The Marauders Stan are trying to villainize Bertram now too
A few weeks ago, I posted THIS video on TikTok about Bertram and what he suffered at the hands of the Marauders. Some people, understandably, asked who Bertram was, if he was canon, and that's fine. I mean, he's only mentioned once in the entire saga, but it always amazes me how fans choose which background characters to highlight and which to completely ignore. And well, Bertram is one of them, and the reason is quite obvious. The Marauders, in their attempt to distort history and portray themselves as champions of justice, must eliminate every trace of their bullying and, at most, keep only Snape as the victim, because, as we've said several times, he's not the perfect victim. With him, they can continue the narrative that "it was just a rivalry." Even though we've debunked this lie several times, it's still used, but what amazed me instead is the attempt to blame Bertram as well, to the point of downplaying what he suffered in such an ignoble manner. Well, here are the comments:
THIS is canon, one of the few truly canonical things we have about the Marauders, but for this "fan" this is too much. We're not trying to find fault, we don't need to invent anything, we're just reporting canon facts, and if this makes the Marauders look bad, maybe you should start asking yourself a few questions.
Furthermore, when someone approaches these topics, they try to set themselves up as moral judges by bringing their own experiences into play, which is completely inappropriate. What does being bullied prove? That your opinion is worth more? That I can't blame you because you've been bullied? It doesn't work that way, especially if, despite your own experiences, you end up justifying bullies. But let's move on, because things get worse.
This is seriously so ridiculous that I initially thought it was a troll. As a victim of bullying, you did your research. Are you sensitive about Snape enough to distort the story to make him look like a RIVAL? In what twisted world is 2 vs. 1 a rivalry? Is there really anyone who would call Neville a rival to Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle?
But seriously, beyond these endlessly rehashed points, do you realize that you immediately moved on to talking about Snape? In a video entirely dedicated to Bertram where I NEVER mentioned Snape, she talks only about him and ignores Bertram, just like the fandom has done for years. This is because, as I mentioned before, that's all these people are focusing on.
As for Bertram, the problem is that we know nothing about him beyond the swollen head spell. And if you watch videos about him in general, you'll see that Snape fans, especially, go out of their way to make him look like a "victim." They specifically paint him as a Gryffindor/Ravenclaw, they ship him with Snape (đ), but I never see him in Slytherin. Why? Because they don't want to admit that he might also be an aspiring Death Eater.
Oh, there we go, after several comments, she remembers to mention Bertram, but look at the way she does it. "As for Bertram, the problem is that we know nothing about him beyond the swollen head spell." Well, you know, he's mentioned ONCE in seven books, and the only thing we know about him and she wants to ignore or distort even that. -.-
"And if you watch videos about him in general, you'll see that Snape fans, especially, go out of their way to make him look like a "victim.""
Girl, no, we're not making him look like a victim, he's A VICTIM. How can someone who says they were bullied invalidate a victim of bullying in a story? This is problematic on so many levels.
"They specifically paint him as a Gryffindor/Ravenclaw, they ship him with Snape (đ), but I never see him in Slytherin. Why? Because they don't want to admit that he might also be an aspiring Death Eater."
Oh, and here we go, these are really interesting and new points (at least for me). First, she brings up a ship, which is truly super rare. There are literally very few people who ship Bertram/Snape, especially because for years people have ignored Bertram as a character. But then, what's the ship supposed to mean? What does it have to do with the theme? Are you telling me that if a character is shipped with another character, he can't be bullied? Or that being shipped with a gray character automatically makes him evil? I really don't know, this point is thrown in without any logical sense. And then there they are, I didn't see this coming.
"But I never see him in Slytherin. Why? Because they don't want to admit that he might also be an aspiring Death Eater."
Aside from the fact that I've seen Bertram placed in Slytherin and sometimes even depicted as a girl, this attempt to pass him off as an aspiring DE without any evidence is so absurd and clearly the product of all the MS propaganda that wants to see the Marauders as vigilantes who only target aspiring DEs, and this is totally false, denied by canon. This is a clear attempt to blame the victim.
Someone actually asks her the meaning of her comments:
And she replies like this:
See how she's trying to twist the issue?
First, she uses Sirius's words to describe Snape. How can you trust the words of a BULLY talking about his victim? How can you take his words at face value and ignore all the other canonical facts?
So, with the same approach, can we only trust Snape's words about James, and Sirius?
And yet, in that case, you're biased and need to look at the facts. This is pure hypocrisy. In addition to, once again, putting forward completely fanon ideas. James doesn't target those who actively practice dark magic; he targets those who can simply because they exist in numerical superiority, with a clear imbalance of power. THIS IS CANON.
Look how she continues to mix FANON ideas with canon, deliberately creating confusion. First deciding to only consider things that are clearly shown, then, when it suits her, she brings in her own non-canon ideas to reverse the situation. Look at the absurdity, she even goes so far as to say that JAMES IS THE VICTIM?
Did the neurons really flip a switch here?
This is because Snape knew the dark arts HE NEVER USED ON THE MARAUDERS, and he had his own gang, which, however, in canon, NEVER DEFENDED HIM against the Marauders. Seriously, let's put two and two together: if James and Sirius were truly afraid of him because of his skill in the dark arts and his large gang, they would never have targeted him.
This is really getting absurd (leaving aside the insult, which I disagree with), this Vanessa continues to push her FANON idea that James is a vigilante and refuses to consider all the canonical facts. Despite the "context matters" sentiment, she doesn't look at the context; she's guided only by her bias. And this is a clear example of how the MS think. I remind you once again that all these comments (I didn't include them all) are focusing on Snape, while poor Bertram is still being ignored even though my video is TOTALLY dedicated to him. And that's why I wrote:
You mentioned Mary's case earlier, so I linked to that to highlight the double standard: what Mulciber TRIED to do to Mary is portrayed as something horrible, implying SA when in reality there is none of this, and if you dare say so you are insulted, while what Bertram suffered, which is CANONICALLY an ILLEGAL spell, is belittled and made to look like a trivial prank, something nice, or even something deserved. All of this is shameful.
This all continues to get more and more ridiculous, leaving aside the veiled insult, which demonstrates the lack of argumentation. Do you realize the usual thought process that leads to these fallacious arguments? First, they constantly ignore the theme, they focus it on another character, trying to blame them, then they reverse the bully/victim roles, they justify the bullies (James and Sirius), they invent facts, they remove the context of the actions, and this is important. Allow me a small digression:
Severus in TWM is being attacked, and the fact that he creates a cut on James's face is a desperate attempt to defend himself from two attackers who are attacking him, who have lifted him up, thrown him to the ground repeatedly, and suffocated him with soap while exposing his underwear. Pointing the finger at the fact that Snape created a cut on James's cheek would be like accusing a woman being attacked by two men of being excessively violent because she scratched one of her attackers in an attempt to escape. This attitude is not only disgusting but also dangerous.
But let's get back to the sequence. After this, we go back to downplaying The Prank (which is, by Sirius's admission, an active attempt to hurt Snape), we downplay ALL the actions of the Marauders by trying to reverse the consequences, so if a victim tries to defend himself, he becomes the executioner, we reverse cause and effect, and then we go back to poor Bertram, who is still there in a corner hoping to be considered, and we say: "About Bertram, as I said before, there is zero canon evidence that says he was an 'innocent victim' (and James' targets were obvious, people like Snape/Mulciber/Avery)."
Bertram is no longer a victim to her; in fact, in her eyes, he was never an innocent victim. This term is VERY problematic. I've talked about it several times, and still no one has ever explained to me what "innocent victim" means. Someone who simply suffers? Someone who doesn't try to defend himself? This attitude is truly disgusting. Besides continuing to push a FALSE narrative that James only targets a certain type of person, look at how absurdly she lies: "James' targets were obvious, people like Snape/Mulciber/Avery."
Girl, where? WHEN??? If you mean only what we see clearly matters, name me ONE TIME where James targets Mulciber or Avery? XD
She herself knows she's clearly lying. James and Sirius only target those beneath them in 2-on-1 power dynamics. This is canon.
Notice how she is frightened by the comparison between Mary and Bertram, this is the moment when everything starts to fall apart:
Aside from the obvious lie, as you mentioned Mary in previous comments, notice how she clearly misses the point and uses all the super-fanon FANON information. She denies that Bertram was hit by an ILLEGAL spell and is clearly projecting onto others; she's trying to rewrite the canon, distorting it so that Mulciber's ATTEMPT is worse than what Bertram actively suffered. Look at how absurdly she makes things up:
Bertram got a swollen head from a hex,fixed by Madam Pomfrey.If it was "that" dark magic(by your definition of dark arts,half of the hogwarts students we saw in books would be in azkaban instead of basic detentions),james wouldn't be in Hogwarts anyways he would be in prison
This is a crazy assumption. James and Sirius were punished for this, and the punishment clearly states that they used an illegal spell. Are you telling me you don't believe it, because otherwise they would have been sent to Azkaban? Are we really talking about a school where the staff lets a werewolf study and later teach, where they keep a Cerberus locked behind a door that opens with a simple Alohomora, and you think the staff is too concerned if students use ILLEGAL spells? In the space of two years, the Marauders almost killed Snape (The Prank), they SA (TWM), they used an ILLEGAL spell on Bertram, and you still think that's too much? That's not my idea of ââmagic, it's literally the canon that tells us so. Plus, really, notice how desperately he invents things that never happened:
Mulciber literally used dark charms to cause LASTING harm on a muggleborn/halfblood.
WHERE? WHEN?? Mulciber never did this in the "LASTING HARM" canon????? But when? Maybe you're confusing this with some FF because the only thing we know is that he TRIED to do something bad to Mary, period. He didn't actually succeed, she didn't suffer any permanent damage, so this absurd argument is false.
And after my last comment, she never responded. My optimistic side hopes she's understood, but in reality, I know she hasn't, that she simply has no more leverage, and as usual, the MSs flee as soon as their lies are debunked. As usual, these posts of mine aren't meant to attack any individual person, but to highlight the increasingly distorted mechanisms being carried out in fandom. Here, it's no longer about personal views or values ââbased on one's own experience, but about clearly problematic attitudes that highlight the hypocrisy of certain thoughts and demonstrate why, even in the real world, certain dynamics are not only perpetuated but also justified, especially by those who claim to have experienced them as victims.
And, quite simply, in this entire exchange, once again the ignored character has been forgotten, relegated to a corner, belittled, attacked, condoned, and left in the shadows.
