vorona_394

I've been reading a lot of fan fiction, lately, and spending time over at the Mugglenet forums, and thus running into a number of pet peeves. This is going to be a very opinionated post, and I would like to state for the record that I believe ALL of these things could conceivably be done well. However, I find that these are, for the most part, basic assumptions that people don't question... and there's no real proof to any of them. In other words, they're treated as though they're undeniable, instead of having the necessary background explanation. So, onto the list:

Pet Peeve #1. You have to really hate someone in order to cast an Unforgivable, and specifically Avada Kedavra

Supposed proof of this:

1. Bellatrix, in talking about the Cruciatus Curse, comments that righteous anger won't do the trick. She says you have to mean them (Unforgivables in general) and for a successful Cruciatus Curse, you have to want to cause someone pain. This has been used because wanting to cause someone pain would require that you hate them.

Refutatation: She never uses the word hatred. She says that with Unforgivable Curses, you have to mean them. She says that to cast the Cruciatus Curse, you have to truly want to cause pain.

The Cruciatus Curse is a pain/torture curse. To truly mean to cause someone pain/torture someone is *exactly* the same as truly *wanting* to cause them pain.

Ergo: For the Imperius Curse, you must truly want to control someone. For the Killing Curse, you must truly want to kill someone.

2. Snape's expression of hatred and revulsion when he casts Avada Kedavra

Refutation: Just because Snape hated Dumbledore (or himself?) at that moment does not mean that it's a required element. Some blonds take French. That doesn't mean you have to be blond in order to take French.

Pet Peeve #2: Peter's silver hand and the death of a werewolf (Remus or Greyback):

One of the reasons this one is a pet peeve is that there are two meanings of the word "silver":

A colour.

A metal.

Harry sees Peter get a "silver" hand. He sees it. Thus, we're talking about the *colour* here, not the metal. He did not test it to find out if it's truly silver metal. The "silver knife" required for Potions, on the other hand, clearly refers to the metal.

The other reason this is a pet peeve is that werewolves in Rowling's world may not have any reaction to silver as opposed to other metals. Just because that's one element of the general werewolf mythos doesn't mean it is true for Potterverse werewolves. Just as a revulsion to garlic in the the general vampire mythos doesn't immediately mean that Buffy vampires have that problem.

Pet Peeve #3: Peter, the idiot

While on the topic of Peter Pettigrew, this one really irritates me. Peter may not have been "on the same level" as James and Sirius, according to McGonagall, but he's NOT an idiot. Idiots do not learn how to become Animagi. Idiots do not change allegiance and betray their friends while managing to keep the trust of said friends to the point of being designated the most trustworthy Secret Keeper. Idiots do not manage to fake their deaths and survive after framing their former best friends for mass murder. We need to remember that McGonagall herself was talking at a time when she thought that Sirius had killed Peter, and not the other way around. Peter is very smart. It would be best not to underestimate him.

Pet Peeve #4: Snape being called "dear boy", "Sevvie"

It makes sense for Dumbledore to call Harry "dear boy". Harry is his student and not yet of age.

It is completely insane to think Dumbledore would refer to *any* of his faculty members as "dear boy". It is equally absurd to think that Snape, of all people, would not protest this. So, in stories where Dumbledore calls Snape "dear boy", I at least want Snape to explain why and how he accepts this.

He would also object, strongly, to being called "Sevvie". I could see it being used as an insult, say by Lucius or Voldemort, and he'd probably bite the bullet, but in a romantic relationship -- never. That would be an absolute deal breaker... unless it had some sort of history that's explained within the story.

Pet Peeve #5: General OOC without explanation/illustration of how that came to be:

Fluffy Snape. Submissive (only) Hermione. These are two of my personal characterization changes that I dislike. Or rather, I dislike them when they're presented without any explanation. I can imagine things that could cause them to change in that way, but for goodness sake, SHOW me how they developed into that from their canon self, even if it's just saying it was something that was always there that the rest of the world (i.e. Harry) never knew.

That's it for now. I'll admit that the Unforgivable one is the biggest. I *hate* that one. If I could, I would curse it into nonexistence.