JK Rowling: Profoundly Misunderstood

[sun rise]

LGBT hate(

Don't forget that Dumbledore was gay. I won't get involved in the trans issue, but it's clear to me that her attitude toward gays was and is different.

 

[VoidCat]

Don't forget that Dumbledore was gay. I won't get involved in the trans issue, but it's clear to me that her attitude toward gays was and is different.

Not if you consider the fact that she wrote werewolves to be an allergory for HIV and had a werewolf that purposely infected children.

 

[The Hammer]

It's bad enough that goblins have been used as antisemitic caricatures since they were twisted from folklore fay folk

I'm a little skeptical of the historicity of this.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I never got the Potter thing, if I can step outside the trans discussion for a sec. Then again, I never really got Tolkien either. Just not my preferred flavours of fantasy I guess

Both Tolkein and HP are big on worldbuilding, shallow on character. The former because the epic narrative structure, which is very operatic, depends on heavy use of archetyping. The latter because it's a children's series, and it doesn't handle much of anything with depth. It's more a vibe. Even within 'Wizard school' literature, which there were less popular but more robust versions long before HP. But honestly being less of a story and more of a vibe is probably what made it so popular, over stuff like Earthsea or The Worst Witch, Books of Magic, etc.

 

[The Hammer]

She is actively anti-trans, funding and backing legislature and language that continues to dehumanize transpeople in the UK and abroad. The outrage and criticism that she gets is absolutely warranted,

I've actually looked for proof of this nad I can't find any. Outside of being seen at a protest that was supposedly anti-trans (I actually disagree with that particular law myself, and think that you should need a diagnosis of dysphoria, before you can legally change your government documents like driver's license)

 

[The Hammer]

Not if you consider the fact that she wrote werewolves to be an allergory for HIV and had a werewolf that purposely infected children.

That's a lot of assumption. Afaict

 

[VoidCat]

That's a lot of assumption. Afaict

Im going off what she said hang on

 

[Augustus]

she praised an anti-trans movie made by Matt Walsh,

While technically correct, I don't think that is the most accurate way to describe what happened in context.

When replying to something he tweeted at her, she said the movie did "a good job of exposing the incoherence of gender identity theory" but also criticised him for his bullying approach.

There is a grain of truth to the joke that anything you say before "but..." doesn't count, and the tweet is one of overall criticism. It also mirrors the format of his tweet: positive statement followed by criticism.

 

[VoidCat]

Remus Lupin's Werewolf Condition Is A Metaphor For HIV And AIDS, J.K. Rowling Writes In New Book

This goes into detail about it being a metaphor for HIV. I will admit maybe she didnt see the implications of having Fenrir Greyback infect children. But it does look really bad. Especially since as far as i know Lupin is the only werewolf in the series who doesn't intentionally infect others. This may not be intentional but tying the werewolves with HIV was a bad move. And she's never clarified if it was intentional to have it be as bad of a metaphor as it ended up being or not...in light of the trans issues I wonder if it was. But i dont know if it was or not because she's never said. Even tho its been pointed out to her by fans

 

[Debater Slayer]

While technically correct, I don't think that is the most accurate way to describe what happened in context.

When replying to something he tweeted at her, she said the movie did "a good job of exposing the incoherence of gender identity theory" but also criticised him for his bullying approach.

There is a grain of truth to the joke that anything you say before "but..." doesn't count, and the tweet is one of overall criticism.

What she said was still in support of a deeply harmful and ideologically charged movie as well as an underlying misconception, though, because "gender identity theory" is just the current medical consensus on the difference between gender and sex. Taking into account her defense of gender-critical Maya Forstater, it seems to me that she's clearly leaning in the anti-scientific direction of gender abolitionists. That's the same ideology where people are supposed to have all gender identification tied to sex and nothing more.

I don't regard her as some embodiment of evil, but she has exhausted a lot of the sympathy that many people had for her.

 

[The Hammer]

Remus Lupin's Werewolf Condition Is A Metaphor For HIV And AIDS, J.K. Rowling Writes In New Book

This goes into detail about it being a metaphor for HIV. I will admit maybe she didnt see the implications of having Fenrir Greyback infect children. But it does look really bad. Especially since as far as i know Lupin is the only werewolf in the series who doesn't intentionally infect others. This may not be intentional but tying the werewolves with HIV was a bad move. And she's never clarified if it was intentional to have it be as bad of a metaphor as it ended up being or not...in light of the trans issues I wonder if it was. But i dont know if it was or not because she's never said. Even tho its been pointed out to her by fans

I could see it as metaphorical oversight on her part. I don't think she is as bad as everyone makes out though. It's my own biases though.

As far as Fenrir infecting children, I think that's just because it takes place at a kids school, so it fits thematically. Nad I know of one other werewolf (from extended canon) that doesn't attack people

 

[VoidCat]

I could see it as metaphorical oversight on her part. I don't think she is as bad as everyone makes out though. It's my own biases though.

As far as Fenrir infecting children, I think that's just because it takes place at a kids school, so it fits thematically. Nad I know of one other werewolf (from extended canon) that doesn't attack people

Hey it could be a metaphorical oversight. If that's the case she should say so and admit it was a bad metaphor. But she never did despite it being pointed out to her.

 

[The Hammer]

Hey it could be a metaphorical oversight. If that's the case she should say so and admit it was a bad metaphor. But she never did despite it being pointed out to her.

I don't think it's anyone's business whether she apologizes/comes out and admits it or not.

We don't have to always like the things presented in art.

And I don't think that means we should shun an artist because we dislike the topics they covered/how.

 

[VoidCat]

I don't think it's anyone's business whether she apologizes/comes out and admits it or not.

We don't have to always like the things presented in art.

And I don't think that means we should shun an artist because we dislike the topics they covered/how.

Im just saying it dont help with her image. Admitting that would probably help a little bit with that.

It's not the one thing. It's multiple things piled up that make me dislike her.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm a little skeptical of the historicity of this.

There's a great paper about how Welsh goblins started out as underground pixie like beings called Knockers and morphed into literally the ghosts of dead Jewish miners (even though there weren't any Jewish populations) after the popularity of Passion plays. I'll try and find it. In the meantime look at medieval and WW2 propaganda art pieces. (I'm not gonna post them here except maybe spoilered.)

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't think it's anyone's business whether she apologizes/comes out and admits it or not.

I definitely think it is, because if the metaphor implies support for a long-standing homophobic trope, the effects could extend far beyond Rowling herself. Her work is public, and the discussions and controversies around it are rightfully so as well.

It would be no one's business if her work were private or obscure, which it isn't in the slightest.

 

[The Hammer]

I definitely think it is, because if the metaphor implies support for a long-standing homophobic trope, the effects could extend far beyond Rowling herself. Her work is public, and the discussions and controversies around it are rightfully so as well.

It would be no one's business if her work were private or obscure, which it isn't in the slightest.

Private/public. No difference imo.

I'll agree to disagree though.

 

[The Hammer]

There's a great paper about how Welsh goblins started out as underground pixie like beings called Knockers and morphed into literally the ghosts of dead Jewish miners (even though there weren't any Jewish populations) after the popularity of Passion plays. I'll try and find it. In the meantime look at medieval and WW2 propaganda art pieces. (I'm not gonna post them here except maybe spoilered.)

I've seen the WW2 ones. Not the medieval ones though. I can look a paper up on that as well if need be.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I could care less her views.

I like her works and have no problem watching or reading Harry Potter.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh, you're just misunderstanding my hate and crappy remarks and supporting bad people.
*****.