Professor Julian Womble (0:00)

Welcome to Critical Magic Theory, where we deconstruct the Wizarding World of Harry Potter. Because loving something doesn't mean we can't be critical of it. I'm Professor Julian Womble and today we're trying something a little different. So I know that many of us have been participating in the Patreon post episode chat, which has been amazing, but one of the things that I find frustrating for me is that I don't have the time to kind of sit there and really respond the way that I would like to to so many of the brilliant points that many of you. And so I was trying to think about what we could do to remedy that because I'm a solutions oriented person and the thing that I came up with was this kind of, I don't know, mini episode segment, I guess we would call it, that's like Prof. Responds. Now I generally dislike calling myself Prof. Because I think it's icky. It just makes me crazy. But I think for the sake of something that's like whippy and snappy, right. Prof. Response works. And so what I want to do is take the time, time to kind of go into some of the comments that were left on the Patreon post episode chat and dive into them a little bit more, maybe bring a little bit more nuance, think a little bit more deeply about some of the things that really caught your attention from the episode. And many of you brought so many amazing things to the chat and pulled out so many really interesting things that I hadn't even thought of or brought some things to bear that, you know, I needed to kind of maybe go deeper on. And so I cherry picked a couple of them because I don't want this episode to be as long as some of the other episodes. But I do think that it would be great for us to kind of continue the conversations about some of the characters in the intervening weeks in between episodes so that we can just kind of like continue the conversation, but also so that I have the opportunity to respond to some of you because I think that I've had a couple of instances where people have asked me, you know, what do you think about this? And I just haven't had the time to kind of sit down and type out a long thing. And so instead of typing out things, I'm just going to talk about them. And so we'll see if this works. If you all like it, we'll continue it. I can't guarantee we'll get one every single time, but I'm going to try my very Very best to do that for the intervening weeks in between the big kind of survey driven episodes. You all know I love to rant and rave, and so this kind of gives me the opportunity to do that. But you know one thing that won't change. You knew. You knew because you were already stretching. As soon as you heard me open up the episode, you said, aha, let me get limber. And I'm glad you did that because, y'all, we're still bopping along to the theme song like, this is still what we do. And so I'm vamping right now, because if you didn't know that, that's what we're gonna do. I need you to get yourselves ready. I need you to get yourselves prepared for what's about to happen. Okay, so I vamped for as long as I could. It's time to go in three, two, one. Let's bop. We need to talk about Harry Potter. I hope you danced, and I hope that you all took my advice from the last episode and didn't do too much, because I know some of us didn't stretch properly. You know the rules. You know who is liable for what, and the answer is, I'm liable for nothing. So I hope that you had a good time. I hope the bot bopped. Okay, we're gonna dive right in. No announcements, no anything like that. We saved that for the big episodes. This one, we're just diving right in. So many of you brought some really, really, really great points to bear in the Patreon post episode chat about lavender. And one of the things that came up that I wanted to start our conversation off with because I felt like I didn't do the best job I probably could have in discussing this. And so this is a perfect opportunity to do that, which is the kind of discussion surrounding the changing of Lavender's race from one part of the movie in the earlier parts to the latter part. When we meet her again for real, for real. In Half Blood Prince. And so many of you brought up different ways of thinking about it, namely because, like, some people made arguments that maybe this was just a kind of a weird miscommunication between JKR and the casting directors. And also when we meet her in the earlier books, it's important to realize that Half Blood Prince had not come out yet, so no one really knew what was gonna become of Lavender. And I also think that, you know, there are ways for us to think about, you know, what it would look like if she were. If she had remained a black girl and someone brought up the idea of, you know, that there would have been a kind of a shift in the way that we think about them. Now, Will brought up a really good point in asking, you know, basically, are we kind of giving this particular dynamic, the 2025 treatment? We, on average, are much more kind of aware of racially divisive and, you know, things, and thus are kind of viewing this through the lens of this particular moment in which we find ourselves a touch more aware and racially kind of understanding than we would have been in the early aughts. And I think that that's, you know, there's part of that that is absolutely true, right? That, like, you know, I think that especially in the United States context, for those of us who live in the States, I think race is a very different situation, which is something that Brit brought up as well, you know, about the way that we come to understand kind of racial identity, particularly the kind of intersections of race and gender, and how that would have affected the way that we understand who lavender Brown is. And so Brit wrote, I can't speak for blackness in the uk, but in the US it's often spoken about how black girls are not allowed the same leniency of experience and expression and representation as white girls. The having to be strong and or sexualization and making black teen girls be seen and treated more so, tried as adults while being teens and not allowed to be seen as silly and carefree and all the other attributes we think of specifically white teenage girls, good or bad attributes of a white teenage girl. By making lavender brown white instead of black, it reinforces stereotypes of white teenage girls while at the same time denying black teenage girls the ability to experience or be seen in a similar way. It denies the humanity of a black lavender brown. And I think that this is a really interesting and important point because I think that, like we talked about briefly in the episode on Lavender, there's a specific way that we understand, you know, the teenage girlness of it, all, right? And that we don't see it as serious. It's allowed to be silly and kind of something that we as society just write off as being completely, you know, ridiculous. And I think that there is something to be said about what that would look like if Lavender was a black girl. I think that, you know, to Brit's point, and again, this is, if I don't, I can only speak to kind of the way that I know the US racial hierarchy is set up, right? And so that when it comes to young black girls, they are really adultified, very, very Very early on. And so, you know, the idea of, well, Lavender's just a silly girl. She's. You know, I don't. It doesn't quite work that way. Like, we don't have a lot of instances in media, in books, where we get to see young black girls just get to be young black girls. Right. Like, I'm a big Beyonce fan because I'm a man of taste and distinction. And one of the things that I notice is that a lot of people have a lot of things to say about Blue Ivy Carter, who is a young girl whose parents are very, very famous. And lots of people really do adultify in a way that we simply don't necessarily see for the children. Say, like, Apple Paltrow, or is it Apple Martin, anyways, Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow's oldest daughter, Apple. Right. And so that there is. There's a meaningful difference in the way that we understand who gets to be a child and who gets to be silly and all of the things that are attributed to this. And I talked a little bit about this in the episode on Ron because one of my big, you know, gripes with Ron is that I feel like he gets away with everything that I could not relate to because, like, my race dictates the way that people view me. And I think that the same would be true for Lavender if she were portrayed in the movies as a black girl. And then Neisha brought up a really interesting point as well about Angelina. And because I said, you know, we see that Fred goes to the ball with Angelina, and she says, you know, that Angelina is still presented to us in a very kind of masculinized way. She is definitely, you know, in the vein of a Ginny, right? Like, she's one of the boys. She's Quidditch captain. She's very boisterous. She's very strong. When Harry is kind of messing around, in order of the Phoenix, messing around probably isn't the right turn of phrase when he's fighting the power, when he's fighting against the system, fighting against. What we see is that she is very, very domineering. And, like, you know, you need to stop messing around. We're doing this, and we don't really get to see her, you know, be that silly girl. Now in the portrayal in the movie, she has her one, like, giggly girl moment, which we love to see when George asks her to the ball. But even in the asking, y'all, the whole, like, I'm gonna ball up a piece of paper and throw it at you. I don't love that. But I do think that even Angelina presents to us something that I think is very specific about how we understand what, like the way that she is portrayed. And when we juxtapose that to lavender. Right. She is a very, very serious person. And Angelina is the only black girl that we get to like, meet and engage with in any meaningful way in the series. Is that right? I think that that's right. And so I think, you know, that's what we've got. We've got this, like, you know, big time sports person who is strong and, like, can take over after Oliver Wood leaves. And that's meaningful. And so that when we think about what a black lavender looks like, you know, when the only other example of black girlhood that we have in the series is Angelina, it's a massive departure from the way that we understand the portrayal of black girls. Now, I personally would have loved that because I think, like, yeah, why not have that diversity? I know that's a bad word now in 2025America, but I said it anyway. Tell the powers that be. And so when we think about, like lavender brown and, you know, are we giving this particular dynamic the 2025 treatment? I think in some parts, yes. But I also think that the reason why they changed the race was because they were giving it the early aughts treatment. And the early aughts treatment was we cannot necessarily, like, try to break the mold with the way that we understand how race and gender operate together. Like, even if we think about the Percy Jackson series, right. They made Annabeth a young black girl, but she doesn't have fun. She is like this outlandishly logical, kind of emotionally muted for reasons that are seemingly justified and provided full on explanations. And so, like, you know, the idea of having a fun, frivolous, frilly, girly girl be a black girl is not something that we necessarily see very much in our own kind of zeitgeist. I'm really struggling in my mind's eye to think of a character who would kind of fit the bill. And so I think that even if we were looking at this through the lens of 2009, I think when the movies came out. No, no, no. 2009, that can't be right. No, it is right. Okay. I'm just old. Like, I think even looking at it through that lens, the decision to change it may have been a miscommunication. But I also do think that, you know, if we were looking for something that would be, quote, unquote, real Having a black lavender brown be as silly and ridiculous just would not work. And I think it's important for us to think about this because so many of the things that we wrote in our survey responses were like, oh, she's just a silly girl. You know, she's just a silly teenage girl. And the reality of it is it's like the white and white girl is implicit in that because, like, we don't see that we don't have that understanding of, like, black girls getting to be that. And which isn't to say that it's an impossibility, but that, like, the portrayal that we have the kind of associations that Cassie spoke to, and I said this a little bit in the episode, right. The associations that they are made about teenage girls are about teenage white girls. And I think that that's really important as we think about, you know, the role that race plays in these books or doesn't play in these books and the way that we then see that translated into the movie. And I think it also is gonna matter for us as we think about kind of what this TV show's gonna look like and the fact that they are gonna have to diversify because it is 2025. And how do we understand the characters that we see through the lens of, like, the 1990s, the racial dynamics they're in and what that means for us in 2025. And these are things that we have to think about. So special thanks to Will, Nisha and Britt for bringing some thoughts to that in the Patreon post episode chat. I think it really just kind of adds a dynamic to this character who we spend a lot of time talking about being kind of, you know, maligned. And I think that thinking about it through this lens, I think adds a little bit more nuance and, you know, that's what we're all about here. The next thing that came up in the comments that I thought was really, really interesting was brought to us by Allison S. Who said that she wished we had spent a little bit more time talking about what happens to Lavender at the Battle of Hogwarts. And at first I read the comment and I was like, oh, you know, I thought we talked about it. But then I realized, like, I did, like, in passing, but, like. And it came up a lot in people's responses as to why she was a hero and why she was a good Gryffindor. But then as I continued to read Alicent's comment, it was not just about the fact that she fought, but what happened to her Right. The fact that she is the one who is chosen to kind of be described as kind of being mauled by Fenrir Greyback. And we get no sense of like why she was the one who was chosen by J.K. rowling for this, you know, this like very inhumane and brutal attack on her. And it's at this kind of pivotal moment where the Golden Trio are trying to basically make their way out of the castle and we see this, we see this happen. And it occurred to me that heard that that moment as I think the only one where we see someone in the like actively dying. Like most of the people who die, we kind of meet them post death, right? Like Remus and Tonks, Colin Creevey, Fred, like all of these people we like. It's upon the return into the Great hall after Voldemort has kind of pulled back the forces, that's when we see all of the death and that's when we see all of the kind of terror and the awfulness that has occurred. But Lavender Hermione has to shoot a spell at Fenrir, right? And the other thing that I think is really interesting and Alicent brought this up as well is like we don't get any closure. We don't really know did she die? Did she live? You know, what happened to her. And I think I want to say post canon it's revealed that she did like, she didn't die immediately, but she did succumb to her injuries and then ultimately did die. But like, why Lavender? Like why was this something that had to happen to her? Particularly like something so grotesque and done by Fenrir Greyback who is someone who kind of preys on children. We know that he bit Remus as a child and that he used to do this. And you know, one of the things that he reveals to us in the lightning struck tower when he's talking to Dumbledore is that he kind of enjoys it, right? Like he's biting people even when it's not a full moon without the compulsion of, you know, his lycanthropy. And so, you know, why did this have to happen to her? This character who for all intents and purposes, you know, was kind of thrown in because she needed to kind of serve the role of being Ron's girlfriend and kind of being the thing that propels both Ron and Hermione to kind of recognize their feelings for one another and blahdy blahdy blah. And, and so like, why not only why did it have to be her, but why was it that we needed to, as readers, experience the trauma of what happened to her. And at the hands of a character that we already know is so just disgusting. And how come her death couldn't be? You know, the fact that she had to die is one thing, but to go out that way when everyone else is seemingly dying by, you know, a Vada Kedavra curse, which is not as painful, I think is very interesting. And I think there are two ways for us to think about this. I think one could be that J.K. rowling just didn't care, right? Like, she is, like, this is a character that doesn't matter to us. And, you know, she goes out this way because we had to kind of switch it up, right? And so we had to make a decision about, you know, what this was gonna look like. And, you know, Fenrir Greyblack is obviously in the throng, and he would be mauling on children because it's something that he actively enjoys doing. And so this is the price of war, and this is what happens to people, right? The second one, I think, is very much akin to the first. But it's not lost on me that Lavender is, you know, the girly girl that we've been talking about. She is the antithesis of so many things that Hermione is, and that it is a man who is able to transform, whose condition is made akin to any number of different diseases. And there are lots of different kind of parallels that are being drawn when it comes to lycanthropy, but he is, like, forcing himself on this young girl to her death. And it's not just any girl, right? It's Lavender brown. It is the kind of epitome of what we understand about femininity, right? She is an innocent girl who just, like, you know, was there fighting for what she believed. And now this guy has come in and done, you know, the unspeakable to her. And it just feels to me like this is a situation where, again, you know, because the thing that I'm stuck on is, why did we have to witness that? What is it about this moment that. That she said, no, they need to see this, right? Like, you know, and would it have been the same if it had been a guy? You know, our hearts obviously broke when Lupin told the story of his own dealings with Grayback. But I think that this is a situation where also there's a really meaningful gendered component to this. And I don't necessarily know what J.K. rowling's message is here. My brain is going to a really, really not great message I'm being told here. But I do think that there is an intentionality behind it that is very much made all the more visceral because of who Lavender is and the way that her gender is perform. One of the other comments that someone made that really hit me, and I was like, this is a really good one. It's about my favorite question that I always ask, which is, is the character a good Pure Blood? And Rachel brought up a really interesting point about how many of us arrive there and, you know, like, we all arrive there differently. We all have a different metric, and many of us have started kind of defining. When I think about this question, this is how I answer it. And Rachel said that it seems like we're kind of gatekeeping what it means to be a good pureblood, because our metric is really one that's kind of based on the idea of sacrifice, right? And the only way that you can do this is if you kind of make these big sacrifices. And that's how we know that you're really about that, like, pure blood life. And I think that that's a really, really, really interesting point because I think that we do create a bit of a high standard because we're asking people to, like, tear down the system, and that's the only way that you can be a good pureblood. And I understand our logic. I really, really do. And I think that, you know, many of us are drawing parallels to our own lives and the world that we live in and kind of, what does it mean to be an ally? But Rachel also brings up a really interesting point as well, in that Rachel says, you know, lavender probably represents the majority of Pure Bloods who could do the work, but maybe don't, or maybe don't feel compelled to until a certain point. And what do we make of them, right? And how do we reconcile our own metric of what it means to be good with the reality that, more often than not, most people aren't going to be willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of ending Pure Blood supremacy. And most Pure Bloods aren't gonna be running around willing and ready to give up everything for the sake of bringing down a system, and no one knows how we're gonna rebuild it, right? And that feels real to me. And so does that mean that they're bad? And I think, you know, this is one of your. One of your big critiques of the question, and I totally get it. I think, you know, that there is room for us to recognize that there are a lot of passive Purebloods, the ppbs, as I like to call them right now that are living their lives and are not necessarily trying to fight the good fight. They're just trying to live. And I think, you know, one of the things that I've realized as I grow older is that, you know, when you are part of a privileged class there are a lot of things that require an extra amount of learning to do. It's why I think, you know, I was very, and continue to be very critical of the Weasleys because while they are fighting against Voldemort, you know, I've said this pretty much for every single one of their episodes they're not fighting against Pure Blood supremacy. So would we call them a good Pure Blood? I mean, they are better than the Malfoys, right? I think that, you know, one of the things that tends to be true is that sometimes our metrics are high and that's okay. But that means that we have to be clear about even the people that we like not clearing them. And I think that Rachel brings up a really valid point about, you know, the kind of gatekeeping of what it means to be a good pureblood and where do we place people, right? Like, are we saying that you need to be out here, you know, fighting Death Eaters? You know, how do we measure your life in love? Anyways, that was. I'm sorry, that's where my head went. I'm recording this a little bit later at night. And so my brain is doing what she does. But how do we measure that? You know, I think. And what's realistic, you know what I mean, in a society where you are not even made to truly even think about these things, right? Like, so much of Pure Blood supremacy within the magical world is so implicit. We're asking people to really have to do the work. And the work is hard. And most people don't even know that there's work to be done. And when the bar is the Malfoys, when the bar is Death Eaters, it's so easy to clear everyone's a good Pure Blood as long as you're not running around putting up the Dark Mark and trying to torture Muggle Borns, right? Like, so you can imagine that for many people who are Pure Blood in this society many of whom are not necessarily fighting like the Weasleys but they're not. They're also not like the Malfoys. They think they're good because they're like, I'm not like them. Like, I could be worse. And I'M not. So frankly, I'm good. And we are looking at them and saying, you could be doing more. And so the question that I think Rachel poses, and it's a really good one and, you know, one I think that we can think about as we move forward with other characters, not purebloods, but even, you know, if we think back on other ones, the ones that we've discussed, I think that there's a way for us to think about what's realistic and kind of the bell curve effect of good pure bloodedness. Right. Or good identity ness in general. Right. And is the bar so high that it's almost unattainable unless you're Neville Longbottom? Is the bar so high that it is, you know, it's a fallacy and if that's the case, is it even worth then trying to attain it? And maybe that's also something that's happening here. Right? It's like everyone's like, I'll never be someone who's fighting against, you know, Voldemort the way that Dumbledore is. So why even try? You know, when we meet Slughorn, he's another one who I think is very much, you know, the average pure blood person in wizarding society who's like, I'm just trying to, I'm trying to be neutral. And that's difficult, especially when you're in the middle of a war. And so that when we think about like what the bar is, I think, you know, thinking about lavender as someone who definitely embodies, if nothing else, a lot of the pure blooded people at Hogwarts who aren't Slytherins and maybe even including some Slytherins, you know, that there has to. That we have to think about kind of what that means for them and what the comparison point is. Like, what's our spectrum? That's a good question to think about. Like what's our spectrum in terms of our understanding of who is good and what does good look like and what does bad look like? Ooh. You know, there's nothing more chaotic than having this be the thing that I come up with after we're done with all of our pure Bloods. Oh, that's so evil of me. That's so evil of me. We should have done that from the very beginning, I'd say. I'm sorry, but I'm not because I loved that question and I love the nuance that you all brought to it. So I like this kind of reflection moment because I think it's really funny that I'm like, well, we should create a spectrum. And we didn't. And now we can't and we won't. Sorry. Not sorry. I was gonna let you go. I was gonna say, this is it, we're done here. But then I read a comment from Serena that pointed to the part of my conversation with Cassie that I put in the episode about how so many of the traits of Gryffindors are male coded, right? And this is a conversation that Cassie and I had. And if you are a chronic overthinker or a deep diver, you can check out that full conversation on Patreon. But this was something that came up for me. And it's something that also came up for me in my conversation with Eric in the Serious Black episode about Gryffindors and the way that we kind of understand who they are and what it means to be a Gryffindor. And Serena wrote, that totally tracks with the idea of Hermione being positioned as the one we are supposed to hold up as the gold standard girl, indoor Gryffindal. We'll workshop it. We will workshop it. Since she is explicitly slotted into the quote unquote, not like other girls troped by jkr. And I think that this is really fascinating, right? Because when we do get a character like Lavender who is someone who is presented to us as this, like, outlandishly feminine person, what we get from other Gryffindors is this kind of castigation, right? We see Hermione kind of being really, really, really rude to her. We see even McGonagall when Durmstrang and Beauxbaton come to. Did you like my French accent? Sorry. When they come to Hogwarts and Lavender and Parvati are there and they have like flowers, they're adorned, okay? And Ma'gana goes like, take all that mess off. I don't want to see it. And so we see even like the head of Gryffindor house being like, we're not doing that. Like, we don't have time. Take the flower out of your hair. Like, that's not what we're about here. And I find it to be so fascinating because it kind of is not lost on me that, you know, McGonagall is someone who we know as being outlandishly austere. And, you know, which isn't to say that she's devoid of femininity, but the way that she's presented to us is a very specific kind of presentation of gender, right? And I think that, you know so much of what we witness here isn't necessarily like, you know, the disliking of femininity per se, but it is the disliking of feminine performance, right? Like we don't want. It doesn't necessarily say like you need to be a boy, but it's like we don't want you doing girly things externally. We want the performance, the gendered performance to be a very specific thing. And so you wearing flowers in your hair when we're trying to impress these people, in the words of Shania Twain, that don't impress me much. And I think that that's so fascinating because we very rarely see any sort of kind of castigation on the part of the boys in Gryffind, right? Like it's almost as if they are inherently already doing the things that Gryffindors do. So it's rare that we get any sort of like, you have to do this thing or you know, you're not doing it right. And I think that in particular for Hermione, right, the kind of not like other girls trope is also the byproduct of her own insecurities made manifest because she's trying so hard to fit in. And the space itself kind of dictates a very particular kind of thing. And when we think about, you know, what it means to be brave, you know, we've talked about this a little bit. It, particularly the way that it manifests in these books for Gryffindors is kind of like it's chock full of self sacrifice, it's chock full of all these things. And we as a community have really found really beautiful nuances about how we define what it is to be brave. But I've even gotten some pushback from people who are like, that's not bravery, right? Like there is a way that we've defined it. And I think that when it comes to these books, when it comes to Gryffindor House, when it comes to the way that we understand what bravery looks like in a way that we can like name it, it's stuff that we would tend to on average attribute with masculinity. And I think that in large part knowing what we know about the authors belief structures as it pertains to gender, I think that there's a way for us to understand why that's the case. And there was another comment that was made by Mia surrounding this particular idea about like femininity and the way that we understand it. And Amiya gave this amazing, amazing comment that kind of outlines the different kinds of feminism. So I definitely recommend you going to the post episode chat and checking that out along with all the other comments that people wrote, because y'all, you just know how to bring it. But I think that there is something to be said about, you know, the way that we understand certain things and what the way that it's presented to us. And so, you know, I'm obviously a very firm believer that bravery has no gender performance. It has no gender identity that anyone can be brave. And, you know, I am learning through this podcast and through my conversations with you all. You know, bravery is a very broad and wide subject that we can kind of put people into for one reason or another. But the way that it's presented to us, the way that we see people's bravery being rewarded in these books, I'm thinking about Neville being told, like, you're finally living up to your father's legacy. And that was only after he goes to the Ministry of Magic and almost dies, right? When we think about all of that, when we think about the points that are bestowed upon the Golden Trio in the first episode, the first episode in the first book, at the end of Sorcerer Philosopher's Stone, relative to the points that were given to Neville, who was told you did the bravest thing, but only got 10 points, right? Like the external forces at work within these books in terms of rewarding certain things for being the kind of hallmark of the house tells us as it pertains to Gryffindors that like, bravery looks very specific, right? Like Ron had to dive into the ice cold water to get the sword out and that was what. Because it can never be easy, right? Like bravery can never look like lavender brown. Being brave enough to like a boy, it can't look like, you know, and be rewarded in kind. Like Neville standing up to Ron, Harry and Hermione in his first year, you know, those things, we can see them as brave. And Neville got his 10 points, but y'all, he deserved more than 10, right? Like the external forces at work didn't see that as valuable and as brave and as indicative of Gryffindor ness as diving into an ice cold lake or going up against a professor who has your arch nemesis on the back of his head, right? Like those things and those things, while not inherently gendered, are also performed by men. Like, why couldn't it be that Hermione was the one who went and got the sword? Like, would we have felt the same way? You know? And so I think that there's something very specific about Gryffindor ness that lends itself to a very specific gendered picture that isn't necessarily true for any of the other houses per se. Well, I hope you all disagree with me on that and if you do like sound off, because I that's interesting. That's interesting to think about. But anyways, I won't hold you up while I ponder that further, y'all. I really enjoyed that. I like this little mini moment where I get to kind of just spend a little bit more time in detail on certain things that you all found interesting, bring some more of your thoughts into the conversation, and also just kind of like chat a little bit more. This was I I want to do this again. So I hope you all liked it because I really I did, y'all. This has been another episode of Critical Magic Theory. Prof. Responds. I hope you all enjoyed it. And if you did, please feel free to like rate, subscribe and do all the things that one does where pods are cast. Next episode will be our best and worst of purebloods. I've been compiling it and it's already getting chaotic and I'm so excited to share that with you all. Please feel free to join us in a post episode chat about this post episode chat. It's a meta post episode chat and I can't wait to hear what you all think about this concept and whether or not it works for you. We're going to workshop it. We're workshopping any number of things, so let's continue to do that. But until then, be critical and stay magical, my friends. Bye.