Looking back at how the wizarding word she created treated non-humans, perhaps we all just read too much inclusiveness into her works. Like many people, perhaps she's only inclusive of those she thinks fit into her narrow definition of "human".
Those outside of that category are the Other and one need not be concerned if the Other properly occupies a menial place in society or lives as outcasts or is persecuted by the State and subject to strict laws they have no say in making.
The fact that the big wizard bank is full of evil goblins who are very jew coded and even had a fucking star of david on the floor in the movie adaptation should have gotten more attention than it did.
Ironic too is that she hid behind a set of initials to mask her gender from the public when the Harry Potter books came out. Now she hides behind the alias of Robert Galbraith for her crime novels. If she is so pro-female why does she transition to male for her writing? Why the trans animosity when she clearly uses it to a supposed advantage herself?
You do have to wonder why it’s such a personal vendetta for her. I have less animosity for my ex wife and she deliberately ruined 10 years of my life. Why is it her mission in life to try to end trans rights? How does any of this affect her?
She’s just a horrible person. Hey, if she can deride transgenders then I can deride her as well.
What happens to people when they become so wealthy that they think a) their opinions are the correct one and b) they lose their compassion and humanity?
They don't get into heaven. Maybe that is why Jesus made that remark about camels getting through the eye of a needle easier than a rich person getting into heaven.
Doesn't matter if Tennant played Barty Crouch Jr. in the Potter films. He drew a line in the sand and stands with those being persecuted by those who stand with Joanna K. Rowling. He and his wife fully support their kids' support of LGBTQ+ folk, too. I hope it sticks in Rowling's craw that David Tennant despises her weird, arrogant, aggressive, hateful behavior.
And I continue to try never to give her any money at all.
Remember, Tennant had played a role in Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire in 2005 before that Dr. Who episode, so I assume the Rowling shoutout was also a nod to that.
Rowling revels in the real world political muscle that her enormous fantasy world-derived wealth gives to her irrational hate of a vulnerable minority. While Rowling has more money than she could spend on a lifetime of castles and yachts, the real irony lies in Harry's hero journey book series transforming their author into Bellatrix Lestrange.
Rowling is of course another person who should've just sat there and ate her food. Of course, her completely asinine anti-trans attitudes are self-owning...as all bigots do. When you loudly spread hatred, you're not only hurting real people, but you're taking money out of your own pockets. We've seen this already with big corporations. It's really sad. But hey I guess she found a righteous way to launder her own bigotry.
I recall reading the first Harry Potter and discovering that her writing wasn't particularly good. Like, the actual sentences and paragraphs and chapters. And yes, it gets better, but in a sort of John Grisham does fantasy sort of way. I didn't begrudge kids enjoying reading, but it always seemed a bit much that she was some paragon of a fantasy author. Yes I read and enjoyed them, but personally, I prefer novels with a bit more nuance.
I also didn't think to much about the traditional gender and family roles and norms when I first read the books, but after it was pointed out, it's hard to unsee. The Harry Potter novels have some insightful elements, but they're quite conservative at their core, and no great deal of introspection. They're fun books, but I suspect they were further elevated by social media and a new era of fandom -- by the social element as much as the author's work.
I care about the living, too. It's why I don't partake in products made by repulsive people until after they're dead and can not benefit from it. Who needs Woody Allen or Roman Polanski? There's plenty of other art out there. I'm sure plenty of THOSE creators have unsettling elements about themselves too, but I just don't know it. Want to buy a Harry Potter book? Buy it used, Rowling gets nothing.
An imperfect system? Yes. But it's how I've decided to sort things and it has made my life simpler. No hand wringing. Just keeping awful people who are generally already wealthy from getting a dollar from me.
She is entitled to her personal views on gender, of course, as we all are, but her all consuming vendetta in service of them is both remarkable as well as baffling in terms of what she has been willing to sacrifice to promote it. This one issue seems extremely personal to her, as she doesn't appear to indulge in the across the board bigotry of a true xenophobe-annihilating trans people seems to be her part and parcel. I was never a huge Harry Potter devotee so I don't feel the competing angst as many do, and I am also not inclined to judge or "cancel" an artist solely on their bigotries. But the fact that she lives and persists doggedly in this bigoted effort hits differently (Dahl might have been an anti-semite but I don't remember learning he ever took sustained political action on behalf of that belief, for example) and makes me wonder if her self-immolation was not calculated, part of the intended consequence of her behavior. I mean, what did she *think* was going to happen?
Well put. And I wonder the same thing - why did she do this and what did she think was going to happen? When it was clear that her words and actions regarding trans folk has alienated many of her former fans, she had a choice - to rethink her position and modify her stance, or to double down. She chose to double down, as is her right. Because of that, and her actions, it tarnishes her legacy (it's a good thing that she doesn't care about her legacy! LOL), more than Dahl's antisemitism tarnishes his legacy, and for the very reason you state - he didn't take political action, as Rowling has done, and still does.
So many of us privately hold views others (even members of our own “tribe”) would find distasteful or wrongheaded. It’s what you choose to do with those feelings makes or breaks you IMO. JK Rowling can believe whatever she wants and no one knows or cares, but it’s her work to oppress people that cements her as a bigot.
Incorrect. To hold beliefs based on false information is not something that's ok. It's a guarantee of harm to others. You're not entitled to any opinion on my gender other than one based on true information. That only leaves the right view and the incorrect view. She is not entitled to speak false information and neither are you.
JK could have said nothing and she would have been the most beloved children's author of all time, instead she chose violence. Also, I loved Martha as companion, she was one of the best!
Looking back at how the wizarding word she created treated non-humans, perhaps we all just read too much inclusiveness into her works. Like many people, perhaps she's only inclusive of those she thinks fit into her narrow definition of "human".
Those outside of that category are the Other and one need not be concerned if the Other properly occupies a menial place in society or lives as outcasts or is persecuted by the State and subject to strict laws they have no say in making.
The fact that the big wizard bank is full of evil goblins who are very jew coded and even had a fucking star of david on the floor in the movie adaptation should have gotten more attention than it did.
" Perhaps what’s unique about Rowling is that she has alienated the very people who would’ve been among her most enduring fans." Yes, so true.
Ironic too is that she hid behind a set of initials to mask her gender from the public when the Harry Potter books came out. Now she hides behind the alias of Robert Galbraith for her crime novels. If she is so pro-female why does she transition to male for her writing? Why the trans animosity when she clearly uses it to a supposed advantage herself?
You do have to wonder why it’s such a personal vendetta for her. I have less animosity for my ex wife and she deliberately ruined 10 years of my life. Why is it her mission in life to try to end trans rights? How does any of this affect her?
I was wondering the same. It seems like a personal vendetta.
She’s just a horrible person. Hey, if she can deride transgenders then I can deride her as well.
What happens to people when they become so wealthy that they think a) their opinions are the correct one and b) they lose their compassion and humanity?
They don't get into heaven. Maybe that is why Jesus made that remark about camels getting through the eye of a needle easier than a rich person getting into heaven.
Given David Tennant's and his wife Georgia's full, very public support for LGBTQ+ people, including trans people, it reveals the irony of his Doctor Who character supporting the Harry Potter stuff twenty years ago, but only because many of us didn't know back then how bigoted and hateful a person Rowling could and continues to be. Here's an article from 2024 about their stance: https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/mother-and-baby/700962/david-georgia-tennant-photos-children-pride-month-celebrations/
Doesn't matter if Tennant played Barty Crouch Jr. in the Potter films. He drew a line in the sand and stands with those being persecuted by those who stand with Joanna K. Rowling. He and his wife fully support their kids' support of LGBTQ+ folk, too. I hope it sticks in Rowling's craw that David Tennant despises her weird, arrogant, aggressive, hateful behavior.
And I continue to try never to give her any money at all.
Remember, Tennant had played a role in Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire in 2005 before that Dr. Who episode, so I assume the Rowling shoutout was also a nod to that.
Rowling revels in the real world political muscle that her enormous fantasy world-derived wealth gives to her irrational hate of a vulnerable minority. While Rowling has more money than she could spend on a lifetime of castles and yachts, the real irony lies in Harry's hero journey book series transforming their author into Bellatrix Lestrange.
This may be beside the point, but her views defy logic as well. Anti-trans legislation is profoundly anti-feminist as well.
Rowling is of course another person who should've just sat there and ate her food. Of course, her completely asinine anti-trans attitudes are self-owning...as all bigots do. When you loudly spread hatred, you're not only hurting real people, but you're taking money out of your own pockets. We've seen this already with big corporations. It's really sad. But hey I guess she found a righteous way to launder her own bigotry.
I recall reading the first Harry Potter and discovering that her writing wasn't particularly good. Like, the actual sentences and paragraphs and chapters. And yes, it gets better, but in a sort of John Grisham does fantasy sort of way. I didn't begrudge kids enjoying reading, but it always seemed a bit much that she was some paragon of a fantasy author. Yes I read and enjoyed them, but personally, I prefer novels with a bit more nuance.
I also didn't think to much about the traditional gender and family roles and norms when I first read the books, but after it was pointed out, it's hard to unsee. The Harry Potter novels have some insightful elements, but they're quite conservative at their core, and no great deal of introspection. They're fun books, but I suspect they were further elevated by social media and a new era of fandom -- by the social element as much as the author's work.
I care about the living, too. It's why I don't partake in products made by repulsive people until after they're dead and can not benefit from it. Who needs Woody Allen or Roman Polanski? There's plenty of other art out there. I'm sure plenty of THOSE creators have unsettling elements about themselves too, but I just don't know it. Want to buy a Harry Potter book? Buy it used, Rowling gets nothing.
An imperfect system? Yes. But it's how I've decided to sort things and it has made my life simpler. No hand wringing. Just keeping awful people who are generally already wealthy from getting a dollar from me.
That's a good system.
Imperfect but not complicated. I just din’t want to have to spend so much time thinking about it, you know
She is entitled to her personal views on gender, of course, as we all are, but her all consuming vendetta in service of them is both remarkable as well as baffling in terms of what she has been willing to sacrifice to promote it. This one issue seems extremely personal to her, as she doesn't appear to indulge in the across the board bigotry of a true xenophobe-annihilating trans people seems to be her part and parcel. I was never a huge Harry Potter devotee so I don't feel the competing angst as many do, and I am also not inclined to judge or "cancel" an artist solely on their bigotries. But the fact that she lives and persists doggedly in this bigoted effort hits differently (Dahl might have been an anti-semite but I don't remember learning he ever took sustained political action on behalf of that belief, for example) and makes me wonder if her self-immolation was not calculated, part of the intended consequence of her behavior. I mean, what did she *think* was going to happen?
In related news: https://substack.com/@bensheehan/note/c-285475396?r=1659j&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
Well put. And I wonder the same thing - why did she do this and what did she think was going to happen? When it was clear that her words and actions regarding trans folk has alienated many of her former fans, she had a choice - to rethink her position and modify her stance, or to double down. She chose to double down, as is her right. Because of that, and her actions, it tarnishes her legacy (it's a good thing that she doesn't care about her legacy! LOL), more than Dahl's antisemitism tarnishes his legacy, and for the very reason you state - he didn't take political action, as Rowling has done, and still does.
So many of us privately hold views others (even members of our own “tribe”) would find distasteful or wrongheaded. It’s what you choose to do with those feelings makes or breaks you IMO. JK Rowling can believe whatever she wants and no one knows or cares, but it’s her work to oppress people that cements her as a bigot.
Incorrect. To hold beliefs based on false information is not something that's ok. It's a guarantee of harm to others. You're not entitled to any opinion on my gender other than one based on true information. That only leaves the right view and the incorrect view. She is not entitled to speak false information and neither are you.
Ok hon.
I believe the saying your thoughts don't matter, your actions do, which is what I live and judge others by.
Since that is not your creed, we have nothing to say to each other. Thus, you are summarily muted.
JK could have said nothing and she would have been the most beloved children's author of all time, instead she chose violence. Also, I loved Martha as companion, she was one of the best!