Sybill Trelawney: Seeing, but Not Believed

Summary

Critical Magic Theory: An Analytical Harry Potter Podcast
Episode: Sybill Trelawney: Seeing, but Not Believed
Host: Prof. Julian Wamble
Release Date: July 10, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of Critical Magic Theory, Professor Julian Wamble delves deep into the enigmatic character of Sybill Trelawney from the Harry Potter series. Moving beyond surface-level critiques, Prof. Wamble explores the complexities of Trelawney's character, her role as a seer, and how she is perceived within the Wizarding World. Joined by Emma, a dedicated chronic overthinker, the discussion navigates through Trelawney's personal attributes, teaching methods, and her broader impact on both the narrative and the magical community.

Is Sybill Trelawney a Good Person?

Prof. Wamble initiates the conversation by posing the question: Is Sybill Trelawney a good person? The audience responses reveal a divided opinion:

• 62% believe she is a good person.
• 5% disagree.
• 33% are uncertain.

Notable Insights:

• Negative Perceptions: Critics argue that Trelawney's habit of predicting student deaths annually is distressing and irresponsible, especially in an institution heralded as safe like Hogwarts. For instance, one listener pointed out, "Imagine telling a class every year that one among you is going to die. That's crazy even for her."

• Defense of Trelawney: Prof. Wamble counters by highlighting that Hogwarts itself presents numerous dangers, from battling basilisks to facing Death Eaters. He posits that Trelawney's predictions, while unsettling, are not uniquely malevolent compared to other professors' methods. As Prof. Wamble states, "We can't compare her predictions to the dangerous tasks students face elsewhere at Hogwarts."

• Emma's Perspective: Emma suggests that labeling Trelawney as a bad person solely based on her predictions overlooks her broader character traits. She questions whether Trelawney's potential biases, such as derogatory remarks towards centaurs, should overshadow the fact that she attempts to do good within her capacity.

Is Sybill Trelawney a Good Teacher?

The discussion shifts to Trelawney's efficacy as an educator in the field of Divination:

• 16% believe she is a good teacher.
• 69% disagree.
• 15% are unsure.

Notable Insights:

• Teaching Challenges: Many argue that Divination is inherently difficult to teach, requiring innate ability rather than taught skills. A listener noted, "She can't teach students to be seers if they don't inherently possess the talent."

• Benefit of the Doubt: Despite criticisms, some appreciate Trelawney's structured approach to teaching. One listener mentioned, "She has lesson plans and segmented topics, which shows her dedication to teaching Divination."

• Emma's Defense: Emma contends that Trelawney actively tries to engage her students and create a safe space for them. She compares Trelawney's teaching style favorably to other professors, emphasizing that Trelawney does her best within the confines of a challenging subject. Emma states, "She taught. She showed up. She warned."

Is Sybill Trelawney a Good Ravenclaw?

Exploring Trelawney's house affiliation, the podcast addresses whether she embodies the true spirit of Ravenclaw:

• 50% believe she is a good Ravenclaw.
• 25% disagree.
• 25% are unsure.

Notable Insights:

• Ravenclaw Traits: Ravenclaws are characterized by their love for knowledge and individuality. Trelawney's mystical and inquisitive nature aligns with these traits, suggesting she fits well within the house.

• Contrary Views: Some listeners feel Trelawney lacks the intellectual rigor expected of Ravenclaws, pointing to her perceived cluelessness and overreliance on prophecies as deficits.

• Emma's Analysis: Emma emphasizes the importance of curiosity and open-mindedness in Ravenclaws. She suggests that Trelawney's pursuit of knowledge through mysticism showcases her Ravenclaw qualities, stating, "She leans into knowledge no matter where that knowledge is coming from."

Is Sybill Trelawney a Good Half-Blood?

The conversation examines Trelawney's blood status and its implications:

• 37% believe she is a good half-blood.
• 7.1% disagree.
• 56% are unsure.

Notable Insights:

• Blood Purism Critique: Trelawney's lack of active resistance against pure-blood supremacy and her reliance on her magical lineage are points of contention. One listener remarked, "She is a great half-blood because she relies heavily on her magical part for legitimacy and does not push back against the system."

• Emma's Perspective: Emma argues that Trelawney embodies the type of half-blood that pure-blood supremacist societies favor, as she does not challenge the status quo and seeks acceptance within the existing magical hierarchy.

Is Sybill Trelawney a Hero?

The podcast probes whether Trelawney's actions qualify her as a hero in the Harry Potter universe:

• 21% believe she is a hero.
• 55% disagree.
• 24% are unsure.

Notable Insights:

• Battle of Hogwarts: Trelawney's participation in the Battle of Hogwarts is highlighted as a significant, albeit not heroic, act. Her contributions, such as throwing crystal balls at enemies, are seen as commendable but not sufficient to label her a hero.

• Depth of Heroism: Critics argue that Trelawney lacks the selflessness and empathy typically associated with heroes. Prof. Wamble reflects, "She is more of a follower than a hero."

• Emma's View: Emma contends that everyday acts of goodness and subtle contributions to society hold intrinsic value, suggesting that Trelawney's efforts, though not traditionally heroic, are meaningful.

Reflection: The Plight of the Seer

Prof. Wamble concludes the episode by reflecting on Trelawney's tragic position as a seer in a society that neither fully understands nor respects her abilities. He poses a poignant question: What happens to a seer in a world that refuses to see her?

Key Points:

• Misunderstood Gift: Despite her genuine prophetic abilities—having made two significant prophecies—Trelawney is often dismissed as eccentric or a fraud. Prof. Wamble remarks, "She's not a fraud. She's just not consistent."

• Defense Mechanism: The exaggerated mannerisms and mystical performances Trelawney employs are interpreted as coping strategies in a world that ridicules her true nature. Her flamboyant persona serves as armor against widespread disbelief.

• Systemic Constraints: The Wizarding World's rigid understanding of magic limits its appreciation for Divination. Prof. Wamble highlights the irony that, while the world reveres prophecies, it simultaneously disrespects the practitioners who deliver them.

• Final Thoughts: Trelawney's perseverance despite societal rejection exemplifies her resilience. Prof. Wamble empathizes with her struggle, noting, "She doesn't change the performance to try to make people see her better. She stays. She taught. She warned."

Conclusion

This episode of Critical Magic Theory offers a nuanced exploration of Sybill Trelawney, challenging listeners to reconsider her role and the broader implications of her character within the Harry Potter series. Through engaging discussions and critical analysis, Prof. Wamble and Emma shed light on the complexities of being a misunderstood seer in a world that values certain types of magic over others. The episode serves as a compelling invitation for fans to look beyond perceptions and appreciate the depth of characters like Trelawney.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Prof. Julian Wamble [19:32]: "Are we holding her to a standard that we're not holding other people to?"

• Emma [27:18]: "If you just put a lot of time, focus, energy and effort towards it, you will eventually become good at it."

• Prof. Julian Wamble [33:39]: "Ravenclaws have so much potential to build that."

• Emma [51:58]: "She's a decent person, she's a good person. But like."

---

For a deeper dive into the discussions and to participate in the post-episode chat, listeners are encouraged to join the Patreon community and engage with fellow critical magic theorists.

Transcript

[Professor Julian Womble]

Packages by Expedia. You were made to be rechargeable. We were made to package flights, hotels.

[Emma]

And hammocks for less. Expedia.

[Professor Julian Womble]

Made to travel. 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 are broadening our minds. We are opening our third eye. We are gazing into the future. And we might think life would be a breeze seeing trouble from a distance. Huh? But it's not that easy. If you got that reference, kudos to you. If you didn't, it's time for you to brush up on your Disney channel history circa 2003. Okay, that is a selection from the renowned TV show that's so Raven. If you've never heard of it, look it up. It's a classic. Y', all, we are talking about Sybil Trelawney today because she could gaze into the future. Okay, so you see the connection that I'm making there, y', all. I cannot wait to talk about Trelawney because I know I said we were going to take a break from mess, and then we talked about Hagrid, and you reminded me that Hagrid actually is the messiest of the mess. And I think we're just on a messy train, and we just have to accept that that's the trajectory that we're on. And this episode, I drug someone else in to talk about this mess. And that person is Emma, one of our chronic overthinkers, who was kind enough to share her brilliant insights on Trelawny and all the things. And so I can't wait to for you to hear just snippets of our conversation. If you are a chronic overthinker or deep diver, you'll get to hear the whole conversation. I'm going to post it, but y', all, Emma brought it, and I cannot wait to dive into what she brings to the conversation. I cannot wait to dive into what you all brought to bear in your survey responses. Because Trelawney is a character that divides us. And, you know, there are a lot of very hot takes, and some takes that are will make you scratch your head and maybe make you think about things just a little bit differently. And have you ever wondered, can someone who gets it wrong most of the time still have real insight? Or what happens when you're trying to convince everyone you're the real deal, makes them believe you're even more of a fraud? Or is it even possible to be a good divination teacher, y'. All. We are getting into all of it today. But first, you didn't even need a crystal ball. You didn't need tarot cards. You didn't need tea leaves because you knew the box was coming because it always comes. And so we are bopping in three, in two, in one. Let's bop. We need to talk about Harry Potter. I hope the crystal ball revealed that you were ready to bop because the prophecy of the bab is one that is well known in these streets. And so if you haven't heard the prophecy of the BOB at this point, you're not listening close enough. You're not reading the tea. The tea. The what? The tea leaves. Well enough. Welcome back, y'. All. I want to start off by thanking those of you who participated in the post episode chat on our dear beloved friend Hagrid. I have to say that the Hagrid episodes were some of my favorites so far. I think I didn't realize that we were going to go as deep as we did and I don't know why we always do, but I didn't think that Hagrid had this much to offer us. And you all said really? You didn't think that? That's stupid. And so I appreciate all of you who took the time to participate in whatever way you participated and I really just enjoy those episodes. I also have to say that this episode is going to be one for the books too, because Trelawney is a divisive character and many of you brought many divisive things to bear. And I am so grateful for those of you who may be new or joining us after some time away. The Patreon is still there for us. That's where we do the post episode chats. That's where I always put the surveys. There's a survey going on right now about Hufflepuffs because we are taking a break from professors because we have to move ourselves into the messiest of the messy. And so we're taking a bit of a break and we're going to dive into the Hogwarts Houses and we're starting with Hufflepuff. And so the survey has been put up. I am going to kind of resend it probably sometime this week so that people can continue to share their thoughts. I'm so excited about this and I can't wait to share with you some of the conversation we had months and months and months and months and months ago that I had with the chronic overthinkers about the Hufflepuff House and some new revelations that I've had. Speaking of chronic overthinkers, I would like to welcome our newest recruits. Miroslava, Jazz, Nicole, Whitney, Stacy, Dina and Lena. Y', all, thank you so much for your support. It means so much to me.

[Emma]

Thank you.

[Professor Julian Womble]

And I am so grateful that you all have taken the time and the energy and the financial aspects of your lives to share with us. Y', all. I appreciate it more than I can say. Don't forget about the Patreon. We're in the midst of a series right now, bonus episodes about the classes. So I did one asking the question, what is even going on with the Hogwarts? And I want us to spend a little time talking about divination, which is going to be the first class we talk about, just because it fits in with the theme of who we're talking about right now. So if you want to join and are able to join as a deep diver or chronic overthinker, you can have access to that if you want to join as a chronic overthinker. We also have our monthly meetups, which we are going to have later on this month, which is going to be a blast. And if you are a chronic overthinker currently and have not filled out the doodle survey, I invite you to go fill that out. I've already put the date up, so maybe don't fill out the doodle survey. I forgot about the order of operations on that. That's not the point, y'. All. I cannot wait. Don't forget there is merch. The survey is up. We're talking about Hufflepuff House. But y', all, you know, we can't delay. We can't delay. We can't dial it. We've got to get into this episode. So let's talk about the one and only Sybil Trelawney. When I had to think about my favorite Trelawny moment, it took me a second to really think about who or what that moment was going to include. And then I realized that my favorite moment is the moment where she absolutely clocks Hermione for being relatively small minded despite the immensity of her magical intelligence. And, and I love that moment where she basically is like, girl, your brain and your imagination is just as shriveled as the pages of the books you cleave to, y'. All. First off, can we get into the poetry of that drag? Because she really did like the prose of it is just Chef's Kiss. But also the content of it is also really important because it speaks to a very meaningful part of who Hermione is as a character, Right? She is someone who does have a very, very large magical acumen but she also has a very constrained understanding about the possibilities of magic. And I think one of the things that we dislike about divination as a concept is that it really does stand in the face of the way that we understand magic in general. Right? It's often described as this woolly subject or whatever by McGonagall, by Dumbledore. Reputable people who are also very good at the kind of magic that we like, the changing things into things, the making things fly, the summoning things to you or whatever, right? And divination doesn't offer us that ability. Right? It doesn't offer us the ability to kind of learn, read a book and to do it. And that makes some of us very uncomfortable because for those of us, like myself who like to be able to be good at things something that seemingly requires an inherent ability like divination does not appeal to us. Something that requires us to expand our minds and broaden our horizons does not appeal to us. And so when Trelawney says to Hermione, girl, you don't have it, we all got triggered. Many of us were triggered because part of the escapism of Harry Potter was the ability that we could go to Hogwarts and do all of this stuff. And some of us did not think that we would be able to do it. And we didn't like that, and Hermione did not like that. And I love that moment because I think it also invites us to think about these two prevailing magically ideological camps. One where magic is, despite being magic, very concrete. There are rules, there are regulations. And another that is much more kind of contingent on your imagination. And magic is as big as. As you make it. And we see a lot of people occupying the former space but only a few people occupying the latter space. And of the people that we meet who occupy that space we have Trelawney and we have Luna, both of whom are Ravenclaws, which I think is also very fascinating. And I think that these are also two women characters who push Hermione to really have to consider the fact that magic may be bigger than she can conceptualize based on her own understanding ending. And I think that that's an invitation that I really like for us as readers but also because it is a portent of things to come. Because when Harry is introduced to the Deathly Hallows, it is Hermione Granger. Who's like, they're not real. No. Death is not coming to anybody in any way, shape and or form. And giving them tools to evade death, like it's just not happening. And that derails the mission for a bit. And I think that Trelawney's critique of her is one that really does manifest itself in this moment. And I just love that she clocked her very early on. Because if you're going to be a Trelawney and you're going to try to fake it till you make it, you've got to be able to read people. And she read Hermione for filth. Hermione deserved it because she was being condescending. I know. She's a child. We'll get over it, alright? This is a petty take. I'm sure some of you will drag me and that's fine. Meet me in the post episode chat. When asked what word best describes Sybil Trelawney, the top three words were eccentric, misunderstood and fraud. Now sometimes our words go together very well and sometimes they don't. This is one of those don't times. Eccentric, yes, Misunderstood. Those go together. Fraud. Wow, y'. All. I can see it though. But I. Is she really a fraud? I think that this is going to be something that I want us to unpack as we think about her character both in the episode and. But also in the post episode chat so that we can spend some more time on this in the Prof. Response episode. But yeah, I. Is she a fraud? She is eccentric, I will grant you that. And I will talk a little bit about her eccentricities because I think it's motivated by a desire to kind of like manifest what she wants people to think about her. I think she wants to be enigmatic and I think she thinks if you can like, you know, she's dressing for the part that she wants people to believe that she occupies already. And misunderstood. Absolutely. And I think there are lots of reasons why that's the case. I'm not sure she's fraudulent though. I mean, like her prophecies do come true and so it's like, like maybe not in the immediacy that we would expect them or want them to, but she's not, not predicting the future. And I think that there's something to be said about that. And so I understand these words because I think they all make sense and I think we are kind of primed to see Trelawney in a very specific way. But the reality is, is that like she predicts the future and like maybe sometimes she's off. But also is she like go back and inquire internally about the times where she has said something and hasn't been right? Like yeah, we could do pull a Hermione and kind of try to logically say, well you know when like example, when Lavender's bunny dies, Binky and Hermione tries to provide a logical explanation for it. But like the fact is, is that what Lavender understood as being a prediction was a prediction and it happened. So you know, is she really a fraud? Eccentric, misunderstood, absolutely fraudulent though I I'm not convinced by that actually. I don't think she's a fraud. Is that a hot take? Maybe Foreign for this episode's arithmancy lesson we had 295 responses. As always, the first question is, is Sibyl Trelawney a good person? About 62% of us said yes, about 5% of us said no, and about 33% of us said don't know. Someone wrote, I think Sybil tries to be a good person. However, I don't know that I would classify her as such given that every year that she teaches she predicts the death of a student for the school year. I know everyone eventually dies and that it would be a very likely burden of a seer to constantly see the various deaths of those closest to you, but I think you might soften the blow for 13 year olds. Especially considering Hogwarts is supposed to be one of the safest place, if not the safest place in the magical world. Someone else wrote she's not a good person. Imagine telling a class every year According to McGonagall, that one amongst you is going to die. That's crazy even for her. Another person wrote, I don't know if she's a good person predicting the death of students. You all really are moved by this particular thing. Causing them alarm is not the kind of is not very kind, but she doesn't seem to have a good sense of consequences of this and does fight etc. Her comments towards Firenzi seem racist potentially because he's so much better than her at the subject. Equally, she isn't actively malicious. I feel like the characters that set out to do harm might have altered my good not good dial y'. All. Why? I mean, okay, I get it. I understand. I want to preface this by saying I understand everyone's trepidation about her predicting that students are one student is going to die. It's problematic. It is. But in the grand scheme of things like by the time we arrive in her Classroom. In Harry's third year, Harry has gone down into the labyrinthian. That's a word. I just might have made it up, but it's a word. So welcome to the labyrinthian space underneath the castle. He has fought a basilisk and literally almost died. That's not even including, like, Quidditch as a concept, is it? Like, is her predicting the death of a student really the thing that is gonna, like, send these kids into a tailspin when, like, every corner that they turn, death is waiting for them? Like, I think it seems like. I mean, for example, the next year they go in and they have Mad Eye moody literally screaming, constant village vigilance. Vig, Hello. Constant vigilance. And then putting them under the imperious curse. Like, is her predicting that one of them is gonna die really? Like, that different than what some of these other professors are up to? Lupin literally had them in that same year facing their greatest fear and having them figure out how to make it laugh. Like, her thing didn't act. I mean, it might have scared them, sure, but, like, she didn't actively put them in danger, which is not something that we can say for some of these other teachers. And so I do think that, like, I understand. I don't want to take this away from anyone, but I do think that, like, us leveraging that as a reason for why she's not a good person feels like. I don't know, it feels insufficient to me. Like, we could question her pedagogy, and. You do. You do, and we'll get to that in the next question. We could question her pedagogy, but, like, does this make her a bad person? I'm not sure about that. Like, I think when push comes to shove, she's not a bad person. But let's take a listen to what Emma said about this, and then you walk and decide. Yeah.

[Emma]

And so, like, her question of, like, being a good person or a bad person, I feel like is a question about. Because I feel like, aside from her treatment of, like, some of her students, maybe, which I don't feel like necessarily merits a bad person, I feel like the thing that we get caught up on her for being a bad person is her treatment of friends, which is valid. But is that because she actively looks down on the centaur population, or is it because the wizarding world has given her a certain belief and mindset that couldn't be countered over time with broader knowledge? So, like, it's. I feel like that's where it comes down for me. And we don't really have that answer.

[Professor Julian Womble]

I think what I will say, and then I won't say any more on this is that are we holding her to a standard that we're not holding other people to? Because again, we've had professors threaten to kill pets, we've had imperious curses placed on students, we've had students having to face their greatest fear. We've had any number of things happen and we have called, well, one of those people we haven't gotten to yet. But for the other two, we have discussed them and determined that they are good people. So is our expectation of her in this domain realistic? Simultaneously? Right. If we're talking about the relationship that she has with Forenzi, the way that she talks about him. Let's also remember Hagrid also uses derogatory language towards centaurs and so does Yalls Queen Hermione. Right. So I just. And before you all get into the post episode chat talking about, well, when did she say that? There's a moment, I think it's in, it's in Order of the Phoenix where she basically is like, oh, I don't like horses and she's referring to centaurs. Somebody go check it and meet me in the post episode chat. If we're using that as our determining factor for whether a person is good or bad, then I want us to keep that same energy for these other people. And if we need to go and revisit some surveys, I'm very happy to do that. That's all I'm going to say. Is Cybil Trelawney a good teacher? About 16% of us said yes, about 69% of us said no, and about 15% of us said don't know. Now I knew this question was going to be chaotic, which is why I love it very much, because many of us have somewhat divergent views about her teaching. And I think that some of us are actually giving her the benefit of the doubt, which I was surprised by and I'm very grateful for. Someone wrote, I think she's an appropriate teacher for her subject. She seems like a fair grader, even if Ron and Harry, if not most students aren't fully grasping the correct events in their birth charts and planetary alignments. She's one of the few teachers that we see that has a syllabus that she is more or less stuck to. She appeared to have some fun with the students, even if it was a dark humor. Someone wrote a good teacher. Let's be for real. Honestly, if Hogwarts wasn't in the business of employing so many unqualified teachers who don't know what they're doing and don't follow a curriculum. This wouldn't be such a deal for the simple fact that you cannot teach someone to be a seer. You either have the gift or you don't. And that is most of the problem with Trelawny's class and low key. She said herself during the first class that she couldn't teach them to be seers. So, and this is important, this is in all caps. So why is she trying to do just that for the rest of the year? It's ridiculous for her to expect students to be able to read tea leaves without knowing if they have the talent necessary for it. But it is very interesting that she had them read their astrological charts and try to map their constellations. That lesson could have gone so much better had she not asked students to try to predict their futures via that avenue. Like, there's no way Harry passed that lesson when he was just making stuff up about terrible things happening in his future. If divination was structured as a course, in theory, it would be great. But she cannot teach them to see the future if it's not a talent they inherently possess. Well, and there we have it. And I think this is the question that I was going to pose at the beginning of the episode, and now we've come to it, and maybe some of you were able to divine that this is what the question was going to be. But the question is, is Trelawney a bad teacher or is Divination just a really difficult subject to teach? And some of us might say both can be true. And I'm not going to deny that, But I think that at the end of the day, the topic itself is a very difficult thing to teach people. And we talked about this a little bit with Hagrid about the difficulty of people who have the ability to do something and that that does not always translate into their ability to teach it. Right. And I talked about, like, you know, a lot of the stats professors that I had in graduate school were amazing statisticians. Terrible teachers, though, if any of them are listening. I'm not talking about you, but I think that there is something to be said about the fact that, yes, like, she can see the future now. Does she know she can? That's a different thing. But she can see the future. And so then the idea, though, that then she would be able to teach that concept, which, to one of your points, is something that is seemingly inherent, that's very Difficult to do. And the other question that I have is, like, even if she was a good teacher, what's the point? Like, what's the point of teaching Divination? They don't have any jobs that require that. All they have is this hall of Mysteries, the Department of Mysteries and the hall of Prophecy. And so it strikes me that, like, it's an important question for us to consider about, you know, is she, is it her or is it the topic? Because it strikes me that even if she was effective, if the topic is not something that is easily taught, then no matter what her pedagogical approach to it is, there's no way that she's going to be successful. And so the other thing that we have to kind of ask ourselves is what are the outcomes we're looking for from students? Like, how would we know she was a good teacher? Like, what would we be assessing? Because some students do well, like Lavender and Parvardi do well. But then some of us would question whether or not the rubric she's created is actually grounded in something that's legitimate and whether or not they actually have talent or if she's only rewarding them, like based on grade inflation, because she likes them. And part of the problem with that is, is the tangibles, the deliverables that one would get from a course like Divination are really difficult to divine. Pun intended. And so this is interesting and I'm hopeful that we can talk about this in the post episode chat because some of us are very critical of our teaching pedagogy and I think that there's a lot of reasons why, and I think a lot of it is legitimate. But like, she's teaching a course that's just like really difficult. So should she just not teach it? Anyways, we'll talk about that, but let's listen to what Emma has to say about this.

[Emma]

I, I will argue that in this conversation of whether or not she's a good teacher, that she is, because she is trying, actively trying to broaden their minds to get them to. Her lesson plans aren't that different from Lupin's, frankly. She's a practical teacher. She has lesson plans, she has segmented topics that she delivers at a time to outpace. She tells them straight up front, beginning of class. You know, I don't. There's only so much I can teach you in this. Either you kind of have it or you don't. And I don't know in the wizarding world, which we can't know if it's the type of thing where magic is something like writing, where some people are good at it, some people aren't. But if you just put a lot of time, focus, energy and effort towards it, you will eventually become good at it. And I will give her points for being a good teacher, for trying to engage them. Like, I think that Lavender and. And the. I can't speak English at all. The patil twins, like, cloistering up in her room. You only do that with teachers you feel safe with, that you have a good relationship and have some kind of base level of teaching, like everyone knows there was. Like, it's either your art teacher, your, you know, language arts teacher, or like your history teacher, whoever it is for someone. But to be a refuge to students, I think cannot be overlooked when we only have the lens of her as a teacher through Ron. And I'm sorry, But Ron, at 13 years old, is not going to be a good estimation of what makes a good divination teacher. I feel like the scene when Umbridge tries to kick her out and fire her at the same time and throws her bags down the stairs, that emotionally hits in a way that I don't think is just because of the cruelty of what Umbridge is doing, but also because she doesn't deserve. Deserve that. One, from like, a human dignity perspective. But two, just from a. She actually does try to teach these kids, and in a, you know, society where they haven't moved on from the 17th century, trying to broaden their perspectives and understanding and have them ask questions and to, you know, delve into the unknown is kind of actually a little radical, which is, no, not maybe a leap for why she's partially targeted.

[Professor Julian Womble]

I think that Emma brings up a really interesting point about what it is that is required of students for them to actually even begin to potentially be good at divination, which stands in the face of literally everything else that they are being taught about magic everywhere else, both at Hogwarts and the Ministry of Magic, probably at home. And so, like, even if it was just an exercise in getting people to believe in the possibility that something like divination is real and influential, like, the task that she has set before her is so much more difficult than anything else that her colleagues have to navigate. And so if I have to think about whether or not she's a good teacher, I think my answer is kind of. I think she has a pedagogical approach that some of us may not like, but she also is teaching a class that is drastically different than what other people are teaching. I Think given the tools that she has, she's doing the best that she can do, and given the fact that she has the skill set but doesn't realize that she actually has it and is pretending that she has it. Like there's a lot of faking it till you make it for a topic that is already so nebulous and amorphous to begin with that there's no easy way to teach this class. And I invite any of you who have a pedagogical approach to this that you think is effective to tell us about it. Because I don't think that there's a way that you can teach this one, because there are clearly people who have the inherent gift. And also there is a structure at work that does not invite us as readers or students to have the imaginative. The what? The imaginative capacity to be able to even begin to appreciate the art form that is divination. Is Sybil Trelawney a good Ravenclaw? About 50% of us said yes, about 25% of us said no, and about 25% of us said don't know. Someone wrote, she's a good Ravenclaw because she believes in what she teaches and asks students to broaden their minds. Wisdom isn't always rational. It's also mystical, emotional, spiritual, and she embodies that. Someone else wrote, I feel like Trelawney is the most clueless Ravenclaw. The fact that she can in good conscience accept a job and stay at a job where she and everyone else are convinced that she is a fraud is crazy to me. And screams that she's unintelligent and lacks confidence. Oof. I know that she gave the prophecy of Harry and Voldemort, but that. But she doesn't even know that. Like, how can she stay and teach something she doesn't even know she can do? And only happens once every 15 years. It just feels like bad form. And overall, I think that she was a bad teacher and a worse Ravenclaw. Y', all, the way that I am so excited about our Ravenclaw conversation that's going to come in some time because I feel like we are having a very particular conversation about what it means to be a Ravenclaw. And for a house that we don't necessarily spend a lot of time with and characters that we. We don't have a lot of to really help us really refine our definition of what it means to be a Ravenclaw. Some of us have very particular ones. And I. I don't know. Okay. Anyways, I'm not even going to think through, you know, my thoughts on, on this. I'm just going to insert a conversation or a piece of the conversation that I had with Emma about whether or not Trelawny was a good Ravenclaw and we'll go from there. Let's listen in.

[Emma]

In terms of being a good Ravenclaw, it's like the difference between being studious and being curious with an open mind which is how you get students like Luna because you can memorize books and facts all day but if you don't actually have any curiosity I feel like that's what part of makes a really great Ravenclaw is someone who's just like oh, you've got a weird theory about something. Like I want to dig in. You know, they lean in to knowledge no matter where that knowledge is coming from, which could be dangerous.

[Professor Julian Womble]

I'm really fascinated and I'm sure people will have a lot to say about like Ravenclaws because I'm like there's a level of individualism that exists for Ravenclaws that doesn't. That we, that we don't even really see for Slytherins. Right. Because even Slytherins are like Slytherins are pack, like very pack pack people. And Gryffindors are as well. Yeah. And so are Hufflepuffs. But when we think about Ravenclaws I often think about like when I was in graduate school and one of the biggest like and hardest parts of getting my PhD was how isolating it is because it's just you and your brain and like your thoughts and like there's a, there comes a point where all of your coursework is done and all of your like things are finished where you're no longer have to be in community. Like you're done commiserating about like the stats of problem set and it's just you and your dissertation and like that's it. And so so much of your existence if you're not careful becomes just you in your brain the whole time.

[Emma]

Yeah.

[Professor Julian Womble]

And I think that like what's interesting about the Ravenclaws is I can totally see that being the thing it's like. Which isn't to say that they're completely devoid of community but it is to say that the pursuit of knowledge is not always communal. And in fact if, because I think that what it can be misconstrued as like the pursuit of being right and that is individualized.

[Emma]

That's a Gryffindor thing.

[Professor Julian Womble]

Well, whoops, you heard it here first.

[Emma]

You're just gonna have a compilation clip of Heard it here first, when I'm just mean to people.

[Professor Julian Womble]

Absolutely. And then it'd be like, it wasn't me.

[Emma]

Yeah.

[Professor Julian Womble]

But I do agree.

[Emma]

Yeah. But like, and with Ravenclaws, and that's so sad because with Gryffindors you can say I have performed this good act or with people. Hufflepuffs. I do things with people. I am hardworking people. You know, Slytherins is just like, that's my person. I don't care if they're horrible.

[Professor Julian Womble]

That's.

[Emma]

That's the one person who's making this all worth it.

[Professor Julian Womble]

Right.

[Emma]

You know, this person makes me laugh and I'm very serious and tired and I do a lot of things.

[Professor Julian Womble]

Listen. And so I just need. I need that. Yeah.

[Emma]

And like Ravenclaws, like, if once you're alone with your brain, sometimes you don't always get an end product to show people or you have an end product, but it's not indicative of all the hours of labor that you've put into that. So it's, it's. And also some of it you have to do alone.

[Professor Julian Womble]

Yeah.

[Emma]

With all the other houses, the things that they are known for their skills, you can do with people. But for Ravenclaws, even getting into the freaking common room, you have to figure it out by yourself.

[Professor Julian Womble]

Yeah, yeah. There's like, there is a. There is a prizing of. And again, I don't. And I think this is always important to clarify is like, I think that there's a difference between what people's intentions are and what's rewarded. And I think that there are things that are rewarded in the house system that promote the idea, particularly for Ravenclaws. In the same way that I think, like, you know, Gryffindars are rewarded for doing stupid, brave things, like stuff that are reckless and absurd and they get all the points.

[Emma]

Yeah. I think Raven should have been the one to get like 150 points by himself at the end of the thousand.

[Professor Julian Womble]

Lutely, I agree. And I think that like. But I think that Ravenclaws, in their, like, pursuit of knowledge, there is a rewarding of being the one to get the information. And I think even again, what we see right, is like, Helena Ravenclaw did not run off with that diadem with her group of girlfriends. No, she ran off by. Well, and probably would have ended up better. You know, this is another one of those drunken bathroom moments that probably would have saved her.

[Emma]

Like, you, you need friends to Tell you that's a stupid idea.

[Professor Julian Womble]

Yeah, like, you should probably not do. You shouldn't steal your mom's diadem and run off, girl.

[Emma]

Yeah, maybe you should run off, but not with your mom's diadem. And, like, have a good plan and, like, people around you who can help you and support you and, like, get you somewhere else because you can't do it alone.

[Professor Julian Womble]

And I think that there is this massive amount of, like, individualism that exists amongst Cravenclaws. And I think that her. I think that Trelawney's. Her inherent isolationism because of what she can do. And I think maybe past experiences of telling people the truth about their existence and people not liking her for it.

[Emma]

People don't like you when you tell the truth.

[Professor Julian Womble]

Oh, no. I know. It's the story of my life. I think that it stands. I think it's a really interesting thing about. And I'm sure people, the Ravenclaws will say. Because there are a lot of Ravenclaws who listen to this podcast, they will sound off about this. Because I do think that there is. And I think that when you can't have community or you feel like that's not the thing that is rewarded or prized, that then it's like, well, if it's just me, then I need to be the best me that I can be, and how can I do that? And that's when you get schemes and scams and that's when you get your lock cards. That's when you get your. Because it's like the pursuit of knowledge. Because. And I think that this is also what a lot of people have been writing when we've talked about Ravenclaws is I'm like, there's a lot of ways that you can pursue knowledge. It doesn't inherently mean you have to share it.

[Emma]

Yeah.

[Professor Julian Womble]

And I think that, like, there are lots of things that, like, even Hermione does where it's like, that's amazing. And, like, you don't have to teach people that you can just keep it for yourself. And I think that there are a lot of the Ravenclaws, at least the ones that we meet are very much like, what's mine is mine. I'm doing this for me. Like, this is. And that there's a very individualized way that they go about doing it.

[Emma]

Because the wizarding world doesn't like knowledge being challenged versus, like, they could have someone like, you know, like a Fox Mulder who's like, I do want you to challenge me on these beliefs, because I want to know that what I believe is firm and what I understand about the world is correct and can withstand a certain level of rigor. Like Ravenclaws have so much potential to build that. But the wizarding world just doesn't encourage that kind of behavior.

[Professor Julian Womble]

When I had to think about whether or not I think Trelawney is a good Ravenclaw, I thought about other characters who remind me of her. And Luna was the first person I thought of because I think these are two women, girl characters who are drastically misunderstood because of their outlook within the magical world that operates from a level of stringency. And I think many of us said that Luna was a very good Ravenclaw because she had imagination, because she was curious, because, you know, she saw the world in a different way than other people did. And I wonder why it is that we're not willing to give Trelawny that, because to me the same is true. I think that she is also someone who has lived a life of being kind of excluded from certain spaces and places. I think she's also someone who undoubtedly has had relationships ruined because of her sight. Like, just because we don't know about the prophecies that she's put forth doesn't mean that she hasn't put forth any other than the two that we hear from her. And again, most of what she says offhandedly is not false. And so the idea then that she. That the isolation of that space. But she also does operate with a love. I mean, in order to do what she does right, even if it's just for pretend, there has to be an expansiveness of the way that she understands magic and herself. And she's got to be open to the possibility of certain things like Emma was saying. And I think for me, that makes her a good Ravenclaw. And I feel like the conversation that I had with Emma, particularly within the domain of this question, really opens us up to think about what intellectual pursuits are supposed to be for and what's more important. And I think this is particularly true for Ravenclaws. And I'm interested to hear what you have to say, both in the post episode chat for this episode, but also when we dive into Ravenclaw specifically, is how is it that we come to understand, like, who knowledge is for? Right, because again, you can learn something and not share it. So when we think about who Ravenclaws are, are they kind of gatherers of information for the sake of knowing things, or are they meant to disseminate that information and how do we square that with the way that we then view individuals like Trelawney? Is Trelawny a good half blood? About 37% of us said yes, 7.1% of us said no, and about 56% of us said don't know. Someone wrote, I think she is a good half blood. She assimilates well enough. She definitely wouldn't blend in with Muggles if she tried. She doesn't try to actively push back on larger systems of power. Someone else wrote, she's so magical, or at least claims to be, that her powers are beyond the understanding of most other witches and wizards. There doesn't seem to be anything non magical or obviously half blooded about how she lives her life. And another person wrote, I would say that Trelawney is a relatively apolitical character apart from giving the prophecy, which she arguably had no control over doing, which is inexcusable in the context of rampant blood purism and oppression against Muggles and Muggle borns. I think that both of these passages bring up really interesting points about how we understand what it is to be a good half blood. Right. And so we are going to approach this question using the two paradigms that we bring forth for this question for every character. So the first is the idealized version is this person bridging the gap between the Muggle world and the magical world. The answer is no, she's not doing that. And I think to the point that someone wrote, she sees herself as so inherently magical that the fact that she is, you know, Muggle, has a Muggle parent seemingly is inconsequential to her because she is operating from a space that is so not Muggle. Right. Like it's so magical, the ability to kind of divine the future and have a relative who is that, you know, who can do that. Right. Who is so inherently magical to be able to do something that very few people can do. I think it's such a. And the fact that she kind of her calling card is the fact that she's the great granddaughter of this person. Right. I think speaks to us about, you know, the way that she views the relationship between, you know, the Muggle world and the non magical world. I mean, the non magical world of the magical world. Right. And so, so I think based on that paradigm, right, she's not a good half blood. If we look at the other one, the idea that she is assisting and upholding pure blood supremacy. I think to the point of the latter passage, she's not doing anything to fight it. Right. And I Think to an earlier point that Emma brought up. Trelawney is very much your average run of the mill magical person who is just living her life and trying to make it through collecting a paycheck from Hogwarts and drinking her sherry and trying to hide the bottles, right? Like her, her, her existence is not political. I mean, it is political, right? Like there are very few things that exist in any society. There's very little of a person's life that isn't, that cannot be politicized. But she operates from an apolitical space and I think in that way, right, she is upholding pure blood supremacy because the only way that you can bring down a supremacist structure is to actively fight against it, right? And when we talk about the people who were good pure bloods, we talked about the Weasleys, right? Well, at least some of them who were actively like standing in the face of pure blood supremacy, at least in the form of fighting Voldemort, right? Trelawney, you know, shows up at the battle of Hogwarts. But to the extent that that's an ideological thing versus a survival thing, you know, I guess we can quibble about whether or not that matters. But in the grand scheme of things, she is a half blood person who relies very heavily on the magical part of her life for the sake of legitimacy and does not even, I mean, somebody wrote, like, there's no way she could even be a half blood because she has this ancestry. And I bet she would be so pleased to hear somebody say that, right? Because I think that that's kind of the point that she wants to draw is that her blood is so magical and not in like a supremacisty way. That's also a word, thank you very much. But in the way of, like, there's no questioning my belonging in this space because I am related to Cassandra Trelawney. And so like, I'm that girl as a result, I'm that magical girl, I'm that witch, you see? And so that there's something about the idea of, you know, of her being so magical that there's no way that she could be connected to the non magical world in any way. And I think that that's part of the mystique that she's trying to sell so that people don't question her. And we can see why she would want to do this, because for someone who cares about their status within the magical world and who is seen as a fraud and who is working tirelessly to try to convince people that they are not. She would want people to recognize the kind of inherent magical ability that she has. And so part of her performance seems to also be saying, I am one of you. And maybe not explicitly because she is, you know, has a Muggle parentage, but also, but just because, like, there is cachet in presenting oneself in a way that says, I'm a magical person. And when you are already someone who's looked down upon even within magical circles because of the gift that you have, which is supposed to be your calling card in the magical world, like, you can see how you might overdo your performance as a way to kind of try to gain legitimacy. And the only way that you do that, and the only reason you do do that is because you've bought in, right? Like you drank the Kool Aid. And so I think in that way she's a great half blood because again, that's what supremacist systems want. They want you to drink the Kool Aid and to feel like you need to prove yourself. And because now you're not questioning why the system is the way that it is, you're trying to be a part of it, you're trying to be included. And so in that way, I think she's a great half blood. I think she's the kind of half blood that a pure blood supremacist society would want. Uh oh, here comes chaos. Is Sybil Trelawney a hero? About 21% of us said yes, about 55% of us said no, and about 24% of us said don't. No. Someone wrote, she fought at the battle of Hogwarts and is therefore a hero. Another person said, I can't say whether Sybil is a hero. I don't think we have enough information. Is fighting in the battle taking place in your home, in your place of work enough to make you a hero? Another person wrote, I don't think she's a hero because again, she's self absorbed. And I don't mean that in a bad way. She's not vain or narcissistic, it's just that she's not particularly empathetic, she's not particularly selfless. And I think it's hard to be a hero without that quality. She still fights in the battle of Hogwarts because again, she's not a bad person, but she's more of a follower than a hero. If I had known now, no, if I had known then, when I started this podcast, what I know now, I definitely would have, like, worked a little bit harder for us to define these terms that we're using, like hero. And I know that you all get on my case about this all the time and it's too late now because the podcast is already, well, going anyways. Don't get me started on this. Anyway, what I mean to say is that I find it fascinating the metrics that we're using. And I know that historically we have used the Battle of Hogwarts as a very strong delineator about whether a person is a hero. And I think she is there. And what's fascinating about this is that, you know, not only does she fight, but she has like very particular moments where she's like literally lobbing crystal balls at villains and bad people. But let's listen to what Emma has to say about her being a hero.

[Emma]

Yeah. And I think that's part of it, is that the Battle of Hogwarts happens to them in a certain kind of extent and it's not someone choosing heroism or valor at their own peril. Like, yeah, she could have probably locked herself in a closet and done whatever, but you know, she's a decent person, she's a good person. But like. Yeah, and which, which is also to say that a decent regular person performing small and large actions of good is any less, you know, worthy than heroism. Because, you know, it's great that Harry, Ron and Hermione do their thing. It's great that Neville beheaded the snake. But you to get the rest of the wizarding world to act, actually act and do something, however big or small, against Voldemort or against, you know, pure blood supremacy or against magical supremacy. Jesus, you know, wouldn't that be nice? Like even just a small something, even spew, God bless her, you know, is I feel like still, like, I don't want to, I don't know if I want to say, like, equally valid as being a hero and doing something heroic, but like, because, because like the deeds that people Gilderoy Lockhart stole from could be heroic. So if we didn't know about his mind altering stuff, you could say that Gilderoy Lockhart is a hero. But is that more impactful to society overall than Hermione trying to like educate people that maybe slavery is bad or that like, you know, people to say, oh, Lupin's really cool. Maybe werewolves are kind of in a shit position. Like, you know, to even ask that question and to think about it and do anything about it.

[Professor Julian Womble]

Someone DMed me on Instagram and said something that I thought was interesting and I feel like tends to be the approach that we take with some of these characters, which is that, you know, Trelawney is a person who does heroic things and that in many ways her involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts is a heroic act, but not one that makes her a hero. And at some point, one of these days, I want to talk about the delineation, like how do we, what's, you know, Emma gets to it a little bit, right? You know, the, the notion of self sacrifice, the placement of one's own well being, you know, behind that of the needs of the greater good. Which is a fascinating thing for us to think about because as we approach the episodes surrounding Snape, as we approach the episodes surrounding Dumbledore, I'm gonna bring this back up because I'm messy and I want us to revisit some of this because, you know, are we being equal in our placement of these definitions on certain people? And how do we understand, you know, how we arrive at the notion of heroism? You know, if I had to answer this question, I would say I don't know. I think her involvement in the Battle of Hogwarts is obviously something that matters. And I've often said, you know, for many of these people they could leave, but for her, where's she going? Hogwarts is her home, it's where she lives, it is her place of work. But more than that I think it's just, it's a very meaningful place for her and she doesn't have another place to go. So there is really no escape for her. And so then there's also this kind of self interested motivation in the maintenance of this place which I think could be true for any number of these other individuals. And so if fighting in the Battle of Hogwarts isn't enough to make a person a hero, then I also want us to consider and think about like, what else is it? And we'll get into this conversation at the end of this season when we talk about the superlatives, but it's something for us interest, something interesting for us to think about. We've now reached the point in the episode where I am going to reflect on Sybil Trelawney. The question that I am using to center this reflection on is what happens to a seer in a world that refuses to see her? What happens when your gift is so ridiculed and dismissed that even you begin to question if it's real? Sybil Trelawney is a punchline to most people in the wizarding world. The misty voice, the bangles, the sherry and Baby, the sherry. We'll talk about the drinking in the post episode chat and in the Prof. Response episode. But the dramatic flair. She is very easily the kind of woman who gets written off before she even speaks. The kind of woman who gestures and everything that she does is read as a performance rather than a reality. And yet she is a seer. Not symbolically, not metaphorically, she literally is a seer. She speaks a prophecy that alters the course of magical history twice, and somehow no one seems to care. Dumbledore literally is like, well, wow, who knew? As if the entirety of the mission that he has had hasn't been to figure out what the rest of the prophecy is. As if having some sense that Wormtail was going to be the one to go and bring Voldemort back wouldn't have been important. He shrugs. And it's like, wow. Turns out she can do it more than once. And there's a cruel irony in that, that this woman, whose entire identity is built around knowing, is treated as if she's delusional, as if she is a fraud, which is a word that you all used, some of you, not all of you, used to describe her. But what if the performance of her gift is just a defense mechanism? Not the gift itself, but the way that she presents herself? What if the scarves and the incense and the histrionics are just armor? Because when I look at Trelawny, I see someone who is not just a person with a gift, but someone who has been so disbelieved that the only way that she can survive is by leaning into what people believe about her. If the world already thinks she's too much, too strange, too sensitive, then why not just amp the volume up? At least then you get to control your narrative. And at least then the mockery becomes of the performance and not of who you truly are. And this is when we can juxtapose Trelawney to Umbridge, because both women perform and both women embrace an exaggerated sense of self in response to the roles that wizarding society has offered them. But the difference is in the outcomes. Umbridge performs her femininity in a way that makes the system comfortable. The pink, the cats, the disgustingly high voice. It's all in service of power. An aesthetic of docility that makes authoritarian control look good and approachable and safe. And she's rewarded for it. She rises because the ministry recognizes her performance and maybe doesn't recognize it, but appreciates it nonetheless. Trelawny, by comparison, performs mysticism. She leans into the seer Archetype, this mystic woman in the tower with misty eyes and cryptic warnings of death and Grimms and tarot cards that tell you that bad things are going to happen. And it doesn't get her power, and it doesn't get her the thing that she wants the most, which is to be believed, to be respected. She's not asking for domination, just respect. And she doesn't even get it. The difference is not just in the performances themselves. It's in what the system is willing to value. And this is something that we've talked a lot about, right? We talked a lot about the fact that the system is so constrained in the way that it understands magic. And the things that it rewards reflect those constraints. But the reality is that the wizarding world has infrastructure for prophecies. It has a literal hall of Prophecies, a Department of Mysteries. It seemingly has a reverence for the idea of divination, but no respect for the people who practice it. And that hypocrisy is what consumes Trelawny, because she embodies something the world claims to believe in, but not in a form the world is willing to affirm. And maybe what else is true? And what's worth kind of thinking about is how hard is how. Trying too hard can sometimes undermine the very reason you're trying in the first place. Because even though Dumbledore knows she's capable, he still doesn't respect her. Even he sees her as a liability. And maybe that is because, like so many others in the magical world, he has a fixed idea of what real magic is supposed to look like. Despite all his posturing about love and power, Dumbledore still wants magic to be legible, containable, useful. And that's not who Trelawney is. And it's the irony of ironies that Voldemort and Dumbledore, these massive personalities in magical society, are working overtime because of her words, because of her prophecy. They built guardrails, they've done all kinds of things. They have obsessed over this prophecy. They literally have committed murder over this prophecy. And yet no one respects the person who gave birth to the prophecy itself. The woman who spoke it is dismissed, disbelieved by the very people who are the byproducts of her vision. There's a lot of parallels there that I could go into, but we don't have the time. The reality is that she's not a fraud. She's just not consistent. And that doesn't mean that she's not a real seer, because there are a Lot of inconsistent ways in which magic operates. And maybe this is the hardest part, that the world doesn't know that she's the one who made the prophecy. She doesn't even know that she's the one. So what do you do when you can see the truth but no one believes you, including yourself? And does your inability to explain it mean that it didn't happen? Because that's what we're up against, right? Not just disbelief, but systems that require certain kinds of performances in order to be granted belief in the first place. Systems that reward you only if your performance gives you or gives them, or gives it what's already valued. And that's why it fails Trelawny. Not because she can't see, but she cannot sell it the way the world wants to buy it. And that is the ache of Trelawny. That's the wound beneath all of the shawls and the sherry and the shenanigans. And it's why I no longer laugh at her. Because I think deep down she knew she would never be taken seriously. And the thing about it, and the saddest part of this, right, is that this is Obviously one of JKR's kind of pieces of her classical training, because this is true for any of the seers in Greek mythology. So few of them were actually believed and many of them were seen to be mentally unstable. And so this, like, the plight of being someone with this gift, that is actually. That feels like a curse. And the thing about it that makes me really empathize with her is that despite all of that, she doesn't change the performance to try to make people see her better. She doesn't leave Hogwarts. She doesn't try to do something else. She stays. She taught. She showed up, she warned. And when the battle came to her home, she fought. She hurled those crystal balls and threw them. She may have lived in a tower, but she wasn't that disconnected. And in her own way, she tried to prepare people for what she saw. And maybe that's what it means to be a seer in this world that doesn't believe in prophecy. You don't stop seeing. You just stop waiting to be seen. This has been another episode of Critical Magic Theory. I'm Professor Julian Womble, and if you liked today's episode, first of all, thank you. Please feel free to, like, rate, subscribe, Share. Do all the things that one does where pods are cast. I want to first thank Emma, our chronic overthinker representative in this episode, for her brilliant insights and for joining me in an amazing conversation. Again, if you are a chronic overthinker or deep diver, the full conversation will be available for you today, or at least by the end of the week. Please feel free to join us on Patreon for the post episode chat because I can already see with my mind's eye wide open that it's going to be fire. Which means that the Prof. Response episode is going to be what? Fire. And so I thank you in advance for that. Please feel free to follow me on social media ROV JW on Instagram PROFW on TikTok. Check us out online. Criticalmagic theory.com Send me an email critical magic theory@your gmail.com. share all your thoughts and until then, be critical and stay magical, my friends. Bye.