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.
 
This week’s Prof Response tackles one of our most emotional episodes to date: Remus Lupin. But before diving in, we confront a real-world reality—J.K. Rowling’s continued advocacy for trans-exclusionary laws and the heartbreak of deciding whether we can still use her text for good. Spoiler: we think we can. And we explain why.
 
From there, we wrestle with listener reflections on shame, love, and the monsters society creates—both literal and metaphorical. We discuss Fenrir Greyback as a disturbing allegory for institutional bias, analyze Lupin’s internalized fear, and ask hard questions about fatherhood, failure, and trying to be good in a world that tells you you’re not. This is a deep one. But it’s also a reminder of why this podcast—and this kind of critical thinking—matters.

Why didn’t Lupin ever write to Harry? Why did he run from Tonks? And how does someone who survives so much still feel like they deserve so little?

In this soul-stirring episode of Critical Magic Theory, Professor Julian Wamble peels back the layers of Remus Lupin—the beloved professor, the loyal Marauder, and the walking embodiment of internalized shame. Drawing from 700+ listener survey responses, Prof. Wamble explores how Lupin’s trauma, marginalization, and deep-rooted self-doubt shape not just his choices, but how we judge them. 

Stick around for a powerful final reflection that reframes Lupin not as a failure, but as a survivor—someone marked not by the moon, but by the shame a broken world handed him.
 
Special thanks to our newest Patreon Deep Divers: Gelsey, Kayla, Jeni, Mehrunissa, Sara! Thanks so much for your support and contributions to this community.

And don’t forget to join the post-episode chat on Patreon—because we’ve got to talk more about this one.

Be critical. Stay magical.

What if the biggest betrayal in the Wizarding World wasn’t just about evil—it was about never being seen in the first place?

In this episode chat of Critical Magic Theory, Professor Julian Wamble deep-dives into the fallout from “The Radacity of Peter Pettigrew” episode, reflecting on listener reactions and further complicating our understanding of one of Harry Potter’s most reviled characters. Was Peter a coward or a child soldier shaped by war? Did Sirius and James ever truly see him—or did their assumptions doom them all? With insights from listeners and meditations on victimhood, war, friendship hierarchies, and the symbolism of Peter’s Animagus form, this episode blends humor, reflection, and raw honesty. We challenge the notion that being seen as harmless makes someone good—and ask how often our desire to see the best in others blinds us to the truth.

Thirteen years hiding in plain sight. A friendship shattered beyond repair.  A betrayal so bold it rewrote the entire course of the wizarding war.

The question isn’t whether Peter Pettigrew had audacity—it’s where he found the ratdacity.

In this episode of Critical Magic Theory, we’re scurrying deep into the shadows of the Marauders’ messiest member. Was Peter just a coward—or was he a master strategist in rodent’s clothing? We’re talking betrayal, survival, fear-fueled loyalty, and what happens when your desire to matter eclipses your sense of morality. Plus: we unpack your survey responses, consider what makes a “good” Death Eater (yes, that’s a thing), and reflect on how the Pettigrews among us are closer than we think.
 
And a huge thank you to our newest Deep Divers on Patreon: Sophie, Ariel, and Tammy!

Your support means the world—and helps keep this community curious, thoughtful, and full of just the right amount of chaos.
 
As always, my friends— Be critical. Stay magical.

Can a villain be a good leader? Not if he’s noseless and narcissistic.

Welcome back 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. In today’s Prof Responds episode, I’m diving deep into your post-episode thoughts on none other than the noseless wonder himself: Voldemort. Or, as some of us have started calling him… Voldiva.
 
We’re unpacking whether Voldemort was actually a good leader (spoiler: no), what his followers really wanted, and how Grindelwald might just be the evil mastermind Voldemort (and the D.E.s) wishes he was. We’re also talking narcissism, cosplay ideology, and what it means when your revolution is really just a glorified social club with masks.
 
Plus, I’m tackling your best comments—from snake oil salesman slander to whether Voldemort ever truly believed in his own cause.

And don’t worry: yes, the Peter Pettigrew survey is still live! If you haven’t filled it out yet, now’s your chance. Don’t let Wormtail down (or maybe do, I don’t know your life).
 
Be critical and stay magical.

Is this an episode of Real Housewives of the Wizarding World?

No, just an episode about ole Voldy V- the ultimate diva. From his obsession with power to his need for an audience at every major moment, we unpack how his insecurities, delusions, and over-the-top theatrics make him one of the most absurd villains in fiction.
 
We revisit the iconic graveyard scene, where Voldemort finally gets his body back—only to immediately fumble his own victory. We also break down whether he was actually a good leader to the Death Eaters (spoiler: he wasn’t) and explore why he tried so hard to erase his half-blood identity. The Arithmancy Lesson gave us some chaotic but insightful takes—some of you even compared his leadership style to an MLM, and honestly, the accuracy is scary.

Next Episode's Deep Dive: Wormtail
 
The survey drops on Patreon first, so be sure to weigh in. Speaking of Patreon, a special shoutout to our newest Patreon Deep Diver, Aurélie! Welcome to the club, and thank you for your support—it means the world!
 
If you’re not on Patreon yet, what are you waiting for? The chaos is happening there!

Until next time—be critical, stay magical.

In this lively and deeply engaging episode of Critical Magic Theory, Professor Julian Wamble responds to the fiery post-episode discussion about Tom Riddle. From dissecting the many hilarious and shady nicknames the CMT community bestowed upon Voldemort to unpacking the complexities of his insecurities, Julian dives deep into what makes Tom Riddle tick.
 
Topics range from the imposter syndrome and theatrics that defined Voldemort’s rise to power, to his surprising nostalgia for Hogwarts, and even the role of pretty privilege in his early manipulations. Plus, Julian tackles the thorny discourse around love potions, consent, and whether Voldemort’s “loveless” conception actually shaped his villainy.
 
With a signature mix of humor, insight, and beats to bop to, this Prof Responds episode is not one to miss—just make sure you’ve stretched before hitting play. And as always, the post-episode chat on Patreon is bound to be lit.

In this episode of Critical Magic Theory, we begin our deep dive into the origins of Lord Voldemort by unpacking the complexities of Tom Riddle Jr. Professor Julian Wamble explores what made young Tom tick—his ambitions, insecurities, and relentless desire to prove himself in the Wizarding World. Was he a textbook Slytherin, or did his ego ultimately undermine his ambitions? Is he a victim of his upbringing, or was his villainy inevitable?
 
From his desperate need for external validation to his obsession with rewriting his own identity, we trace the moments that shaped Tom Riddle into the Dark Lord. We also delve into psychological insights from a clinical psychologist, questioning whether he was truly a psychopath or simply a product of deep-seated trauma.
 
Join us as we challenge the myth of Voldemort’s self-confidence, analyze the sheer pettiness of his anagrammed name, and examine whether his master plan was ever as foolproof as he thought. And, of course, stay tuned for the next episode, where we transition from “Tommy J” to the fully transformed Voldemort, post-nose. 

A special thanks to our new Patreon Deep Divers- Molly, Samantha, Sam, Kathryn, Meena.

With chaos, controversy, and critical insight, Professor Julian Wamble dives into the passionate post-episode discussion following the Pure-Blood Showdown episode. With the fandom in an uproar over Narcissa Malfoy being crowned Best Parent, Julian unpacks the arguments from Patreon listeners, exploring the biases and dynamics at play in how fans judge “good” and “bad” parenting in the Wizarding World. The conversation extends to the contentious Worst Son designation for Barty Crouch Jr., with Julian examining the complexities of his relationship with Barty Crouch Sr. and how parental expectations shape perceptions of character morality.
 
Shifting gears, a Half-Blood Primer is introduced, setting the stage for upcoming episodes on Voldemort and other half-blood characters. The discussion highlights the vast spectrum of half-blood identities in the Wizarding World, debunking misconceptions and emphasizing the nuanced ways heritage and socialization shape a wizard’s experience.

BUST OUT YOUR YEARBOOKS!! It's time for the best and worst of the Purebloods! In this episode of Critical Magic Theory, we wrap up our epic 14-month journey through the world of pure bloods. We explore what it truly means to be a pureblood in the Wizarding World—unpacking the social constructs, privileges, and pressures that shape their identities. From the tension between external validation and unapologetic individuality to the insidious nature of pure blood supremacy, we dive deep into how these characters are socialized, perceived, and ultimately remembered.

Huge thanks to our Patreon Deep Divers—Carlisa, Carrie, Hannah, Aisling, Hannah L, and Ika—your support means the world!

Now, buckle up, because this one’s a wild ride!