The Dark Lord (Voldemort)

Not gonna lie, I only recently became interested in him. I've been a Marauders fan for years. When I returned to Tumblr, the Marauders fandom was so different from how I remembered it but the other corners of the fandom were more familiar so I've been focusing more on the other characters. What got me interested in Tom/Voldemort were the extremely convincing and well-written posts I've seen from Bellamort fans. I remember dismissing him as a cartoon villain in my teens, but seeing those posts, it's like a whole new world of depth has opened to me. He's way more complex than I realized. It's hard to believe he didn't care about her on some level.

What are your thoughts on their relationship? And do you accept Delphi?

OH MY GOODNESS!! That’s so kind to hear! Thank you for your kind words! The book has been a huge labor of love and I hope you really enjoy it! I tried my best to do justice for this character.

I’m so sorry that you’ve returned to the fandom and found it a bit hard to get back into the Marauders, but I’m thrilled to hear that you’ve taken an interest in Tom! I’ll be real, this isn’t the first time I’ve heard someone assume that Tom is a pretty one dimensional character. (I think pretty famously Brandon Sanderson is of that opinion. The clip that I saw of him talking about the series has some pretty spotty recollections of what happens, but I don’t fault him that at all. He’s got a ton on his mind with the giant books he’s writing. lol) It’s a totally fine opinion to have - I’m not knocking it at all, because he’s a fantasy character. As the readers, we’re free to enjoy him in whatever way we prefer. But, I’m thrilled to hear that you’re interested in the deeper aspects of him. He acts as if there’s nothing deeper to him, praying that no one will dig beneath the surface and find more human qualities. There a comfort to one dimensionality that means that his humanity can never be understood. He’s so terrified of being seen as anything but powerful.

That being said, my opinion on Tom and Bella’s relationship is purely from a books-only perspective. Their interactions are layered. We see Tom be thrilled that Bellatrix and company broke out of prison, but then ridicule her before the entire table of Death Eaters after Tonk’s marriage to Lupin, and then afterwards shriek in anger when she’s killed. We see Bellatrix worship this persona of “Lord Voldemort”, but we’re not shown implications of her being compelled or interested in any of his weaknesses or humanity. It’s a strange push and pull relationship, definitely colored by Tom needing to control every aspect of his followers.

Granted, we see STAGGERINGLY little of them actually interacting, which is a damn shame because they’re both so interesting together. I love the pairing (I love all pairings that include Tom). It really is such a deadly romance, but it’s so delightful and compelling. I don’t consider Delphi to be canonical (because of the books-only limitations of my character study), but that doesn’t mean she isn’t super intriguing as a possibility of something that could have happened between them.

I disagree - evidence can be found to the contrary in the majority of their interactions!

-The very first time we see Bellatrix, we learn she is one of the very few DEs who understand that Voldemort is existing somewhere in a weak state and was not killed. In the DH forest, Bellatrix ignores Voldemort telling her to not help him. In these two scenes, we see that Bellatrix understands (even when Voldemort is actively denying it) that Voldemort is a person who can physically need help.

-In the ministry, Bellatrix understands that Voldemort is mistakenly ignoring her warning and overrules his order to stop talking. In Spinner's End, Bellatrix says that she thinks Voldemort is 'mistaken' about Snape. She's the only Death Eater to say anything like that about Voldemort in the series - and she does this out loud, not even just thinking it but actually saying it. And in the DH forest, maybe Bellatrix even understands that Voldemort needs her presence even when he may not understand so himself. Bellatrix is someone who understands, both automatically in the moment and with things that require reflection, that Voldemort is a person who can be mistaken. To reach these accurate and risky conclusions, she also likely understands what Voldemort would be prone to being mistaken about and why - because she understands him, she can see his weak spots.

-In The Dark Lord Ascending, Bellatrix intervenes in Voldemort's attacking of her family to bring up his belonging at their family's home, invoking something deep-seated about Voldemort's psychology. Voldemort has a consistently parasitic relationship to personal space/bodies and domesticity and family (latching to Quirrell and Ginny, having Wormtail physically care for him, invading the Malfoys' home and the Riddle house, invading minds, stealing Harry's blood and putting it inside himself, giving away his soul (both so intimate and also parasitic according to the diary and the locket's behavior)... and if you will, sleeping with Bellatrix (who is also another loyal follower's wife, so he's inserted himself into their marriage), getting her pregnant...). He forces himself into places/intimate relationships including physically intimate ones where he doesn't belong and forces the people there to act and even say that they desire it (Wormtail in GoF 1, Lucius in DH 1). Bella affirms this behavior of his as desired by her, when it's almost always very much not desired. Wherever you interpret Bellatrix's comment on the scale of she sees Voldemort's genuine emotional hurt here under his mocking and is offering comfort, to this was a sort of manipulation to distract him from her family, she accurately and successfully invokes this aspect of his psychology. She sees past his bothersomely parasitic exterior and into an inside of a pathologically attention-seeking person who desperately wants to be wanted there. This is a person who understands the workings of Voldemort's mind - and especially to see the real hurt lurking under the evil parasitism, his humanity - as well as potentially even understanding how his childhood (which we know he does speak about to DEs) led him there.

-In the Department of Mysteries, Bellatrix reacts with offense when Harry brings up Voldemort's half-blood status to mock him. There's a common misunderstanding that Bellatrix didn't believe Harry, but that contradicts the Voldemort we actually know who discusses family with Barty and even automatically starts talking to Harry about it in the graveyard (in front of Wormtail) and who gives the diary labeled Tom Riddle to Lucius, who brings all his DEs to his father's grave labeled Tom Riddle, keeps followers who literally went to Hogwarts with him (or at least their families), etc. Despite Bellatrix using half-blood as an insult against Harry, she adores Voldemort who we know to be open enough about his history for her to know all this about him... and so what is her emotion here? It can't be the one a surface-level reading makes it seem like. It looks like offense on Voldemort's behalf, for having something (his family history and its trauma) that has caused him continuous pain and still actively affects him be used to belittle/delegitimize him. This in combination with her understanding of Voldemort's relationship to the idea of belonging in a family home demonstrates an understanding of how his past affected him that goes deeper than what it initially looks like. Also, Harry's implication that she wouldn't know this basic information about Voldemort is understandably offensive to her as it delegitimizes their relationship.

Overall, I think these two people know each other far better than you're giving them credit for. And these are all in addition to the numerous other things permeating their relationship: how she was given a piece of his soul for safekeeping, the word 'lover' used to describe how she speaks to him, the pleasure innuendo, the use of her familial nickname. You've covered the happiness at her escape and the scream at her death. You haven't made any remark on what you believe the nature of their relationship was. So I don't know where you are on that. There are many deniers...

Overall, there are distinct differences in the way Bellatrix acts to/around Voldemort compared to any other DE that reveal a higher-level understanding of his ability to be wrong, to be hurt, to be blinded by an emotion, to be needing; of the bounds that are in fact acceptable despite Voldemort directly stating otherwise: speaking even after being told to stop, close physical proximity/any touching implied in the forest.

Rowling has never compared Grindeldore to Bellamort. That claim is pure headcanon disguised as a defense. In fact, she’s been very clear about the emotional depth behind Dumbledore and Grindelwald’s relationship, it was rooted in love, obsession, ideology, betrayal. There’s a canon emotional arc. That’s what she meant when she said parts of it were written for adults to “read between the lines.”

Now compare that to Bellatrix and Voldemort: Voldemort, a man who canonically cannot love, who sees others as pawns, and who never expresses emotional vulnerability or tenderness toward Bellatrix; ever. Bellatrix is obsessed with him, yes, but that’s not mutual. It's worship, not romance. Rowling’s own words directly contradict the idea that Voldemort had a child or that he could love anyone. Trying to elevate Bellamort to the level of Grindeldore is not only lazy, it completely ignores the thematic contrast between the characters.

So no, it’s not that “Rowling is a bad writer.” It’s that some people refuse to read what’s actually there and instead project their own ships into the narrative, then get upset when canon doesn’t back them up.

You cannot deny a ship that's this intentional:

Those people are canon book puritans who don’t care about additional information from the author. For them, even Neville and Hannah probably aren’t canon, since it wasn’t in the books, which I don’t mind as an approach. But from a strictly definitive perspective, a ship is canon if it’s either in the books, explicitly stated by the author, or part of additional canon content created by the author herself. She has talked about Grindeldore, so it’s canon, even if some people might view it as semi-canon. Everything else is headcanon, like the idea that Wolfstar had a secret fling Harry never knew about.

Bellamort might be considered semi-canon by some, but it’s a vague area. The Cursed Child wasn’t written by Rowling, she has never spoken about their relationship, and Delphini didn’t even have to be Voldemort’s child - the lack of Bellamort content and absence of proof creates space for headcanons about Delphini's conception. Many people just assume she was created through some obscure dark ritual. So it’s wild to claim that Bellamort is as canon as Romione or Hinny. Grindeldore has entire movies and Rowling’s direct confirmation that they were together. Lucissa has a child and it's obvious it's theirs. Charry has a kiss. Bellamort has nothing. I think it’s pretty obvious it wasn’t canon, especially considering Rowling’s silence. The way she spoke about Bellatrix in the past always made it clear that it wasn’t mutual - she always portrayed Bellatrix as the one who desired Voldemort, not the other way around. But yeah, you're free to think it's semi-canon tho

Those people are canon book puritans who don’t care about additional information from the author. For them, even Neville and Hannah probably aren’t canon, since it wasn’t in the books, which I don’t mind as an approach. But from a strictly definitive perspective, a ship is canon if it’s either in the books, explicitly stated by the author, or part of additional canon content created by the author herself. She has talked about Grindeldore, so it’s canon, even if some people might view it as semi-canon. Everything else is headcanon, like the idea that Wolfstar had a secret fling Harry never knew about.

Bellamort might be considered semi-canon by some, but it’s a vague area. The Cursed Child wasn’t written by Rowling, she has never spoken about their relationship, and Delphini didn’t even have to be Voldemort’s child - the lack of Bellamort content and absence of proof creates space for headcanons about Delphini's conception. Many people just assume she was created through some obscure dark ritual. So it’s wild to claim that Bellamort is as canon as Romione or Hinny. Grindeldore has entire movies and Rowling’s direct confirmation that they were together. Lucissa has a child and it's obvious it's theirs. Charry has a kiss. Bellamort has nothing. I think it’s pretty obvious it wasn’t canon, especially considering Rowling’s silence. The way she spoke about Bellatrix in the past always made it clear that it wasn’t mutual - she always portrayed Bellatrix as the one who desired Voldemort, not the other way around. But yeah, you're free to think it's semi-canon tho

Also, Rowling confirmed Cursed Child as canon, was involved in developing the story, approved every major plot point including Delphini's parentage, and explicitly listed it as the eighth Harry Potter story on her own website. This person is taking the headcanon of fandom morons who decided ritual conception is more plausible than the author's confirmed canonical text and treating that as more credible than Rowling herself. What the actual fuck? Imagine being so moronic that you are literally ranking internet discourse above the author's own statements about her work 🤣🤣

If you require explicit smut as proof of a sexual relationship as this moron is doing, it would eliminate virtually every canonical romance in HP!!. By this standard, Harry and Ginny aren't in a relationship either since their physical intimacy is limited to a few kisses and their babies could be from a ritual too! If we're making such retarded leaps, maybe Dumbledore and Grindelwald never had sex and who Dumbledore thought was Grindelwald was actually Dobby in disguise 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Those people are canon book puritans who don’t care about additional information from the author. For them, even Neville and Hannah probably aren’t canon, since it wasn’t in the books, which I don’t mind as an approach. But from a strictly definitive perspective, a ship is canon if it’s either in the books, explicitly stated by the author, or part of additional canon content created by the author herself. She has talked about Grindeldore, so it’s canon, even if some people might view it as semi-canon. Everything else is headcanon, like the idea that Wolfstar had a secret fling Harry never knew about.

Bellamort might be considered semi-canon by some, but it’s a vague area. The Cursed Child wasn’t written by Rowling, she has never spoken about their relationship, and Delphini didn’t even have to be Voldemort’s child - the lack of Bellamort content and absence of proof creates space for headcanons about Delphini's conception. Many people just assume she was created through some obscure dark ritual. So it’s wild to claim that Bellamort is as canon as Romione or Hinny. Grindeldore has entire movies and Rowling’s direct confirmation that they were together. Lucissa has a child and it's obvious it's theirs. Charry has a kiss. Bellamort has nothing. I think it’s pretty obvious it wasn’t canon, especially considering Rowling’s silence. The way she spoke about Bellatrix in the past always made it clear that it wasn’t mutual - she always portrayed Bellatrix as the one who desired Voldemort, not the other way around. But yeah, you're free to think it's semi-canon tho

i love the idea of rodolphus wanting sirius, not bellatrix. he was so beautiful, could almost be mistaken for a girl in certain lights... but alas, he was clearly a man with that behavior of his, and rodolphus had respect for men. he would watch, leave a comment perhaps, but no more.

????

Anyway, I agree trans activism has a lot of issues. My issue with radical feminism is about the basic ideas, where radical feminists treat the only difference between men and women to be genitals. I'm not really being accusatory because of course radfems aren't stupid and they understand that there are other differences too, but I do think there's a lack of focus on that because they might make them understandably uncomfortable. Not mental, I don't believe in that, but the physical differences themselves can have tremendous impacts practically because the whole world is physical in the end. Personality is, when push comes to shove, secondary. That's my main problem with the idea of gender abolition. Biology itself just has so much effects practically that while gender abolition can work individually, whole societies being structured without acknowledging those sex differences just doesn't make any sense to me.

Respectfully, it sounds like you never fully grasped the idea that sex and gender are completely different.

Radfems acknowledge the differences between the sexes, and the importance of recognising these differences. We absolutely don’t treat the only difference as being genitals. For example, we acknowledge that men and women have different physical strengths (men have more brute strength, women have more survival strength). We also acknowledge that the current society is built around men’s strengths to make it look like men are the physically strong ones (sports being catered to the male body). We also obviously acknowledge the way that men use their strength against women to hurt us.

The biggest problem with making identity central to activism, especially in social media (doubly so on blogging platforms like tumblr), is that it's lead a lot of people both inside and outside of radical feminism to attach the identity of "radfem" to themselves or others who simply don't align with it based on only one (if even understood correctly to begin with) of several principles. People have forgotten that feminism is, first and foremost, an activist movement. It's not something you inherently are, it's something you actively engage with. It involves learning and action.

So when people write things like this insinuating they can be convinced to become a radical feminist, as though it's a club they're waiting to be sold on and put in their bio, especially when it always comes down to the issue of gender abolition and nothing else, it already exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of what radical feminism is at it's core. Which is being an activist in the fight for the liberation of women from under, and the dismantling of, patriarchy.

Anon, what are your opinions on the nuclear family? Have you thought much about women as the primary victims in war? Have you thought about how socioeconomic disadvantage impacts women uniquely? Do you maybe support the sex industry? Or the beauty industry still? Do you know why radical feminists want to dismantle these industries? If I were to ask you if you were PIV sex critical, would you have opinion on it? Do you know the fundamental differences between radical feminism and other branches of feminism? Are you a part of any feminist groups in your local area? Do you centre women in your daily life?

If you are struggling with the concept of gender abolition, then have you considered doing any feminist reading outside of tumblr to get a full grasp of these ideas and what they mean in the wider context of female liberation?

As for the questions you've raised, I do have opinions on all of those and they're not simple ones, but the conversation I'm actually trying to have is about mechanism and whether this framework actually solve the problem it identifies. My issue isn't with gender abolition as an aspiration in the abstract but that the physical power differences between the sexes (which predates human culture entirely) cannot be neutralised by dismantling social constructs and a framework that cannot account for that gap between theory and mechanism isn't something I can fully commit to, regardless of how much of the rest I agree with.

I already sent an ask to @vintage-bentley , who's very intelligent and I'd love to hear her thoughts on it, but I'll just copy and paste it here for you as well:

'Moo,' Moola mooed coquettishly.

'Moo,' Moola mooed coquettishly.