it?

watsonian: moody misremembers it (someone else died two weeks later, he's thinking of another picture he took, doesn't matter), he was talking fast and got confused, he's lying.

doylist: rowling wanted to include some nice detail and backstory about the order via moody commentary, then two books and four years later she wanted to give context about the first war and the time the potters spent in hiding by name dropping the very same family she had been name dropping since the beginning of the series. it had the potential of creating minor inconsistencies, but why would any editor even notice it or care about it?

now, why do i think that this date is incosistent?

first, because in assuming, as you also do, that the potter have been hiding for some time by now (unclear whether or not the longbottoms ever went into hiding as well, or if it was a follow up to snape passing the information tha voldemort was after harry in specific. this is where i simplified my thought process and got hyperbolic for the sake of a tumblr post), and that they have been limited to their stay in godric's hallow, while would they leave for a meeting?

what kind of resistence would gather all of its members, including the ones with a child who is being hunted by their main enemy, in one place at the height of war? assuming the timeline is correct, there were no deaths in the order so far, but at least two death eaters had died (rosier and wilkes dies a year before, as mentioned by sirius, and we could count regulus too), and they knew they had a traitor. wouldn't it be easy and convenient to leak the date of the meeting and voldemort could get all of them at once?

lily and james wouldn't leave harry alone, but would they leave the house with him? would they take him into a war meeting room? and, by all means, they were not incapacited by being forced to hide, which i'm sure dumbledore would be emphatic that they did. if harry is the prophesized child who could bring down the evil wizard they have been fighting for ten years, then taking care of him is a work for the resistence. and even if they all think this is bullshit, voldemort is still after him and lily and james could still do something for the order (whatever it is they do, if the argument is for the sake of writing fanfiction, it could be anything a author wants).

my second point had to do with james' characterization and it is what i joke about in the tags. if he and lily gather with everyone in the order, including all of their closest and best friends, that about two or three weeks later he sees one of those best friends again and a neighbour, but he is so desperate to breach the security of their hiding place, intended to preserve his son's life, it doesn't really say anything good about him. i would say a grown man, as young as he was, would have been expected to be able to resist isolation for less than a month a little bit better, considering that was the cost of his family's safety.

my third and last point has to do with secondary repercursions of that timeline for other members of the order and the general picture of the first war. let's take what we know: dumbledore says in the very first chapter of philosopher's stone "we've had precious little to celebrate for eleven years", and that being set on november 1st or 2nd (that other timeline is a mess on its own) 1981, it sets the start of the war roughly around 1970. the prophecy is given before harry and neville are born (because it says "will be born as the seventh month dies"). snape gives dumbledore the warning and asks for lily's protection in exchange of his services in late november ("hide them all, then."), this fits with lily and james being forced to christen harry early and go into hiding, he would've been four months by then and, by the time of his first birthday, would've been hiding for eight or nine months. peter would've become a traitor around the same time as snape, but probably a few months earlier ("you'd been passing information to him for a year before lily and james died", is sirius accusation at the shrieking shack scene). lily and james are killed on october 31st, alice and frank are tortured by the lestranges and bcj some time after.

and if we accept the date for marlene's death as july 1981, all of the rest of the order casualties happened after that, during the last year (hell, the last three months) of an eleven year war (sure, we can imagine that were other members earlier on, but this isn't about my headcanons, is about working with whats on the text). caradoc would disappear in december 1981 or even january 1982, after voldemort was defeated, likely at the time death eater trials were already on. dorcas would be killed between august and october, the prewetts, the bones and benjy fenwick anytime until they could call it the end of the war. i, at least, have the impression that the longbottoms being attacked after voldemort's defeat (which did mark the end of the war for most of the wizarding community), was rather unusual, so i'm not inclined to favor any other major deaths or disappearences after them.

My genuine reaction to Conquest's Monologue tbh.

But no seriously, think about it, the Viltrumites are the exaggerated evolution of a hyper-competitive, hyper-violent, hyper-individualist society. Low key, I think that's why Kirkman made every male Viltrumite looks like someone's Dad or Uncle. It's almost like, a very blatant representation of what even a normal guy is forced to become under such an extreme system.

Robert Kirkman, the creator of the series, has fundamentally structured the story around intergenerational family dynamics. As he himself stated, “what Invincible does is it layers on a father and son story in that dynamic, which makes for a really interesting story of coming of age.” This is perfectly in line with the fact that the protagonist is a normal guy who, under an extreme system of violence and conquest, is “forced” to become a monster. But Nolan’s attempts within the universe we observe ultimately fail. Mark-from-this-Earth rejects his father’s imposition because he has developed empathy and compassion. He is sensible, very understanding, listens, opens up, cries alone, cries in front of his mother, his brother, his boss, his girlfriend, anyone honestly. In this sense, he is revolutionary. A contradiction to the Toxic Masculinity.

On the contrary, older generations of men were far more inclined to accept the Viltrumite ideology in the series: if you are weak, your existence is meaningless. Mark’s characteristics are precisely what Nolan tries to fight against by the end of season 1. Nolan cannot accept that his son feels such deep affection for these lowly beings, nor can he comprehend how Mark could be so empathetic toward them (meanwhile, Nolan is unconsciously confronting the same challenges, but that’s another story for another post).

Kirkman has repeatedly mentioned that he wanted his story to be relatable: “I try to take everything that I do, and I boil it down to something that is relatable in my life, and I hope that it's relatable to everyone else.” (…) “Everything involving that Mark and Nolan story, with Nolan’s betrayal and the reveal that he was sent by the Viltrumites to take over the planet (…) what Invincible always strived to do was take very human stories, very real dynamics that we all experience.”

This is particularly interesting because, in terms of writing, it’s incredibly difficult to translate the struggles of a human with superhuman strength into those of ordinary people. This, I think, is also why superhero stories generally don’t excite me. But from what I gather, Kirkman grew up in rural Kentucky. His dad worked as a sheet metal worker. He was obsessed with comics but wasn’t skilled enough in art to get into art school. He had no backup plan, never went to college, and worked as a comic store clerk. It seems he credits his strong work ethic to his father. Therefore, it’s clear where his reflections come from, even though his father was never abusive toward him. But many fathers certainly are.

Dad leaving you an empire, perhaps his business, and you don’t want to inherit it because you want to be a designer?

Dad might almost beat you senseless.

This is something everyone can understand (unfortunately): disappointing your parents, who are deluded into thinking they can shape their children in their own image, thereby stripping them of their agency. End of S1 in a nutshell (+ violence).

The story continues as parents must also deal with their own expectations. *Poor* Conquest is denied all that because of his loneliness.

It's the thing I realized about Invincible this season too. When you think about it, when you enter adulthood, especially as a man, is when your Dad really changes from a Nurturing Caretaker to Agent of Social Order. In my experience, it was only late in my High School years that being good at the stuff I was doing stopped being enough for my Dad. I had to begin to conform to what he expects, and what society has taught him to expect from me, which continues to this day.

I like to think the Viltrumites are all the different people in your lives that wants you to join in on the social order. Maybe it's your dad like Omni-Man, or maybe it's your teachers and bosses like Conquest or Kregg who sometimes hold an even more rigid view than your father. Or, sometimes it's the women who demand you to become the image society pressures you to be like Anissa.

But as Conquest shows, this will exact a toll on you. The more you conform, the harder you work on becoming what society wants you to be, you stop being a person, you become a tool, for the social order. Which eventually results in loss of connection and loneliness. Heck, the Alternate Marks too when you think about it. Each one, has lost someone because they followed the Viltrumites' wishes. Maybe it's Debbie, or William, or Eve. Or as it looks like with a lot of the Invincibles: Nolan/Omni-Man.

Maybe that's what Kirkman is trying to say, the person that is demanded of you to become will lead to isolation, to loneliness, to your own dehumanization. We can stop this descent by remembering our connection to others like Mark's done in every Finale (Season 1 is Nolan, 2 is Debbie and Oliver, 3 is Eve). No matter how hard we are pressured to be what we abhor, as long as we have the people that can support and pull us through, it we will be fine.

My genuine reaction to Conquest's Monologue tbh.

But no seriously, think about it, the Viltrumites are the exaggerated evolution of a hyper-competitive, hyper-violent, hyper-individualist society. Low key, I think that's why Kirkman made every male Viltrumite looks like someone's Dad or Uncle. It's almost like, a very blatant representation of what even a normal guy is forced to become under such an extreme system.

Robert Kirkman, the creator of the series, has fundamentally structured the story around intergenerational family dynamics. As he himself stated, “what Invincible does is it layers on a father and son story in that dynamic, which makes for a really interesting story of coming of age.” This is perfectly in line with the fact that the protagonist is a normal guy who, under an extreme system of violence and conquest, is “forced” to become a monster. But Nolan’s attempts within the universe we observe ultimately fail. Mark-from-this-Earth rejects his father’s imposition because he has developed empathy and compassion. He is sensible, very understanding, listens, opens up, cries alone, cries in front of his mother, his brother, his boss, his girlfriend, anyone honestly. In this sense, he is revolutionary. A contradiction to the Toxic Masculinity.

On the contrary, older generations of men were far more inclined to accept the Viltrumite ideology in the series: if you are weak, your existence is meaningless. Mark’s characteristics are precisely what Nolan tries to fight against by the end of season 1. Nolan cannot accept that his son feels such deep affection for these lowly beings, nor can he comprehend how Mark could be so empathetic toward them (meanwhile, Nolan is unconsciously confronting the same challenges, but that’s another story for another post).

Kirkman has repeatedly mentioned that he wanted his story to be relatable: “I try to take everything that I do, and I boil it down to something that is relatable in my life, and I hope that it's relatable to everyone else.” (…) “Everything involving that Mark and Nolan story, with Nolan’s betrayal and the reveal that he was sent by the Viltrumites to take over the planet (…) what Invincible always strived to do was take very human stories, very real dynamics that we all experience.”

This is particularly interesting because, in terms of writing, it’s incredibly difficult to translate the struggles of a human with superhuman strength into those of ordinary people. This, I think, is also why superhero stories generally don’t excite me. But from what I gather, Kirkman grew up in rural Kentucky. His dad worked as a sheet metal worker. He was obsessed with comics but wasn’t skilled enough in art to get into art school. He had no backup plan, never went to college, and worked as a comic store clerk. It seems he credits his strong work ethic to his father. Therefore, it’s clear where his reflections come from, even though his father was never abusive toward him. But many fathers certainly are.

Dad leaving you an empire, perhaps his business, and you don’t want to inherit it because you want to be a designer?

Dad might almost beat you senseless.

This is something everyone can understand (unfortunately): disappointing your parents, who are deluded into thinking they can shape their children in their own image, thereby stripping them of their agency. End of S1 in a nutshell (+ violence).

The story continues as parents must also deal with their own expectations. *Poor* Conquest is denied all that because of his loneliness.

Marauders era is the best thing that happened to me ✨🥴

While Snape being played by a talented (and very handsome) black man is not an excuse for racism.

But this casting will make certain aspects of the book read as overt racism because we are supposed to view this character as unattractive and ‘suspicious’ right off the bat.