I'm sure Harry wasn't practicing the cruciatus on Filch, and as for Hermione I'm sure she didn't plot gang rape. The map on the other hand was just basic protection not a desire to cause pain.

 

I assume you're referring to his only successful cast at Amycus, which knocked him out rather than inflicting him with excruciating pain.

Oh yeah, sticking his tongue to the roof of his mouth is super sadistic.

I agree on this one.

Despite the popular fanon theory I've not seen any evidence of this.

 

It was successfully cast, though, and one must have some form of sadism to cast it all, let alone successfully.

I didn't say Harry was evil or that he was Bellatrix Lestrange, but yes, his little antics in 6th year were a display of sadism.

Sadism is taking pleasure in the pain of other people, that doesn't mean Harry would take pleasure in watching someone get mutilated, but causing humiliation to others is not beyond him.

I distinctly remember Hermione telling the Centaurs she brought Dolores to the Forbidden Forest because she wanted them to capture her.

 

Hermione telling Harry that she was indeed correct when the Half Blood Prince was found out to be woman through a technicality was wtflulzy. Especially as it was just after Dumbledore's death.

 

Hermione is a weirdo.

 

I'll give you that, reading up on it, it was the impact that knocked him out, the curse worked as intended.

By that definition many HP characters are sadists, including Ron.

Yes, she engineered the situation in which Dolores was taken. The rape bit was the fanon theory.

 

Sure, everyone at some point in their life has displayed a form of sadism, however small it was.

But very few Wizards or Witches, including Ron, could ever cast the Unforgivable Curses. It takes a certain mindset to be able to do so.

 

You don't need to be a sadist to cast the cruciatus, you just need to, in that moment, want the subject to feel pain. There are many circumstances that can cause a non-sadist to want to cause pain. These are transient situations, and don't mean that you are a sadist.

Umbridge wasn't raped by Centaurs.

The contract for the DA wrote "Sneak" on Edgecombs face with spots, thats not sadism by any stretch, considering what she no doubt could have done.

Harry testing spells on Filch isn't sadism, I'd not go as far as saying its a moral or ethical thing to do, but it isn't sadism unless those spells are actually causing the man pain.

 

It was a big iffy admittedly. At least Harry had the wherewithal not to test Sectumsempra on Filch. As far as sadism and Unforgivables -- Harry and others were throwing Unforgivables about like candy in DH, seeing as how they were at war. Didn't McGonagall Imperius Amycus right after Harry Crucio'ed him? She also didn't seem to particularly care that Harry just used the Cruciatus in front of her. It's difficult to argue that Harry, McGonagall, or the others are anything like sadists.

 

MA'AM.

Fucking stop it. In British English, ma'am is used when talking to the Queen, not to a hag in Knockturn Alley. But I can forgive linguistic errors. It's mostly annoying because when Harry says it over and over again (while talking to, say, Amelia Bones) he just sounds like a pathetic yes-man, a shell-shocked American soldier, or one of Aberforth's goats. This isn't how he talks in canon, and it's such a stupid sounding word. Finally, how am I supposed to take it seriously after watching Married with Children for years?

 

Hardly need to be a shell-shocked soldier, I say it all the time because it's considered polite. I also use sir sometimes.

 

This, but it is also cultural.

Umbridge: the idea of her being raped is based on the idea that writers don't have to say everything in order to say everything. Centaurs are basically rapists in Greek mythology, outside of two specific good ones, Cheiron and Pholos. Their violence towards women was well known.

So, does the text says he was raped? No, but the context, Umbridge's utter fear of anything sounding like centaurs approaching when she was in hospital wing, and the literary history of centaurs as rapists make it more likely than not that is exactly what happened.

At the most, it's canon+. But canon can pretty easily be argued as well.

 

I thought that was the Satyrs.

 

This sort of thing used to annoy me massively. Then I got over it, because its honestly the sort of thing you can't expect many authors to know or understand. If you are raised that you address all adult women as Ma'am then you're probably going to assume that thats the way of doing it the world over, and not think to go and do some research on that particular point.

When I was at school I learned to address all female staff members as Miss. Regardless of their marriage status, regardless of academic qualifications, they were addressed as Miss. All male teachers were Sir. This has carried forwards, so if I don't know a woman's name and I need to address her my go to is Miss. However, when I was working in a call centre I more than once got accused of being patronising and snide, each time by Americans. As far as I understand it, Miss has different connotations over there.

Its just a linguistic difference, and not worth getting annoyed over.

 

Satyrs, while early being drawn or spoken of with horse tails and erections (a version of an uncouth man), actually became the pursuers of nymphs and maenads, rather than women, hence, their association with Dionysus.

 

When someone opens a door and enters the house/apartment/car/whatever and the story continues without the door being closed again. I find this happens mostly when a couple almost can't wait to get inside before sexing.

 

I can honestly say that I despise the Epilogue.

Too many times I have tried to write a story that held the Epilogue with reverence, but... I just can't.

The Epilogue just comes off as the type of ending you'd expect the protagonist to wake up to and find out it was all a dream.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy happy endings just as much as the next person, but the Epilogue was too good of an ending.

 

I think characters closing doors behind them is up there with toilet breaks in the category of things you rely on the reader to assume happen without having to describe them.

 

When stories delve into sex scenes and use the word "womanhood".

I hate it; because "womanhood" sounds like some grotesque bacteria, like a booger, or "Wormtail"

"Womanhood"
"Wormtail"

When I read "Harry licked her 'womanhood'," I picture Harry licking Peter Pettigrew's bald head.

 

Lol. What would you prefer her "Vajayjay"?