hazzabo

BONUS:

I just came up with a theory.

A while ago, someone came up with the theory that Dumbledore had a horcrux - Fawkes. The SuperCarlinBrothers talked about this theory before being bluntly shot down by J.K. Rowling.

But the joke’s on you, Jo. I was already torn apart by you when you said that all disabilities in your world would be “fixed” or “overridden.” You can’t hurt me anymore! Haha! I’m as immortal as Harry!

“Wait, as immortal as Harry?”

What do I mean?

Well, I’ll tell you!

I think that the original theory was onto something. I think that Fawkes was a horcrux. But I don’t think he was Dumbledore’s horcrux. No, no…

I think that Fawkes was Harry’s horcrux.

Now, before I begin, note that this is just a theory and that it’s midnight, I’m tired, and there’s a good chance that I might not get everything right. But I’m going to try. I await your many many many messages in my inbox to explain why certain things I bring up can or cannot work.

First of all, let’s get the shakiest part of this theory out of the way. The prophecy. The prophecy has always confused me but I’m pretty sure it can still fit into this theory. I’m just not exactly sure how. Again, I’m tired. So let’s just assume that the prophecy fits perfectly. 

And here we go…

To repeat: I think that Fawkes was Harry’s horcrux.

A horcrux, of course, being an object in which a person stores a minuscule piece of their soul which keeps them alive.

And I believe that Harry has unknowingly stored a piece of his soul in Fawkes.

And I know what you’re thinking.

“Ah, marauders4evr, you truly are tired. Don’t you know that you have to kill someone in order to create a horcrux?”

I do know that.

“Little tiny innocent Harry Potter is a pure cinnamon roll too good for this world. Surely he has never-”

Ahahahahahahaha.

Remember that time little tiny innocent Harry Potter stabbed a gigantic snake?

I do!

And I think that after he does this, a little piece of his soul jumped ship, merging with Fawkes’ soul. After all, Fawkes had landed on his arm in order to cry Harry back to life.

“No, wait, no. J.K. Rowling said it herself - in order to create a horcrux, you have to perform a ritual so disgusting that her editor nearly vomited when hearing about it.”

Clearly her editor has never read fanfiction but I digress.

It is true that usually some big dark ritual is performed in order to create a horcrux.

Except for one occasion.

It’s widely accepted that the reason why Harry became a horcrux is because Voldemort’s soul was so splintered (from the amount of horcruxes that he created) that a piece of it just broke off and went into this child.

“So, wait, Harry’s soul was splintered?”

Well it certainly wasn’t stable. You’ve got two souls that have been suddenly fused together faster than Ruby and Sapphire. And we know that Harry’s soul has always been unstable. That’s why the Dementors affected him more. That’s why he kept having weird dreams wherein he saw into Voldemort’s mind. That’s why his scar hurt whenever Voldemort was nearby or angry or existing or…you know that part was never clear. But the point is that we know that Harry’s soul is corrupted. So much so that I think it’s safe to say that it’s splintered, splintered enough that after murdering a snake in cold-blood, a part of it flies off and attaches to Fawkes.

“Okay, marauders4evr, take it easy. If Harry’s soul was so splintered that a piece of it could break off after he murdered someone without the need for the dark ritual, then why wasn’t a horcrux created when he burned Quirrell to death hmmm?”

Okay first of all…why doesn’t anyone ever talk about the fact that Harry straight up killed his professor? I mean it was in self-defense but still…you think anyone would talk about that but they don’t, not in canon or in the fandom. But I digress.

Who’s to say that Harry didn’t accidentally create a horcrux after killing Quirrell?

“Okay, now you’re full of it.”

Probably but hear me out.

What if a little tiny piece of Harry’s splintered soul did break off and go into an object in the room? Maybe an object he was holding like…

…oh snap.

Yep. If you want, you could also argue that the Philosopher’s Stone was briefly a horcrux. I say briefly because Albus Dumbledore states outright that Nicolas and Perenelle destroyed it. (Note: Not the Nicolas and Perenelle from my books, although wouldn’t that be an interesting twist?) 

So the Philosopher’s Stone is gone. Kaput. Which means so is that little tiny piece of Harry’s soul. Which stinks. But it’s not really relevant to this theory, it just provides a safety net for lingering questions. 

But I digress…

I think that Fawkes is Harry’s horcrux. Which explains why Harry seems to be drawn to him so many times in future books. The others seem comforted by his songs but Harry has always had a genuine connection with him which isn’t really explained. What if this is that connection? Two souls reaching out to one another, causing a subconscious connection?

“Okay so Fawkes is Harry’s horcrux. What does that mean?”

That means that if Harry were to say, walk into the Forbidden Forest to stare Voldemort straight in the eye and accept his fate…

He would come back.

Because really, it’s never explained how Harry comes back. There have been a few feeble guesses. This is mine.

The reason why Harry came back is because he couldn’t die because a piece of his soul was in Fawkes.

As long as Fawkes is alive, Harry cannot ever truly die.

“Wait a minute…Fawkes is always alive.”

And now you see the best part of the theory!

No matter how much Fawkes dies, he always comes back. Fascinating creatures, phoenixes.

Fawkes can never die. Which means, if you believe in this theory, that neither can Harry.

Which means that Harry can never die.

Which means that Harry Potter will always be The Boy Who Lived.

.

At no point does the movie imply that Vanessa is tainted because she is a sex worker. At no point does the movie imply that Vanessa is unworthy of love because she is a sex worker.

At no point is Vanessa portrayed as “broken.”

At no point does the movie imply that being a sex worker makes Vanessa a bad girlfriend. At no point does Deadpool ask or expect Vanessa to sacrifice her job for their relationship.

At no point is Vanessa slut-shamed for her job, by either protagonists or villains. 

Think about that.

Denigrating sex workers is so taboo within the Deadpool movieverse that even the villains won’t do it.

We know that Vanessa experienced sexual abuse, and that it’s shaped the person she’s become and influenced the choices she’s made. The movie clearly acknowledges that sexual abuse is real, and that it is damaging, and that people who experience sexual abuse struggle to lead “normal” lives and get “normal” jobs.

But the movie never hands sexual abusers the mic.

There is no sexual abuse porn in this movie. There are no voyeuristic rape flashbacks. There are no misogynist monologues. The audience learns about Vanessa’s abusive past from Vanessa, on Vanessa’s terms, through Vanessa’s own words.

This seems like the bare minimum of dignity any female character should be granted, yet so much media fails to meet this extremely low bar.

The movie makes it very clear that Vanessa has a life outside of sex work. She does not live on a stripper pole. Sex work is something Vanessa does. Sex work is not who Vanessa is. She has an apartment. She wears pajamas. What other fictional universe can say the same? I can think of one tv show, but that’s about it, and that show’s viewership is nothing compared to Deadpool’s.

Now on the one hand, I’m not necessarily happy that Vanessa’s character arc revolves almost entirely around her romantic relationship with the lead male protagonist. But on the other hand, I find it very refreshing to see a sex worker in the media whose character arc does not revolve entirely around the fact that she is a sex worker. Hate to say it, but for sex workers in the media, being relegated to the role of love interest is actually a step up.

And the people who call Deadpool a fuckboy’s wet dream sure as heck didn’t watch the same movie I did.

The movie has:

A very funny moment in which the joke is on those who assume that sex workers have abusive pasts, not on the sex worker. (The comparing abuse thing gets ridiculous enough that they’re both clearly lying).

The male lead repeatedly posed in female come-on positions. This one is my favorite:

He’s even on a bearskin rug in front of a fire. The humor in this pose is “Haha, isn’t it silly to pose a character like that.” It’s designed explicitly to make people think about how commonly female characters are shown in these kinds of ridiculous poses. Going to tell me that’s not a feminist visual joke?

An under-age female character who is never sexualized. Yeah, this girl

Look at that. A practical costume, her breasts are minimized rather than emphasized. We only see Negasonic Teenage Warhead as badass, not “cute.” And she’s treated like a teenager, not a child or an adult.

Oh, and Deadpool doesn’t rescue Vanessa in the end. He throws her a weapon so she can rescue herself. Which she does, because she’s badass.

I’d actually call Deadpool a feminist movie, and an important one. Why?

Because they probably tricked an entire bunch of fuckboys into watching a feminist movie ;).

So, why was it so feminist?

Two words: Ryan and Reynolds.

Ryan Reynolds wanted to do this movie. He wanted to do this movie for years. Reynolds is basically a Deadpool cosplayer who managed to convince a movie studio to pay him a lot of money to be a Deadpool cosplayer.

Guess what Ryan Reynolds also is?

When we are shown the strip club Vanessa works at, it is not filmed the way movies always film strip clubs.

It’s filmed as if we were going to an office. It’s just “this is where Vanessa happens to work.” No low shot angles to show off women’s bodies, no soft porn music.