sunflower yellow

the only "tall, thin and gangling, with big hands and feet, and a long nose" character I advocate for is Ronald Weasley who deserves to tower over each and every authority figure he encounters.

so by 3rd year Ron is 5'11 / 180 cm which is ridiculously tall for a 13 year old boy and makes him slightly taller than all his Professors:

btw UK average adult heights are 5'4-5'6 for women and 5'8-5'10 for men

5'10 / 178 cm McGonagall (described as a tall woman)

5'9.5 / 177 cm Snape (rather shorter than Sirius; slightly taller than Narcissa, who's exactly 5'8 / 173 cm for me)

5'9 / 176 cm Lupin (not described = average)

5'8 / 172 cm Filch (not described = average; not a Prof but Staff)

5'7 / 170 cm Sinistra (not described, but she was on the taller side in the movies so I'll give her that. shorter than Minerva still)

5'6 / 167 cm Trelawney (not described = average)

5'1 / 154 cm Sprout (describes as a squat little woman)

4'5 / 134 cm Flitwick (described as tiny but has distant goblin ancestry so I see him as being 5 inches taller than average goblin)

Dumbledore doesn't count cuz Ron barely stands next to the man and I reckon it's pretty hard to grow over 2 meters at 13. Hagrid is irrelevant cuz half-giant.

then Ron gets kidnapped by the first adult that year who looms over him at 6'3 / 191 cm - no wonder Sirius is terrifying, being that tall.

by the time Sirius dies Ron only grows to 6'2.5 / 189 cm so he never gets to be taller than him... shit now I'm making myself sad.

Sirius is 6'3 / 191 cm (as stated above; described as tall many times and as the tallest marauder in their photo; aside from that, I need him to be exactly 10 cm taller than James for some reason)

James is 5'11 / 181 cm (described as tall and the same height as 17yo Harry at 21; and Harry isn't over 6 feet as evident from his Runcorn transformation, making his most probable height 5'11; besides I think he's the type to be totally pissed he didn't grow 2 more cm to reach 6'0 and the thought makes me chuckle)

Remus is 5'9 / 176 cm (as stated above)

Lily is 5'7.5 / 172 cm (described as having to look down on 14yo Harry, who's around 5'5 at the time)

Peter is 5'5 / 165 cm (described as a very short man barely taller than 14yo Hermione and 13yo Harry - both around 5'3 at the time; more than a head shorter than Sirius, so the 10 inches gap works)

then onto Sirius' darling relatives + their lovers:

Bellatrix is 6'1.5 / 187 cm (described as a tall woman; noticeably taller than 17yo Harry, so very tall)

Andromeda is 6'1 / 185 cm (described as having a striking resemblance to Bella, so she must be of similar height)

Regulus is 6'0.5 / 184 cm (described as smaller than Sirius, likely both in muscle and height; still tall cuz all Blacks are)

Lucius is 5'10.5 / 179 cm (not described = average; but Draco is tall, so Lucius is on the taller side of average)

Ted is 5'9 / 175 cm (not described = average)

Narcissa is 5'8 / 173 cm (as stated above; described as a tall woman; slightly shorter than average Severus; the same height as 16yo Harry - around 5'10 - though here I'm going to allow myself to speculate that Narcissa was wearing heels, otherwise Snape would have to be tall and he's not described as such)

bonus: Tonks is 5'5 / 165 cm (not described = average; her height was only ever mentioned when she went undercover as a tall woman, meaning she isn't that tall herself)

and finally golden trio and co, during and post-canon:

Ron is 6'5 / 196 cm (as stated above; was 6'4.5 / 194 cm in DH; full height at 18; grows 2 cm in a few months after the war)

Harry is 6'0.5 / 184 cm (was 5'11 / 180 cm in DH; full height at 19; love the popular headcanon of him finally surpassing James after the war - my vision is that he slowly grows just 4 extra cm in a year and a half, cuz frankly I can't imagine him reaching 6'1+)

Neville is 5'7.5 / 171 cm (full height at 17 by the beginning of DH; described as short but not very short, so I'd put him just below average; I like to think he got his last growth spurt the summer before 7th year, which Harry just didn't notice upon returning to Hogwarts, cuz Neville was still shorter than him)

Hermione is 5'5.5 / 166 cm (full height at 15 by the beginning of OOTP; only ever described as shorter than Harry and taller than Ginny, making her height pretty average; picked this specific number cuz I need Ron to be exactly 30 cm taller, it's fun)

Luna is 5'4.5 / 164 cm (full height at 15 by the beginning of HBP; taller than Ginny but otherwise not described, so she's average)

Ginny is 5'1 / 155 cm (full height at 14 by the end of OOTP; described as noticeably the smallest of the group during department fight; 16yo Harry can look over her head in the kiss scene, so she must be around 8-9 inches shorter than 5'10)

bonus: Draco is 6'1 / 186 cm (full height at 17 by the time of Easter hols in DH; described as slightly taller than 17yo Harry and 6 cm seems fair to me; even without growing after the war remains technically taller than grown Harry, but it's only noticeable cuz he has perfect posture while Harry doesn't)

and a lot of times it's still compelling as hell when the most devoted characters start seeing cracks early or when they fight for something else in the first place, not regarding Dumbledore as their guiding light at all. it turns those characters into different people though.

but what strikes me more is the immediate shift of the atmosphere of the first war and everything that happens throughout.

because when I think about the first Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore, my first association is, surprisingly, cult of personality. USSR cults, specifically. they were sort of unique, initially crafted to give more power to the Party instead of the Leader.

Order is similar, in a way. on the surface it's just resistance. an organised war effort. a mishmash of people from different backgrounds uniting to fight for personal reasons. James fights for the greater good and his righteous ideals. and James fights for Lily. Lily fights for herself and those marginalised like her. and Lily fights for her muggle family. Sirius doesn't fight for, but against - against his blood family, against Slytherins, against everybody like them. and Sirius fights with James. those 3 are simple. what about others?

Remus doesn't fight for or against. Remus fights with Dumbledore. because Remus' world revolves around Dumbledore and when he says "go die in a war" - Remus goes, no questions asked. he owes Dumbledore that much. Peter doesn't fight for or against. Peter fights with Dumbledore. because Peter wants to be safe and Peter wants to win. Dumbledore promises a win. Peter believes him until he doesn't.

but James also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore is the greater good personified and shares James' righteous ideals. Lily also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights for marginalised the loudest. Sirius also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights against everybody who's like Sirius' family.

Dumbledore, Dumbledore, Dumbledore. the centre of it all, the bonfire of hope, the beacon of light, the daimon of good. Order is Dumbledore, first and foremost - not Moody, Alice, Frank, Dorcas, Marlene, Prewetts, Caradoc, James, Lily, Sirius, Remus or Peter. not any of the others. it's Albus Dumbledore and the blind, the devoted.

it doesn't fall apart until it's too late. it's only Sirius who gets a chance to notice but he promptly denies it, locked up in a cell for 12 years, carefully tucked away by Dumbledore. he trusts Dumbledore.

he trusts Dumbledore when he escapes, he trusts Dumbledore with Harry, he trusts Dumbledore when he tells Sirius to hide at Lupin's, he trusts Dumbledore when he locks Sirius up in his childhood house of terrors, he trusts Dumbledore when he assembles second Order. he joins Dumbledore, he fights with Dumbledore again, even locked up and angry, and the only time he doesn't trust Dumbledore with either Harry or himself he goes, and fights for Harry, and dies.

others are dead, or tortured, or new, or Remus. Remus who is the blindest and the most devoted. Remus who owes Dumbledore, believes that he owes Dumbledore everything and more. the new don't know any better yet, but Remus does and ignores it. he trusts Dumbledore. trusts him with Harry, and with Sirius, and with himself.

Remus joins Dumbledore, fights with Dumbledore again. sees Dumbledore destroy Sirius - looks the other way, sees Dumbledore destroy himself - deifies him even more in his death, sees Dumbledore's ghost destroy Harry - wants to join him to be destroyed too. because there's nothing left - Dumbledore gifted him his heart at 11, and it died piece by piece in the span of 16 years, and then Dumbledore dies himself, and he can't gift Remus another heart, another life. so Remus blinds himself some more, fights with Dumbledore's ghost and dies. probably for Dumbledore too.

and if all of that can happen when a small group of people simply trusts one mortal man, it's going to take a lot more than a wayward thought in one of those devoted heads to see the cracks. it's going to take a lot of thoughts, a lot of heads, a lot of cracks. a lot of discussions and a fair share of arm-twisting and change of faith. it surely must be a group effort in one way or another, preferably with the help of those who aren't as devoted. if there are any.

and a lot of times it's still compelling as hell when the most devoted characters start seeing cracks early or when they fight for something else in the first place, not regarding Dumbledore as their guiding light at all. it turns those characters into different people though.

but what strikes me more is the immediate shift of the atmosphere of the first war and everything that happens throughout.

because when I think about the first Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore, my first association is, surprisingly, cult of personality. USSR cults, specifically. they were sort of unique, initially crafted to give more power to the Party instead of the Leader.

Order is similar, in a way. on the surface it's just resistance. an organised war effort. a mishmash of people from different backgrounds uniting to fight for personal reasons. James fights for the greater good and his righteous ideals. and James fights for Lily. Lily fights for herself and those marginalised like her. and Lily fights for her muggle family. Sirius doesn't fight for, but against - against his blood family, against Slytherins, against everybody like them. and Sirius fights with James. those 3 are simple. what about others?

Remus doesn't fight for or against. Remus fights with Dumbledore. because Remus' world revolves around Dumbledore and when he says "go die in a war" - Remus goes, no questions asked. he owes Dumbledore that much. Peter doesn't fight for or against. Peter fights with Dumbledore. because Peter wants to be safe and Peter wants to win. Dumbledore promises a win. Peter believes him until he doesn't.

but James also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore is the greater good personified and shares James' righteous ideals. Lily also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights for marginalised the loudest. Sirius also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights against everybody who's like Sirius' family.

Dumbledore, Dumbledore, Dumbledore. the centre of it all, the bonfire of hope, the beacon of light, the daimon of good. Order is Dumbledore, first and foremost - not Moody, Alice, Frank, Dorcas, Marlene, Prewetts, Caradoc, James, Lily, Sirius, Remus or Peter. not any of the others. it's Albus Dumbledore and the blind, the devoted.

it doesn't fall apart until it's too late. it's only Sirius who gets a chance to notice but he promptly denies it, locked up in a cell for 12 years, carefully tucked away by Dumbledore. he trusts Dumbledore.

he trusts Dumbledore when he escapes, he trusts Dumbledore with Harry, he trusts Dumbledore when he tells Sirius to hide at Lupin's, he trusts Dumbledore when he locks Sirius up in his childhood house of terrors, he trusts Dumbledore when he assembles second Order. he joins Dumbledore, he fights with Dumbledore again, even locked up and angry, and the only time he doesn't trust Dumbledore with either Harry or himself he goes, and fights for Harry, and dies.

others are dead, or tortured, or new, or Remus. Remus who is the blindest and the most devoted. Remus who owes Dumbledore, believes that he owes Dumbledore everything and more. the new don't know any better yet, but Remus does and ignores it. he trusts Dumbledore. trusts him with Harry, and with Sirius, and with himself.

Remus joins Dumbledore, fights with Dumbledore again. sees Dumbledore destroy Sirius - looks the other way, sees Dumbledore destroy himself - deifies him even more in his death, sees Dumbledore's ghost destroy Harry - wants to join him to be destroyed too. because there's nothing left - Dumbledore gifted him his heart at 11, and it died piece by piece in the span of 16 years, and then Dumbledore dies himself, and he can't gift Remus another heart, another life. so Remus blinds himself some more, fights with Dumbledore's ghost and dies. probably for Dumbledore too.

and if all of that can happen when a small group of people simply trusts one mortal man, it's going to take a lot more than a wayward thought in one of those devoted heads to see the cracks. it's going to take a lot of thoughts, a lot of heads, a lot of cracks. a lot of discussions and a fair share of arm-twisting and change of faith. it surely must be a group effort in one way or another, preferably with the help of those who aren't as devoted. if there are any.

this is the only evidence of his blood superiority, he goes after numerous pure bloods so it’s hardly like wants to keep them safe : James Potter, Alastor Moody, The Longbottoms, Barry Crouch sr, Fabian and Gideon Prewett, Lavender Brown. ect.

we know Grindelwald didn’t wish to destroy the wizarding world due to the fact that he has yet to be seen firing the first spell, he only ever acts in self defence ( unless his opponent is a muggle ), he always gives the other wizard or witch no matter who they are the opportunity to walk away. if Riddle cared about wizard kind would he not offer the same opportunity?

Voldemort doesn’t care who is opponent is, he doesn’t care about their well being. Grindelwald saw being magic as something sacred and special, that people should never hide who they are. Voldemort wanted to use fear tactics to lord over everyone Purebloods included, in doing that he was actively destroying the wizarding world.

my argument is that it does every character you mentioned a disservice to claim that they would die if Dumbledore asked them to. why couldn’t Remus go against a future dictator simply because they were a future dictator, it had so little to do with Dumbledore.

it wasn’t even Dumbledores’ idea or cause, if it was it would have crumbled when he died. with or without him the order would continue, with or without him such an order would have formed.

i’m sorry if i upset you but every time you go onto the Dumbledore tag the first 10 posts are anti posts all about how he manipulated Remus and destroyed Sirius’ life. when all he did was say ‘ hey guys that man’s doing something evil ‘ and people agreed with him. ‘ sees Dumbledores ghost destroy Harry ‘ is a pretty anti comment that lacks any kind of canon material to back it up.

it would do a disservice to characters who canonically don't have their motivation tied to Dumbledore, but Remus is not one of them. not in the sense that "Dumbledore manipulated him yada yada" - no, never - but in the sense that Dumbledore was literally Remus' hero, he loved the man and was immensely grateful for all the opportunities Dumbledore gave him. the fact that Remus felt indebted to him afterwards is entirely on Remus, Dumbledore never used that against him. but you can't argue with it being Remus' canon motivation for fighting both wars. he might try to be kind but he's pretty selfish and cowardly, he wouldn't go against a future dictator just because it's the right thing to do - he'd run away if it weren't for Dumbledore and his closest friends joining the fight.

and I'm sorry you have to deal with so much Dumbledore hate on his tag, it's quite inconsiderate for antis to not tag their posts appropriately.

my paragraph with repetitions of the word "destroy" does sound shitty, I apologise. I was trying to write it as a reflection of how Remus processed those events, not as an objective jab at what Dumbledore was doing, but it turned out shitty and mean, yeah. my main focus here is actually Remus' continued trust and love for the man, not that he "blames" him for anyone's destruction; like I said he even looks the other way whenever Dumbledore does in fact do something imperfect (never evil, but flawed).

for the record, I do think that Dumbledore could have handled the Grimmauld Place situation with Sirius better, because it did destroy Sirius in the end (which still isn't directly Dumbledore's fault at all - but Harry for example blames him); but also Sirius was already fucked up from Azkaban (which is a ridiculous thing to blame Dumbledore for, I've seen those posts and it's bonkers. Dumbledore couldn't do anything about Azkaban and frankly wasn't obligated too) and kept fucking himself up after, so really Grimmauld Place was just a drop in the ocean of his problems. ultimately, people saying Dumbledore "destroyed Sirius' life" are delusional.

the Harry bit. well. here I do think Dumbledore is to blame, at least a little bit. he did kill himself as a result of his greed for power and hastily left all of his grandiose plans for eliminating horcruxes on a 17 year old's shoulders, which resulted in Harry living half-feral for a year, severely traumatised and ultimately suicidal to the point he readily embraces death as a gift. maybe you don't feel the same, but I think it's a pretty heavy burden to put on a minor. and it doesn't matter really that he was preparing Harry for years, I mean that's great and it was very kind of him to ease Harry into it at first, but it doesn't justify 7th book to me. but hey, Harry never blamed him, so everybody has their own view of the situation. and I don't think it makes Dumbledore evil or a bad person, he was himself unprepared for such a drastic change of plans and did what he could to guide the chosen one to end the war. he did pretty good, all thing considered, but could have done much better (but that would have been less impactful and I love flawed characters like Dumbledore all the more for each of their mistakes. makes them real and human).

they were stuck in purgatory and would have stayed there a long time if Dumbledore didn’t die. the same scene would have kept playing out : Voldemort goes after harry, Dumbledore shows up to save him and Voldemort flees and Harry continues his mantra that he’s safe as long as Dumbledore was around. how many other people would die while this scene kept repeating.

the ring itself wouldn’t have killed him very quickly, he could have had up to a year but what would he have done within that year? he couldn’t tell Harry all the infomation that he needed to destroy Voldemort as they still had that connection, voldemort could have found out and thus the plan would fail.

it’s the poison that he takes in the cave that kills him, the poison that had to be drank by someone in order to take the horcrux, he was deteriorating by the hour he may have only had a week left at most. who else would drink it ? who would be excepted to die ?

his death was necessary to win the war and he knew that, he left harry in the care of capable friends ; Minerva Mcgonagall, Snape, the Weasley family, Elphias Doge, his own brother Aberforth ect.

Aberforth in particular saves harry by sending Dobby to Malfoy manner. it appears that Harry is on his own because we are watching the events from Harry’s perspective, if Dumbledore was the main character the plan would have looked clearer.

canon Remus has always been a fascinating specimen to me and his relationship with Dumbledore is actually one of my favourite things about him. the idea for my original post was initially to discuss how wildly out of character it is for him to suddenly hate Albus and blame him for anything ever (in fics I've stumbled upon recently), as well as his motivation for joining the Order cuz I love it lots; but it got out of hand and turned into... that.

and a lot of times it's still compelling as hell when the most devoted characters start seeing cracks early or when they fight for something else in the first place, not regarding Dumbledore as their guiding light at all. it turns those characters into different people though.

but what strikes me more is the immediate shift of the atmosphere of the first war and everything that happens throughout.

because when I think about the first Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore, my first association is, surprisingly, cult of personality. USSR cults, specifically. they were sort of unique, initially crafted to give more power to the Party instead of the Leader.

Order is similar, in a way. on the surface it's just resistance. an organised war effort. a mishmash of people from different backgrounds uniting to fight for personal reasons. James fights for the greater good and his righteous ideals. and James fights for Lily. Lily fights for herself and those marginalised like her. and Lily fights for her muggle family. Sirius doesn't fight for, but against - against his blood family, against Slytherins, against everybody like them. and Sirius fights with James. those 3 are simple. what about others?

Remus doesn't fight for or against. Remus fights with Dumbledore. because Remus' world revolves around Dumbledore and when he says "go die in a war" - Remus goes, no questions asked. he owes Dumbledore that much. Peter doesn't fight for or against. Peter fights with Dumbledore. because Peter wants to be safe and Peter wants to win. Dumbledore promises a win. Peter believes him until he doesn't.

but James also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore is the greater good personified and shares James' righteous ideals. Lily also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights for marginalised the loudest. Sirius also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights against everybody who's like Sirius' family.

Dumbledore, Dumbledore, Dumbledore. the centre of it all, the bonfire of hope, the beacon of light, the daimon of good. Order is Dumbledore, first and foremost - not Moody, Alice, Frank, Dorcas, Marlene, Prewetts, Caradoc, James, Lily, Sirius, Remus or Peter. not any of the others. it's Albus Dumbledore and the blind, the devoted.

it doesn't fall apart until it's too late. it's only Sirius who gets a chance to notice but he promptly denies it, locked up in a cell for 12 years, carefully tucked away by Dumbledore. he trusts Dumbledore.

he trusts Dumbledore when he escapes, he trusts Dumbledore with Harry, he trusts Dumbledore when he tells Sirius to hide at Lupin's, he trusts Dumbledore when he locks Sirius up in his childhood house of terrors, he trusts Dumbledore when he assembles second Order. he joins Dumbledore, he fights with Dumbledore again, even locked up and angry, and the only time he doesn't trust Dumbledore with either Harry or himself he goes, and fights for Harry, and dies.

others are dead, or tortured, or new, or Remus. Remus who is the blindest and the most devoted. Remus who owes Dumbledore, believes that he owes Dumbledore everything and more. the new don't know any better yet, but Remus does and ignores it. he trusts Dumbledore. trusts him with Harry, and with Sirius, and with himself.

Remus joins Dumbledore, fights with Dumbledore again. sees Dumbledore destroy Sirius - looks the other way, sees Dumbledore destroy himself - deifies him even more in his death, sees Dumbledore's ghost destroy Harry - wants to join him to be destroyed too. because there's nothing left - Dumbledore gifted him his heart at 11, and it died piece by piece in the span of 16 years, and then Dumbledore dies himself, and he can't gift Remus another heart, another life. so Remus blinds himself some more, fights with Dumbledore's ghost and dies. probably for Dumbledore too.

and if all of that can happen when a small group of people simply trusts one mortal man, it's going to take a lot more than a wayward thought in one of those devoted heads to see the cracks. it's going to take a lot of thoughts, a lot of heads, a lot of cracks. a lot of discussions and a fair share of arm-twisting and change of faith. it surely must be a group effort in one way or another, preferably with the help of those who aren't as devoted. if there are any.

this is the only evidence of his blood superiority, he goes after numerous pure bloods so it’s hardly like wants to keep them safe : James Potter, Alastor Moody, The Longbottoms, Barry Crouch sr, Fabian and Gideon Prewett, Lavender Brown. ect.

we know Grindelwald didn’t wish to destroy the wizarding world due to the fact that he has yet to be seen firing the first spell, he only ever acts in self defence ( unless his opponent is a muggle ), he always gives the other wizard or witch no matter who they are the opportunity to walk away. if Riddle cared about wizard kind would he not offer the same opportunity?

Voldemort doesn’t care who is opponent is, he doesn’t care about their well being. Grindelwald saw being magic as something sacred and special, that people should never hide who they are. Voldemort wanted to use fear tactics to lord over everyone Purebloods included, in doing that he was actively destroying the wizarding world.

my argument is that it does every character you mentioned a disservice to claim that they would die if Dumbledore asked them to. why couldn’t Remus go against a future dictator simply because they were a future dictator, it had so little to do with Dumbledore.

it wasn’t even Dumbledores’ idea or cause, if it was it would have crumbled when he died. with or without him the order would continue, with or without him such an order would have formed.

i’m sorry if i upset you but every time you go onto the Dumbledore tag the first 10 posts are anti posts all about how he manipulated Remus and destroyed Sirius’ life. when all he did was say ‘ hey guys that man’s doing something evil ‘ and people agreed with him. ‘ sees Dumbledores ghost destroy Harry ‘ is a pretty anti comment that lacks any kind of canon material to back it up.

it would do a disservice to characters who canonically don't have their motivation tied to Dumbledore, but Remus is not one of them. not in the sense that "Dumbledore manipulated him yada yada" - no, never - but in the sense that Dumbledore was literally Remus' hero, he loved the man and was immensely grateful for all the opportunities Dumbledore gave him. the fact that Remus felt indebted to him afterwards is entirely on Remus, Dumbledore never used that against him. but you can't argue with it being Remus' canon motivation for fighting both wars. he might try to be kind but he's pretty selfish and cowardly, he wouldn't go against a future dictator just because it's the right thing to do - he'd run away if it weren't for Dumbledore and his closest friends joining the fight.

and I'm sorry you have to deal with so much Dumbledore hate on his tag, it's quite inconsiderate for antis to not tag their posts appropriately.

my paragraph with repetitions of the word "destroy" does sound shitty, I apologise. I was trying to write it as a reflection of how Remus processed those events, not as an objective jab at what Dumbledore was doing, but it turned out shitty and mean, yeah. my main focus here is actually Remus' continued trust and love for the man, not that he "blames" him for anyone's destruction; like I said he even looks the other way whenever Dumbledore does in fact do something imperfect (never evil, but flawed).

for the record, I do think that Dumbledore could have handled the Grimmauld Place situation with Sirius better, because it did destroy Sirius in the end (which still isn't directly Dumbledore's fault at all - but Harry for example blames him); but also Sirius was already fucked up from Azkaban (which is a ridiculous thing to blame Dumbledore for, I've seen those posts and it's bonkers. Dumbledore couldn't do anything about Azkaban and frankly wasn't obligated too) and kept fucking himself up after, so really Grimmauld Place was just a drop in the ocean of his problems. ultimately, people saying Dumbledore "destroyed Sirius' life" are delusional.

the Harry bit. well. here I do think Dumbledore is to blame, at least a little bit. he did kill himself as a result of his greed for power and hastily left all of his grandiose plans for eliminating horcruxes on a 17 year old's shoulders, which resulted in Harry living half-feral for a year, severely traumatised and ultimately suicidal to the point he readily embraces death as a gift. maybe you don't feel the same, but I think it's a pretty heavy burden to put on a minor. and it doesn't matter really that he was preparing Harry for years, I mean that's great and it was very kind of him to ease Harry into it at first, but it doesn't justify 7th book to me. but hey, Harry never blamed him, so everybody has their own view of the situation. and I don't think it makes Dumbledore evil or a bad person, he was himself unprepared for such a drastic change of plans and did what he could to guide the chosen one to end the war. he did pretty good, all thing considered, but could have done much better (but that would have been less impactful and I love flawed characters like Dumbledore all the more for each of their mistakes. makes them real and human).

they were stuck in purgatory and would have stayed there a long time if Dumbledore didn’t die. the same scene would have kept playing out : Voldemort goes after harry, Dumbledore shows up to save him and Voldemort flees and Harry continues his mantra that he’s safe as long as Dumbledore was around. how many other people would die while this scene kept repeating.

the ring itself wouldn’t have killed him very quickly, he could have had up to a year but what would he have done within that year? he couldn’t tell Harry all the infomation that he needed to destroy Voldemort as they still had that connection, voldemort could have found out and thus the plan would fail.

it’s the poison that he takes in the cave that kills him, the poison that had to be drank by someone in order to take the horcrux, he was deteriorating by the hour he may have only had a week left at most. who else would drink it ? who would be excepted to die ?

his death was necessary to win the war and he knew that, he left harry in the care of capable friends ; Minerva Mcgonagall, Snape, the Weasley family, Elphias Doge, his own brother Aberforth ect.

Aberforth in particular saves harry by sending Dobby to Malfoy manner. it appears that Harry is on his own because we are watching the events from Harry’s perspective, if Dumbledore was the main character the plan would have looked clearer.

and a lot of times it's still compelling as hell when the most devoted characters start seeing cracks early or when they fight for something else in the first place, not regarding Dumbledore as their guiding light at all. it turns those characters into different people though.

but what strikes me more is the immediate shift of the atmosphere of the first war and everything that happens throughout.

because when I think about the first Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore, my first association is, surprisingly, cult of personality. USSR cults, specifically. they were sort of unique, initially crafted to give more power to the Party instead of the Leader.

Order is similar, in a way. on the surface it's just resistance. an organised war effort. a mishmash of people from different backgrounds uniting to fight for personal reasons. James fights for the greater good and his righteous ideals. and James fights for Lily. Lily fights for herself and those marginalised like her. and Lily fights for her muggle family. Sirius doesn't fight for, but against - against his blood family, against Slytherins, against everybody like them. and Sirius fights with James. those 3 are simple. what about others?

Remus doesn't fight for or against. Remus fights with Dumbledore. because Remus' world revolves around Dumbledore and when he says "go die in a war" - Remus goes, no questions asked. he owes Dumbledore that much. Peter doesn't fight for or against. Peter fights with Dumbledore. because Peter wants to be safe and Peter wants to win. Dumbledore promises a win. Peter believes him until he doesn't.

but James also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore is the greater good personified and shares James' righteous ideals. Lily also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights for marginalised the loudest. Sirius also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights against everybody who's like Sirius' family.

Dumbledore, Dumbledore, Dumbledore. the centre of it all, the bonfire of hope, the beacon of light, the daimon of good. Order is Dumbledore, first and foremost - not Moody, Alice, Frank, Dorcas, Marlene, Prewetts, Caradoc, James, Lily, Sirius, Remus or Peter. not any of the others. it's Albus Dumbledore and the blind, the devoted.

it doesn't fall apart until it's too late. it's only Sirius who gets a chance to notice but he promptly denies it, locked up in a cell for 12 years, carefully tucked away by Dumbledore. he trusts Dumbledore.

he trusts Dumbledore when he escapes, he trusts Dumbledore with Harry, he trusts Dumbledore when he tells Sirius to hide at Lupin's, he trusts Dumbledore when he locks Sirius up in his childhood house of terrors, he trusts Dumbledore when he assembles second Order. he joins Dumbledore, he fights with Dumbledore again, even locked up and angry, and the only time he doesn't trust Dumbledore with either Harry or himself he goes, and fights for Harry, and dies.

others are dead, or tortured, or new, or Remus. Remus who is the blindest and the most devoted. Remus who owes Dumbledore, believes that he owes Dumbledore everything and more. the new don't know any better yet, but Remus does and ignores it. he trusts Dumbledore. trusts him with Harry, and with Sirius, and with himself.

Remus joins Dumbledore, fights with Dumbledore again. sees Dumbledore destroy Sirius - looks the other way, sees Dumbledore destroy himself - deifies him even more in his death, sees Dumbledore's ghost destroy Harry - wants to join him to be destroyed too. because there's nothing left - Dumbledore gifted him his heart at 11, and it died piece by piece in the span of 16 years, and then Dumbledore dies himself, and he can't gift Remus another heart, another life. so Remus blinds himself some more, fights with Dumbledore's ghost and dies. probably for Dumbledore too.

and if all of that can happen when a small group of people simply trusts one mortal man, it's going to take a lot more than a wayward thought in one of those devoted heads to see the cracks. it's going to take a lot of thoughts, a lot of heads, a lot of cracks. a lot of discussions and a fair share of arm-twisting and change of faith. it surely must be a group effort in one way or another, preferably with the help of those who aren't as devoted. if there are any.

this is the only evidence of his blood superiority, he goes after numerous pure bloods so it’s hardly like wants to keep them safe : James Potter, Alastor Moody, The Longbottoms, Barry Crouch sr, Fabian and Gideon Prewett, Lavender Brown. ect.

we know Grindelwald didn’t wish to destroy the wizarding world due to the fact that he has yet to be seen firing the first spell, he only ever acts in self defence ( unless his opponent is a muggle ), he always gives the other wizard or witch no matter who they are the opportunity to walk away. if Riddle cared about wizard kind would he not offer the same opportunity?

Voldemort doesn’t care who is opponent is, he doesn’t care about their well being. Grindelwald saw being magic as something sacred and special, that people should never hide who they are. Voldemort wanted to use fear tactics to lord over everyone Purebloods included, in doing that he was actively destroying the wizarding world.

my argument is that it does every character you mentioned a disservice to claim that they would die if Dumbledore asked them to. why couldn’t Remus go against a future dictator simply because they were a future dictator, it had so little to do with Dumbledore.

it wasn’t even Dumbledores’ idea or cause, if it was it would have crumbled when he died. with or without him the order would continue, with or without him such an order would have formed.

i’m sorry if i upset you but every time you go onto the Dumbledore tag the first 10 posts are anti posts all about how he manipulated Remus and destroyed Sirius’ life. when all he did was say ‘ hey guys that man’s doing something evil ‘ and people agreed with him. ‘ sees Dumbledores ghost destroy Harry ‘ is a pretty anti comment that lacks any kind of canon material to back it up.

it would do a disservice to characters who canonically don't have their motivation tied to Dumbledore, but Remus is not one of them. not in the sense that "Dumbledore manipulated him yada yada" - no, never - but in the sense that Dumbledore was literally Remus' hero, he loved the man and was immensely grateful for all the opportunities Dumbledore gave him. the fact that Remus felt indebted to him afterwards is entirely on Remus, Dumbledore never used that against him. but you can't argue with it being Remus' canon motivation for fighting both wars. he might try to be kind but he's pretty selfish and cowardly, he wouldn't go against a future dictator just because it's the right thing to do - he'd run away if it weren't for Dumbledore and his closest friends joining the fight.

and I'm sorry you have to deal with so much Dumbledore hate on his tag, it's quite inconsiderate for antis to not tag their posts appropriately.

my paragraph with repetitions of the word "destroy" does sound shitty, I apologise. I was trying to write it as a reflection of how Remus processed those events, not as an objective jab at what Dumbledore was doing, but it turned out shitty and mean, yeah. my main focus here is actually Remus' continued trust and love for the man, not that he "blames" him for anyone's destruction; like I said he even looks the other way whenever Dumbledore does in fact do something imperfect (never evil, but flawed).

for the record, I do think that Dumbledore could have handled the Grimmauld Place situation with Sirius better, because it did destroy Sirius in the end (which still isn't directly Dumbledore's fault at all - but Harry for example blames him); but also Sirius was already fucked up from Azkaban (which is a ridiculous thing to blame Dumbledore for, I've seen those posts and it's bonkers. Dumbledore couldn't do anything about Azkaban and frankly wasn't obligated too) and kept fucking himself up after, so really Grimmauld Place was just a drop in the ocean of his problems. ultimately, people saying Dumbledore "destroyed Sirius' life" are delusional.

the Harry bit. well. here I do think Dumbledore is to blame, at least a little bit. he did kill himself as a result of his greed for power and hastily left all of his grandiose plans for eliminating horcruxes on a 17 year old's shoulders, which resulted in Harry living half-feral for a year, severely traumatised and ultimately suicidal to the point he readily embraces death as a gift. maybe you don't feel the same, but I think it's a pretty heavy burden to put on a minor. and it doesn't matter really that he was preparing Harry for years, I mean that's great and it was very kind of him to ease Harry into it at first, but it doesn't justify 7th book to me. but hey, Harry never blamed him, so everybody has their own view of the situation. and I don't think it makes Dumbledore evil or a bad person, he was himself unprepared for such a drastic change of plans and did what he could to guide the chosen one to end the war. he did pretty good, all thing considered, but could have done much better (but that would have been less impactful and I love flawed characters like Dumbledore all the more for each of their mistakes. makes them real and human).

and a lot of times it's still compelling as hell when the most devoted characters start seeing cracks early or when they fight for something else in the first place, not regarding Dumbledore as their guiding light at all. it turns those characters into different people though.

but what strikes me more is the immediate shift of the atmosphere of the first war and everything that happens throughout.

because when I think about the first Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore, my first association is, surprisingly, cult of personality. USSR cults, specifically. they were sort of unique, initially crafted to give more power to the Party instead of the Leader.

Order is similar, in a way. on the surface it's just resistance. an organised war effort. a mishmash of people from different backgrounds uniting to fight for personal reasons. James fights for the greater good and his righteous ideals. and James fights for Lily. Lily fights for herself and those marginalised like her. and Lily fights for her muggle family. Sirius doesn't fight for, but against - against his blood family, against Slytherins, against everybody like them. and Sirius fights with James. those 3 are simple. what about others?

Remus doesn't fight for or against. Remus fights with Dumbledore. because Remus' world revolves around Dumbledore and when he says "go die in a war" - Remus goes, no questions asked. he owes Dumbledore that much. Peter doesn't fight for or against. Peter fights with Dumbledore. because Peter wants to be safe and Peter wants to win. Dumbledore promises a win. Peter believes him until he doesn't.

but James also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore is the greater good personified and shares James' righteous ideals. Lily also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights for marginalised the loudest. Sirius also fights with Dumbledore. because Dumbledore fights against everybody who's like Sirius' family.

Dumbledore, Dumbledore, Dumbledore. the centre of it all, the bonfire of hope, the beacon of light, the daimon of good. Order is Dumbledore, first and foremost - not Moody, Alice, Frank, Dorcas, Marlene, Prewetts, Caradoc, James, Lily, Sirius, Remus or Peter. not any of the others. it's Albus Dumbledore and the blind, the devoted.

it doesn't fall apart until it's too late. it's only Sirius who gets a chance to notice but he promptly denies it, locked up in a cell for 12 years, carefully tucked away by Dumbledore. he trusts Dumbledore.

he trusts Dumbledore when he escapes, he trusts Dumbledore with Harry, he trusts Dumbledore when he tells Sirius to hide at Lupin's, he trusts Dumbledore when he locks Sirius up in his childhood house of terrors, he trusts Dumbledore when he assembles second Order. he joins Dumbledore, he fights with Dumbledore again, even locked up and angry, and the only time he doesn't trust Dumbledore with either Harry or himself he goes, and fights for Harry, and dies.

others are dead, or tortured, or new, or Remus. Remus who is the blindest and the most devoted. Remus who owes Dumbledore, believes that he owes Dumbledore everything and more. the new don't know any better yet, but Remus does and ignores it. he trusts Dumbledore. trusts him with Harry, and with Sirius, and with himself.

Remus joins Dumbledore, fights with Dumbledore again. sees Dumbledore destroy Sirius - looks the other way, sees Dumbledore destroy himself - deifies him even more in his death, sees Dumbledore's ghost destroy Harry - wants to join him to be destroyed too. because there's nothing left - Dumbledore gifted him his heart at 11, and it died piece by piece in the span of 16 years, and then Dumbledore dies himself, and he can't gift Remus another heart, another life. so Remus blinds himself some more, fights with Dumbledore's ghost and dies. probably for Dumbledore too.

and if all of that can happen when a small group of people simply trusts one mortal man, it's going to take a lot more than a wayward thought in one of those devoted heads to see the cracks. it's going to take a lot of thoughts, a lot of heads, a lot of cracks. a lot of discussions and a fair share of arm-twisting and change of faith. it surely must be a group effort in one way or another, preferably with the help of those who aren't as devoted. if there are any.

because literally nothing else that Ronks antis consider deal breakers for them matters to me - not the fumbled way they get together in canon, not them getting married so quickly, not Tonks getting pregnant, not the assumed queer-coding of both characters (which I personally see, don't get me wrong. but it's assumed and who the fuck says they can't be queer4queer anyway?). sure, the nuclear family narrative being pushed so quickly and thoroughly onto them is peculiar but who says they didn't want to make the most of their time during a war? I love wartime drama and they would have been my shit if it weren't for... well. Tonks being 22 and Remus 35 when they meet.

I just can't ship big age gaps unless the youngest character is closer to 30 than 20. which is infuriating, because Ronks is objectively more fascinating because of their gap. my fucking loss, don't you think?

anyway, after thinking of ways I can make Tonks older without hurting the story, I began wondering whether her age is narratively important, and yes, turns out it very much is - for Harry.

Tonks being 22 in order of phoenix makes her the closest of Order members to Harry's age (Weasley twins don't count because they're Ron's brothers first, order members second for Harry) and the one Order member Harry can relate to the most in his youth and desire to fight. She almost perfectly parallels marauders and Lily in first war and represents the fun of the fight, the fire of youth, the confidence of a new recruit, the safety of relatability for Harry. She's one of the biggest inspirations for his newfound dream of becoming an auror. Harry needs Tonks among those older, battle-worn, cautious, secretive adults who don't take him seriously and never look him in the eye, because he wants to be what she is even before realising it and only reflects on it after spending time with her.

all in all, Tonks being 22 matters quite a lot for Harry's story.

now, we have no way of knowing whether Joanne came up with Ronks storyline prior to Tonks' introduction, but it shouldn't matter for their relationship, not in Joanne's opinion - Tonks' youth already fulfilled its narrative role in order of phoenix and stopped being an important asset of her character in half-blood prince.

oh, but unfortunately it still matters in the grand scheme of things, Joanne. you don't just introduce a young adult character (I'm 21 myself and gods, 22/23 is barely more mature), chuck their established age out the window and pair them up with a character in their mid-to-late thirties. and of fucking course it makes sense for a 23 year old to be down bad for some scruffy 36 year old man, it's incredibly realistic! this 36 year old man acting upon such crush is a little questionable, but still realistic (and we know Remus is very flawed, so I'm not surprised). but you know what isn't realistic at all?

Molly - a 46 year old woman, married to her high school sweetheart, mother to 7 children, 3 of which are close to Tonks' age - being extremely supportive of actually engaging in that sort of relationship, going as far as reprimanding Remus for not committing to it. I'm sorry, what? Molly might have some flaws as a mother, but she is nothing if not protective of her kids and those in their age range. She genuinely becomes somewhat of a mother figure for Tonks during their time in the Order, and I just cannot for the life of me understand how Molly could encourage her to pursue Remus and vice-versa, instead of consoling Tonks in her tragic crush and making sure Remus doesn't even look at her like that.

Minerva - an even older woman who taught both Remus and Tonks at Hogwarts, witnessed Remus becoming an adult from his graduation in 1978 up until 1981, then saw an 11 year old Tonks start Hogwarts 3 years later in 1984 - chiding Remus for not being "brave" enough to commit to such relationship. first of all, why the fuck is she involved in that narrative at all? it's none of her business??? she's not in any pseudo parenting role for either of them, unlike Molly, so I never understood why she even has a place to voice her opinion about their romance. second of all, even if it was her business, Minerva - a professor who witnessed both Remus and Tonks grow up so many years apart - would realistically feel pretty weird about such relationship.

those aren't problems with the ship itself, but rather the way Joanne implemented their romance in the story. I think it would be more realistic if Ronks was some kind of fucked up forbidden romance from other characters' perspectives. the way everybody is so instantly supportive of them is quite jarring to me.

interestingly, when I read hp for the first time at 11 I was quite adamant in my belief that Tonks was in love with Molly up until that scene in half-blood prince. a very weird belief for a kid, I know. I just only liked girls at the time and was relating to Tonks quite a bit since her introduction, so I guess I unconsciously decided she was a lesbian even without knowing that term yet. I also had a crush on my teacher in 4th grade and she was quite similar to Molly... yeah, this girl was projecting too much. I didn't pick up on Remus' queer-coding until I fell down the rabbit hole of lgbt discourse at 14, but was pretty shocked to read about Tonks falling for a man at 11. she was so like me until she wasn't :) it's pretty funny to think about now.

tl;dr - remember that this is not a more standard relationship between a 23yo woman and a 35yo man. Remus is a whole ass hot mess who needs so much therapy and Tonks got into her dream job’s career track (and one that requires a great deal of maturity) directly out of high school.

Ok I can absolutely get where you’re coming from and you lay out your case well, but if I may provide some perspective from someone with 10 years on you: Is Remus physically 35 when they meet? Yes. Does he appear that he’s a well-enough-adjusted Actual Adult™️ to the kids? Generally, yes, but they only see him in situations where he would need to appear as a mature, experienced professor-type resource to them.

However

There is no way that guy is remotely at an emotional maturity of your average 35yo man (granted, gonna be honest, that bar is not really the highest in my own experience). That dude had his entire world come crashing down in one event and then likely just coasted to get by and continue living for the next 12 years. We know he never found relationships or human connection the way he had with his school friends. He didn’t mature into actual adulthood alongside his close peers (careers, families, etc) because he simply didn’t have any and didn’t have much for actual career prospects versus bouncing from whatever employment he could obtain because of prejudice against werewolves.

There’s also a solid post from not long ago about someone refuting the power dynamic that typically exists to some degree in a relationship with a young woman and significantly older man by pointing out that the person with notably more power in between those two is Tonks. She’s a confident individual with family and friends, has not experienced the same kind(s) of trauma Remus has (and also probably received some sort of support for any she may have, unlike Remus), has a promising and very well-respected career. Remus has nothing.

Again, as someone who is coming up on 32 and also happens to have a personality fairly similar to our guy Remus Lupin — I’ve had a decent amount of experience in a position of authority but also appearing to be the mature “actual adult” to teenagers I was the immediate supervisor of, but also very friendly with them. But lmaooo how badly so much of it was “do as I say, not as I do”

Also, I had a number of things change suddenly and significantly in my life in like 2015-16 (and not remotely traumatizing as having all of my friends die one night and then being a pariah for over a decade) that never really got the closure I’d prefer and haven’t gotten around to bringing myself to address it head-on, process, and allow all of that baggage to move along. I have told many people for years that I am emotionally stuck in that period of time and really have not changed that much as a person at all in that time. However, I had friends and family and a committed romantic relationship that entire time and people to lean on if I desperately needed it.

That was long-winded but my point is that I can very sympathize with, and self reporting here, being stunted like that and my things are relatively mundane to even my peers, so lightyears more vapid than Remus’s life. (I am just a sensitive flower about existing)

it seems to me that I've gone a bit off my initial track in the original post and completely forgot to mention exactly what you did in your reblog. that's the thing - I totally understand that there is little to no power dynamic typical for big age gaps it their relationship, considering - ike you said - Remus' past and personality as well as Tonks' career path and personality. I never really intended to undermine Tonks' maturity (which I guess I did with comparing her to my age, right), my problem with their gap rather lies with Remus really. and not even Remus himself - like I mentioned it the post, as it turns out, my main issue isn't with the ship but with its execution in canon, because despite being less than emotionally mature enough for a 36 year old man - like you explained in amazing detail - Remus still has a body of one. some would say it's even older due to his lycanthropy having a go at him physically. and he lives in a society where people perceive him as a man in his late 30s. which is where my problem with everyone around him thinking their relationship is a-okay mainly comes from.

though, maybe I'm being too harsh on Joanne for not being more realistic about their portrayal, because of all the things you mentioned clearly being true for their dynamic. and maybe it makes sense that people in Remus' closest circle wouldn't really care about his physical age because they'd see his emotional maturity for what it really is at that point.

I guess it really boils down to me being uncomfortable with age gap relationships with one partner in their early 20s and another in their 30s due to my personal trauma and my current proximity to the age of the younger partner in such relationships. it's probably that, then :)

which is an interesting thought, really, because I personally don't see such relationship as immoral or unacceptable in any way - neither in fiction nor in real life (especially). two consenting adults are two consenting adults, no matter their ages. I just wouldn't want to be in one myself and maybe that's why it brings me no particular joy to explore such dynamic in fiction. actually, that's probably the case!

For that part, I kind of just resigned it to them knowing this miserable, lonely bastard (some, like McGonagall, since he was quite young) and probably seeing how they interacted with each other and that he seemed to light back up as a person. I’m pretty sure it’s mentioned at least twice in DH that he looked noticeably younger and healthier after he stopped trying to run away from Tonks. Especially when he tells everyone at Shell Cottage that Teddy was born and Harry thinks that that’s the youngest he’s ever seen Remus look just because he was happy. The Pottermore entry also says his feelings towards her started as just amusement, so it can be extrapolated that she probably made him laugh a lot more, which would have been a stark contrast to the Remus everyone was used to.

I do completely understand where you’re at with it though. I’ve absolutely sat and thought about people I personally know that are those ages and how I’d feel about them together and had mixed feelings; some would be totally fine and others would definitely vibe off uncomfortable vibes. This particular relationship I have just put more thought into because of my own personality lmao. My outward appearance to others physically (clothing, decorating, being clumsy to the point of being a running joke) and social mask when needing to be anything above neutral to people is very Tonks but my actual personality in terms of behaviors, especially problematic ones, and general mental illnesses behind them and when I don’t have to put up a social mask have always been close to Remus Lupin. I had that revelation as a damn teenager when I reread the series after DH came out and was like ..oh. I also just posted about having read some metas and not appreciating having been called out like that. So while I have always seen a lot of “this relationship doesn’t make sense??” responses since HBP was published, I clung to it a little hard simply because I am a disaster of a person 🤪

and with your personal relation to both Tonks and Remus it makes perfect sense that you'd be emotionally attached to their ship. I can completely understand the need to defend them against the frankly ridiculous amount of hate they always get. it must get pretty tiring now that I think about it, which is why I'm very happy we could have such a sweet interaction despite our differing opinions on the matter!

because literally nothing else that Ronks antis consider deal breakers for them matters to me - not the fumbled way they get together in canon, not them getting married so quickly, not Tonks getting pregnant, not the assumed queer-coding of both characters (which I personally see, don't get me wrong. but it's assumed and who the fuck says they can't be queer4queer anyway?). sure, the nuclear family narrative being pushed so quickly and thoroughly onto them is peculiar but who says they didn't want to make the most of their time during a war? I love wartime drama and they would have been my shit if it weren't for... well. Tonks being 22 and Remus 35 when they meet.

I just can't ship big age gaps unless the youngest character is closer to 30 than 20. which is infuriating, because Ronks is objectively more fascinating because of their gap. my fucking loss, don't you think?

anyway, after thinking of ways I can make Tonks older without hurting the story, I began wondering whether her age is narratively important, and yes, turns out it very much is - for Harry.

Tonks being 22 in order of phoenix makes her the closest of Order members to Harry's age (Weasley twins don't count because they're Ron's brothers first, order members second for Harry) and the one Order member Harry can relate to the most in his youth and desire to fight. She almost perfectly parallels marauders and Lily in first war and represents the fun of the fight, the fire of youth, the confidence of a new recruit, the safety of relatability for Harry. She's one of the biggest inspirations for his newfound dream of becoming an auror. Harry needs Tonks among those older, battle-worn, cautious, secretive adults who don't take him seriously and never look him in the eye, because he wants to be what she is even before realising it and only reflects on it after spending time with her.

all in all, Tonks being 22 matters quite a lot for Harry's story.

now, we have no way of knowing whether Joanne came up with Ronks storyline prior to Tonks' introduction, but it shouldn't matter for their relationship, not in Joanne's opinion - Tonks' youth already fulfilled its narrative role in order of phoenix and stopped being an important asset of her character in half-blood prince.

oh, but unfortunately it still matters in the grand scheme of things, Joanne. you don't just introduce a young adult character (I'm 21 myself and gods, 22/23 is barely more mature), chuck their established age out the window and pair them up with a character in their mid-to-late thirties. and of fucking course it makes sense for a 23 year old to be down bad for some scruffy 36 year old man, it's incredibly realistic! this 36 year old man acting upon such crush is a little questionable, but still realistic (and we know Remus is very flawed, so I'm not surprised). but you know what isn't realistic at all?

Molly - a 46 year old woman, married to her high school sweetheart, mother to 7 children, 3 of which are close to Tonks' age - being extremely supportive of actually engaging in that sort of relationship, going as far as reprimanding Remus for not committing to it. I'm sorry, what? Molly might have some flaws as a mother, but she is nothing if not protective of her kids and those in their age range. She genuinely becomes somewhat of a mother figure for Tonks during their time in the Order, and I just cannot for the life of me understand how Molly could encourage her to pursue Remus and vice-versa, instead of consoling Tonks in her tragic crush and making sure Remus doesn't even look at her like that.

Minerva - an even older woman who taught both Remus and Tonks at Hogwarts, witnessed Remus becoming an adult from his graduation in 1978 up until 1981, then saw an 11 year old Tonks start Hogwarts 3 years later in 1984 - chiding Remus for not being "brave" enough to commit to such relationship. first of all, why the fuck is she involved in that narrative at all? it's none of her business??? she's not in any pseudo parenting role for either of them, unlike Molly, so I never understood why she even has a place to voice her opinion about their romance. second of all, even if it was her business, Minerva - a professor who witnessed both Remus and Tonks grow up so many years apart - would realistically feel pretty weird about such relationship.

those aren't problems with the ship itself, but rather the way Joanne implemented their romance in the story. I think it would be more realistic if Ronks was some kind of fucked up forbidden romance from other characters' perspectives. the way everybody is so instantly supportive of them is quite jarring to me.

interestingly, when I read hp for the first time at 11 I was quite adamant in my belief that Tonks was in love with Molly up until that scene in half-blood prince. a very weird belief for a kid, I know. I just only liked girls at the time and was relating to Tonks quite a bit since her introduction, so I guess I unconsciously decided she was a lesbian even without knowing that term yet. I also had a crush on my teacher in 4th grade and she was quite similar to Molly... yeah, this girl was projecting too much. I didn't pick up on Remus' queer-coding until I fell down the rabbit hole of lgbt discourse at 14, but was pretty shocked to read about Tonks falling for a man at 11. she was so like me until she wasn't :) it's pretty funny to think about now.

tl;dr - remember that this is not a more standard relationship between a 23yo woman and a 35yo man. Remus is a whole ass hot mess who needs so much therapy and Tonks got into her dream job’s career track (and one that requires a great deal of maturity) directly out of high school.

Ok I can absolutely get where you’re coming from and you lay out your case well, but if I may provide some perspective from someone with 10 years on you: Is Remus physically 35 when they meet? Yes. Does he appear that he’s a well-enough-adjusted Actual Adult™️ to the kids? Generally, yes, but they only see him in situations where he would need to appear as a mature, experienced professor-type resource to them.

However

There is no way that guy is remotely at an emotional maturity of your average 35yo man (granted, gonna be honest, that bar is not really the highest in my own experience). That dude had his entire world come crashing down in one event and then likely just coasted to get by and continue living for the next 12 years. We know he never found relationships or human connection the way he had with his school friends. He didn’t mature into actual adulthood alongside his close peers (careers, families, etc) because he simply didn’t have any and didn’t have much for actual career prospects versus bouncing from whatever employment he could obtain because of prejudice against werewolves.

There’s also a solid post from not long ago about someone refuting the power dynamic that typically exists to some degree in a relationship with a young woman and significantly older man by pointing out that the person with notably more power in between those two is Tonks. She’s a confident individual with family and friends, has not experienced the same kind(s) of trauma Remus has (and also probably received some sort of support for any she may have, unlike Remus), has a promising and very well-respected career. Remus has nothing.

Again, as someone who is coming up on 32 and also happens to have a personality fairly similar to our guy Remus Lupin — I’ve had a decent amount of experience in a position of authority but also appearing to be the mature “actual adult” to teenagers I was the immediate supervisor of, but also very friendly with them. But lmaooo how badly so much of it was “do as I say, not as I do”

Also, I had a number of things change suddenly and significantly in my life in like 2015-16 (and not remotely traumatizing as having all of my friends die one night and then being a pariah for over a decade) that never really got the closure I’d prefer and haven’t gotten around to bringing myself to address it head-on, process, and allow all of that baggage to move along. I have told many people for years that I am emotionally stuck in that period of time and really have not changed that much as a person at all in that time. However, I had friends and family and a committed romantic relationship that entire time and people to lean on if I desperately needed it.

That was long-winded but my point is that I can very sympathize with, and self reporting here, being stunted like that and my things are relatively mundane to even my peers, so lightyears more vapid than Remus’s life. (I am just a sensitive flower about existing)

it seems to me that I've gone a bit off my initial track in the original post and completely forgot to mention exactly what you did in your reblog. that's the thing - I totally understand that there is little to no power dynamic typical for big age gaps it their relationship, considering - ike you said - Remus' past and personality as well as Tonks' career path and personality. I never really intended to undermine Tonks' maturity (which I guess I did with comparing her to my age, right), my problem with their gap rather lies with Remus really. and not even Remus himself - like I mentioned it the post, as it turns out, my main issue isn't with the ship but with its execution in canon, because despite being less than emotionally mature enough for a 36 year old man - like you explained in amazing detail - Remus still has a body of one. some would say it's even older due to his lycanthropy having a go at him physically. and he lives in a society where people perceive him as a man in his late 30s. which is where my problem with everyone around him thinking their relationship is a-okay mainly comes from.

though, maybe I'm being too harsh on Joanne for not being more realistic about their portrayal, because of all the things you mentioned clearly being true for their dynamic. and maybe it makes sense that people in Remus' closest circle wouldn't really care about his physical age because they'd see his emotional maturity for what it really is at that point.

I guess it really boils down to me being uncomfortable with age gap relationships with one partner in their early 20s and another in their 30s due to my personal trauma and my current proximity to the age of the younger partner in such relationships. it's probably that, then :)

which is an interesting thought, really, because I personally don't see such relationship as immoral or unacceptable in any way - neither in fiction nor in real life (especially). two consenting adults are two consenting adults, no matter their ages. I just wouldn't want to be in one myself and maybe that's why it brings me no particular joy to explore such dynamic in fiction. actually, that's probably the case!