Cancel J.K. Rowling!

[Pixelated]

She has apparently made some comments about trans people that some people don't like. I have now seen people online absolutely frothing at the mouth ("She's a SHIT HUMAN BEING!!") as a result of it. One went so far as to accuse Rowling of being a closet Nazi because of symbols in the movies (I wasn't aware she had a lot of control over the visuals but please correct me if I'm wrong): for example, the goblins look "stereotypically Jewish" and there's reportedly a symbol on the floor of Gringott's Bank that confirms her Nazi tendencies.

I confess I do not know the specifics of her comments. I also don't understand biology well enough to argue for or against her comments, whatever they might be.

Oh, and NOW her latest mystery book has a cis man dressing up as a woman to stalk and kill women. Which I guess proves ... something ...

I swear, people have lost their fucking minds.

[SkullKing]

She did say some stuff that I consider bad. Sand transphobic, and now she writes a book where the villain is a non-trans person who pretends to be the opposite gender to harm women, whihc is one of the more popular anti-trans strawman.

I would say it might not prove anything but does indicate a pattern of behaviour.

Similar to how I can´t really support Orson Scott Card now that I know his views depsite really liking Ender´s game, I cannot in good consicnce support J. K. Rowling or those who support her, despite loving the harry potter books.

sure, some pople take it way too far, but the core argument seem solid to me.

[Pixelated]

Which is the book that has a self-hating trans person be a killer? Not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious as I've read most of her post-Potter books and don't remember reading anything like that.

[SkullKing]

Which is the book that has a self-hating trans person be a killer?

Seems I was wrong. Couple years back I was thinking of starting reading her detective novels and a frend told me this and but I cannot find any evidence of it being true.

Will change my post accordingly

[Pixelated]

Seems I was wrong. Couple years back I was thinking of starting reading her detective novels and a frend told me this and but I cannot find any evidence of it being true.

Will change my post accordingly

Ah, okay. Thank you. I've read a couple of her mystery novels and also her one-off book "A Casual Vacancy" (which definitely had nothing like that) but didn't think any of her mystery novels had such a theme. However, it's been a while since I read them, so ...

[SkullKing]

Ah, okay. Thank you. I've read a couple of her mystery novels and also her one-off book "A Casual Vacancy" (which definitely had nothing like that) but didn't think any of her mystery novels had such a theme. However, it's been a while since I read them, so ...

I talked again with the friend who I recalled telling me that. There isn´t a trans murderer, but a trans character who attempts murder in "The silkworm" which according to her was written transphobically. But this si secodn hand so proabbly take it with a pinch of salt as I should have done earlier.

[jackfaire]

Honestly even sans the Trans stuff I've thought she's kind of messed up in how she thinks since the seventh book came out.

Per her Severus is supposed to be a bad guy who just happens to do the right thing. James Potter is supposed to be a hero.

Yet James is that school bully who picks on socially acceptable targets and thus is the "big man on campus" character that in most movies, TV shows, books etc. would be seen as the villain of a story. While Severus as a child was the constant victim of him merely for being best friends and potential love interest of the girl that James had decided he was going to have no matter what anyone including the girl thought on the matter.

On from that there's the fact that Harry is an abused kid yet literally none of the adults that know Harry's being abused do anything about it.

Her natural train of thought on various things in her books, disturbs me. Not enough to scream "Cancel Rowling!" but enough to acknowledge she's got some problematic opinions. None of them directly affect me or my family though so *shrugs*

[Meg1079]

Honestly even sans the Trans stuff I've thought she's kind of messed up in how she thinks since the seventh book came out.

Per her Severus is supposed to be a bad guy who just happens to do the right thing. James Potter is supposed to be a hero.

Yet James is that school bully who picks on socially acceptable targets and thus is the "big man on campus" character that in most movies, TV shows, books etc. would be seen as the villain of a story. While Severus as a child was the constant victim of him merely for being best friends and potential love interest of the girl that James had decided he was going to have no matter what anyone including the girl thought on the matter.

On from that there's the fact that Harry is an abused kid yet literally none of the adults that know Harry's being abused do anything about it.

Her natural train of thought on various things in her books, disturbs me. Not enough to scream "Cancel Rowling!" but enough to acknowledge she's got some problematic opinions. None of them directly affect me or my family though so *shrugs*

It's been a while since I've read the books, but I think at some point Harry was upset with how his dad had treated Snape in the past, and he realized that his dad had been a bully. On the other hand (unpopular opinion time!) I hated how everyone was suddenly, "Aww, poor Snape was a hero!" at the end of the series (at least, a lot of the people I knew who had read the books thought that). Let's not forget that Snape bullied children while he was at Hogwarts. I don't care if you had a crappy childhood, you don't take it out on your students! I never really liked Snape that much while I was reading the books, so you can take my opinion with a grain of salt.

[Pixelated]

It's been a while since I've read the books, but I think at some point Harry was upset with how his dad had treated Snape in the past, and he realized that his dad had been a bully. On the other hand (unpopular opinion time!) I hated how everyone was suddenly, "Aww, poor Snape was a hero!" at the end of the series (at least, a lot of the people I knew who had read the books thought that). Let's not forget that Snape bullied children while he was at Hogwarts. I don't care if you had a crappy childhood, you don't take it out on your students! I never really liked Snape that much while I was reading the books, so you can take my opinion with a grain of salt.

You're correct. Harry sees Snape's memories of being bullied and publicly humiliated by James and he realizes, to his dismay and horror, that (a) his dad really could be quite the dick, and (b) he actually has something in common with Snape ... both are or have been bullied and ostracized.

I saw this as Rowling's depiction of someone (James) who is not what they seem at first glance. And how hard it can be for those who love that someone to have to admit that. Harry doesn't like it, in fact he's quite miserable with the realization, but he doesn't deny it.

As for Snape, I found him to be a complex character. Yeah, he was a JERK, no question, with the kids, and yet at the same time he put his life on the line for years by being a mole in Voldemort's group of rabid fanatics -- and I'm pretty sure he knew the chances of him coming out of that alive were slim. I think the literary term for somebody like that is "anti-hero." (Definition I found online: "An anti hero, by definition, is a central character who lacks conventional heroic attributes. Some even display qualities that are almost more in line with villains. Traits like conceitedness, immorality, rebellion, and dishonesty signal that the author does not intend the audience to admire the protagonist.")

I talked again with the friend who I recalled telling me that. There isn´t a trans murderer, but a trans character who attempts murder in "The silkworm" which according to her was written transphobically. But this si secodn hand so proabbly take it with a pinch of salt as I should have done earlier.

I've read "The Silkworm" but don't remember that part, but like I said ... it's been quite a while since I've read the mysteries. I'll take a gander at it again when I dig it out of whatever box it's in.

Honestly even sans the Trans stuff I've thought she's kind of messed up in how she thinks since the seventh book came out.

Per her Severus is supposed to be a bad guy who just happens to do the right thing. James Potter is supposed to be a hero.

Yet James is that school bully who picks on socially acceptable targets and thus is the "big man on campus" character that in most movies, TV shows, books etc. would be seen as the villain of a story. While Severus as a child was the constant victim of him merely for being best friends and potential love interest of the girl that James had decided he was going to have no matter what anyone including the girl thought on the matter.

On from that there's the fact that Harry is an abused kid yet literally none of the adults that know Harry's being abused do anything about it.

Her natural train of thought on various things in her books, disturbs me. Not enough to scream "Cancel Rowling!" but enough to acknowledge she's got some problematic opinions. None of them directly affect me or my family though so *shrugs*

We do start out with James getting lauded as just a wonderful guy (mostly by Hagrid) but we do see that picture permanently altered when Harry sees Snape's memories of being publicly humiliated by James.

As for Lily, it was by no means a case of James stealing Lily away, and he certainly didn't assault her or anything like that. Remember that Lily herself rejected Snape when he became too involved in the Death Eaters. And it didn't help when, during his bullying by James, Lily tried to defend him and Snape called her a "Mudblood."

And yes, Harry is an abused kid and nobody does anything about it. This is, unfortunately, reality for a LOT of kids. Parents or guardians who are neglectful if not outright abusive, and neighbours and family who either don't see it (because it's done in private), or see it but refuse to actually SEE it, or convince themselves (as a lot of the Dursleys' neighbours did, IIRC) that the recipient deserves the treatment because they are a rotten kid.

[Gravekeeper]

Fark Rowling too. Rowling and Ted Cruz.

Whargarble.

[Pixelated]

And now I am seeing people saying that her name should be removed from all Harry Potter materials because of the above controversy.

Um ... that's not how the law works. At all.

Gravekeeper: Have to admit, I love "Whargarble" ....

[Gravekeeper]

And now I am seeing people saying that her name should be removed from all Harry Potter materials because of the above controversy.

It's already caused some problems for licensed works. WB's trying to figure out how to develop a Harry Potter game while staying as far away from Rowling as possible. A Harry Potter board game just completely tanked on Kickerstarter as well. Her brand is losing some of it's sheen.

[Pixelated]

It's already caused some problems for licensed works. WB's trying to figure out how to develop a Harry Potter game while staying as far away from Rowling as possible. A Harry Potter board game just completely tanked on Kickerstarter as well. Her brand is losing some of it's sheen.

Hard to know whether it's the trans issue or just ... time.

Or, in the case of that game, the cost. The price of the BASIC game was $120. The fancier edition was $350.

For a board game.

Also, TBH, I was amazed that many of the Potter things that were developed after the movies ended -- sometimes LONG after the movies ended -- were as successful as they were.