I think that you may misunderstand the trope Internal Retcon, and may be confusing it with an ordinary ret-con. The idea is that an authority figure in-universe denies that some plot point has happened — which is exactly what Fudge is doing, for the reasons that you describe above.
- Gellert Grindelwald was the love of Albus Dumbledore's life. Unfortunately for Dumbledore, his love did not reciprocate his feelings, and also wasn't above manipulating them for his own gain]].
The second sentence is plausible enough, but wasn't even implied in the books like the first was. For all we know, it could be that Grindelwald reciprocated Dumbledore's love, he was just also, y'know, evil.
Someone delete the [[Character page under the More tab, it's taking up room and looks hella ugly
What do we do with tropes relating to information released only on Pottermore, or in other canonical sources that do not show up in the books, play, or other canonical installments? I've added Pottermore-exclusive examples in the past to the examples page, and no one has removed them, but perhaps they were simply missed.
Should there be a separate "Potterverse" page, or should we just include them in the books examples?
- Protagonist-Centered Morality: The so-called "Unforgivable Curses" are introduced in Book Four, wherein it's said casting one of them even once is a life-sentence in Azkaban. By Book Seven even the heroes are casting them with abandon, including the Cruciatus Curse, where you need to enjoy inflicting pain in order for it to work. Harry's actions with the latter are described by another character as "gallant."
Isn't this taken out of context? The only time Harry's actions are described as gallant are when Mc Gonagall is criticizing him. He explained his reason for using the curse in defending her and she told him that this is no time to be gallant.
Hide / Show Replies
The last line can go, but the rest should stay.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Was poking around in The Kirk and The McCoy, so I'm wondering if the trio count as a Power Trio. It's intuitive to have Hermione as The Spock, Ron as The McCoy, and Harry as The Kirk, but I think they all have instances where they switch roles (sometimes it's Harry being emotional and irrational, and there's the deal with S.P.E.W.). So I think they should be listed in the Power Trio page, but not the related pages. Thoughts?
Hide / Show Replies
Maybe they should go on the related pages with notes for each of them that, while they normally fill the roles that you mentioned above, they sometimes switch positions and play different roles depending on the situation.
Ahem, that discussion post is literally 4 years old.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
the Ephemeral
Switching P.O.V. occurs, but it's not prevalent, and I'm not sure about which books...Half Blood Prince definitely, but I think another might also have had this.
Blog; tumblr Hide / Show Replies
Deathly Hallows has a short segment where we view the night of James and Lily's deaths from Voldemort's perspective.
I'd say so, since the narrative changes to Voldemort's point of view for a couple pages. We see Voldemort's perspective of past events that Harry would never have been able to remember.
There is also a switch of Po V in the first book, during Harry's first Quidditch match, when we switch to Hermione and Ron noticing Snape "cursing" Harry's broom, and Hermione's actions thereafter. It's brief, but it is there.
Frank Brice's backstory segment in Go F would also qualify - the whole thing about his arrest and the meeting at the pub and so on.
First book-first chapter Veron's POV, 4th book, Frank Brice's, then the owl dream Harry has in Divinations class, 6th book Muggle Prime minister
The above example from DH isn't a perspective shift at all. Harry is having a vision of Voldemort, who is remembering the night he killed James and Lily. Harry obviously doesn't remember the details, but it's still his perspective.
I think most of the Plot Induced Stupidity of the series can be partially explained by Hermione's claim that a lot of wizards haven't got an ounce of logic. So some things that simple logic could find the answer for blows right over their heads.
Hide / Show Replies
It was a throwaway line saying that wizards are bad at riddles or problem solving (perhaps the reason they don't have math?). I don't think it explains it all away, because if they failed that badly at logic, they wouldn't survive long. Probably.
It could also be an allusion to the arrogance that having magical powers would cause: why think your way through a problem when you can blow it up with a flick of the wrist? That might be kind of a stretch to explain the Plot-Induced Stupidity, though.
I am very confused by this passage for Fridge Horror:
Boggarts, when encountered by Harry and Co in third year, are harmless. But when Molly is trying to get rid of the boggart, she has very Adult Fears indeed (that of her family and Harry dying in horrible ways). Understandably, she is far too shaken to get the Riddikulus spell to work. Therein lies the question: Would anything have worked in the first place?
I don't understand what that last sentence means, and what's fridg horror-y about it. Could someone clarify so the wording can be cleaned up, or should it just be deleted?
Hide / Show Replies
I think it means "how can *anything* make your family and surrogate son dying funny?" Which is a legit point but maybe could be worded better.
I cut up one dozen new men and you will die somewhat, again and again.
Might I point out that Cho is suppose to be a year older then Harry.
It's Harry and Co (as in company), not Harry and Cho (as in Cho Chang). I think the real question here is: can it really be called fridge horror in the first place? A boggart is explicitly stated to be a creature that takes the form of your worst fear; they probably hope that people won't be able to respond to them. That's sort of the point, isn't it?
Climax of each of the first 6 books happens at the end of the school year. Does that count as Strictly Formula?
Hide / Show Replies
I wouldn't think so, myself. Having the climax of the story happen towards the end of the school year in six of the seven books isn't really enough to say that the series itself follows a formula. Also, the exact points at which the various climaxes occur usually aren't specified (PS, Po A, and Oot P all take place after finals, Co S takes place before finals, DH takes place sometime in May, I don't remember anything specific about Go F or HBP), so several of them have a pretty wide margin where they could occur.
I read once on one of the HP pages on here-I forgot which one. Someone didn't like the fact that we were introduced to a Metamorphmagus when they "already" been introduced in Book 1. Whoever the writer was appeared to have gotten Animagus confused with this. i assumed it been deleted?
Hide / Show Replies
Questions about the work are probably better off in the forum thread
Making a few edits. As it's a long page, I'm giving my reasons for them here rather than in the tiny edit reason box.
(1) "Rowling clearly does not have a good grasp of genetics. Here's a few egregious errors." —> Calling the magical allele "dominant" when she clearly meant "recessive" is egregious, but it's only one error. (Also cut a lot of natter, when this is pretty easy to explain.)
(2) "Fred Weasley II" (under Dead Guy Junior). Set in Britain, therefore "Jr", not "II".
(3) "Fluffy Tamer: Cedric Diggory may be an example of this. In the maze , he recognized what the blast ended screwts were. This may be from rita skeeter's article, or it might be from taking newt level care of magical creatures, in which case this trope fits." —> Hagrid is a much better example, and is mentioned on the trope page. I've copied that entry to here. Reasons given for including Cedric seem very weak, so I've removed him.
(4) "Info Drop: One of the most famous info drops in recent years would be the dates on James and Lily Potter's grave" —> As the reply points out, we already knew the years the books take place. Removed entry.
(5) "Karma Houdini: According to Wordof God, narrowly averted by Umbridge, who ends up with a life sentence in Azkaban." —> Narrow???
(6) "Lucky Seven: A real life example with the movies." —> Reply points out why it isn't an example; therefore removed.
Pittsburghmuggle
Whoever is responsible for the caption "Burn, Harry, burn! Mystic inferno!" I had a good chuckle.
"Freedom is not a license for chaos" -Norton Juster's The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics
Yes.
I'm not sure this actually counts as Anyone Can Die. It seems the Anyone Can Die in the series is limited to adults-children only die if they're minor characters, meaning there is a little bit of Contractual Immortality going on, particularly for Harry, Ron, and Hermione.
I'm a Troper!!!
Under Artistic License – Biology, the bit about James's brown eyes meaning Harry should have blue eyes instead of green seems wrong to me. I don't have a science background, but I looked at six different webpages on the subject, and from what I could understand of the information I didn't see anything to support that claim.
Does anyone else know more on the subject?
Edited by jessb2781 Hide / Show Replies
Guessing whoever wrote it was talking about Brown being a dominant gene, green being the opposite - in that case my opinion would be that he made a typo, writing blue instead of brown. If he did mean blue, then I have no clue what he's talking about.
Edited by Lordloss210
There is some stuff under Moral Dissonance that looks severely biased and/or just plain misinformed. This is going to be long, but I want to state my arguments:
The stuff about Lucius Malfoy and Arthur Weasley just contains a lot of screwed assumptions. The sentence added at the end apparently seeks to rectify some of these, but given the wild change of tone, the whole thing seems like natter and would better be done away with completely. To begin with, there is no blatant indication in the text that Malfoy getting those tickets was meant to be seen as negative. The entry comments on an attack to a character that simply is not there. Secondly, Lucius did not throw money around specifically to get those seats. While balking at Dumbledore’s notice that Voldemort is back, Fudge brings up the numerous and frequent donations he made to “excellent causes”. Throwing around money to improve his standing (and presumably whitewash his reputation) is something he is repeatedly mentioned of doing. Third, “turning a blind eye to the criminal activities of a co-worker and their family” sounds like a pretty damn harsh interpretation of “I did him [Bagman] a bit of a favour: His brother, Otto, got into a spot of trouble - a lawnmower with unnatural powers - I smoothed the whole thing over.” At worst, he smoothed over a minor offense. If such crimes were major, he himself would be in jail after the Flying Anglia, and the "no enchanting muggle objects" laws are there mostly because of him, we are told repeatedly that nobody cares about his work. The entry makes it sound as if he was covering up a mafia family's drug cartel.
The stuff about disproportionate punishments between Gryffindors and Slytherins is just… I don’t want to star something here, but this seems like it was written by someone with an agenda. Whenever a Gryffindor (usually Harry) gets caught doing anything (and I’d rather not even start talking about what motivated the inclusion of the qualifiers “cruel, stupid, or against the rules”. And wouldn’t the last one be a given?), they/he always gets a punishment. Harry spends shitloads of time in detention, and most certainly not just from Snape (Was that an attempt to paint Snape as valiantly defending his poor bullied house or something?). Harry’s first detention ever was ordered by Mc Gonagall. Harry gets “scot free” when he doesn’t get caught, just as everyone else. On the flip side… how many times does a Slytherin get caught doing anything, let alone given terrible punishment? Draco gets sent on the same detention as Harry in the first year. There’s no elaboration on what he gets after the pretend-to-be-Dementors stunt in Po A. Snape lets him scot free after Harry and him try to curse each other in Go F, and Harry is the one who gets detention. Slughorn and Snape both excuse Malfoy when Filch catches him wandering around past curfew in HBP. The only time punishments and Slytherin get mentioned together are usually mentions of Snape failing to hand them out (See Ootp “Snape was obviously no less partisan…”). On the James and Sirius thing: Yes, they “only” got detentions. What else would they get, jail time? It’s a school. Detention is as far as you get before flat out expulsion, and given the crap EVERYONE gets away with, Hogwarts has a pretty high threshold for that. It’s not like the book implies their offenses were overlooked, Sirius himself admits they spent a gargantuan amount of time in detention (The twin mirrors were used to pass time in those situations), and when Snape makes Harry go through their detention records in Half-Blood Prince, the thing was kilometric, rivalling the filing cabinet Filch had reserved for Fred and George’s reports alone.
Anyhow, I’m leaving this up for a couple of days. If no objections are posted, I’ll wipe off both entires.
Edited by Ephyon Hide / Show Replies
Dude/gal I think you made a mistake. The detention records Harry goes through in HBP aren't Fred and George's reports but James Potter (his father) and SIRUS BLACK (his godfather0
Ginny as a Faux Action Girl - Can anybody explain the reason behind this? I can see her action girl qualities as being Informed Attributes, since we never really see her in action in the books (or if we do, it's very vague). But that alone is not enough to merit Faux Action Girl. The only time we ever see her in battle is against much older, more powerful people.
Really, do you think a bunch of teenagers all but self-taught in defense can be expected to defeat hardened criminals? Even Harry admits he mostly survives through luck and having lots of help. I vote we remove Ginny as an example for Faux Action Girl.
Edited by kenman884 Hide / Show Replies
I agree. In fact, her action girl qualities aren't purely Informed Attributes: we see her attack Ron in Half Blood Prince. She joins the D.A., fights in the Ministry and joins the fight against the Death Eater incursion into Hogwarts in Prince. In her sixth year in Hallows (when she's 16), she restarts the D.A. with Neville and Luna and fights in the Battle of Hogwarts against the express wishes of her (short-tempered, and soon to be revealed as highly magically powerful) mother, her father, a magically powerful werewolf who's a member of the Order and one of her old teachers and her kinda-sorta boyfriend, who is the leader of the D.A., her childhood hero and the love of her life. It's also pretty well established in the books that she's a more than competent witch (click here for a full list of her skills), that Fred, George and Ron all fear annoying her in case she curses them (which she tries to do to Ron in Prince) and that Harry Freaking Potter is slightly in awe of her in the last two books. Oh, and she fights Bellatrix Lestrange and lives to tell the tale. Scratch the 'Faux' people: she's a fully-fledged Action Girl. To be honest, I'd put the Faux Action Girl entry down to disgruntled Harmonians...
The last paragraph in the description is rather superfluous and spoileriffic. I'd be for cutting it out.
Hide / Show Replies
I'm getting no responses whatsoever it seems, so I'm just going ahead making the edit.
Warper of Minds
- New trope to be added:
Why is this on The '70s and Television Is Trying To Kill Us?
Hide / Show Replies
I checked the indexes; the Harry Potter prequel takes place in The '70s, so that's correct.
Television Is Trying To Kill Us is the result of someone not knowing that adding bullet points with links to other wiki pages makes that page appear on the index, so I fixed that.
Ambiguously Geeky
I guess I can see how Lily might be a tsundere, but I don't think she counts. She was cold towards James because he wasn't nice to her best friend, but was otherwise a very good person. Would 'acting not nice to people who don't act nice to people who you like' count as being tsun-tsun?
Hide / Show Replies
Well, wouldn't it? Some Tsunderes only act cold/mean to people who are their love interests and act fairly amicable to everyone else.
Edit: Yeah, Lily's definitely a Tsundere... type 2, which is the description I just gave above.
Edited by Darkaros
But Lily didn't act cold to her love interest because she was in love with him. She acted cold to James because she really hated him for always picking on Snape, her best friend. Saying she acts tsun-tsun to James implies that she would end up in love with his jerkish personality too. On the contrary, she refused to like him until he calmed that down and began acting more mature.
True, but tsundere behavior doesn't neccessarily stem from love; other chacterizations are stern teachers or begrudging mentorship of someone. "She may not even realize that she is attracted to him, and conversely reject his compliments of her," is a quote from the trope description that pretty much sums up Lily's implied feelings towards James. The fact that we don't actually know first hand Lily's thoughts, only secondhand information from Sirius, for example, means that for all we know Lily did feel attracted to James but was warded off by his repugnant behavior until he learned to grow up.
Tell Me A Lie...
where did all the Crowning Moment pages go?
Tell Me A Lie... And Say That You Won't Go... Hide / Show Replies
This is now an index page, I believe. The Crowning Moments pages would be linked to under the subpages. Awesome Moments for "Chamber of Secrets" would be separate from those for "Prisoner of Askaban," for instance.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage — Paul McCartney
I am looking for a particular harry potter fic that I lost a while back. the only details I can remember are as follows. 1) It was a canon continuation or after the end fic 2) while long, I don't think it was more than one chapter 3) It had a genre savvy feel to it, like it had been written by a troper 4) I am almost certain it ended with a line similar to Dumbledore's "death is the next great adventure line"
thanks for the help.
Hide / Show Replies
I find the "arson murder and jaywalking" thing to be of need of an explanation. I cannot for the life of me understand what the troper who wrote it is getting at, and thus people who have not read it will neither.
Ambiguously Geeky
I might just be dim, but I was wondering what about Snape appearing in the Prince movie at the Astronomy tower and signalling to Harry to be quiet qualifies as Rule of Cool
Hide / Show Replies
It's a wink to the book fans who already know Snape is working on Dumbledore's orders. And it makes things all the worse for Harry. He has to let Snape handle the situation, especially since Snape is a member of the Order. After Dumbledore dies, Harry feels twice as betrayed because he let Snape into the tower without warning Dumbledore.
- Another troper summed the scene up well on the "Just Bugs Me" HBP page. Very Rule of Cool for the filmmakers to add even more depth to an already emotional scene.
- "When the rest of the Death Eaters arrive, Harry realizes Dumbledore is screwed if he doesn't do something (even though pretty much anything he might try would likely be insufficient to save Dumbledore and would get Harry killed as well, but he is known for having more guts than brains) so he takes out his wand, prepares to attack... and then Snape stops him. He tells him to shut up and goes upstairs. Now, Harry might have his doubts about Snape, but when the guy who you think is a Death Eater has a chance to take you out by surprise and instead warns you to keep quiet and doesn't even mention you to the Death Eater group upstairs, you start thinking maybe you were wrong about him, maybe he has a plan to save Dumbledore, and maybe, just maybe, you really should just shut up and stay quiet for once. Of course, then Snape kills Dumbledore."
Here's a ton on natter from the Fantasy Gun Control entry:
- A Justified Trope, considering this is a world where you can regrow bones. A bullet could possibly be treatable.
- Except it's been shown that they cannot treat death.
- Let's not forget the Shield Charm.
- However, Hagrid carries a crossbow. (In fact, many other creatures and people in Harry Potter carry ancient weapons that seem to effectively kill wizards.) And in the last book Snape uses his wand to launch a volley of knives at McGonagall (she turns them to paper planes). Not to mention the arrows that kill unnamed Death Eaters in the final battle. Logic would say that for killing a gun is better than a wand (a wand is far more useful to carry though) when you're fighting the "average joe" wizard
- I believe McGonagall sends knives at Snape, and he blocks them with a suit of armor.
- It wouldn't have been very effective on Voldemort, but in book 5 if Harry and friends had pulled out uzis instead of showering crystal balls on the Death Eaters...
- The best explanation for why people don't carry guns in the Wizarding Community would be their strong sense of superiority to Muggles and their distain for anything Muggle related. A Squib with a gun would (to wizards) be far more pathetic than just being a Squib; and a Wizard using a gun would be scorned (despite how effective he/she might be). To quote Obi-Wan "How uncivilized.."
- There is also the fact that most, if not all, of the technology within the Wizarding World is pretty much pre-Industrial Era.
- How effective guns would really be is probably questionable. They might work for a while when they're still new, but since the magical characters in the book are able to come up with spells to suit a variety of purposes, someone would eventually come up with a charm to deal with it. All of the non-magical weapons in the series that actually accomplish their purpose are used on animals and non-sentient beings. When they're used on human characters, they usually fail to accomplish anything.
- Considering that the series is set in the UK, which already has gun control, the relevence of the trope is debatable.
- Word of God said that if a Muggle with a gun goes up against a wizard with a wand the Muggle will win.
- It's absolutely true that in a duel between a muggle with a gun and a wizard with a wand, the muggle will always win, but a wizard doesn't need to ever duel a muggle, they can sneak up on them every time. The only problem is that most wizards are too smug to admit a muggle could ever have the ability to hurt a wizard, regardless of advances in technology. This actually gels well with how the wizarding world is presented, as it starts off as an unquestionably wonderful thing with layers slowly peeled back to reveal that wizards are still human beings un-judgeable by simple generalizations; a racist pureblood-enthusiast would think nothing of a muggle with a gun, but a more objective, level-headed wizard would stay inside and poke his wand out a window while the armed muggle glances in the other direction.
- A Justified Trope, considering this is a world where you can regrow bones. A bullet could possibly be treatable.
If anyone wants to try to make something useful of it, knock yourself out.
132 is the rudest number. Hide / Show Replies
...and here's some more from Magic Versus Science:
- Justified. The timeline of the story is more or less set in the early nineties, before fast internet and decent sized cell-phones really came into play. They still weren't everywhere during the nineties, unless the Muggle world here really differs.
- Harry mentions playstation in the fourth book, which came out in ninty-five (and he doesn't mention that its brand new). While extremely fast internet like we know today might be fairly new, reliable email was definitely around.
- Justified They do mention that magic causes issues in electronics, which may help to explain why things like cell phones and computers and the like, however it doesn't explain why they never caught onto things like pens..
- There do exist magic mirrors that can communicate easily between one another, just like videophones.
- Stitches, as shown in Order of the Phoenix. Hermione does point out that stitches work perfectly well on Muggle injuries and that they probably didn't work for Mr. Weasley's snake bite because of some sort of venom.
- Fred and George also found the Muggle method of picking door locks to come in useful, even if it takes more time than just magicking the door open.
- Justified. The timeline of the story is more or less set in the early nineties, before fast internet and decent sized cell-phones really came into play. They still weren't everywhere during the nineties, unless the Muggle world here really differs.
... and Unfortunate Implications:
- Which misses the point like whoa. Did they miss Dumbledore's "Sometimes I think we sort too soon"?
- The article does mention that line and in fact treats it as proof of HP's series having a determinist message.
- Though that article leaves out a lot of stuff to prove the point. For example, the fact that Voldemort killed Harry's parents, killed many other people, plans to murder ever more people, and is basically the magical world equivalent of Hitler is left unsaid * , as well as the reason McGonagall called Harry using the the Cruciatus Curse on Carrow "gallant" wasn't because he's the hero but because the bastard was torturing kids, making the kids torture each other, and when they realize Voldemort will be coming soon and be very angry (Read: Someone is going to die) they intended to blame it on the children. There's also Critical Research Failure saying that despite James being a Jerkass he's treated like a hero (ignoring the fact that Harry was horrified by James's behavior) and Lily treats Snape like dirt (What?! They were best friends and the only Jerkass thing she really did is break off their relationship, and that was justified as he called her a Mudblood and tried to apologize by saying she was different from the other Muggle-borns). Granted, that article does have a good point about the Aesop of choices, but if you take its examples and replaced them with their Real Life counterparts (think about it), the article turns out quite a few Unfortunate Implications itself.
- The case of James Potter in fact shows that people can change and who someone was as a teenager is not necessarily who he/she will be as an adult. Sirius and Remus's laugh over what jackasses they used to be is one of the most realistic sections of the series, to anyone who has grown up with a person who has changed a lot. The fact that the article complains about determinism then jumps on this point is rather hypocritical.
- Ravenclaw has all the Smart Guys. The first Ravenclaw given any focus is an Asian.
- Cho doesn't actually seem to be that smart, though. She appears to be one of those whose presence in Ravenclaw we should question. Percy Weasley is similar — his defining factor is ambition, a Slytherin trait although he is a Gryffindor. Pettigrew doesn't seem to fit any of the houses, most certainly not the one he was in.
- They note in the first book (and again at the end of the last) that the hat takes what house you want into account. The hat notes that Harry would make a good Slytherin (and Ravenclaw for that matter) but Harry's desire not to be a Slytherin is noted. But yes I think the clear theme is that people grow and change (both positively and negatively) over time.
- Cho doesn't actually seem to be that smart, though. She appears to be one of those whose presence in Ravenclaw we should question. Percy Weasley is similar — his defining factor is ambition, a Slytherin trait although he is a Gryffindor. Pettigrew doesn't seem to fit any of the houses, most certainly not the one he was in.
- No one has pointed out that none of the parents seem to mind all the elderly unmarried teachers and uninvolved in anyway romantically spend long hours with children in dungeons and forests and two faculty members that lurk around in hallways in the dark and one faculty member who only spends his time with children.
- Actually, most of the staff are married, we just never see their spouses. Rowling was supposed to explain why this is, but she never did. Dumbledore and Snape are pretty much the only single teachers, both having only loved one person their whole lives.
- Which misses the point like whoa. Did they miss Dumbledore's "Sometimes I think we sort too soon"?
What does the caption mean? whats Mystic inferno?
Hide / Show Replies
Sounds like a reference to the Trammps' song "Disco Inferno". They took the song's chorus, and replaced the word 'disco' with 'mystic' to fit the whole magical world theme.
What on earth is this supposed to mean?:
- As Long as It Sounds Foreign: Death Eater Antonin Dolohov. Antonín is Czech, Dolohov is Russian.
Is it supposed to indicate some sort of error on Rowling's part? It doesn't; we have real-life examples such as mathematician Benoit Mandlebrot, first name French (matching his nationality) but surname the German for "marzipan". And there are probably far more Davids in Wales than in Israel.
I think the above should be deleted, but I've thrown this open to debate rather than doing it myself.
Hide / Show Replies
Having looked up As Long as It Sounds Foreign and seen what it covers, I've deleted the following as being not an example of the trope:
- As Long as It Sounds Foreign: Death Eater Antonin Dolohov. Antonín is Czech, Dolohov is Russian.
- Which after all is reasonable. One short story * points out that many names are popular far beyond their "proper" cultural context; David outside Israel, Paula outside Italy, etc.
— because this sort of thing actually happens all the time. See the As Long As It Sounds Foreign Discussion.
Field Primus
I want to add a link to So You Want To Write the Next Harry Potter, but I'm not sure where on the page to put the link. Under the description and above the examples? Down with "other tropes associated with the series"? Elsewhere?
I suppose eventually we might get an icon for the So You Want To namespace, so we'd have a link up top with the Crowning Moments and It Just Bugs Me and such, but until then... where? Suggestions?
Only the curious have, if they live, a tale worth telling at all.
Deleted the following
because the reasons are actually quite clear: Fudge is in denial because Voldemort returning upsets his comfortable peacetime job, and because it would mean he has to face the possibility that he's been taking bribes from Voldemort's supporters to do things that further Voldemort's agenda. He's a weak and petty enough man that it's easier for him to convince himself that Harry and Dumbledore are lying than it is for him to face the truth. That the Ministry is riddled with Voldemort/blood purist sympathizers who want him to deny V's return and help his self-deception along only makes it easier.
Hide / Show Replies