Topic: JK Rowling TERFing her legacy into the bin

[BritishHobo]

The house-elves are probably the hardest element to make sense off in a way that doesn't reflect quite badly on Rowling.

Everything else that people might worry at is, I think, a matter of drawing on very common tropes for their accessibility - these might reinforce certain stereotypes and attitudes, of course, but it doesn't feel particularly deliberate at least.

The house-elves' relationship with their masters feels relatively novel in concept (although sentient subordinate or servitor races aren't unknown in fantasy and sci-fi stuff) but that Rowling wasn't really able to handle the execution in a way that didn't end up with "actually it turns out these people pretty much love being slaves". Which is a bit unfortunate.

It's funny, I remember the fourth book making me feel angry as a child at how nasty they all were to Hermione when she sticks up for the house-elves. In a series and genre that typically has kids being smart and brave and succeeding where adults can't, it was a little too 'oh you silly girl, you just don't understand! They like doing all the cooking and cleaning for free!'

[solidified gruel merchant]

JK Rowling? Isn't that the bloke who got shot in Dallas?

No, that’s J.R. Hartley

[mr. logic]

There was a "What school did you go to?" thread a few years ago and private schools did very well indeed.

Zetetic is going to have a hernia when he sees me using this as some kind of statistical analysis but it's all we've got.

Link?

[DreadedScotsman]

No, that’s J.R. Hartley

No that's the guy who wrote the fishing book you're thinking J G Ballard

[Butchers Blind]

No that's the guy who wrote the fishing book you're thinking J G Ballard

Think you'll find that's J B Priestley.

[solidified gruel merchant]

Think you'll find that's J B Priestley.

Nah, that’s the bloke who sang ‘wild world’!

[Twit 2]

Are a lot of Cabbers privately educated?

No, quite the opposite. DM on the wind-up again, the card.

[AsparagusTrevor]

What has she actually said?

[idunnosomename]

I mean i always hated harry potter because of the elitism. wizards are superior to muggles. all a bit ayn rand ubermensch.

anyway has anyone pointed out the irony in "sex and gender matters" when she goes as J.K. because the publishers told her that boys wouldn't buy a book with a girl's name on the cover. hmm!!!!

[Pijlstaart]

Very sad to see. Watching the Harry Potter children hit puberty and fuck each other has been the privilege of my life.

In the books there were footnotes for who menstruated and who did not and there was even a table in the appendix to that effect, but everything got glossed over in the films, and I think that's why we're all confused, we needed structure. Not fussed myself, but there could be merit in some sort of witch hunt census run by local authorities. If you held them, menstruators, upside-down would it stay in there or burble out over the top like a lava flow? We don't know, but if it did that would be one way you could find menstruators. You could also try honey dippers, maybe a crowd-funded app, or as a last resort the state could subsidise sanitary products and see who takes them. The nation needs a morale boost and this could help us come together.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Did you enjoy your eight hours at primary school? Well here's another hour of 'escapism', which is basically more school and babysitting. Harry Potter was like that, but worse. It was not only a celebration of school, but a celebration of boarding school.

I'm not a big Harry Potter fan but that's one of the things which appealed to me about it. I went to a comprehensive and have no desire to return to it, a load of posh people doing school in a castle is exactly the kind of daft escapism I was looking for. See also: the Worst Witch.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Demon headmaster books were better. And a warning.

[ollyboro]

I didn't read the books and I've only caught bits and pieces of the films. But it didn't seem very inclusive to me.

It looks like cloaked and bespectacled, Latin-literate, boisterous, cloisterous, we-are-the-special-ones, Eton, mummy's-boys, live-in-a-bubble without any trouble, nice smart blazers and dance for the queen, 'see me mother-dear?' and 'oh yes I do, petling,' prancing on the plaza, MARCHING UP AND DOWAHN THE SQUA-AH, tit-about, cadets and bagpipes, mincing and dicing, cheeky Clarksons, up to no good, but still very good and unimpeachable boys.

That's what Harry Potter says to me, anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLJ8ILIE780

I thought it was about a wizard

[Blue Jam]

Harry Potter was bit after my time, I think I would have been about 16 or 17 when the first book came out and it didn't register with me at all until I was an undergrad with a flatmate who was a Potterhead.

Part of me slightly envies that generation who grew up with Harry Potter and have that shared cultural experience, much like people growing up with Star Wars or Doctor Who. Then again, I probably wouldn't have enjoyed the books anyway as I absolutely fucking hated school and I never liked books or children's programmes about school. Especially not posh school- while my school wasn't a boarding school it was posh and strict and had imposing old buildings with cloisters. After school I wanted to get as far away from Latin lessons and lacrosse and house teams as humanly possible.

Absolutely love that description of Blue Peter above. Could never put my finger on why I couldn't stand that show. The only episode I ever watched all the way through was the one about recycling cans, where they were checking them with magnets, and I was like "nah, fuck this."

I always preferred CITV to CBBC. CBBC programmes always seemed so worthy and I didn't want to spend a day being educated and then come home and watch more educational stuff. Of course now I'm older I understand that the BBC is a public service broadcaster with a remit to educate, entertain and inform, but still, fuck Blue Peter, give me Round The Bend.

[Blue Jam]

anyway has anyone pointed out the irony in "sex and gender matters" when she goes as J.K. because the publishers told her that boys wouldn't buy a book with a girl's name on the cover. hmm!!!!

Not to mention "Robert Galbraith".

[Retinend]

https://thevelvetchronicle.com/anonymous-letter-from-a-terrified-lesbian-thoughtcrime/
https://i.imgur.com/uFPWUbs.png


The article - which she posts uncritically - is very extreme.

To call the writers' mindset "embattled" would be to put it mildly.

It is an anonymous letter with a foreword by another individual. The premise of both writers is that people generally despise lesbians and that "TERF" is the mere evolution of, say, "Dyke bitch". Cryptically, they refuse to use the word "TERF" anywhere in the body of the text - and this is only one instance where you have to guess what events or context would make the text meaningful.

_{“LGBTQ” and co., have demonstrated such venomous retaliation toward lesbians, for crimes as simple as a “like” or a “repost,” or for being openly same-sex attracted (something we’re told we’re no longer allowed to celebrate with Pride).}

The article is presumptuous, to the point where one doubts whether it is designed to be read with an open mind. It certainly doesn't think that outrageous accusations need any evidence.

Irritatingly, the article is full of proofreading oversights. The non-letter part of the article capitalizes the "p" in "pride", "c" in "company", and uses half-educated locutions such as "to demonstrate retaliation towards someone", writing "and co." instead of "and their ilk", and using the invented word "desister" instead of "dissident".

[Blue Jam]

[tweets]

I'm sorry, but what has she written to imply that men with AIDS seek to infect other men? What the fuck?

I really shouldn't be surprised at this should I?

[apopheniac]

https://thevelvetchronicle.com/anonymous-letter-from-a-terrified-lesbian-thoughtcrime/
https://i.imgur.com/uFPWUbs.png

The article - which she posts uncritically - is very extreme.

To call the writers' mindset "embattled" would be to put it mildly.

It is an anonymous letter with a foreword by another individual. The premise of both writers is that people generally despise lesbians and that "TERF" is the mere evolution of, say, "Dyke bitch". Cryptically, they refuse to use the word "TERF" anywhere in the body of the text - and this is only one instance where you have to guess what events or context would make the text meaningful.


The article is presumptuous, to the point where one doubts whether it is designed to be read with an open mind. It certainly doesn't think that outrageous accusations need any evidence.

Irritatingly, the article is full of proofreading oversights. The non-letter part of the article capitalizes the "p" in "pride", "c" in "company", and uses half-educated locutions such as "to demonstrate retaliation towards someone", writing "and co." instead of "and their ilk", and using the invented word "desister" instead of "dissident".

None of this article relates to me as a lesbian at all. It feels like something from another universe. On the other hand, I've never felt as ignored, insulted and talked down to as a lesbian as when I've pointed out that TERFS are full of rubbish, so there's that.

Oh, and the AIDS thing was that she suggested lycanthropy was an AIDS allegory, apparently forgetting the werewolf character who went around deliberately infecting children.

[Retinend]

I'm sorry, but what has she written to imply that men with AIDS seek to infect other men? What the fuck?

I really shouldn't be surprised at this should I?

Google search for "Harry Potter AIDS" yielded: https://www.poz.com/article/harry-potter-secret-hiv-metaphor

full text:

<sub>As all Harry Potter fans know, Hogwarts professor Remus Lupin lived with lycanthropy, a chronic condition that turned him into a werewolf. But we recently learned that author J.K. Rowling meant this as a “metaphor for those illnesses that carry a stigma, like HIV and AIDS.” Writing on Pottermore.com, Rowling explained that “all kinds of superstitions seem to surround blood-borne conditions, probably due to taboos surrounding blood itself. The wizarding community is as prone to hysteria and prejudice as the Muggle one, and the character of Lupin gave me a chance to examine those attitudes.”

Not everyone appreciated the analogy. “So having AIDS is like turning into a dangerous monster and killing people?” wrote POZ commenter Michael Luciano. “Not exactly the literary analogy I’d hope for.” Others disagreed. “I think it’s cool that she said this,” countered Kelly White, adding, “The stigma of being a werewolf [is like] the stigma of being HIV positive.” Daniel Bonilla summed up: “I love her, so much.”</sub>

These two paragraphs are the perfect distilled essence of Twitter.

[bgmnts]

Remus Lupin.

Fucking hell, sub-Dickens.

That's the legacy that's being ruined, thank fuck.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Anyone saying "they should read Discworld instead" totally misses why Harry Potter wound up as big as it was.

The real achievement RE: Harry Potter was how the first 3 or so were marketed, and how no other publisher managed to get their alternatives into the conversation at all. By the time you got to the fourth the momentum was already there and it had become a cultural phenomenon to the point she could've put out any basic shite and it would've sufficed. I reckon the first three are perfectly fine kids books and do a good job of ageing with their core readership. The latter ones less good but still decent at ageing with the (at this stage fracturing into subgroups) readership

I reckon it was more to do with adults who should know better fawning over it rather than children finally having something to identify with.

[Blue Jam]

Hmmmm. Even if she really did write that werewolf character with the good intention of making a point about unfairly stigmatising the HIV-positive, she's evidently not clever enough to have done it in a way that gets her point across clearly and without offending people.

Philip Pullman does this sort of social commentary/satire thing much better.

[here4glinner]

The first two or three were good kids books. The rest of them are more YA and I don't think they hold up against a lot of the other stuff targeted at this demographic. I know I read Melvin Burgess endlessly and the last books in the Harry Potter series once.

I don't understand why people like her need to make divisive political pronouncements. Do they really think that anyone's opinion on Corbyn is going to be changed by them? Although I do worry that there's not really any benefit to Rowling introducing her followers to the 'should we dehumanise trans women, or not?' debate.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

It does seem as though transexuality cuts at the heart of the notions of femininity held by middle aged women, especially the comfortably off white women who are seemingly the most vocal and invited the TERF label.

I'm not sure how you change that attitude very easily but I don't understand or agree with the core of the argument which implies men trying to become women/acting like women/expecting to be treated as women presents a big threat. My personal understanding is limited but I find the arguments other women have made in defence of transpeople very persuasive.

I think it must be very difficult for the first and second wave feminism generation having to adjust to viewing this issue from a position of privilege as opposed to their default assumption of being oppressed. Someone who is trying to live how they want to live in the knowledge of the deep prejudice, stigma and violence they may suffer is the vulnerable party versus a white female billionaire, or even white middle class English woman. They deserves respect and tolerance from the privileged person.

In my opinion the biological arguments are used by both sides expediently. Ultimately this feels more to me like an issue of liberty and civil rights.

[mr. logic]

What’s the controversy about the character that she made gay? That’s a genuine question, I’m not aware of the story, and it’s been mentioned a few times now.

[here4glinner]

What’s the controversy about the character that she made gay? That’s a genuine question, I’m not aware of the story, and it’s been mentioned a few times now.

She retconned Dumbledore as gay and people suggested she was doing this for 'woke points'.

However, canonically, Dumbledore is pretty gay, and he had a very special friendship with a male wizard that he lived with, so if you're sympathetic you can accept that Dumbledore was always gay and it was just never explicitly stated in the original text.

[mr. logic]

Ah right. It seemed to be being presented as homophobic rather than just opportunistic.

[ProvanFan]

I think it's the worst book ever written and anyone who likes it should be dragged outside and shot.

At least let them finish their Ready Brek

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

She retconned Dumbledore as gay and people suggested she was doing this for 'woke points'.

However, canonically, Dumbledore is pretty gay, and he had a very special friendship with a male wizard that he lived with, so if you're sympathetic you can accept that Dumbledore was always gay and it was just never explicitly stated in the original text.

She also suggested at one point that Hermione might have been secretly black all along, because the text never said otherwise.

However, it is presumably definitive canon now that Harry is not a "person who menstruates"

[mjwilson]

She also suggested at one point that Hermione might have been secretly black all along, because the text never said otherwise.

OK but at least that one was prompted by the casting of a black actor to play Hermione in the stage play, she didn't just leap onto Twitter to make the pronouncement for no reason. (That one time anyway.)

Ah right. It seemed to be being presented as homophobic rather than just opportunistic.

She did say something like, "of course he was gay, he liked wearing colourful robes!" which seemed a bit reductive.