Untitled

Man, did you buy anything for yourself today? Yeah, I got this pack of socks. Plain white socks? That's not a treat! Donna! Get me away from him.

PARKS AND RECREATION | 4.04

Bonus:

After another user asked me some questions about British food as it appears in Harry Potter I decided to make a post about it, as no doubt other foreign readers have similar questions. I will talk about EVERYTHING so sorry if you have to scroll through loads of stuff you know to find what you want, but I have written it to be accessible to literally anyone and I don’t want to assume people know what something is just because I do.

Also, it was impossible to make the post without referencing class. The fact that it was impossible only goes to show how it’s probably impossible to understand the books in depth without an understanding of class in Britain. The whole texts are encoded with references to class which are so subtle (much like class itself) that even I, who grew up being encoded in the same way, had to analyse the texts to find them. At some point I’ll make a post about just class, but for now we’ll stick to the light-hearted topic of food!

I don’t know if this is my assumption or knowledge I picked up somewhere, but I think the reason boiled foods are more connected with lower class is that they’re simple - oil, grease, fat, etc. ie. things you would bake or sautee vegetables with costs money. It also adds flavor, and historically there have been social restrictions in England that have forced the lower classes to live more simply in an effort to assert their place going back centuries. It would be interesting to look into the history of these foods and see if there were deliberate restrictions to limit certain people’s access to them.

I would also say that the idea of privilege being connected with race isn’t just an American thing. OP says that privilege in the UK is more connected with status and not really race, but that’s much closer to American culture than they might realize. Economic mobility has been limited in the UK until very recently, and is tied closely with social mobility. As OP says: “Here, “privilege” means what you have access to, how valid other people see your tastes and way of life, what you have grown up doing, seeing, eating, hearing, believing. It is bound up inexorably with how much money you have, what you do for a living and where you live and, crucially, with your family’s status historically.” Historically the UK is predominantly white; while there were moors in the medieval period and black people have indeed always had a presence, a lot of the UK’s current black citizens are descended from people who were either brought against their will or incentivized with initiatives like the Windrush Generation. Desi and South Asian people mostly came here because of the economic advantage and the mobility that the Commonwealth allowed, but the oppressive history of English presence in India is closely tied with the discrimination and social limitations experienced by Indian people in the UK.

Black and brown people in the UK have, in large numbers, historically lived in lower class areas and don’t have the kind of historical family status that OP refers to. I’ve lived in the UK for a while and have been to numerous museum tours and presentations that assert the kind of perspective OP is espousing (albeit well-meaningly, I’m sure), which compares the UK to the US and posits that the UK is progressive and doesn’t have a race problem. At every one of these talks if a black or South Asian friend was with me, they had a lot to say afterwards about the inaccuracies and whitewashing of what was said. I’ve literally seen a historical presentation assert that the UK doesn’t have a race issue because it abolished slavery sooner than the US, while also not acknowledging the very real repercussions of the fact that England did indeed have slavery both in England and in its colonies, or that the reason it existed in the US in the first place is because the British - among others -brought slavery to North America. England didn’t abolish slavery until only 32 years before the end of the Civil War - it persisted in the US after the Revolutionary War just as it did in England. There’s a specific kind of pride British people seem to take in being “less racist” than their US counterparts, in a way that equivocates “less” with “not at all.”

8. Talk about a small headcanon that stuck

When Harry doesn't know how to tell Ginny how gorgeous she is and especially if he's a bit drunk or otherwise inhebriated, he just goes 'pretty...' instead (while smiling dumbly) and Ginny thinks it's adorable

24. a character you've wanted to talk about

Arthur Weasley! I know it's easy to let Molly lead the conversation and honestly I have done that myself too but Arthur has enormous emotional intelligence and you can see his fatherly skills shine through when he talks to Harry and you know Harry doesn't do well with authority and isn't very trusting but you know that Harry deeply deeply respects him. It's one of the only adultsHarry confides in and Arthur doesn't completely hear him out but he does tell Harry what's in his best interest. Arthur has a lot of integrity and bravery and that's so so important. Also he raised 7 skilled intelligent children. He's just cool and I'm working on showing off his character a bit more in my fics

In the previous episodes:

Harry headcanons Potter kids + Teddy headcanons Ginny headcanons

.

(There are no headcanons focused on Ginny changing jobs for the kids because I have such specific takes about her career, they require their own post)

.

While they definitely have worries and can be strict on certain things, they are fun parents, and once their kids become adults they are friends with them

But if we have to pick the fun parent, it's obviously Ginny

I think it would be really important for them that they all spend the holidays together: no staying at Hogwarts, no staying at a friend's house for more than a couple of days once they start going to Hogwarts. That's how Ginny was raised, and Harry was always at the Weasleys only because the Dursleys sucked. But if their friends want to come over, they are always welcome. That said, I don't imagine this as a dynamic that's imposed, it just sort of naturally ends up being like this, and I think it's something they value a lot

They are genuinely cool parents, and their kids' friends love them. The Potter siblings have a love/hate relationship with this fact

They raise the kids to be very comfortable with physical activity, especially in the open air. They seem like the kind of people who would have a fitness trail in the garden

Andromeda wasn't particularly thrilled initially about their insistence on being very involved in Teddy's life: they are very young, very public figures. But she grows into loving them (it takes her a few years)

When Teddy starts going to school, a lot of parents assume Harry and Ginny are his parents and judge them for it due to their age

They have nannies, but not random teenagers (something that wouldn't even be possible for most of the year in the Wizarding World). They have hyper-qualified professional nannies with 20-30 years of experience.

Harry actually considers putting them under an unbreakable vow but apparently it's not ""legal"" (whatever)

Ginny has a bit of a hard time with this initially: she grew up with a stay-at-home mother, and while she wouldn't want that for herself, she worries she is not being a good enough mother

They send them to some fancy muggle school. Unless the wizarding world decides to create pre-schools, elementary school, and so on... something that would frankly be necessary for women's rights. Though maybe even in that case, they would send them to muggle school to shield them from the fame thing. But I'm not sure if they would send them to muggle nursery school and pre-school because of the control on their magic thing, so maybe in those years they would stay a lot with the nannies or be in a magical version of those schools if they exist and then go to muggle elementary school.

Choosing a posh school would be a matter of security for them, but I also think that while the Potter kids aren't spoiled in the strict sense of the word, Harry and Ginny have no limits with money when it comes to the important stuff for their children. I think they wouldn't throw away money, but on major things for their children like school, they would end up overcompensating for their own childhoods (poverty/the cupboard). Plus, the children are going to go to Hogwarts anyway, so Harry and Ginny don't have to worry about them being stuck in the elite bubble. [I also just find really funny the idea of those two having to find a way to justify having all that money to muggles]

They are a wonderful example for their kids on what love should be like, but they accidentally set an impossible standard for what a love story should be like. I think that if you grow up with stories about your mother writing poems to your father as a child, your dad saving your mum form a balisk, your mum never stopping to love your father despite him not seeming interested only for your father to realise he was in love with her, hearing about their super scenographic epic first kiss, the break-up out of love in the middle of a war, and so on and on... You are going to grow up with very unrealistic expectations of what the story with your "right person" should be. Like, ok this person is nice but would they save me from a basilisk? And even if they would save you from a basilisk, it's not like they are going to be able to prove it. I feel like they all need to find partners who are into very dramatic displays of affection or they are never going to feel truly loved

Ginny is obviously the child Molly has the closest relationship with but I think it becomes somehow even more obvious once Ginny becomes a mother

When Ginny is pregnant, Harry is very overbearing, in a charming and caring way, but still... But I like to imagine those are the only times when Ginny actually enjoys Harry's moments of overprotectiveness that border on light insanity. This does not stop Ginny from doing all the things that give Harry anxiety, she just finds it really adorable (and sometimes hot) when he gets all worried

All the kids are raised to be masters in the art of sarcasm, it's a necessary surving skill at the Potters

One thing that for some reason I've always been conviced of is that the Weasley brothers (+ wivies) would be quite judgmental of Harry and Ginny as parents (despite the fact that through Teddy they would be the ones with more experience than everybody else). They are the youngest, and I believe that would play a factor, but I think the main thing would be that they would be the ones with the more "relaxed" parenting style. I know everybody likes to imagine the extended Weasley family as perfect and without any possible conflict, but they are a lot of people, all with very strong personalities

On a similar topic: Harry and Ginny are very intimidating people who also happen to be quite witty and sharp and as we all know that means that when they get really angry the person they are going to get angry at is not going to have a good time. But it would get only worse when they are both angry at the same time at the same people because they are for each other the person that can help them cool down. They also egg each other on so much when they joke that if they started injecting a nasty vibe into it, it would get ugly really fast. And in my opinion, their main trigger by far, besides negative comments on the other one, would be negative comments on their kids. Not in a "every critique from the teachers is stupid" kind of way, but more in a "if someone in the family tries to police how they raise their kids they are going to be so verbally destroyed they'll need twenty years of therapy". You can also extend this to the press, Rita Skeeter and so on, but I think that's a very shared opinion in the fandom, not my personal headcanon.

Arts and crafts is a serious business at the Potters, Ginny makes sure of it

Harry, meanwhile, makes sure everybody knows The Poem; on Valentine's Day it's a whole thing

There's only one true religion in the house: The Holyhead Harpies

For reasons that are too long to explain in this post: I think Ginny and Harry as adults would be social democrats even if they wouldn't really be politically active. But they would still raise their kids with those values, and that would "accidentally" turn them into very politically active young people. I think we tend to forget that in their world, Harry and Ginny are part of the silent generation, while their kids are baby boomers. And while boomers nowadays have a terrible reputation (understandably), they were also the young people in the streets during the late 60's and 70's fighting for civil rights. [the wizarding world would so have their version of the years of lead]

I think Harry and Ginny would be really proud of them, but also develop a sudden immense empathy for Molly during the war (it would also get a bit complex with Harry in the aurors, and then Lily)

Without getting into a full analysis of Ginny and Molly's relationship, its thematic end is in the epilogue with Ginny having a daugther who is the only girl and the youngest. Similarly to Harry, the idea is that Ginny is going to be better than those who came before her. I thought a lot about what this would mean for Ginny because if Lily and Ginny just naturally don't have conflict, Ginny wouldn't be better than Molly, she would be luckier. But I had a really hard time imagining what conflict Ginny might have with her daughter, considering that she is a character who was written to have the perfect personality for a mother. The more I thought about this, the more I kept focusing on how, in the epilogue, it's implied that Lily is very similar to Ginny, but the thing is: Lily didn't go through all the terrible things Ginny went through. Which means it would take her a lot more time to reshape her romanticism and optimism into something that doesn't make her seem a little naive. And for Ginny, seeing a mini-her being a little naive would probably be very triggering and make her so worried about Lily, and that's where Ginny would have to prove to be better than Molly.

They have board game nights, but they get really intense because, really, what do you expect from two incredibly competitive people and their children?

They have managed to control the press a bit about the kids by publishing the occasional family photo

Harry and Ginny would actively make sure their children are not socially isolated

What traumas they would keep from them

Harry would teach them DADA

They would encourage their interests

I feel like Harry absolutely would have made effort to get to Ginny before getting rest, even just to say they’d talk later

Hi! I've actually already written 7 versions of this, with some reunions faster than others, so I hope you'll find one you like.

You can find them all in the hinny reunion collection:

I wrote this as a result of a conversation in the @ginnystrophyhusband Discord, so I'm going to claim it as a Hinny Microfic even though it technically doesn't include any of the prompts!

990 words, rated T, read it below or on AO3

These are my Top 3 fancasts for Remus in the tv show.💖

(We all love David Thewlis and the films will still be there for us to watch, but I’m really excited to see more of our sweet and tormented wolfie.)

1. Iwan Rheon

He voiced Remus in the audiobooks and did a surprisingly superb job.

Plus, he’s one of the best and most versatile actors of his generation and he does have something wolfish about him.

Also, he’s once starred in a TV series called “The Light in The Dark” where he played a loner who saw himself as a dangerous monster.

And let’s not forget: he’s Welsh like Remus’ mum and he worked with some of the producers in “Game of Thrones”.

Advantage: He knows Remus better than any other actor.

Disadvantage: Although he has a bit of a baby face, he’ll already be around 42 when they cast the actor to play Remus.

2. Luke Newberry

He looks almost to a T like how Remus is described in the books (there’s a reason why he was actually cast to play Teddy in the films!) and he’s the same age as Paapa Essiedu.

Plus he’s used to play outcasts (he did it in his most popular role, on the tv series “In The Flesh”, where he played a tormented zombie.

Advantage: He played Teddy Lupin in the epilogue, but his scene was cut. Maybe they’ll bring him back to compensate him like they did with the actor who played Sir Cadogan (whose scenes were cut) and is now playing Filtch.

Disadvantage: We don’t know if he’s got the necessary depth to play such a layered character.

3. Dev Patel

If they want to go with an alternative non-white actor to play Remus, like they did with Snaps, Patel is the right age, looks fragile like Remus is supposed to and could perfectly portray Remus’ intensity.

Advantage: The fact that many people want one of the marauders to be played by a non-white actor (and being black would take away all the weight of lycanthropy).

Disadvantage: The fact that most people (me include) don’t like when they get actors too different from the way the characters are described.

So, any thoughts on these three options?

Any other option? I could add Callum Turner, but he was already Theseus Scamander in “Fantastic Beasts”.

If we stay the course, we might have a bunch of Bostonians with Scottish dads and change the way the US views Scotland for good. I will never need to hear ‘the Scotch’ ever again.

Some questions after seeing an AI-generated version of one of my comics...

Read more in my latest newsletter:

To be clear, I don't at all mind the change from Michael and Michaela.

I do very much mind that they're implying Francesca didn't love John, at least in the 'right' romantic way aka loudly and sexually.

The whole plot of When He Was Wicked is literally about second love being possible and not making the first love invalid.

And, okay. Maybe they decided to change the message. Conformation to heteronormativity is an important thing too, after all.

(I still think they could've done that with another sibling - these two are crucial, separate lessons and no other sibling is/weds a widow/widower.)

But the thing about making Francesca a lesbian is - it renders her and John's romance meaningless, dismissed as 'not real'.

(This would be less true if platonic relationships were as valued as romantic ones, but that's a whole different post).

And that might be okay if they'd had the typical Bridgerton romance.

But no. They were both deliberately given autism coding.

So this change? It isn't purely about lesbians giving into society's pressure.

It's invalidating the literal only romance that started slowly, non-sexually and was different.

It makes the only 'true' love what Violet described - love and attraction at first sight.

It renders the entirety of Francesca's Season Three arc - convincing her mother her love was just as real as Violet's - moot.

And therefore similarly with the courtship I loved - which was done with silence, understanding, patience and gifts and no drama.

So yes, I will continue insistingt Francesca is bisexual.

Not because I don't love Michaela.