WolfStar - my favorite Harry Potter pairing

[AntheaHolmes]

Okay, let me get this straight. I like Tonks. I do, I really think she's a badass witch and an amazing auror but I can't help but feel weird that JKR (btw I hate her for her anti trans* BS she's talking) put Remus with her after she killed of beloved Sirius! Yes, I know that it's not canon that Remus and Sirius were lovers but their chemistry in the books and movies are speaking for itself in my opinion. They both had to suffer so much. All their lives. I really believe they found comfort in each other's company and a little love too. I love the idea of WolfStar. 

Please don't hate me in the comments. This is just my little WolfStar fangirl Moment. I would like to know your opinion. 

[SunFlower_10]

I one hundred percent agree. And the fact that tonks wasn't queer in some way is mind-blowing to me. Their early relationship always read as supportive queer friends, not lovers. Wolfstar for life.

[solitaire-au]

IMO, one of the reasons people, especially women, are so in favour of M/M pairings is two-fold.

Firstly, because traditionally female characters were often very “cardboard cutout.” A woman once described JRR Tolkien’s strategy for writing female characters was “one female character per continent/country is enough,” and those he did write were barely described.

Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh were forced to either invent new characters, like Tauriel, or greatly expand their roles beyond the canon text, like Galadriel, That said, his characterisation for male characters wasn’t the greatest either. The Hobbit has 13 male dwarven characters and when the actors for The Hobbit movies pored over the books, they realised only 3 out of the 13 had any personal characteristics beyond basic appearance. So they saw the tried to turn it into a positive by taking it as a license to develop the other dwarves as they saw fit.)

Secondly, when female characters are added, often they are there purely as a love interest.

IMO, Tonks is like the second example. Her personality seems to only be vaguely sketched out from what I remember. The lion’s share of detailed characters in the Potterverse are male.

Apart from Hermione, McGonagall and Molly Weasley, we know little about most of the other female characters, even ones that play a significant role, like Ginny Weasley or Lily Potter.

And honestly, the unnatural hair colour should not automatically mean Tonks or any similar character automatically reads as queer. It’s not a shorthand for “this character is gay,” and if it’s used that way, it’s a tired stereotype. What does a queer person “look like?” From what I remember, the changing hair colour was supposed to indicate she was capricious, easily bored and motivated to learn the spell to do it so she could change it instantly based on her whimsical desires at any given moment.

 

[AntheaHolmes]

On 7/3/2023 at 5:33 AM, SunFlower_10 said:

I one hundred percent agree. And the fact that tonks wasn't queer in some way is mind-blowing to me. Their early relationship always read as supportive queer friends, not lovers. Wolfstar for life.

Thank so much! I often find myself alone with my love for Wolfstar! 

[AntheaHolmes]

On 7/3/2023 at 7:04 PM, solitaire-au said:

IMO, one of the reasons people, especially women, are so in favour of M/M pairings is two-fold.

Firstly, because traditionally female characters were often very “cardboard cutout.” A woman once described JRR Tolkien’s strategy for writing female characters was “one female character per continent/country is enough,” and those he did write were barely described.

Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh were forced to either invent new characters, like Tauriel, or greatly expand their roles beyond the canon text, like Galadriel, That said, his characterisation for male characters wasn’t the greatest either. The Hobbit has 13 male dwarven characters and when the actors for The Hobbit movies pored over the books, they realised only 3 out of the 13 had any personal characteristics beyond basic appearance. So they saw the tried to turn it into a positive by taking it as a license to develop the other dwarves as they saw fit.)

Secondly, when female characters are added, often they are there purely as a love interest.

IMO, Tonks is like the second example. Her personality seems to only be vaguely sketched out from what I remember. The lion’s share of detailed characters in the Potterverse are male.

Apart from Hermione, McGonagall and Molly Weasley, we know little about most of the other female characters, even ones that play a significant role, like Ginny Weasley or Lily Potter.

And honestly, the unnatural hair colour should not automatically mean Tonks or any similar character automatically reads as queer. It’s not a shorthand for “this character is gay,” and if it’s used that way, it’s a tired stereotype. What does a queer person “look like?” From what I remember, the changing hair colour was supposed to indicate she was capricious, easily bored and motivated to learn the spell to do it so she could change it instantly based on her whimsical desires at any given moment.

 

Yes. I truly believe that Tonk's character was a bit bland and I really think she's a badass witch, even though we don't know much about her. I would love for her to be queer but not because of her hair color or else but because she would be a badass bi or pan character. She's so fierce and bold. I love that.