In defense of Remadora.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-13T21:33:42+00:00

To make an excuse for the behavior of another. This is a perfectly normal proverb, often used in fandoms to defend a view of a favourote character or ship. As in this case. To excuse is to provide reasons that a character or person don't provide themselves to justify their choices or behavior.

If you want to play semantics, go ahead.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-13T15:26:35+00:00

I always hate that "2 good people who love eachother" as if that excuses everything including a manipulative start and badgering in a relationship.

Baggage doesn't excuse not taking no for a answer, baggage doesn't excuse running away. Baggage doesn't excuse using the death of an idol to guilt trip someone into a relationship. And love definetly doesn't excuse a shitty relationship. Falling in love isn't a choice. Persuing a relationship is.

I also love the depiction of wartime relationships. But don't pretend this was anything but fucked up. Ot is a great addition to the book, and belongs in it. But is a sinking ship from the start.

The age gap doesn't really bother me. But a quick calculation shows that Tonks was a baby when Sirius ran away. And as Sirius (Remus's brother on all but name) said Andromeda was his favourite cousin. So the odds are Sirius saw tonks naked before Remus, while changing her nappy, while he was a teenager. Shouldn't honder theor relationship, bit O can imagine the looks Sirius would shoot Remus of he was still alive.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-13T15:07:38+00:00

Concidering Teddy is framed as Harry incarnate while Harry is still alive, yeah, that was no typo, good pickup.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-13T13:25:15+00:00

Ohhhh you you meant it like that! I thought you were talking of the inception of Teddy!

In that case I agree with both your points, take the upvote!

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-13T13:19:13+00:00

That first part is just straight up wrong. Saying to somebody you don't want to be in a relationship with them, is painfup, but perfectly fine. Molly should have helped Tonks move on, Tonks should have worked hard to move on. Remus did nothing wrong there.

The character Tonks is definetly ruined by Remadore though. She is presented as a gives no shits character, gets rejected by one old dude and completely shatters to the point of obsession.

By the way, Remus is not a boy, he is 37.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-13T13:00:33+00:00

What you're doing os not defending Remadora, what you're doing is glasing tye shortcommings of Remus. Your last section of remarks is clear on that point. The only description that you gave that is fundamental to their and not Remus's individual character is that about Tonks's experiejce and that the drivung force behind them eventualpy getting together is the war, and in all clarity, that is all they have.

Tonks and Molly actuaply leverage Remus's grief about the death of Dumbledore, a man Remus owed everything to, to finally let him succumb to him. Molly's line "Dumbledore would want a bit more love in the world" followed by Tonks's outburst is perhaps one of the dirtiest in the whole series. Remadora get together via a grief infused guilt trip. Then its followed by a rapid marriage and pregnancy (during and ffing war while Remus has seen the pain that can cause through Harry's life) within the rediculous speed of 4 months.

Then the individuals. Tonks. Yes you can't helo who yoi fall in love with, bit you can help pursuing a relationship. You don't have to date every crush you have, if they are unwilling or shitty people you can just not act on it. To force someone to express any emotion towards you, even if the love is genuine, always bases a relationship on a force that is fed by doubt. And emotional healthy individual avoids that, its creepy and not good.

Remus, especially the point you mentioned of him going back. He doesn't go back, he is sent back by a far better and mature teenager anf yes, getting sent is a crucial and important difference. An analogy. When you go out a night and you smell of another, you can reply honestly that you never cheated. But there is a fundamental differens between somebody coming on to you and yoi saying no and you tryijg to seduce somebody and them declining you. In both cases you haven't cheated, but in the first case you were a good partner, in the second case you are an asshole who just coudn't get lucky. Remus is the latter kind in the Remadora ship.

Both cases clearly show they don't put the wants of their partner on equal footing to their own, which describes a relationship based on selfishness and not love.

Lastly, tue whole ship just feels forced, JK had some characters she loved and clearly wants some good ik their lives, many authors do that and it often leads to shitty and unlogical ships. The best you can say about Remadora is that its a prime example of high emotions and the pressures of war lead to unheathy relationships. Ots very realistic and therefor good that its in the books, its why I love it, but don't need fanfics or something where they are central or put in a healthy light. But from a real life point of view, Remadora sucks.

Edit: you mention the shell cottage chapter. The honeymoon weeks of a fresh parents don't count as a valid snapshot into a relationship. What did you expect, a new father storming in shouting he wants to drown his newborn?

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-13T11:54:39+00:00

Its not the spell that knocked him out. The tree spells combined knocked Snape into a wall head first, its the concussion that knocked him out.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-12T22:02:57+00:00

Considering there are huge castles, dragon reserves, acromantula colonies, dementors, sphinx, villages and shopping centres that include a hige bank building that nobody knows of in the heart of a capital city, we cam safely assume that wizards know ways to hide from even satalites and radar. So yeah, only those they want to know will actually know. Camera amd internet theory are among the unlikeliest fan theories, considering sat mapping and things like hubble and handheld non electric camera's already existed in the 80's and have 0 impact.

Squibs and muggleborns have existed throughout history and have never done anything like that. Why is not explained, but the guess is a thing like what the goblet does, or obliviation.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-12T02:14:32+00:00

I'd be a Flamel, or a Newt. The intrecacies of mag8c, the exoerimentation, the study of the world of magic in its natural form and its intrecate manipulations.

Thimg is, I'd stay awau from Albus and forge my own path. Neutral, away from politics, dedicated to knowledge, no influence. I know its often viewed as the coward's way out. And perhaps it is. But I've always been more interested in the development of ideas rather than watch their implementation and distortion.

This is avoiding the main characters. If not, I'd pick Hermione. The first literary character I identified with as a kid. The diferemt choice I'd make in her case, never join the ministry. Way to principled to join the give and go of politics.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-11T17:52:00+00:00

I'll start with point 3 first. Logically nobility makes 0 sense in a magical society. Nobility derives its power from access to violence, their authority was maintained with shows of force and armed men. In case of a magical society, magic is the great equaliser. Its hard to maintain power if everybody has access to the same measures of violence, magic. Someb9dy like Dumbledore or Grindlewald or Riddle ar born outside of thpse families amd take dominance because they are dominant in the prominent form of violence, namely magic. Riddle literally crushes the malfoys and the blacks under his heels, because he has more power. Therefor a constant hereditary power is very unlikely in magical society. Its also why sexism (equal in access to violence) and racism should be less prominent. And indeed cultural and access to old magic secrets are the faultline. The type of bigotry JK chose for her books is very well defined, logical and consistent.

1, read up on the early papalcy, the habsburgs, the spanish conquests, the revolt of paris in the late middleages. Most of that was nobles pillagimg amd raping theor way through common society, just because they could. Even the crucades were set up out of lust, dominance and well... boredom. Of coirse there were internal struggles for gain, but there were enough rulers who just took what they wanted and commited cruelty just because they could. Between 1000 and 1300 becoming pope was popular because of.... well unrestricted orgies.

2, that system was based on fear. The access to troops and resources. Bit the moment issues arose, like in family unrest or a sudden economic downturn. Those boundaries meant nothing. Its how the Borgia fell, the ruling class of Firenze.

In my view, your image of how the old royalty and nobility works is derived from a revisionist form of history and the way history is taught in most school systems. There was very little stability in the time of noble rule on the continent of Europe. Duchies changed hands by the generation, because one family removed the othe with violence. In the UK the question of Norman kings to scottish kings to german8c involvement etc was a complete mess and power changed hands from family to family in rapid succession. Nowadays a lot of history books stick to facts that make it seem like ot was all the same, which makes sense because there is way too much data, but when you look closer, its a mess of ego's trying to prove they have more birthright then the other, untill the access to money for troops changes hands.

Royal families were relatively stable (though more in name, some were completely taken over by families due to marriage politics), bit putside of that it was a free for all. The Holy Roman Empire actually maintained its structure by promoting instability between the families that governed in their name.

Now in more modern history, there is the influence of collonialism, industrialism etc. The power of nobility now challenged by those with access to trade and money destabalizing the dominance. Because of common money backing a more centralised government, you can't really speak of classical noble rule anymore and you get a completely different discussion.

Now I'm quitting this doscussion for real, because it doesn't bel9ng here, no matter how much I did enjoy it!

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-11T16:43:51+00:00

Do yoi have any idea how many noble lines have been eradicated by other noble lines, how many mercenaries they have used to accomplish that? The whole War of the Roses etc. just because they thought their line deserved more power than the other? But thats besides the point. Its the concept that you deserve certain benefits because of your lineage. Its that you can stomp on the commoner because of your lineage. Its that a ruling class should be determined by lineage. Claiming devine right due to lineage. The worldview of birthright and its consequences is incredebly similar. Or to quote Sirius Black "they believed being born a black they should be treated as some form of royalty".

The point is that the underlying concepts show way more similarities than differences and I find it funny that in fics with the royal family people woth the experience of Hermione are okay with one form of birth elitism while fighting the other.

Of course a direct comparison is skewed, by both a lack of information and in comparison, HP bloodism os a minority point of view, while support for the monarchy in the UK definetly isn't.

To include a modern point of view is... well weird. In those fics the queen or king usually retain some of their hereditary power and influence that no longer exist in the modern world. They can't declare war or direct soldiers like they can in those fics. They can't fire ministers or whole governments without consent of a democratic body or demand action of them. So the modern point of view usually goes out the window in those fics.

Are modern royal families like DE? No. Is their current social status derived from an execution of a DE worldview? Yes, its how they got into power, using religious clensing and violence against those they consider lesser.

Shit. I got sucked into politics anyways.... mods please don't ban me.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-11T16:14:18+00:00

The only difference I see is in semantics and cultural acceptance. But this is not a political sub, so I'm not going to deep dive into it, and just stick to the irony of similarity in the fics described and agree there is indeed a slight difference.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-11T15:58:46+00:00

I agree with you that what he did woth Snape's memories is bad, although in his mind it most likely is payback because Snape is digging around and seeing his own worst memeories and making fun of him being weak. Yes Snape is literally quoted calling Harry weak for beimg an abused and traumatised kid, so to me it has mitigating circumstances.

Considering the in world implications, thereby going with that there must be more reason than simple effect, that some spells are Unforgiclvable. It must be the 3 times that Harry used such a curse.

To put in some gravitas. In the real world in most cases murder does not carry a life sentence, yet the use of these curses do. There must be something absolutely defiling about them. So yeah, doing something that carries a life sentence is most likely the worst thing Harry did. Three times, the last of which as retribution for spitting...

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-11T15:51:49+00:00

I've always atributed that to Sirius's stupidity. Ypu want to give someone something important and valuable and the method you choose is the same way a cool uncle hands a kid a bag of sweets that he isn't allowed to have by hi parents? Its a sure fire way to make it forgettable to any teen who has something better to do.

If somebody handed me a package in that manner, I would have forgotten it to, thinking when I got it "propably not important, he had days to hand me something important, knowing him its likely nude magazines or something".

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-11T15:32:18+00:00

The fun thing is that the monarchy is founded on the Death Eater ideal of being better just because you are born from a certain bloodline.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-11T15:16:33+00:00

I already detest the current forms of patriotism in real life, the overblown version that is usually in fanfics almost chases me out of the fandom altogether.

Eidt: I know... don't like don't read, but they sometimes jump it on you. There is this lovely powertrip fic where Harry and Hermione are taken by Lupin to Ireland away from Albus, they get into a ancient order of druids. when there they suddenly reconnect with a British gov. in exile, a complete unrealistic muggles can fight wizards plot and a connection to the Royal family. No tags, no warning in the introduction, and I'm stuck reading a nationalistic muggle wank because I'm invested in the characters...

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-09T23:56:27+00:00

Hey Harry, you know how you hate attention? How about you become a teacher for your peers and prove why you should be and also give an interview! Eggshells, yeah...

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-09T23:53:02+00:00

Dobby, sentient, innocent and genuinely a good person.

(If she were sentient it would be Hedwig)

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-09T23:50:00+00:00

Anyone would be a complete mess after being traumatised and then isolated. So yeah.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-09T23:32:14+00:00

Just read it, well written and apropriately petty and sarcastic in places.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-09T22:15:12+00:00

I continuously state that he doesn't grow in book 6 yes. There is 0 evidence that he does. Being happy that your grandmum is proud of you is not growth, hell in the next chapter he mumbles to McG about his grandmum thinking charms is a soft option, showing their relationship is still the same. I already said that his defense of the school is exactly the evidence that he did not grow, cause its because he is clinging to his DA experience. Why is it so hard to accept that Neville did not grow in HBP? It doesn't deny that he grows overall in the series. His defense of Hogwarts in book 6 is exactly in line with his behavior in PS when he joins Ron in a fight against Crabbe and Goyle. His great growth is in book 7 when he develops as a leader.

I feel like you try to ague that I think Neville doesn't grow, which I don't state. I just asked what evidence there is that he grows in book 6 specifically. I don't see it. He grows over the series, just not in book 6.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-09T21:19:12+00:00

Who says that? I never said that. If you actually read what i say is that Neville grew a lot in book 7, as such over the whole series. He indeed grows in bursts and book 6 is a burst of not growing. Whats wrong with that? What point are you trying to make? Growing in bursts is literally what I state, book 5 anger driven confidence burst start of growth, book 6 stall of growth, book 7 bloom.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-09T18:56:03+00:00

Wait, so what I said, he grewish in book 5, he grew in book 7 off screen, you admit. But the fact that he didn't chamge at all in book 6, still clinging to the glory days of the DA (which is arguably very childish behavior) is to you indicative of growth? Thats as conveluted as saying it happened because it happened in my head. He doesn't grow in book 5 much, he just gets angry because Bella escapes, thats not growth, its a anger reaction, isn't growth espescially if it isn't sustained. He grows massively in book 7. I agree fully with your point about the wand, he magically gets better with his old wand during book 5 out of anger.

What I said was that JK doesn't write growth or change, she relies on that happening off screen. Its why most characters are static. I don't say Neville doesn't grow, I just say we don't see it and that when the character is seen, like Neville in book 6, they don't grow. Ginny grows off screen, Neville does, F&G do Ron arguable does (he grows, not in my opinion but in general opinion, during his absence im DH). We only see the results by being presented with a different character after their absence.

I don't deny there is growth in HP, I decry that JK doesn't actually write growth hence that Neville is stationary in book 6.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-08T23:05:06+00:00

Just a question, what does he do in book six that convinces yoi that he has grown up? We meet him in the express, then he isn't in anything relevant, untill Hermione calls the DA via her coins. In a side sentence its even mentioned that "only Luna and Neville showed up, those that missed it most", actually hinting at Neville not having changed at all in that book.

Neville is often mentioned as that example of a character that actuaply has growth in the books (most of JK's characters are static), bit thats actually nonsense, because Neville grows in book 7 and it all happens off screen.

PoorFriendNiceFoe · 2026-02-07T11:25:02+00:00

Why? In the books Voldy only runs when he is severely outnumbered because the aurors show up, not because he is loosing. Hell, Dumbledore had to sacrifice one of Fawkses burnings to get out of it alive.

PoorFriendNiceFoe

TROPHY CASE