Deathly Hallows, Chapter 21: The Tale of the Three Brothers

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Xeno tells the Trio the DH symbol is not “dark” in the sense Viktor Krum thought. He adds he was wearing the symbol in case another believer saw him and could help him find the Hallows. Isn’t it great that he used someone’s else happy social occasion to promote his own selfish, crazy agenda?

He then asks if they know “The Tale of the Three Brothers.” Ron and Hermione say they do, but Harry doesn’t. This shows how intellectually disinterested he is: He’s had the Beedle book sitting around for five months and has been sitting in a tent with it for four months, frequently bored out of his mind, with nothing else to do for entertainment, but even though it’s a short book, he still hasn’t read it! Sheesh! And I’m supposed to find this guy admirable enough to be worthy of emulation? I mean, that is one of the characteristics of a hero/heroine.

Hermione reads the story aloud at Xeno’s request. One thing Rowling got right in the 3Bs story is that it takes place at twilight in Beedle; Ron puts in that his mother always said it was midnight. Either way, those are in-between times of day, neither day nor night, or neither night nor morning, respectively. In folklore, those are the times when the veil between the living and dead or secular and magical worlds is thinnest, and strange things can happen.

We know the story, so I’ll just briefly recap it. Three brothers are walking together when they come to a river that can’t be crossed. They use their magic to build a bridge and are crossing it when they are confronted by the three billy goats gruff Death himself. (I guess if Aberforth were in the story, it would be goats. Or maybe Death would be a goat. Instead of using a scythe to “reap” souls, he’d butt them into the next world.) Death is PO’d because he was “cheated” out of three lives by their magic. Wow. If he’s mad at these brothers because they deprived him of three lives, how much angrier must he have been at Ignaz Semmelweis. His studies of disinfection in maternity wards saved countless people, particularly once Joseph Lister and Louis Pasteur used those studies to develop the germ theory of disease and infection. No wonder Semmelweis was ridiculed and died young, after being beaten to death in an asylum. That was Death’s revenge. At last the truth can be told!

Anyway, Death pretends to be pleased with the brothers’ cleverness and offers each one a prize for beating him. The oldest brother asks for an unbeatable wand, the second for a stone that can raise the dead, and the youngest for something that will keep Death from finding him, which turns out to be the Ultimate Invisibility Cloak, the possession of Death himself.

After the brothers separate, they proceed to put their prizes to use. The oldest brother is a Gryffindor an egotistical blowhard who likes to pick fights, so he promptly goes into a bar and starts bragging he can take anybody in a fight. A Slytherin Another wizard hears him and waits until the loudmouth has passed out drunk in his room. Then he creeps in, cuts the braggart’s throat, and takes the wand.

The second brother is a Ravenclaw too smart for his own good, so he goes home and calls for his dead girlfriend. She shows up, but she doesn’t belong in the living world, and at last the brother becomes so distraught about their inability to be together that he kills himself.

The third brother doesn’t take any chances. Literally. He’s so much a Hufflepuff careful that he lives a long life, literally hiding under the Cloak the entire time, and when he becomes tired of living, he goes with Death willingly, passing his cloak down to his heirs.

Although they’re not called “the Deathly Hallows” in Beedle, Xeno insists that’s what the story is about. The four argue some about it, but we know the pot isn’t cracked in this case. Yes, tiresome as it is, Gary Stu Potter really does own an artifact of Death itself. There’s enough BS in that contrivance to fertilize the entire Corn Belt for decades.

Xeno insists the other Hallows are real as well, which, given the seventh HP book’s title, is inarguable, no matter how stupid it is. Only Hermione is adamant the story isn’t true; her wrongness is one of those annoying situations where feelings and faith triumph over reason. Look, Ms. Rowling, I put up with that nonsense for years on The X-Files. I didn’t like it there, either, but that show was usually so imaginative, well-written, and well-acted, and had such likable main characters and interesting supporting characters, that I was willing to give the irrationality a pass. You are no Chris Carter, nor are Ron and the Hs Scully and Mulder. Voldemort is certainly not Cancer Man.

Xeno goes down to the kitchen to make Plimpy soup. However, if Luna has come back, there is no sign of her. HRH don’t notice that inconsistency.

Ron doesn’t believe the 3Bs story is true, either, and he doesn’t seem to be sucking up to Hermione when he says it. He blows it off as the kind of story that’s supposed to teach lessons to children. “‘Don’t go looking for trouble, don’t pick fights, don’t go messing around with stuff that’s best left alone! Just keep your head down, mind your own business, and you’ll be okay.’” Of course, that first sentence contradicts the entire Gryffindor ethos. The second comes from the Good German playbook. Since JKR keeps shoving WWII down our throats, I wonder if she was aware of the implications when she wrote that sentence.

The Trio starts arguing about which Hallow would be the best to have. Ron proves wand = penis by saying the Elder Wand would only provoke people if you went around shouting, “‘I’ve got an unbeatable wand, come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough.’”  Look at that phrasing: “have a go” is British slang for “have sex with”; “hard enough” rather than “tough enough” or “bad enough” (either of which would be the expected phrase in that context) is an obvious sexual reference. Put the two together and the sexual implications of that sentence are unmistakable. Lower down the same page, Hermione says, “Some wizards just like to boast that theirs [wands] are bigger and better than other people’s.” Wizards, not witches.

They start talking about how “infallible” Harry’s cloak is. Um, correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t Pseudo-Moody and Dumbledore both able to see through it? So were Mrs. Norris and Nagini, but in their cases, it was probably smelling rather than seeing.

While they talk, Harry notices the painting Luna put on her bedroom ceiling of the Trio, Ginny, and Neville, with the word friends painted in gold bordering it all around. The portraits are so realistic, “Harry thought they breathed.” I know this is creepy and sad, since those people aren’t really her friends, with the possible exception of Neville, but rereading this, what I thought about was what a waste it is for someone with Luna’s considerable artistic talent not to use it.

People who can paint portraits that well are extremely rare; Pierre Mignard is the only one I can think of offhand. This is also the only sign of true artistic genius we’ve seen in the entire series. It sucks no end that so much time is wasted on stupid quests, dumb romance, and main character angsting that we never see Luna’s talent being developed, or what, if anything, she did with it. Probably nothing, given what Philistines magical people seem to be.

Think how cool it would have been if Luna’s artistic genius had been used in the resolution of one the stories.

Looking around her bedroom, Harry comes to the conclusion that Luna isn’t around and hasn’t been for weeks. When Xeno comes back with a tray of food, Harry asks him where Luna is. Xeno tries the “Plimpy fishing” line again, but Harry doesn’t buy it, not because you can’t make Plimpy soup without the Plimpies Luna is supposedly catching, but because the tray is set for four rather than five. Holy logic, Batman! Who are you, and what have you done with that dunderhead, Harry Potter?

Xeno admits he tricked them because Luna’s being held hostage by the Death Eaters, and he’s trying to get her back by trading Harry for her.

HRH look out the window and see someone arriving. Xeno tries to Stun them, but Harry shoves his friends out of the way and jumps aside, so the Stun hits the Erumpent horn and explodes it. Harry and Hermione aren’t buried in the rubble--of course--but Ron has a bureau fall on him, and Xeno falls down the spiral staircase.

Just then the DEs arrive. Thinking Xeno’s lying to them about Harry’s presence, they start torturing him. The Hs stand there silently listening to this, making no move to do anything until one of the DEs does a revealing spell, and the bad guys come looking for them.

Then the Hs rescue Ron--first trying to lift the dresser, then doing a Hover Charm. Honestly, I felt like Rowling had forgotten this charm again, then remembered it halfway through the paragraph and stuck it onto the end.

Hermione saves the day again. First, she makes the floor collapse onto the DEs, allowing them to see Harry, while Ron is covered by the cloak. Then she Apparates the three of them to a distant field.

“What a revolting development this is!” That catchphrase predates the lives of everyone on this forum, but it perfectly describes how I felt about the last few pages of this chapter. “Their daring, nerve, and chivalry set Gryffindors apart.”

HAH! There is nothing daring, nervy, or chivalrous about standing around listening while an old man is being tortured, particularly when he may already have been severely injured by a fall down a staircase. First Xeno is cursed four times when the DEs arrive. Then he is subjected to “a volley” of curses, which means at least several more. Ron can’t do anything because he is out of commission--as usual--not that he would have if he could, as we’ll see in the next chapter. But the Hs could have at least attempted to rescue Xeno. Instead, all they think about is saving their own skins. And you have the nerve to call Snape a coward, Harry?

Yes, Xeno betrayed them. So what? He admitted he was doing it only because he saw no other way to rescue his daughter. The Trio also should have expected to be betrayed at some point. It’s part of the ugliness of war. Real war, that is, not the contrived kind of kiddie war found in this book. It’s perfectly understandable and forgivable that an old man, who has no one else in his life to love but his daughter, would put her life ahead of the lives of strangers, no matter who those strangers were. If the Trio were truly heroic, rather than heroic as an informed attribute, they would have understood this and tried to save Lovegood anyway. Saving people who don’t deserve it is part of being a hero or heroine. Somewhere in one of those umpteen books she’s read, Hermione should have read that.

I’ve certainly read it in both the Warriors and Percy Jackson series. "Chivalrous Gryffindors" Harry, Hermione, and Ron have had their butts kicked in the heroism department by a bunch of stray cats and the bastard offspring of obsolete gods and goddesses. How sorry is that?

The Fool’s Golden Trio is the worst bunch of role models ever.

Comments

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

I know this is creepy and sad, since those people aren’t really her friends ...

Ron and Hermione are friends of, and loyal to, Harry, to the exclusion of all else. They are friends - they're just not her friends. It's possible that Luna recognized that fact, and was portraying their friendship to each other. (Although that doesn't explain the presence of Neville, who once betrayed the trio, and was more dedicated to bringing Voldie down than he was loyal to Harry.)

Thinking Xeno’s lying to them about Harry’s presence, they start torturing him. The Hs stand there silently listening to this, making no move to do anything until one of the DEs does a revealing spell ...

I tried to imagine some parallel between this and Snape watching the death of Charity Burbage, but it just doesn't work. Like Snape, it could be argued that the trio couldn't act without endangering their mission. However, unlike Snape, the trio has no reason to pretend that they don't care what's being done to the victim, and yet they really don't seem concerned.

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

You're right, the parallel really doesn't work. Not only for the reason you perceptively cite.

We readers realize what must have been Snape's true feelings in the snake scene (or are confirmed in our suspicions, depending)only around about the time we hear his avowal in the Prince's Tale, "Lately, only those I could not save.." So we accept that Snape could have been cold-bloodedly master of himself enough to weigh Charity's death, and her appeal to his friendship, and his own desire to protect her, against the lives that would be lost (and the students, their joint charge--Charity WAS a fellow teacher--tortured) if he betrayed his ultimate mission by breaking cover in a probably unavailing attempt to save her.

Harry, however, is the boy who imperils his whole mission, and almost kills himself and his friends, in order to rescue his dead colleague Moody's EYE from desecration. And who endangers his mission, and his soul, in order to cast an Unforgivable to punish a man for SPITTING on Professor McG. And who had, two books ago, offered to turn over the Prophecy Orb to Lucius (which action he was fully convinced would lose his side the war) to stop Bellatrix from futher torturing Neville, even though Neville himself ordered Harry not to do so.

Harry doesn't weigh costs, and with difficulty suppress his desire to save another because his duty requires a different action from him.

Not ever.

(Okay, not "not ever." Once, in canon--when he kept feeding that potion to Albus. But there Albus had explicitly forewarned him of what to expect, and gotten, repeatedly, Harry's promise of perfect obedience, whatever his heart begged him to do. Other than that, no, not ever.)

So, if Harry lounged around and listened to Death Eaters torturing Xeno without being moved to save the old man, it's because Xeno, to him, didn't deserve Harry's lifting a finger to help him.

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

IIRC, JKR once said in an interview that Harry "always tried to save everyone", which continues to bother me, because clearly he didn't. He only did it when it suited him (or suited the plot), and Xeno is another example of that. The only "undeserving" one that he tried to help was Wormtail, a pointless subplot that went absolutely nowhere.

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Be fair, he also rescued Draco and Greg from the Room of Requirement.

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

Oops! How could I have overlooked that dramatic moment? ;-)

[ioanna-ioannina.livejournal.com]

Maybe we could say that he is saving people only from imminent physical danger that he can understand?
It would resonate well with my head canon of stupid!unthinking!Harry. :-)

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's your head canon. I think that's what's on the page, whether JKR and her sycophants want to admit it or not.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes - but also, only when he thinks they deserve rescuing. In the movie, Harry looks all horrified and tries to stanch the wound, but in the book, he doesn't lift a finger to save Snape. As I've been saying for years, Snape reaches out to him, not the other way around.

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

They had to "clean up" so much in the movies in order to make Harry and friends seem like decent people. I sometimes wonder what JKR thinks of that, or if she thinks about it at all. And sometimes I wonder how the movies would have been received if they'd been shot "as written" by JKR. Would audiences have reacted differently to the "heroes"?

[ioanna-ioannina.livejournal.com]

I so much wish they did it... :´-(( I hate it when somebody speaks about how excellent author Rowling is and how good her books are for children. I spent some years discussing with my students about the morality of the books - no chance to persuade even the best teens, logical, good people, everything, that their beloved children book has any moral problém. They just don't see it. They've identified with the "heroes" - and this is an end. Maybe have they seen it in the pictures...

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I think, actually, that oneandthetruth's theory of spiritual development explains your students' reactions. They aren't bad people; they're kids. To them, or most of them, loyalty to one's peers is paramount, and they don't question "their side" very much. The trio are fellow teens, on the "right" side. In a way, the teenagers are reading the books the way they were meant to be read.

But I do think that, if the students have seen the movies, this will also influence their interpretation of the books. And the movies do make the trio nicer and better people than they are in canon.

[ioanna-ioannina.livejournal.com]

I think you're right.
The weird thing is that they were perfectly capable of discerning good from bad - in a story where the auctor himself did not mess up like Rowling. Like, discussing LOTR, they understood that Frodo failed. Antigona - yep, she was right burying her brother. Orestes and the Eumenids - understood. But Potter...
I'm very cautious since then with my heroes and villains. The auctor has to be the one, who has to understand what is right and what is not. Not only in the story, but just right and wrong. Heroes can do wrong and villains can do right - but the auctor has to acknowledge it. Otherwise - rowlingmess. :-D
The horrible thing is, kids sometimes emulate their heroes. "Why are you doing xxx?" - "Well, it's OK, Harry did so as well..."
And now, imagine this:

"Why did you turn your back to the car crash and haven't call the police or hospital?"
"Well, it was only old Smith lying there and bleeding, and he never liked me, and the other one was an unknown and looked well enough..."
"Do you know that Mr. Smith died from suffocating with his own blood?"
:-O
"Dou you realize it's partly your fault?"
"Why? Harry did the same in the book, and he is a hero!"

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

That's a really interesting point you make; make mary=j_59 can address it, since she also works with children and teens professionally.

But that kids can understand that even a beloved hero can sometimes do wrong, and mess up, and do things not to be emulated--just so long as the author understands this, and authorially separates the behavior that makes the hero "a hero" from the behavior that shows s/he has flaws and problems (hopefully to overcome), like other humans....

But if the author does not: It's Okay If A Gryffindor Does It!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Oh, I HOPE kids wouldn't emulate the trio's behavior in real life! As to kids understanding the intentions of better and clearer-headed authors: not always. I think most of my best readers do. But, apparently, after the movies came out, there were a lot of fans exclaiming, "Boromir's a good guy! I always thought he was a bad guy!" Well, of course Boromir is a good guy! He's a good guy who happens to be deeply flawed and conflicted, makes a serious mistake, and then redeems himself. Some fans had to actually see that, in Sean Bean's fine performance, before they understood it.

So - I think some of these kids truly don't notice how awfully the trio (especially Hermione and Harry) actually behave. If they visualize the scenes, I get the impression that they're already seeing something more like the movies. What Rowling intended, not what she actually wrote. And the messages some of my young Gryffindor friends* seem to take away are things like: be brave, help your friends, do the right thing, and other such basic lessons. ((*I mean high school and college age wizard rockers.)

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

That's the problem with these kids: They're not old and experienced enough to realize that sometimes authors can be very messed up people who intend to write one thing but actually write something very different. So when the author indicates that "so and so's the hero, and it's okay when he does this," they take that assertion at face value and don't think, "Wait a minute. That's not really heroic behavior. We're being told one thing and shown something else." It takes time, experience, and maturity to be able to figure that out. And many people never develop the ability to do that.

Several months ago, I was talking to a middle-aged woman about the Twilight books. I mentioned how sick and disgusting it is when Edward repeatedly tells Bella he has to restrain himself from killing her, and that such scenes tell girls that men with violent impulses towards them are sexy and romantic. She blew off my objections, saying, "Oh, that's just because he doesn't want to turn her into a vampire." So It's Okay If A Cullen Does It, too.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

What's interesting also, and what shows the pernicious influence of Harry Potter, is something that came up in a conversation I had with oryx a while back. I mentioned the Percy Jackson books as promoting honor and integrity. She said she'd seen the movie of The Lightning Thief, and that not only did she care nothing for Percy or his mother, but that Percy'd done something so bad it was worthy of Hermione. She didn't say what it was, but nothing like that happened in the books. Apparently, the movie makers decided they needed to make Percy more of a badass in the movie--you know, more like Harry, the Big Deal Hero of this generation.

[oryx_leucoryx]

FYI in the movie Percy puts medusa's head in the fridge and sticks a note telling his stepfather to not open the fridge.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Well, sure. Snape's an adult. Only teenagers matter.

In the book, Harry just sits there staring at Snape, watching him bleed to death. (Not that Hermione or Ron behave any better.) It's as if he's already dissociated, the way he does after he looks at the memories and realizes he has to die. Researching dissociation for this sporking, I've realized there's a good case to be made that Harry has a dissociative disorder of some kind, and that it becomes active under certain stressful circumstances.

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Physical danger that he can understand, certainly.

And people he thinks "deserve" his protection, as mary ways.

Which seems to be, adults who are on HIS side ... and any of his peers.

Consider Draco, Vince, and Greg. Harry has years of hating them under his belt, but he's capable still of empathizing with them--he never fantasizes about or attempt to Cruciate any of them, he can feel sorry for them even while hating their actions, and he risks his life (and his friends') to save them.

Catch him showing any sympathy or understanding for any adults who are on the wrong side! Much less trying to rescue them! Quirrell screaming in agony at Harry's touch, Snape's body, "looking dead," being bashed about by Sirius in book 3, Umbridge's reaction fo "hoofbeats" in book 5, Death Eaters being tortured by their Lord....

(In this chapter and the next, we see our heroes listening while someone is being tortured out of sight one floor away. I wouldn't expect Harry and Ron to care as much about Xeno's torture as about Hermione's, but to show no emotion at ALL and to do NOTHING to help.... Well.)

Indeed, back in DH 9, when Harry had his vision of Voldie using Draco to "punish" Rowle with the Cruciatus, Harry saw: the great blond Death Eater on the floor, screaming and writhing... "Draco, give Rowle another taste of our displeasure.... Do it, or feel my wrath yourself!"

But what REGISTERED with Harry was not Rowle's torture, but Draco's: Malfoy's gaunt, petrified face seemed branded on the inside of his eyes. Harry felt sickened by what he had seen, by the use to which Draco was now being put by Voldemort.

Only peers are real, only their pain counts. And adults who side with me, who show sympathy for me. (Stan, after all, had spoken fawningly of the BWL.)

Adults who don't... Well. Draco, gaunt and petrified, registers with Harry; Thorfinn, screaming and writhing, does not.

But show Harry an adult as a child or teen--he feels sorry for Tom, whose mother, per Scumbledore, didn't love him enough to live. He can show mercy to Pettigrew, who'd been, as a teen, his father's friend. When he saw SWM, he felt sorry for Snape, though that didn't last. (But compare even that transient emotion that to his reaction to realizing the book before that Snape had had presented himself to Voldemort on Dumbledore's orders, knowing that Voldemort thought Snape a turncoat who deserved to be tortured to death. All Harry managed in response to that was a vague wonder that Snape looked "as sour and unpleasant as ever." In other words, the boy registered that Snape's great courage and sacrifice ought to make Snape look different in Harry's eyes, but he doesn't.)

But then show him that as a child and teen, Snape loved Lily, and as a young man was devastated by her death, and the man Harry "hated worse than Voldemort" (and tried to torture and kill) became at once someone he trusted implicitly.

If you cut me, do I not bleed?

Not, in Harry's eyes (or Jo's, apparently), if one is an adult on the wrong side.

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Oh, god. I was thinking further about Harry's jeopardizing their entire mission to rescue Moody's effing EYE. Not to save his life, not even to rescue the body of a compatriot (nobly slain in Harry's defense) from desecration, or a body part--to redeem an EFFING ARTIFACT Moody had USED.

And I was suddenly reminded of a sentimental song I've always hated, "Teen Angel." In which a stupid bint throws herself under a train and gets herself killed in order to rescue her boyfrind's high school ring from destruction. And is lauded for this.

Yep, adolescent morality all right.

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

I've always taken that song as a satire of teen romantic culture, and it's frightening to think that some teens might have taken it more seriously. Many songs from that era pushed that sort of uber-romantic ideal, and probably lead many teens into bad marriages with their high school "sweethearts", a notion that JRK seems to love (in fact, maybe that's where she learned it - from old pop songs). (Most of today's songs push a different sort of message, but that's off topic.)

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's one more thing we can thank the Beatles for: They killed off that kind of sloppy, sick, pseudo-romanticism in popular songs.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

I tried to imagine some parallel between this and Snape watching the death of Charity Burbage, but it just doesn't work. Like Snape, it could be argued that the trio couldn't act without endangering their mission. However, unlike Snape, the trio has no reason to pretend that they don't care what's being done to the victim, and yet they really don't seem concerned.

You're right; they don't seem concerned because they aren't. In the next chapter, Ron calls Xeno a "trecherous old bleeder." When Hermione has an I-told-you-so moment re the Erumpent horn blowing up Xeno's house, Ron says, "Serves him right," then asks what the DEs will do to him. Hermione "groans" she hopes they don't kill him. Then they discuss Hermione's actions re saving them, remind us her parents are (allegedly) in Australia, rave about what a genius she is, and discuss Luna's fate. Hermione then says, "I'd feel so sorry for Xenophilius if--" "--if he hadn't just tried to sell us to the Death Eaters, yeah," finishes Ron. Harry expresses no interest in Xeno of any kind. The utter callousness of these supposed role model heroes/heroine is disgusting.

I'd love to take random passages out of these books with no names of characters or sides attached and give them to people unfamiliar with the books. After they read the excerpts, I'd ask the readers whether they thought the dialogue and actions had been said/done by the good guys or the bad guys. That would make a really interesting psychology/sociology experiment. I'm sure their answers would be very revealing.

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

And here we see how important authorial choices are.

In Book 5, when Bellatrix holds Neville at wandpoint, tortures him, and threatens to do so unless Harry gives up the Prophecy--which he believes may lose the war for his side--he does so.

Except the cavalty comes over the hill JUST as he pro-offers it, so he's saved from the consequences of that choice.

Yet we're not invited to think badly of Harry for that.

But of course, he doesn't actually do so, and we find out immediately afterwards that the Prophecy was really a red herring, so it wouldn't have mattered anyhow.

(Now I'm thinking of an AU where the Prophecy did contain information that would help Tom win, and the cavalry arrived a moment later, after Lucius got his hands on it. Lucius Apparated away, Tom won, and it was all Harry's fault for caving in to pressure as Xeno did...)

And in DH, Jo carefully contrives to keep HRH, and indeed all Gryffindors, out of Xeno's position. We're not shown Molly having to choose between Ginny's life and that of a Symbol of Resistance she's met once in her life, or Harry having to choose between Ginny and defeating Tom, or Ron's family threatened. Even Neville's Gran triumphantly escapes when the DE's try to use her to put pressure on Neville.

So the Trio can afford to sneer at Xeno; God/the author won't ever force them into such a position.

[oryx_leucoryx]

It's all everyone else's fault for not being Gryffindors.