Orson Scott card is weird because I know he gets more nuts as the books go on but Lovecraft and HP is debatably filled with tons of problematic themes and such but Speaker for the Dead is possibly the most empathetic book I have ever read as well as anti mormon
He's just mad because his editor made him write Ender's Game to explain what the fuck is going on in Speaker (which he has already written most of) and Game is his best book.
If I could do it over, I probably would have stopped after Speaker. But I'm an unfortunate completionist. Don't forget the Shadow series as it starts as a parallel work and Bean is pretty cool -just don't think about how some of the stuff there undercuts our boy Ender.
Also, the Shadow series gets really into the religious overtones the more the books go on. But I was invested into the underlying stories so I finished them all.
I feel like one of the lucky ones where I stopped after *Speaker*, and only read his "good" books. My school library didn't have any more OSC books other than the first two, which worked out in my favor.
I think I checked out *Xenocide* from my public library a few years later, read 25 pages, had an internal wtf moment, and returned it for one of the Bean books.
It’s been awhile since I’ve read them, but I think 3 was a bit of tear jerker and 4 was ass. I was so disappointed to learn Card was such a backwards thinking douche, I loved Ended and Alvin Maker too.
He's a good example of an author who created something that got away from him. His storytelling in both Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead are VERY reminiscent of Star Trek and the moral stories Gene Rodenberry was telling.
And thank fuck he isn’t alive now, man would be banned from every social media, all that access to outside world would ruin his “isolated agoraphobic” literature too.
But seriously, he’d type 36 slurs a minute.
Great art though.
A stone tablet from an ancient civilization that worshipped a grotesque bird god (long description that hints at Lovecraft being scared when hearing about Aztec people). Inert from a distance as you draw closer its perpetually swirling glyphs slowly corrupt the viewer with obsessions that lead into a variety of inhuman conditions.
All begin with subtle gibbering of a language out of our reality: a man becomes obsessed with attractiveness beginning with strange utterances like “get mogged sub 5 canthal tiltcel” that leads to him destroying his face with a hammer. Some simply spiral into hopelessness while others fixate to the point of violence while going on about knowing of multicolored drugs not created by the hand of man. One, possessed by unnatural urges, creates grotesque frescas of human animal hybrids expanding, defecating, and fornicating.
The main character attempts to throw it into the bottom of the ocean but dies staring at it as the madness overtakes him. Hints at a looming cosmic threat that’s just Lovecraft scared of the concept of globalization throughout.
It helps to separate the art from the artist when they've been dead for 85 years and are not still actively being terrible I'll reevaluate my stance on Rowling when she's been dead for 85 years. .
At least Lovecraft is long dead and his brand of virulent racism isn't as culturally influential anymore. Although there's a few Republicans I could see running with the "black people are all degenerate cultists of an Elder God" talking point.
Did she get more radical, or did her views stay the same and it was the mainstream views that shifted away from that? I don't think 20 years ago she was saying people with penises should be allowed in women's locker rooms, she hasn't changed her views on that. It just that 20 years ago *nobody* thought that. Now for some reason a lot of people seem to think that's perfectly fine.
>or did her views stay the same and it was the mainstream views that shifted away from that?
It still is 100% mainstream in the UK.
Transphobia is basically the only bipartisan belief Labor and Tories have left. The only UK celebrities that have spoken out against her are those currently living or who've spent a decent chunk of their life in the US, like Emma and Daniel.
Compared to say, Evanna Lynch (Luna's actress) who fully supports JK and has basically never set foot out of the UK.
Not just anti-semite, he was pretty much afraid of everyone who wasn't new-england, old blood "aristocracy" with a sunburn if you turn on the light...
He feared indians, native americans, blacks, poor (low bred) whites, tolerant people, arabs, jews etc.
Honestly, I kind of pity the guy. It must be hell to be frightened of everything.
Moreso he was afraid of pretty much everything. Fish, mushrooms, New York City - valid - percussion instruments, fat people...
One book claims he feared monumental architecture, non-Euclidean geometry, dreams, and viscous substances.
Yeah but the twisted thing about his work is it is great because it comes from his uniquely deranged fear of everything, the racism and agoraphobia just added to his crockpot “everything is terrifying” mind.
Terrible human being, utterly brilliantly deranged literary mind.
Lovecraft was racist *for his time and socioeconomic position* though, which is different. We have preserved letter correspondence between him and his friends, where his friends are pretty much "hey man, I read what you wrote about Chinese people and it really freaked me out, have you considered actually getting to know some Chinese people" and he's like "lol absolutely not fuck the chinese". He wasn't just saying things that would be considered offensive on twitter now, he was deeply terrified of other racial groups in a way that was bizarre even then.
Well, there’s ordinary awfulness of the time, and then there’s Lovecraft. Hitler was also of his time but no one is going to excuse him. And in regard to Hitler, Lovecraft wrote:
> “I know he’s a clown but god I like the boy!”
Lovecraft, being dead, isn’t able to take the money you spend on his works and turn it around to propagate a political campaign against anyone that isn’t his special breed of white.
Dude you are paying way more for way worse shit on the daily it's so weird people hyper focus on Rowling. From fast fashion to gas to plastic food containers there are things that damage humanity way more, watching Potter is nothing compared to that.
Yes. I find it's so ridiculous that we're supposed to boycott things only because it's popular to boycott. When like you say, there are 100 worse things that actually hurt real people and our planet.
It’s okay to separate art from artist.
I’ve been listening to the Jim Dale audiobooks to fall asleep since 2005 - don’t plan on stopping any time soon.
Except for Lostprophets, I think
For someone who’s got dodgy political views I might separate the art from the artist… but I feel like we should probably draw the line at (or rather, before…) baby rapists
Used to be my absolute favorite band back then. Saw them live a few times. Wish I could go back to listening to their songs, but... it just doesn't work anymore, after everything that happened. Man.
But I know that I'm not the victim here, for sure.
Its all just so very very sad.
Every once in a while, I allow myself to listen to their first album. He doesn't get any royalties from listening so the guilt isn't too terrible... But I can only make it through one listen and then I'm good for a while. I had so many good memories attached to that album. 😭
Separating the art from the artist is a personal decision.
For instance, one of my favorite movies is *The Usual Suspects*, and between Spacey and the director the special-edition blu-ray should've come packed with a commemorative roofie. But it's so well done and it's filled with such great performances that I can't not go back to it from time to time. To quote Kevin Pollak, that movie was such a lightning-in-a-bottle situation they got a great performance out of *Stephen Baldwin*. I think he did *Bio-Dome* that same year or the year after.
But then Bill Cosby. *Himself* is, in my opinion, one of the greatest comedy concerts ever recorded. It's brilliant. But I can't listen to it, because it's just him up there and all I can wonder about is whether or not he drugged someone that night.
It's okay to still dig the Harry Potter books. Everyone encountered those books at a different point in their life and they made a mark before you learned more about who the author really was. It's okay to not feel obligated to let that go. But if someone else can't enjoy the books because of what JKR is doing to trans folks with her platform, that's okay for them too.
A film is a collaborative effort with thousands of people involved. Besides later Woody Allen movies, I can't fault a film for the director's transgressions.
I can't have anything to do with Cosby myself. Just can't separate because of what he did and what he represented. he was AMERICA'S DAD!
Yeah. *Suspects* absolutely owes a lot of what made it amazing to Spacey and Singer, of course, but *everybody* brought their A-game to that movie. Gabriel Byrne, Pete Postlethwaite, Kevin Pollak, holy shit Benicio del Toro and Stephen Baldwin, Chazz Palminteri and Dan Hedaya as the detectives, even an amazingly young-looking Giancarlo Esposito. It's such a great film I can't give it up even though two of the principals turned out to be shit.
But yeah, Cosby not so much. I could probably recite 90% of *Himself* from memory-- it's the one where it's mostly about his kids, with the chocolate cake story-- but I haven't been able to listen to it once since all that came out.
Are you going to switch to the audio play format for HP that Audible is working on?
What they did with Sandman was awesome so I think HP will be amazing.
Think it’s different for everyone.
Depends on your own values and interpretation of both the art and the artist.
When it comes down to it, a LOT of creators have done “cancelable” things. As a society, we can take a stance for/against artists and set the standard.
Then we can make our own personal decisions.
It's easier when you understand that character doesn't equate competence.
Some people are rotten to the core, but what they do on their work may save more lives than most other, decent people.
-
It works in reverse, also.
Someone can be the most caring and kind nurse you ever met but she constantly misses the hole made in your arm for dialisis when patching it up so every session with her you unecessarily bleed, **a lot.**
Very well said. Better Call Saul did an amazing job exploring that. Here's part of the dialogue:
Mike Ehrmantraut : The lesson is, if you're gonna be a criminal, do your homework.
Price : Wait, I-I'm not a bad guy, I don...
Mike Ehrmantraut : I didn't say you're a bad guy, I said that you're a criminal.
Price : What's the difference?
Mike Ehrmantraut : I've known good criminals and bad cops, bad priests, honorable thieves-you can be on one side of the law or the other, but if you make a deal with somebody, you keep your word. You can go home today with your money and never do this again, but you took something that wasn't yours and you sold it for a profit. You're now a criminal; good one, bad one-that's up to you.
This guy Price was a nerd, collected baseball cards and wouldn't hurt a fly, yet, he was criminal
Jim can legitimately make almost all of the characters sound unique. That was the first thing I fell in love with - he doesn’t just slightly alter his tone - he’ll fully invest in each character’s voice, accent, and speech pattern.
You get used to it after 20 years or so hahahaha.
Even got my girlfriend into it - now she’s the one making sure it’s playing at bedtime!
Just nice and familiar, like having a loved one read you a bedtime story.
It’s also okay for people to criticize giving money to someone who directly is funding the political campaign to exterminate your people.
Separating the art from the artist only works morally when the artist is dead, honestly.
I bought all the books long before the controversy so rereading them gives her no monetary benefits.
I suspect most long term Potter fans are in the same position.
They’re available to non UK residents if you’re on Audible. I got all 7 books as soon as they dropped with my credits
Edit: they ARE available. Mistyped
I think my first instance of this was separating Michael Jackson’s music from him being the artist. I think he had some awesome music even though he was a shithead.
I have a Michael Jackson tattoo on my ankle. When I was little, thriller came out and it was the most amazing thing in the world. I remember Sunday nights he would release his music videos. I was such a huge fan. I don’t exactly still love my tattoo, but I don’t regret it. Everyone knows me as loving Michael Jackson
If you watch leaving neverland and somehow think both men are lying and all the sleepovers with young boys only of a v specific age range in a 30 something man’s bed was innocent, there is undeniable proof (literally paper trails in the form of faxes and prove able phone calls) that of extreme emotional abuse and grooming of v v young kids.
Genuinely curious, where do you land on folks like Roman Polanski or Woody Allen? Does the degree of the offense/crime matter? I find there are certain people where I cannot separate the art from the person and their deeds (e.g. Ian Watkins/Lost Prophets).
It's an interesting question. I think my intellectual position is that it should be separated and I would be fine to watch movies by those two (although Woody Allen films I find generally not good).
I have never listened to Lost Prophets but I guess in that case the offence is so horrific my emotional disgust overrides my intellect.
Yeah, I think I approach it the same as you. The idea makes me a little squeamish, but if I’m being honest with myself, I know I only raise that question when I don’t care too much for the art, anyway.
I never listened to Lost Prophets so it’s a no-brainer for me, but I really loved Louis C.K.’s standup. I know I would listen to new material of his if I came across it, even as I would “look” at him differently.
Thanks for pondering with me!
Not to mention, so often these good things are the collaborative effort of a bunch of people. Entertainment is not a silo type of industry. I can think Roman Polanski is a ~~grade A creep~~ felon on the run, but I won’t let that take away from the incredible project that was Rosemary’s Baby. He doesn’t get to stain the legacy of that film crew’s work.
Yeah, in my experience, it’s mostly the chronically online people that will call you a terrible transphobia because you nostalgically enjoy Harry Potter, lol. People in real life might talk about how it’s awful what J. K. Rowling says, but no one will actually attack you for enjoying Harry Potter.
Yeah, I went to a Harry Potter quiz night at a local pub and it was pretty full. The quizmaster was clearly not equipped to handle that many geeks and nerds.
I had someone verbally attack me for wearing a Ravenclaw sweater to a softball game in the fall of last year. Told me I was a transphobe for supporting JK Rowling
I Still remember when r/Gamingcirclejerk absolutely lost the plot and posted about the Harry Potter game 20 times a minute and banned anyone who didn't agree the game was a Racist, Transphobic Genocide Simulator.
Used to love that sub when it was about making fun of cringe Gamer behavior and then out of nowhere like you said it became nothing but trans discourse nonstop.
The game itself was far from racist or transphobic but it was funny seeing all there conspiracies on why it was, they tried to say the transgender woman in the game was actually transphobic because of her name when in reality they put her in the game to show they were against JK Rowlings views and wanted to separate the art from her.
I HATED the bad faith vitriol surrounding Sirona Ryan. They said JK herself picked the name to mock trans women because it had "Sir" in the name but then when it came out Sirona was a mythical celtic figure they pivoted to say that it didn't matter and her presence doesn't unmake anyone who played it a transphobe.
Went from funny jokes about gaming echo chambers, to being an echo chamber for people that left Tumblr.
Theyre actually responsible for getting my original account banned, several of their mods used multiple accounts to report me for "bigotry and harassment" because I had the gull to ask "why did I get banned from the sub? All I said was that JK had a funny reply"
My original account was entirely clean with no suspensions on it, but since they claimed I was "harassing moderators" after being suspended, reddit just shitcanned the entire account without even looking at our messages.
They harassed Girlfriend Review for reviewing the game. The same Girlfriend Review that they defended when GR was harassed by the TLOU2 subreddit. They are absolutely insane.
Reddit is really the only social media I'm on. I'm still trying to find out what JK Rowling actually said to start this entire controversy. All I can find are opinion pieces that don't actually quote her either saying that she's an amoral piece of shit or that she's totally right for what she said. A little while back there are articles saying Daniel Radcliffe is disappointed in what JK Rowling said... nowhere in the article did it say what she said. All I know is that he's disappointed in what she said. If I ask the question I get down voted by all sides for asking the question because apparently only a person who already agrees/disagrees with what she said what ask that question. I have been heavily involved with the LGBTQ community for 40 years, I was at death beds with AIDS victims in the late 80's and marched in pride parades were cops were looking for violence, but here on Reddit I'm called an anti-trans bigot for simply asking for an objective breakdown of what JK Rowling said and I'm also called a liberal f**** for supporting even the most basic trans rights. Such a weird place.
Sounds like your experience with this mirrors my own quite a bit, any deviation from the established narrative on the topic is viewed as anti-trans bigotry, there's no compromise or middle ground. I won't repeat myself but you can read my other post on my experience [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/self/comments/1d877rk/i_love_harry_potter_and_i_dont_care_what_jk/l788a19/) if you are interested.
I've by no means read all her quotes but my impression from those I did read is that she started out with some rather benign comments that got picked up by the part of the internet always looking for an excuse to be offended who made a huge deal out of it, she took lots of flak and personal attacks because of it which set her off and things escalated and from there. We've all been in arguments where you get heated and say stupid shit out of frustration/anger that you wish you hadn't. I think that's what happened here and it was too late to backtrack and people were attacking her on all sides (including former cast members etc) so she dug in her heels and we got to see her real thoughts on the matter - some which I agree with, some not at all...and then her anger bubbling over and lashing out.
In general, I just really don't understand the all or none view. Example: my Dad is a committed Catholic. Me? I don't believe in the Devil but if he does exist then he is incarnated as the Catholic Church. But no amount of evidence of child abuse, coverups, support of the Nazis, whatever will sway him in the slightest, somehow he's able to put that all aside and still supports the church. I think he's delusional but I still love him and respect him on most other topics. People are complex, as Shrek said they have layers, ypu can't reduce it all to a black v white choice.
I hated reading as a kid and in 5th grade I was forced to read Harry Potter and the half blood prince in 4 days because it was the only possible way I could get enough AR points to pass. I couldn't put it down the second I started reading it and because of that book I became an every day reader. Harry Potter has a special place in my heart because of that
Sometimes we have to decide what we are willing to do and not do. Where our line is.
I'm queer, and while I was never a HP person I empathize with the situation. There is another writer I used to love. His books are some of my absolute favourites. Then he went off the deep end with anti trans stuff just like JKR.
So I decided that I will no longer support him because it might hurt people I love,and people I don't even know but who's humanity I respect.
For me this means that I don't give him money. I don't buy anything new he puts out. Or old,for that matter, if it's a first sale. Idont recommend his books or even say his name to anyone. I have kept the booksi already have. I can still have and enjoy those books without giving his bullshit any support.
And that's how I look at HP fans. You guys didn't sign up for her bullshit. You have your books, and whatever you had before she lost it. I will not ever judge that. I will, however, sideeye someone who pays her *now* knowing what we know.
At the end of the day it's each person's choice,but it pays to be aware of the pain of people in your community and how you could or could not contribute to that.
Lmao OP really buried the lede here.
“Yeah I actually have no problem separating the art from the artist because I, too, am a rampant transphobe and agree with what she says.”
Transphobic gays, you hate to see it!!
The JKR situation stings so much. I was that lonely kid who could relate to being ousted with mean guardians who took unjust frustrations out on you. I loved and adored every one of Harry's adventures, and I wanted to *be* Harry so bad. To rise above, be brave, and do the right thing as much as I could.
Honestly, HP got me through so, so much. Which is why it's so hard for me to reconcile that it's author considers me, a fan who she struck such a chord with, is a fundamental problem to society. It just... sucks. In a lot of ways HP carried me through difficult adolescent years, and it feels JKR kicked me down the stairs as an adult.
I still have all the HP merch I bought. I look at it with a bittersweet lense. "Thanks for saving my life, now please stop trying to ruin it."
You realize you can hate the author and denounce her horrid beliefs without giving up the books and movies, right? Liking Harry Potter doesn't make you a problem. Saying you don't care about what she says does.
There's nothing wrong with still enjoying something despite who happened to create it. And for my money, whatever Rowling herself may do or say is sufficiently countered by the kind of people Radcliffe et al have grown up to become. So no criticisms there.
But I do kind of take issue with this comment:
> JK Rowling herself has never physically laid a hand on anyone to literally hurt them
Harm doesn't begin and end with physically putting hands on someone yourself. Rowling has a huge, huge platform, and her sustained campaign is plainly one of the driving forces behind the current media shitstorm directed at trans people. A lot of very vile people are marching to the beat of _her_ drum. Violent attacks against trans people are on the rise. I'm not suggesting that's her actual intention, but it's naive in the extreme to suggest that we can't draw a direct line from her actions to real, tangible harm done to trans people.
If your position is "I don't care who made this stuff, I still enjoy it" then that's fine - really, it is. But don't kid yourself about what she's responsible for.
We took our daughter to see the 20th re-release of the Prisoner of Azkeban in the Cineworld 4DX cinema in Cardiff on the weekend (She's been obsessed with HP since she was 7)
It was fucking amazing!
Nothing more to add.
You are free to live your life how you want. But imagine for a minute if JK Rowling was saying all the same stuff, but her target was gay men, and her country was passing laws to discriminate against gay men that she championed, would you still think she wasn't hurting anyone?
Gay men not giving a shit about trans people is pretty standard. I’m not sure why you think that would matter. She loves people like you. She fully supports your right to exist. It’s trans people that she believes are predators by nature.
Poorly written? Is that a new complaint by people? Genuine question. I grew up with the books and while they are definitely for kids they still seem like solid writing. It was very easy to read and hooked me from the first paragraph. I don’t think they are classic literature but I’m also not going to say they are badly written just because of Rowling’s views.
I came to say this. Stephen King is massively opposed to Rowling’s political views, but has specifically mentioned her as a fantastic writer. It’s one thing to have a distaste for the lady’s points of view, but those books are fantastic and that can’t be taken away from her.
Absolutely. I just got a friend into HP because I wanted him to play Hogwarts Legacy (which he loved) and felt that he needs the proper background. He has tried reading the first book when it was still the new thing many years ago, and thought it was silly because he was into high fantasy at the time (and the translation wasn't great). He is very, very picky with media he engages with - aesthetics, writing, linguistics, *everything*. There are a lot of things I don't even bother recommending to him because I know he's going to just find them boring or stupid. (Which is fine - tastes differ.) Basically, he's an *extremely* discerning person and never holds back his criticism of anything. I fully expected him to either lose interest after the first book again or just barely get through the series to get enough context for the game.
Nope. He fucking loved them. Re-read them several times, keeps bringing up creative vocabulary JKR used throughout the books, enjoys the humour. And it's not like he's blind to plot holes, either. But he fully recognizes that it's a very, very well written book series that gained its fame for a reason and completely deserves it.
It’s definitely well written in terms of being an engaging story, but it’s always been a very poor example of world building, there are *so many things* that don’t make sense and were clearly thrown in by Rowling without real consideration (Quidditch, the tiny wizard population, time turners, the marauders map, wizard transport, no primary education for Pure Bloods etc)
I mean, some things aren’t just imperfect, they are horribly flawed to the point it’s like why did she even write that. But it can be endearing in a way. Like the Quidditch rules are so idiotic, but they kinda add to it in a way.
Genuinely wondering why these things don't make sense to you? I get that they are not the most logical ways to structure a world but it's completely believable to me that Quidditch is a stupid sport and still popular, that most pure bloods homeschool, etc etc... I feel like there are so many things in our actual world that have as many or more idiosyncrasies and illogicalities.
The rule/function of the golden snitch in quidditch is stupid and completely ruins what would otherwise be an awesome sport to watch.
Imagine if in basketball each team had a player out in the parking lot trying to catch a frog for the win. Youre watching a great game that's been neck and neck and then suddenly the buzzer sounds half way through. "The games over, Ramirez has just got the parking lot frog"
Copy pasted that from another Reddit post, but that’s basically my point.
That's incredibly stupid - which is why it fits *perfectly* into this wizarding world where everyone is just *fucking stupid*. And why is everyone so fucking stupid? Because they don't get basic education and instead make careers out of researching rubber duckies.
Like, that is obviously a rather contrived explanation for something really stupid... but yea, if the wizards in this world didn't have magic, they'd be eating roaches off the floor, so I can totally see them totally not seeing anything wrong with a game where the guy with the faster broom can just randomly win you the game you've been losing *hard* for the last 30 minutes.
For all of that, this is exactly why I liked the quidditch World Cup. Here’s a match where the pros are just going hard on each other. Krum says f it and catches the snitch even though it would lose them the match. I mean, 150 sounds like a lot. Till the match has been going for 5 days and the score is 920-410. I mean it’s dumb but also fun. Not even slightly a bad rule. Might be a game winner in school but maybe not so much in the real.
All because her views ruined the series for others, doesn't mean it has to ruin it for you. My opinion is: as long as you don't share her views and recognise the flaws in the subtext of her writing, enjoy it. Her views have ruined the series for me, but there are plenty of things I enjoy by awful people. Deciding whether to separate the art from the artist is a very personal decision.
Not to mention 90% of super famous franchises have questionable people behind them. Acknowledging and condemning those harmful views is all that matters, to be honest.
**EDIT:** After seeing your comment blaming trans people for the current wave of transphobia ("trans people are making it worse for themselves at this point"), I highly doubt this is just about liking HP. How disappointing.
Just a reminder that JKR hated Slytherins and locked all of them in the dungeons during the Battle of Hogwarts because she generalised them all as Wizard Nazi sympathisers. She used Pansy Parkinson, one of the more prominent female Slytherins, to prop her self-insert (Hermione) up as a character to empathise with, giving no nuance whatsoever because Slytherin = evil. Considering the content of your replies, she'd most likely dub you a Gryffindor, and that's not a compliment.
I thoroughly enjoyed all the harry potter books, but they are not particularly well written. The stories are very compelling, but the actual prose is simplistic, clunky, and repetitive, the worldbuilding is sloppy and derivative, and the plots are often poorly constructed and fleshed out.
And it's an incredibly cliche story with an exciting setting.
The world building of Hogwarts and The Wizarding World really is neat and fun for the most part (ignore the terrible implications of the Goblins). It's why it makes for compelling theme park rides. And what kid wouldn't want to go to a beautiful magic boarding school with great food and friends and new sports and adventures? So it's very approachable for teen readers, and that has turned into a nostalgia effect for adults who read it when they were young and impressionable. Which totally makes sense.
BUT the story is so unoriginal. There is an objectively evil big bad evil guy (BBEG) who has secret Nazi followers. He died years ago but "somehow he returned!". And the Chosen One is a teen who has to save them through the power of friendship and the advice of mentors who all sacrifice themselves for him at convenient times.
And the Chosen One is a trust fund natural jock who grows up to be an in-universe cop and marry his high school sweetheart who is his best friend's little sister.
All while meeting people named "Cho Chang" and "Seamus McFinnigan". As a Middle Eastern person I'm surprised there wasn't an "Persia al-Sultan" character to go along with the trite naming theme.
So I understand the sentiment and I believe one can separate the art from the artist sometimes but I want to push back on a specific thing you said.
“As long as JK Rowling herself has never physically laid a hand on anyone to literally hurt them, I don’t care what her political opinions are.”
That’s an absurdly low bar. Every system of oppression relies on the support of people who couldn’t bear to hurt a fly. There are literal war criminals who clear that metric by virtue of never laying hands on their victims directly.
She’s not lynching trans women.
cool.
MOST people aren’t doing physical violence on minority groups.
She is a strong advocate for people who want to make sure trans people have less rights than others and she supports anti-trans groups with her money which is, I cannot stress this enough, the money you give her when you buy her merch.
She doesn’t just have bad opinions, she’s an insanely wealthy and famous person who, at least in part, uses that wealth and fame to advocate that some people deserve less than others. It may be a losing battle she’s fighting but that doesn’t mean she’s not actively causing harm.
Im tired of people saying Harry Potter is poorly written. It’s not Nabokov, but get off your pretentious high horse, the prose is very effective for telling a riveting tale targeted towards children and teenagers.
Oh there’s a few plot holes or word building errors or whatever, who cares, the world itself is intoxicatingly interesting and rich, which is why it captivates so many people.
People hate on Harry Potter for all these reasons, but these books are absolutely deserving of their bestselling status and introduced a generation of kids to reading. They are full of moral values that are pretty universally decent, regardless of what JKR became.
Sure, just like plenty of people vote against their own best interests.
Unlike voting, though, there are ways to enjoy problematic content without giving someone money, influence, or the power to perpetuate their harm.
🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️
Look, you can do that and its all fine, the people are all still praising and cheering to iShowSpeed or Logan Paul, even tho both are high level criminal scammer. You can praise and love whatever you like. That is how the world works.
It is just sad that we really actually give those people who destroy our society the blessing doing so. This is the reason why we cant have nice things. But hey, whatever you like, just please, stop complaining about any kind of hate you get as gay, cause that is the result of letting people be fine with praising everything.
You need to drop the "as long as she hasn't physically laid hands on someone" bit.
Either you're separating art from artist (which I can understand) or you are not. I guarantee you she has caused/contributed to a great amount of violence and whether she has done the deed with her own two hands or not really shouldn't be the line you draw.
Yeah, this was where they lost me. Saying that you don't care what JK Rowling does because you're separating the art from the artist is one thing. Admitting that you *do* care what Rowling does, you just don't think transphobia is a big deal, is another thing.
You’re allowed to like what you want but being a gay dude doesn’t really mean anything when her bigotry is pretty specifically targeted towards trans people. I grew up with Harry Potter, it was a massive part of my childhood, but I can’t enjoy it anymore because the political views she promotes directly hurts me, it doesn’t directly affect you.
I see no issue with you wanting to keep something that means something to you. That's totally fine and if you are happy to separate the artist from the art then that's fine.
>As long as JK Rowling herself has never physically laid a hand on anyone to literally hurt them, I don’t care what her political opinions are.
This, I take issue with. She had done very real, actual harm to the trans community. She's shaped the global conversation and her words have been used to justify anti trans laws that restrict trans lives. By all means, separate the art from the artist but saying that's because she hasn't crossed the line into actual harm is incorrect and you should come to terms with that.
This is so sad.
You can like the IP all you want, no one cares..
But To say that you don’t care about how someone with so much influence is so HARMFUL to a community that you yourself is a part of is brain breaking.
It’s a weird cope that she would have to lay a hand on someone for you to physically hurt them in order for your opinions to change about her. You can just leave that out and leave it at you’re separating the art from the artist but instead you went the route of approving how shitty she is. Shame.
I'm queer. I still enjoy the Harry Potter series even though the author should crawl into a cave without wifi and stay there.
However I shut the hell up about the series on social because it's painful now for so many people. I'd rather the trans people in my life didn't think I was aligning with such a horrible human being, or choosing her over them.
Embracing the identity of known bad guys really makes it seem like supporting a flagrant transphobe is your point, though--seems like that's your goal and you want people to know. Otherwise you could also just shut the hell up about it.
I’m trans and I used to do the same. I still liked it for what it meant to me and I tried to hold on to that privately. At some point, it just completely turned sour (I think it was her Holocaust oopsie) and I finally dumped all of my books — to say it in the language of Potterheads: she has not just created but sold 600 Million Horcruxes, and I have destroyed seven of them
> I'd rather the trans people in my life didn't think I was aligning with such a horrible human being, or choosing her over them.
I'm a straight dude and that's also my position.
I don't want to be associated with the crowd she's been pulling these last years, so Harry Potter doesn't exist to me. Simple as that.
this exactly! the issue is when people brandish the fact that they still consume harry potter content like it's some kind of own. it's gross and makes you look like a transphobe.
Some of the top comments on this thread make me think I’m going insane.
OP is “bravely” taking the stance that they don’t care about any on the hateful rhetoric from JKR because… they’re gay? Not even the group that she’s legit fighting against?
Talk about a shit opinion from OP. If they just said “I still love the books and HP”, I’d totally find that in their right. But tripling down that they “do not care” about JKR makes them sound like an entitled asshole.
You could just shut up and read your stuff and watch your movies in peace. Yes people might have a problem with it as is their right to.
But it’s the need to broadcast that you’re doing it that gives you the asshole vibes. The money you give her in royalties if you buy new products she uses to fund political campaign and lobby for laws that harm lgbt people. That’s just a fact. I just don’t get the whole making this thread to say this.
Just makes you come across as an ass. You could have just watched the movie on a Tuesday night in peace. Instead you’re here announcing to the internet .
It's okay for you to decide that you are fine supporting her, but it's not great to refuse to acknowledge the damage she does to your community. Not physically laying a hand on someone doesn't change the amount of money she has put directly towards hurting people.
Those books came out when I was the same age as the characters in them, I read along and grew up with them. For me the big draw was that it was the first time people weren't making fun of me for reading so much, everyone was reading them. I felt like people finally "got" why I liked to read. Obviously this is long before J.K. decided to reveal herself so I (like many others) had to come to terms with how I personally felt about things after loving the series for a big portion of my life. I still love the books, they are like an old friend, but I chose not to engage in a way that financially benefits her. Because this isn't a case of an author being a product of their time and long gone, she is actively continually using her platform to spread hatred and misinformation.
So, again, I think you get to choose for yourself, and it's fine that you've chosen this. But it would be healthy to accept what she is, not pretend these are just a difference in political opinions, or that it's not hurting anyone to support her.
They aren't poorly written in retrospect. That's bullshit made up by people who don't like her.
She's not a good person but plenty of people who make things also aren't
Come on, Bro. You and I both know you ain't described how a Slytherin would act.
Whole post about how personal comfort matters more than any other principle and you're out here pretending you ain't Hufflepuff all the way through.
Depends on your interpretation of raising a hand to harm someone
I would personally say using influence and resources to target an already marginalised group with ceaseless appeals that they don't deserve respect or recognition constitutes harming someone.
You can decide to separate whatever you want from whomever you wish, just as everyone else is free to judge you from doing so.
Hogwarts legacy looked great, but as someone with a trans SO and trans friends who would be hurt by my choice to support an IP that belongs to proactive bigot, I chose to side with who was more important to me and I don't regret that choice at all.
It’s not wonder we have such a bad reputation in the gay community. The way you can’t even support our trans community members by letting go of this bullshit?
Are the books poorly written though? seriously? Does anyone have examples? The only thing I found weird was in the first book where it describes some sort of old camera in the dersleys house or something, which is an odd thing to have in 1990.
You think it’s poorly written?! That’s interesting, I never have thought they were but also I have only ever listened to them in audiobook form with the British narrator. I also will never stop loving Harry Potter, don’t care about JK Rowlings political opinions.
The poorly written bit is a common refrain for those trying to shame people who like it. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny because you have to be a pedant to care about all the little plot holes and inconsistencies in the first place.
OP: I don't care about JK's politics! (read: transphobia)
Also OP: Goes into paragraphs-long rants defending JK's transphobia and rambling about pronouns.
Might be hard to see, given that the mods cleaned up his comments but not the post itself, but just check his history. It's utterly unsurprising when people make "apolitical" posts that they really just don't want you questioning their politics.
Since about the late 1990s. It wasn't even debated back then. "Lively kid's fantasy crossed with a school novel, good fare for its age group, but stylistically ordinary, imaginatively derivative, and ethically rather mean-spirited". With a side of "not that creative, you just haven't seen a British school before". Which is okay. As long as we don't pretend it's some Lois Lowry level fine writing
I'll take your JK Rowling and raise you a Lovecraft
I ante with Orson Scott Card
Orson Scott card is weird because I know he gets more nuts as the books go on but Lovecraft and HP is debatably filled with tons of problematic themes and such but Speaker for the Dead is possibly the most empathetic book I have ever read as well as anti mormon
Card just hates Ender so much. He really did that dude dirty.
He's just mad because his editor made him write Ender's Game to explain what the fuck is going on in Speaker (which he has already written most of) and Game is his best book.
Nah Speaker blows Game out of the water. But his editor is correct, without the context of Game, Speaker makes no sense
They are both their own kinds of masterpieces. One being sci fi one being philosophical
I have only read the first two books, I still need to finish 3 and 4
If I could do it over, I probably would have stopped after Speaker. But I'm an unfortunate completionist. Don't forget the Shadow series as it starts as a parallel work and Bean is pretty cool -just don't think about how some of the stuff there undercuts our boy Ender.
Also, the Shadow series gets really into the religious overtones the more the books go on. But I was invested into the underlying stories so I finished them all.
I feel like one of the lucky ones where I stopped after *Speaker*, and only read his "good" books. My school library didn't have any more OSC books other than the first two, which worked out in my favor. I think I checked out *Xenocide* from my public library a few years later, read 25 pages, had an internal wtf moment, and returned it for one of the Bean books.
I always tell people to do Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, Ender's Shadow, and leave it at that.
It’s been awhile since I’ve read them, but I think 3 was a bit of tear jerker and 4 was ass. I was so disappointed to learn Card was such a backwards thinking douche, I loved Ended and Alvin Maker too.
He's a good example of an author who created something that got away from him. His storytelling in both Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead are VERY reminiscent of Star Trek and the moral stories Gene Rodenberry was telling.
Lovecract is dead and doesn't have Twitter
He is alive, for that is not dead which can eternal lie
fucking based
L̵̛̮̗͖̰͓̫̜̜̎̎̂̎́̈́͒͌͗̑̃̈̚͘͘o̶̡̨̢̡̪̖̻̩͕̮͓̺͖̝̘̱̰̎̉̓̔͆̽͋̂͐͐̑̏̌̕͘͘ṽ̸̖͈͔͕̞͇͆͐̏̐͐͛̏́̈̈͋͛̚͠ề̵̛̹̠̬͋̐̽̄͌́͐͛̌̉͘͝c̷̢̲̼͓̼̱̹̑͋ͅr̷̠̭͖̗̝̯̙̰͙̜͗́͂ḁ̵̛͖̠̟̮̄̀̊̓̔͐̉̀͒̕c̷̢̧̛͇͙̦̬͙̰̣̥̠̤̘̜͘t̶̠̠͍̥͖̳̥̹̞̤̯̺̭̼̬̳́̂͐̈́͋̋̓̕͜͝ ̵̨̨̼̦͚̟̺̩̩̫̠͖͐̈́̋̀͆́̃̑̾͑̚͘͜ͅͅḯ̴̭̳̪̩̣̰̙͑͛̈́̈͌̓̇̑̀̍̿̌͘͝͠ś̶̢̮̮̹̹̬͈͙͊̀̎̍̈́̓̋͝ ̵͉̣̗̩̰͖̝̱̮̩̥̄͐ď̷̢̙͎̗̰̼̯̥̻̣̉̑͐̕͜ͅe̷̡̩͈̣̝̗̹͙̦̲͇̐̚a̶̡̗̣̳̝̰͓̺̫̼̞̺̩̯̣̾͊͑̊̀̆͋͆͐̑̽͆̀̏̌͘͜͝d̸͔͙͎͊̍̆ ̴̢͍̰̼͎̻̀̓̂̅̈́̇̅̌͋̒́̀͑͒̚̚ą̸̰̖̰̱͓͖̉͌̍͒̓̓̈́͋̈̆̒̈́̽́̚͘̕n̷̪̻̔́͌̀d̴̡̛̘̳̤̈̑̀͒͂̍̇͆̇̕͘͘ ̸̱̒̏͐̽̐̒͗̽̏̎̅͂̊͘͘͘ḑ̶̪̯̜͈̥̰̮̪̮͓͎̫̬͒̃͒̚ớ̶̘͇͋ê̵͕̺͙͎͚͚͒́̀̐͑̆͗̄̔̑̈́̕s̶̨͖̘̪̺̪͍͉̦͓̳̣̣͉̝͐́̿̐͜͜n̵̨̧̞̦̈̐̐͜'̵̲̰̰̼̫͉͍̤̤̟͍͍̣͎̖̉͋͑̓͜͝ṱ̶̞͇̦̦̝͎̘͂̏̀̾͐̽̈́̊̒̎͋͒̋̾̓͘͜͠ ̵̡̢̟̯̞̤̱̫̝̜͒̀͗͆̿̂̒̎̐̐̃̆̚͝h̸̪̦̼̞̝͈́̆̉̉͑͂͠ā̸̡̹͑̈́̋͒̉̆̓̈́̃̊̐͆̉̚͠͠v̴̡̨̯͓͓͍̥͆̑e̶͍͍̫̫͚̥͇̱̻̭̰̣̻̟̲͔̎͒͜͝ ̷̢̛̩͙̻͓̼͈̿̇̿̄͗̔̏̈́̍̀͑̚T̸̢̪̖̟̲̟̩͉̈́w̵̢̛̪͓̭̦̾͑̇̏̈́̈́̾͊̓̌̒̂͠ì̴̧̨̨̡̨͔̝̞̲̮̭̲̳͚͍͋͊̋͛͑͗͂ͅẗ̵̢͎̞̳͈̝̮̮̱̰̹̤͕̻̗t̵̮͙͎͕̥͓̗̱̳͍͓̪̅̓̎̔̃̃̀̍̈́̓̍̾͋̆̚͜͠e̶̳̰̅͊͒̈́̈́́͘ȑ̴̢̳̘͉̜̺̩̈́͊̂̃̈͊͝
Damn. Well played.
And with strange aeons even death may die.
And thank fuck he isn’t alive now, man would be banned from every social media, all that access to outside world would ruin his “isolated agoraphobic” literature too. But seriously, he’d type 36 slurs a minute. Great art though.
No way, he would be afraid of the magic internet box
Facts. He was racist, don't get me wrong, but that was just a subset of his general phobia of everything.
A stone tablet from an ancient civilization that worshipped a grotesque bird god (long description that hints at Lovecraft being scared when hearing about Aztec people). Inert from a distance as you draw closer its perpetually swirling glyphs slowly corrupt the viewer with obsessions that lead into a variety of inhuman conditions. All begin with subtle gibbering of a language out of our reality: a man becomes obsessed with attractiveness beginning with strange utterances like “get mogged sub 5 canthal tiltcel” that leads to him destroying his face with a hammer. Some simply spiral into hopelessness while others fixate to the point of violence while going on about knowing of multicolored drugs not created by the hand of man. One, possessed by unnatural urges, creates grotesque frescas of human animal hybrids expanding, defecating, and fornicating. The main character attempts to throw it into the bottom of the ocean but dies staring at it as the madness overtakes him. Hints at a looming cosmic threat that’s just Lovecraft scared of the concept of globalization throughout.
I’m certain at least one or two social media platforms would allow him…in the name of “free speech.”
By his death Lovecraft was writing letters about how his earlier views were embarrassing and calling himself a socialist
It helps to separate the art from the artist when they've been dead for 85 years and are not still actively being terrible I'll reevaluate my stance on Rowling when she's been dead for 85 years. .
At least Lovecraft is long dead and his brand of virulent racism isn't as culturally influential anymore. Although there's a few Republicans I could see running with the "black people are all degenerate cultists of an Elder God" talking point.
Unlike JK he got less radical as he aged, not more.
Didn't he name his cat the n word
IIRC his dad named it and I never said he wasn't a vile racist, he was starting to get less racist in his final years but he died young
Did she get more radical, or did her views stay the same and it was the mainstream views that shifted away from that? I don't think 20 years ago she was saying people with penises should be allowed in women's locker rooms, she hasn't changed her views on that. It just that 20 years ago *nobody* thought that. Now for some reason a lot of people seem to think that's perfectly fine.
>or did her views stay the same and it was the mainstream views that shifted away from that? It still is 100% mainstream in the UK. Transphobia is basically the only bipartisan belief Labor and Tories have left. The only UK celebrities that have spoken out against her are those currently living or who've spent a decent chunk of their life in the US, like Emma and Daniel. Compared to say, Evanna Lynch (Luna's actress) who fully supports JK and has basically never set foot out of the UK.
At least he’s dead - he’s not funding bigoted causes.
Also he died alone, poor, starving, and in an immense amount of pain. He didn’t live to see much success.
Right. He was an anti-Semite but never had the money or power to harm anyone.
Not just anti-semite, he was pretty much afraid of everyone who wasn't new-england, old blood "aristocracy" with a sunburn if you turn on the light... He feared indians, native americans, blacks, poor (low bred) whites, tolerant people, arabs, jews etc. Honestly, I kind of pity the guy. It must be hell to be frightened of everything.
Moreso he was afraid of pretty much everything. Fish, mushrooms, New York City - valid - percussion instruments, fat people... One book claims he feared monumental architecture, non-Euclidean geometry, dreams, and viscous substances.
Actually by the time he died youd be hard pressed to call him an anti semite. He married a jewish woman and denounced the nazi regime.
It was a different time. Go back more than 75 years and everyone was terrible by today's standards
Lovecraft was terrible by the standards of his time
Yeah but the twisted thing about his work is it is great because it comes from his uniquely deranged fear of everything, the racism and agoraphobia just added to his crockpot “everything is terrifying” mind. Terrible human being, utterly brilliantly deranged literary mind.
Lovecraft was racist *for his time and socioeconomic position* though, which is different. We have preserved letter correspondence between him and his friends, where his friends are pretty much "hey man, I read what you wrote about Chinese people and it really freaked me out, have you considered actually getting to know some Chinese people" and he's like "lol absolutely not fuck the chinese". He wasn't just saying things that would be considered offensive on twitter now, he was deeply terrified of other racial groups in a way that was bizarre even then.
His friends and contemporaries were telling him to tone it down *at the time*
Well, there’s ordinary awfulness of the time, and then there’s Lovecraft. Hitler was also of his time but no one is going to excuse him. And in regard to Hitler, Lovecraft wrote: > “I know he’s a clown but god I like the boy!”
Lovecraft, being dead, isn’t able to take the money you spend on his works and turn it around to propagate a political campaign against anyone that isn’t his special breed of white.
Dude you are paying way more for way worse shit on the daily it's so weird people hyper focus on Rowling. From fast fashion to gas to plastic food containers there are things that damage humanity way more, watching Potter is nothing compared to that.
Yes. I find it's so ridiculous that we're supposed to boycott things only because it's popular to boycott. When like you say, there are 100 worse things that actually hurt real people and our planet.
I bought the books over a decade ago. No one is getting any money lmao.
What's Rowling done? Who's she funded and what did she say?
It’s okay to separate art from artist. I’ve been listening to the Jim Dale audiobooks to fall asleep since 2005 - don’t plan on stopping any time soon.
The way you phrased that made me worried Jim Dale did something awful
He could never - man is a global treasure.
Dale is bae
I mean, he did come out as gay while being a boy scout leader. /s I did too and had to search "Jim Dale Controversy" and that came up.
I mean, his Hermione voice...
Except for Lostprophets, I think For someone who’s got dodgy political views I might separate the art from the artist… but I feel like we should probably draw the line at (or rather, before…) baby rapists
Used to be my absolute favorite band back then. Saw them live a few times. Wish I could go back to listening to their songs, but... it just doesn't work anymore, after everything that happened. Man. But I know that I'm not the victim here, for sure. Its all just so very very sad.
Every once in a while, I allow myself to listen to their first album. He doesn't get any royalties from listening so the guilt isn't too terrible... But I can only make it through one listen and then I'm good for a while. I had so many good memories attached to that album. 😭
Separating the art from the artist is a personal decision. For instance, one of my favorite movies is *The Usual Suspects*, and between Spacey and the director the special-edition blu-ray should've come packed with a commemorative roofie. But it's so well done and it's filled with such great performances that I can't not go back to it from time to time. To quote Kevin Pollak, that movie was such a lightning-in-a-bottle situation they got a great performance out of *Stephen Baldwin*. I think he did *Bio-Dome* that same year or the year after. But then Bill Cosby. *Himself* is, in my opinion, one of the greatest comedy concerts ever recorded. It's brilliant. But I can't listen to it, because it's just him up there and all I can wonder about is whether or not he drugged someone that night. It's okay to still dig the Harry Potter books. Everyone encountered those books at a different point in their life and they made a mark before you learned more about who the author really was. It's okay to not feel obligated to let that go. But if someone else can't enjoy the books because of what JKR is doing to trans folks with her platform, that's okay for them too.
A film is a collaborative effort with thousands of people involved. Besides later Woody Allen movies, I can't fault a film for the director's transgressions. I can't have anything to do with Cosby myself. Just can't separate because of what he did and what he represented. he was AMERICA'S DAD!
Yeah. *Suspects* absolutely owes a lot of what made it amazing to Spacey and Singer, of course, but *everybody* brought their A-game to that movie. Gabriel Byrne, Pete Postlethwaite, Kevin Pollak, holy shit Benicio del Toro and Stephen Baldwin, Chazz Palminteri and Dan Hedaya as the detectives, even an amazingly young-looking Giancarlo Esposito. It's such a great film I can't give it up even though two of the principals turned out to be shit. But yeah, Cosby not so much. I could probably recite 90% of *Himself* from memory-- it's the one where it's mostly about his kids, with the chocolate cake story-- but I haven't been able to listen to it once since all that came out.
Are you going to switch to the audio play format for HP that Audible is working on? What they did with Sandman was awesome so I think HP will be amazing.
Is it though? Does it depend on the artist or do you separate all art from the artist?
Think it’s different for everyone. Depends on your own values and interpretation of both the art and the artist. When it comes down to it, a LOT of creators have done “cancelable” things. As a society, we can take a stance for/against artists and set the standard. Then we can make our own personal decisions.
[удалено]
It's easier when you understand that character doesn't equate competence. Some people are rotten to the core, but what they do on their work may save more lives than most other, decent people. - It works in reverse, also. Someone can be the most caring and kind nurse you ever met but she constantly misses the hole made in your arm for dialisis when patching it up so every session with her you unecessarily bleed, **a lot.**
Very well said. Better Call Saul did an amazing job exploring that. Here's part of the dialogue: Mike Ehrmantraut : The lesson is, if you're gonna be a criminal, do your homework. Price : Wait, I-I'm not a bad guy, I don... Mike Ehrmantraut : I didn't say you're a bad guy, I said that you're a criminal. Price : What's the difference? Mike Ehrmantraut : I've known good criminals and bad cops, bad priests, honorable thieves-you can be on one side of the law or the other, but if you make a deal with somebody, you keep your word. You can go home today with your money and never do this again, but you took something that wasn't yours and you sold it for a profit. You're now a criminal; good one, bad one-that's up to you. This guy Price was a nerd, collected baseball cards and wouldn't hurt a fly, yet, he was criminal
Thriller is good. MJ is bad.
Same but with Stephen Fry
Would this also apply with Chris Brown's music?
Jim Dale or bust, all other narrators are subpar.
Jim can legitimately make almost all of the characters sound unique. That was the first thing I fell in love with - he doesn’t just slightly alter his tone - he’ll fully invest in each character’s voice, accent, and speech pattern.
Have you ever seen Pushing Daisies? He is the narrator in it and he makes the show and tone magical
You obviously haven’t heard Stephen Fry’s version.
stephen fry beats jim dale hands down. jim fails simply by how he says harry in the worst fucking way.
How do you fall asleep with his Hermione screeching in your ears? Lol
You get used to it after 20 years or so hahahaha. Even got my girlfriend into it - now she’s the one making sure it’s playing at bedtime! Just nice and familiar, like having a loved one read you a bedtime story.
Haaaarrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
It’s also okay for people to criticize giving money to someone who directly is funding the political campaign to exterminate your people. Separating the art from the artist only works morally when the artist is dead, honestly.
or they've already sold the right
I bought all the books long before the controversy so rereading them gives her no monetary benefits. I suspect most long term Potter fans are in the same position.
Considering the Stephen Fry audiobooks aren't available and i have to 🏴☠️ them, I'm in the same boat.
They’re available to non UK residents if you’re on Audible. I got all 7 books as soon as they dropped with my credits Edit: they ARE available. Mistyped
I adore the last 4 books and read them every few years. Someone above said about separating the art from the artist and I think that’s ok.
I think my first instance of this was separating Michael Jackson’s music from him being the artist. I think he had some awesome music even though he was a shithead.
Eric Clapton is a racist, Led Zeppelin slept with underage girls, Louis CK is a sex pest. I am not ignoring great art because the artist were immoral.
Michael Jackson was at least suspected of some questionable stuff too. I don't know if it was ever proven though. Billie Jean is still a great song.
> Billie Jean I remember seeing it on MTV for the first time, and being blown away.
I have a Michael Jackson tattoo on my ankle. When I was little, thriller came out and it was the most amazing thing in the world. I remember Sunday nights he would release his music videos. I was such a huge fan. I don’t exactly still love my tattoo, but I don’t regret it. Everyone knows me as loving Michael Jackson
“Some questionable stuff” is one hell of a euphemism for pedophilia
If you watch leaving neverland and somehow think both men are lying and all the sleepovers with young boys only of a v specific age range in a 30 something man’s bed was innocent, there is undeniable proof (literally paper trails in the form of faxes and prove able phone calls) that of extreme emotional abuse and grooming of v v young kids.
Genuinely curious, where do you land on folks like Roman Polanski or Woody Allen? Does the degree of the offense/crime matter? I find there are certain people where I cannot separate the art from the person and their deeds (e.g. Ian Watkins/Lost Prophets).
It's an interesting question. I think my intellectual position is that it should be separated and I would be fine to watch movies by those two (although Woody Allen films I find generally not good). I have never listened to Lost Prophets but I guess in that case the offence is so horrific my emotional disgust overrides my intellect.
Yeah, I think I approach it the same as you. The idea makes me a little squeamish, but if I’m being honest with myself, I know I only raise that question when I don’t care too much for the art, anyway. I never listened to Lost Prophets so it’s a no-brainer for me, but I really loved Louis C.K.’s standup. I know I would listen to new material of his if I came across it, even as I would “look” at him differently. Thanks for pondering with me! Not to mention, so often these good things are the collaborative effort of a bunch of people. Entertainment is not a silo type of industry. I can think Roman Polanski is a ~~grade A creep~~ felon on the run, but I won’t let that take away from the incredible project that was Rosemary’s Baby. He doesn’t get to stain the legacy of that film crew’s work.
I think the vast majority of people, including those in the LGBT community, don't care as much as Reddit and Tumbler make you believe
Yeah, in my experience, it’s mostly the chronically online people that will call you a terrible transphobia because you nostalgically enjoy Harry Potter, lol. People in real life might talk about how it’s awful what J. K. Rowling says, but no one will actually attack you for enjoying Harry Potter.
Yeah, I went to a Harry Potter quiz night at a local pub and it was pretty full. The quizmaster was clearly not equipped to handle that many geeks and nerds.
Even then the worst I've personally seen is "don't give this terrible person your money" which is fairly reasonable imo
I had someone verbally attack me for wearing a Ravenclaw sweater to a softball game in the fall of last year. Told me I was a transphobe for supporting JK Rowling
JK has specifically stated that buying HP shit is a direct endorsement of her stances on trans people..
Mental illness.
I Still remember when r/Gamingcirclejerk absolutely lost the plot and posted about the Harry Potter game 20 times a minute and banned anyone who didn't agree the game was a Racist, Transphobic Genocide Simulator.
Used to love that sub when it was about making fun of cringe Gamer behavior and then out of nowhere like you said it became nothing but trans discourse nonstop.
The game itself was far from racist or transphobic but it was funny seeing all there conspiracies on why it was, they tried to say the transgender woman in the game was actually transphobic because of her name when in reality they put her in the game to show they were against JK Rowlings views and wanted to separate the art from her.
I HATED the bad faith vitriol surrounding Sirona Ryan. They said JK herself picked the name to mock trans women because it had "Sir" in the name but then when it came out Sirona was a mythical celtic figure they pivoted to say that it didn't matter and her presence doesn't unmake anyone who played it a transphobe.
Even when it came out as a celtic figure, because it had round fruits and a snake with some illustrations they said it was to mock Trans.
The high these people get for calling everyone under the sun “transphobes” must be insane.
Must say, I would have likely played it eventually but bought it at launch out of spite, and I‘m very happy I did because it‘s amazing
That game broke that sub, it still hasnt regained its humor or orignal purpose
They never had original humor or purpose, they were always like that. You just didn't see it until their delusion reached a critical mass
Went from funny jokes about gaming echo chambers, to being an echo chamber for people that left Tumblr. Theyre actually responsible for getting my original account banned, several of their mods used multiple accounts to report me for "bigotry and harassment" because I had the gull to ask "why did I get banned from the sub? All I said was that JK had a funny reply" My original account was entirely clean with no suspensions on it, but since they claimed I was "harassing moderators" after being suspended, reddit just shitcanned the entire account without even looking at our messages.
They harassed Girlfriend Review for reviewing the game. The same Girlfriend Review that they defended when GR was harassed by the TLOU2 subreddit. They are absolutely insane.
Reddit is really the only social media I'm on. I'm still trying to find out what JK Rowling actually said to start this entire controversy. All I can find are opinion pieces that don't actually quote her either saying that she's an amoral piece of shit or that she's totally right for what she said. A little while back there are articles saying Daniel Radcliffe is disappointed in what JK Rowling said... nowhere in the article did it say what she said. All I know is that he's disappointed in what she said. If I ask the question I get down voted by all sides for asking the question because apparently only a person who already agrees/disagrees with what she said what ask that question. I have been heavily involved with the LGBTQ community for 40 years, I was at death beds with AIDS victims in the late 80's and marched in pride parades were cops were looking for violence, but here on Reddit I'm called an anti-trans bigot for simply asking for an objective breakdown of what JK Rowling said and I'm also called a liberal f**** for supporting even the most basic trans rights. Such a weird place.
Sounds like your experience with this mirrors my own quite a bit, any deviation from the established narrative on the topic is viewed as anti-trans bigotry, there's no compromise or middle ground. I won't repeat myself but you can read my other post on my experience [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/self/comments/1d877rk/i_love_harry_potter_and_i_dont_care_what_jk/l788a19/) if you are interested. I've by no means read all her quotes but my impression from those I did read is that she started out with some rather benign comments that got picked up by the part of the internet always looking for an excuse to be offended who made a huge deal out of it, she took lots of flak and personal attacks because of it which set her off and things escalated and from there. We've all been in arguments where you get heated and say stupid shit out of frustration/anger that you wish you hadn't. I think that's what happened here and it was too late to backtrack and people were attacking her on all sides (including former cast members etc) so she dug in her heels and we got to see her real thoughts on the matter - some which I agree with, some not at all...and then her anger bubbling over and lashing out. In general, I just really don't understand the all or none view. Example: my Dad is a committed Catholic. Me? I don't believe in the Devil but if he does exist then he is incarnated as the Catholic Church. But no amount of evidence of child abuse, coverups, support of the Nazis, whatever will sway him in the slightest, somehow he's able to put that all aside and still supports the church. I think he's delusional but I still love him and respect him on most other topics. People are complex, as Shrek said they have layers, ypu can't reduce it all to a black v white choice.
I hated reading as a kid and in 5th grade I was forced to read Harry Potter and the half blood prince in 4 days because it was the only possible way I could get enough AR points to pass. I couldn't put it down the second I started reading it and because of that book I became an every day reader. Harry Potter has a special place in my heart because of that
Well I think that's the right way to enjoy Your favorite things. Be aware of it flaws, yet accept them.
Sometimes we have to decide what we are willing to do and not do. Where our line is. I'm queer, and while I was never a HP person I empathize with the situation. There is another writer I used to love. His books are some of my absolute favourites. Then he went off the deep end with anti trans stuff just like JKR. So I decided that I will no longer support him because it might hurt people I love,and people I don't even know but who's humanity I respect. For me this means that I don't give him money. I don't buy anything new he puts out. Or old,for that matter, if it's a first sale. Idont recommend his books or even say his name to anyone. I have kept the booksi already have. I can still have and enjoy those books without giving his bullshit any support. And that's how I look at HP fans. You guys didn't sign up for her bullshit. You have your books, and whatever you had before she lost it. I will not ever judge that. I will, however, sideeye someone who pays her *now* knowing what we know. At the end of the day it's each person's choice,but it pays to be aware of the pain of people in your community and how you could or could not contribute to that.
It takes only 30 secs to scroll thru OP's post history and find the inevitable complaint about pronouns.
Lmao OP really buried the lede here. “Yeah I actually have no problem separating the art from the artist because I, too, am a rampant transphobe and agree with what she says.” Transphobic gays, you hate to see it!!
[удалено]
Why do you think you have to be trans to care about trans people?
So that's why OP doesn't care what she's said or done lol
The JKR situation stings so much. I was that lonely kid who could relate to being ousted with mean guardians who took unjust frustrations out on you. I loved and adored every one of Harry's adventures, and I wanted to *be* Harry so bad. To rise above, be brave, and do the right thing as much as I could. Honestly, HP got me through so, so much. Which is why it's so hard for me to reconcile that it's author considers me, a fan who she struck such a chord with, is a fundamental problem to society. It just... sucks. In a lot of ways HP carried me through difficult adolescent years, and it feels JKR kicked me down the stairs as an adult. I still have all the HP merch I bought. I look at it with a bittersweet lense. "Thanks for saving my life, now please stop trying to ruin it."
You realize you can hate the author and denounce her horrid beliefs without giving up the books and movies, right? Liking Harry Potter doesn't make you a problem. Saying you don't care about what she says does.
There's nothing wrong with still enjoying something despite who happened to create it. And for my money, whatever Rowling herself may do or say is sufficiently countered by the kind of people Radcliffe et al have grown up to become. So no criticisms there. But I do kind of take issue with this comment: > JK Rowling herself has never physically laid a hand on anyone to literally hurt them Harm doesn't begin and end with physically putting hands on someone yourself. Rowling has a huge, huge platform, and her sustained campaign is plainly one of the driving forces behind the current media shitstorm directed at trans people. A lot of very vile people are marching to the beat of _her_ drum. Violent attacks against trans people are on the rise. I'm not suggesting that's her actual intention, but it's naive in the extreme to suggest that we can't draw a direct line from her actions to real, tangible harm done to trans people. If your position is "I don't care who made this stuff, I still enjoy it" then that's fine - really, it is. But don't kid yourself about what she's responsible for.
We took our daughter to see the 20th re-release of the Prisoner of Azkeban in the Cineworld 4DX cinema in Cardiff on the weekend (She's been obsessed with HP since she was 7) It was fucking amazing! Nothing more to add.
Imo, Prisoner of Azkaban is the best movie in the franchise.
Fav book
Honestly best book, and I remember as a kid being scared they would mess it up. Nope! Amazing movie too
You are free to live your life how you want. But imagine for a minute if JK Rowling was saying all the same stuff, but her target was gay men, and her country was passing laws to discriminate against gay men that she championed, would you still think she wasn't hurting anyone?
Gay men not giving a shit about trans people is pretty standard. I’m not sure why you think that would matter. She loves people like you. She fully supports your right to exist. It’s trans people that she believes are predators by nature.
Poorly written? Is that a new complaint by people? Genuine question. I grew up with the books and while they are definitely for kids they still seem like solid writing. It was very easy to read and hooked me from the first paragraph. I don’t think they are classic literature but I’m also not going to say they are badly written just because of Rowling’s views.
Can you elaborate on why you think they're poorly written?
It's not even poorly written. That's just something people came up with after the whole Twitter debacle started.
Fucking nerd
It is not poorly written in retrospect that’s a bullshit retcon from people who don’t like her it is and will always be a masterpiece
I came to say this. Stephen King is massively opposed to Rowling’s political views, but has specifically mentioned her as a fantastic writer. It’s one thing to have a distaste for the lady’s points of view, but those books are fantastic and that can’t be taken away from her.
I agree. Brilliantly written and clever how the small things interwine later.
It’s crazy how many people are trying to say it’s low quality
Welcome to Reddit
For real. “I don’t like you” means nothing you’ve ever done has been good
Absolutely. I just got a friend into HP because I wanted him to play Hogwarts Legacy (which he loved) and felt that he needs the proper background. He has tried reading the first book when it was still the new thing many years ago, and thought it was silly because he was into high fantasy at the time (and the translation wasn't great). He is very, very picky with media he engages with - aesthetics, writing, linguistics, *everything*. There are a lot of things I don't even bother recommending to him because I know he's going to just find them boring or stupid. (Which is fine - tastes differ.) Basically, he's an *extremely* discerning person and never holds back his criticism of anything. I fully expected him to either lose interest after the first book again or just barely get through the series to get enough context for the game. Nope. He fucking loved them. Re-read them several times, keeps bringing up creative vocabulary JKR used throughout the books, enjoys the humour. And it's not like he's blind to plot holes, either. But he fully recognizes that it's a very, very well written book series that gained its fame for a reason and completely deserves it.
It’s definitely well written in terms of being an engaging story, but it’s always been a very poor example of world building, there are *so many things* that don’t make sense and were clearly thrown in by Rowling without real consideration (Quidditch, the tiny wizard population, time turners, the marauders map, wizard transport, no primary education for Pure Bloods etc)
Guess I just don’t care if my fantasy story about magic isn’t perfectly logically consistent
I mean, some things aren’t just imperfect, they are horribly flawed to the point it’s like why did she even write that. But it can be endearing in a way. Like the Quidditch rules are so idiotic, but they kinda add to it in a way.
Genuinely wondering why these things don't make sense to you? I get that they are not the most logical ways to structure a world but it's completely believable to me that Quidditch is a stupid sport and still popular, that most pure bloods homeschool, etc etc... I feel like there are so many things in our actual world that have as many or more idiosyncrasies and illogicalities.
The rule/function of the golden snitch in quidditch is stupid and completely ruins what would otherwise be an awesome sport to watch. Imagine if in basketball each team had a player out in the parking lot trying to catch a frog for the win. Youre watching a great game that's been neck and neck and then suddenly the buzzer sounds half way through. "The games over, Ramirez has just got the parking lot frog" Copy pasted that from another Reddit post, but that’s basically my point.
That's incredibly stupid - which is why it fits *perfectly* into this wizarding world where everyone is just *fucking stupid*. And why is everyone so fucking stupid? Because they don't get basic education and instead make careers out of researching rubber duckies. Like, that is obviously a rather contrived explanation for something really stupid... but yea, if the wizards in this world didn't have magic, they'd be eating roaches off the floor, so I can totally see them totally not seeing anything wrong with a game where the guy with the faster broom can just randomly win you the game you've been losing *hard* for the last 30 minutes.
For all of that, this is exactly why I liked the quidditch World Cup. Here’s a match where the pros are just going hard on each other. Krum says f it and catches the snitch even though it would lose them the match. I mean, 150 sounds like a lot. Till the match has been going for 5 days and the score is 920-410. I mean it’s dumb but also fun. Not even slightly a bad rule. Might be a game winner in school but maybe not so much in the real.
All because her views ruined the series for others, doesn't mean it has to ruin it for you. My opinion is: as long as you don't share her views and recognise the flaws in the subtext of her writing, enjoy it. Her views have ruined the series for me, but there are plenty of things I enjoy by awful people. Deciding whether to separate the art from the artist is a very personal decision. Not to mention 90% of super famous franchises have questionable people behind them. Acknowledging and condemning those harmful views is all that matters, to be honest. **EDIT:** After seeing your comment blaming trans people for the current wave of transphobia ("trans people are making it worse for themselves at this point"), I highly doubt this is just about liking HP. How disappointing. Just a reminder that JKR hated Slytherins and locked all of them in the dungeons during the Battle of Hogwarts because she generalised them all as Wizard Nazi sympathisers. She used Pansy Parkinson, one of the more prominent female Slytherins, to prop her self-insert (Hermione) up as a character to empathise with, giving no nuance whatsoever because Slytherin = evil. Considering the content of your replies, she'd most likely dub you a Gryffindor, and that's not a compliment.
The worst transphobes are the gay people who've pulled the ladder up behind them. "I've got mine, so f you"
Nothing worse to see than a punk that becomes a cop
They don’t realise it’s coming for them next too. We’re just first in line for the hate train currently, but the next stop is homophobia for sure.
who says it's poorly written?
I thoroughly enjoyed all the harry potter books, but they are not particularly well written. The stories are very compelling, but the actual prose is simplistic, clunky, and repetitive, the worldbuilding is sloppy and derivative, and the plots are often poorly constructed and fleshed out.
And it's an incredibly cliche story with an exciting setting. The world building of Hogwarts and The Wizarding World really is neat and fun for the most part (ignore the terrible implications of the Goblins). It's why it makes for compelling theme park rides. And what kid wouldn't want to go to a beautiful magic boarding school with great food and friends and new sports and adventures? So it's very approachable for teen readers, and that has turned into a nostalgia effect for adults who read it when they were young and impressionable. Which totally makes sense. BUT the story is so unoriginal. There is an objectively evil big bad evil guy (BBEG) who has secret Nazi followers. He died years ago but "somehow he returned!". And the Chosen One is a teen who has to save them through the power of friendship and the advice of mentors who all sacrifice themselves for him at convenient times. And the Chosen One is a trust fund natural jock who grows up to be an in-universe cop and marry his high school sweetheart who is his best friend's little sister. All while meeting people named "Cho Chang" and "Seamus McFinnigan". As a Middle Eastern person I'm surprised there wasn't an "Persia al-Sultan" character to go along with the trite naming theme.
It’s amazing how the average person in the sub somehow thinks “but I liked it” equals “it must be well written”
That was the part that caught me off guard! Sheesh, I can think of several popular fantasy series that are appallingly written…HP isn’t one of them.
There are plot holes large enough to drive the Beaxbatons carriage through…
So I understand the sentiment and I believe one can separate the art from the artist sometimes but I want to push back on a specific thing you said. “As long as JK Rowling herself has never physically laid a hand on anyone to literally hurt them, I don’t care what her political opinions are.” That’s an absurdly low bar. Every system of oppression relies on the support of people who couldn’t bear to hurt a fly. There are literal war criminals who clear that metric by virtue of never laying hands on their victims directly. She’s not lynching trans women. cool. MOST people aren’t doing physical violence on minority groups. She is a strong advocate for people who want to make sure trans people have less rights than others and she supports anti-trans groups with her money which is, I cannot stress this enough, the money you give her when you buy her merch. She doesn’t just have bad opinions, she’s an insanely wealthy and famous person who, at least in part, uses that wealth and fame to advocate that some people deserve less than others. It may be a losing battle she’s fighting but that doesn’t mean she’s not actively causing harm.
Im tired of people saying Harry Potter is poorly written. It’s not Nabokov, but get off your pretentious high horse, the prose is very effective for telling a riveting tale targeted towards children and teenagers. Oh there’s a few plot holes or word building errors or whatever, who cares, the world itself is intoxicatingly interesting and rich, which is why it captivates so many people. People hate on Harry Potter for all these reasons, but these books are absolutely deserving of their bestselling status and introduced a generation of kids to reading. They are full of moral values that are pretty universally decent, regardless of what JKR became.
Sure, just like plenty of people vote against their own best interests. Unlike voting, though, there are ways to enjoy problematic content without giving someone money, influence, or the power to perpetuate their harm. 🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️
I'll enjoy the content, but that doesn't mean I won't go out of my way to make sure she doesn't earn any money from me doing so 👍
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Look, you can do that and its all fine, the people are all still praising and cheering to iShowSpeed or Logan Paul, even tho both are high level criminal scammer. You can praise and love whatever you like. That is how the world works. It is just sad that we really actually give those people who destroy our society the blessing doing so. This is the reason why we cant have nice things. But hey, whatever you like, just please, stop complaining about any kind of hate you get as gay, cause that is the result of letting people be fine with praising everything.
You need to drop the "as long as she hasn't physically laid hands on someone" bit. Either you're separating art from artist (which I can understand) or you are not. I guarantee you she has caused/contributed to a great amount of violence and whether she has done the deed with her own two hands or not really shouldn't be the line you draw.
Yeah, this was where they lost me. Saying that you don't care what JK Rowling does because you're separating the art from the artist is one thing. Admitting that you *do* care what Rowling does, you just don't think transphobia is a big deal, is another thing.
You’re allowed to like what you want but being a gay dude doesn’t really mean anything when her bigotry is pretty specifically targeted towards trans people. I grew up with Harry Potter, it was a massive part of my childhood, but I can’t enjoy it anymore because the political views she promotes directly hurts me, it doesn’t directly affect you.
I see no issue with you wanting to keep something that means something to you. That's totally fine and if you are happy to separate the artist from the art then that's fine. >As long as JK Rowling herself has never physically laid a hand on anyone to literally hurt them, I don’t care what her political opinions are. This, I take issue with. She had done very real, actual harm to the trans community. She's shaped the global conversation and her words have been used to justify anti trans laws that restrict trans lives. By all means, separate the art from the artist but saying that's because she hasn't crossed the line into actual harm is incorrect and you should come to terms with that.
This is so sad. You can like the IP all you want, no one cares.. But To say that you don’t care about how someone with so much influence is so HARMFUL to a community that you yourself is a part of is brain breaking.
It’s a weird cope that she would have to lay a hand on someone for you to physically hurt them in order for your opinions to change about her. You can just leave that out and leave it at you’re separating the art from the artist but instead you went the route of approving how shitty she is. Shame.
I'm queer. I still enjoy the Harry Potter series even though the author should crawl into a cave without wifi and stay there. However I shut the hell up about the series on social because it's painful now for so many people. I'd rather the trans people in my life didn't think I was aligning with such a horrible human being, or choosing her over them. Embracing the identity of known bad guys really makes it seem like supporting a flagrant transphobe is your point, though--seems like that's your goal and you want people to know. Otherwise you could also just shut the hell up about it.
I’m trans and I used to do the same. I still liked it for what it meant to me and I tried to hold on to that privately. At some point, it just completely turned sour (I think it was her Holocaust oopsie) and I finally dumped all of my books — to say it in the language of Potterheads: she has not just created but sold 600 Million Horcruxes, and I have destroyed seven of them
> I'd rather the trans people in my life didn't think I was aligning with such a horrible human being, or choosing her over them. I'm a straight dude and that's also my position. I don't want to be associated with the crowd she's been pulling these last years, so Harry Potter doesn't exist to me. Simple as that.
this exactly! the issue is when people brandish the fact that they still consume harry potter content like it's some kind of own. it's gross and makes you look like a transphobe.
Lots of “What are you going to do about it, Mom!” energy
Some of the top comments on this thread make me think I’m going insane. OP is “bravely” taking the stance that they don’t care about any on the hateful rhetoric from JKR because… they’re gay? Not even the group that she’s legit fighting against? Talk about a shit opinion from OP. If they just said “I still love the books and HP”, I’d totally find that in their right. But tripling down that they “do not care” about JKR makes them sound like an entitled asshole.
I’m also an original HP fan (since like kindergarten) and all I’ll say is 🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️
Cool, why do you need validation?
He's probably been attacked in the past for this
You could just shut up and read your stuff and watch your movies in peace. Yes people might have a problem with it as is their right to. But it’s the need to broadcast that you’re doing it that gives you the asshole vibes. The money you give her in royalties if you buy new products she uses to fund political campaign and lobby for laws that harm lgbt people. That’s just a fact. I just don’t get the whole making this thread to say this. Just makes you come across as an ass. You could have just watched the movie on a Tuesday night in peace. Instead you’re here announcing to the internet .
It's okay for you to decide that you are fine supporting her, but it's not great to refuse to acknowledge the damage she does to your community. Not physically laying a hand on someone doesn't change the amount of money she has put directly towards hurting people. Those books came out when I was the same age as the characters in them, I read along and grew up with them. For me the big draw was that it was the first time people weren't making fun of me for reading so much, everyone was reading them. I felt like people finally "got" why I liked to read. Obviously this is long before J.K. decided to reveal herself so I (like many others) had to come to terms with how I personally felt about things after loving the series for a big portion of my life. I still love the books, they are like an old friend, but I chose not to engage in a way that financially benefits her. Because this isn't a case of an author being a product of their time and long gone, she is actively continually using her platform to spread hatred and misinformation. So, again, I think you get to choose for yourself, and it's fine that you've chosen this. But it would be healthy to accept what she is, not pretend these are just a difference in political opinions, or that it's not hurting anyone to support her.
I already own all the books and can easily pirate the films. I could comfortably engage with HP in the knowledge I'm not giving her a dime more.
They aren't poorly written in retrospect. That's bullshit made up by people who don't like her. She's not a good person but plenty of people who make things also aren't
The idea that bad people can't create good things is a common argument tactic used by people attempting to tear a bad person down.
Come on, Bro. You and I both know you ain't described how a Slytherin would act. Whole post about how personal comfort matters more than any other principle and you're out here pretending you ain't Hufflepuff all the way through.
Depends on your interpretation of raising a hand to harm someone I would personally say using influence and resources to target an already marginalised group with ceaseless appeals that they don't deserve respect or recognition constitutes harming someone. You can decide to separate whatever you want from whomever you wish, just as everyone else is free to judge you from doing so. Hogwarts legacy looked great, but as someone with a trans SO and trans friends who would be hurt by my choice to support an IP that belongs to proactive bigot, I chose to side with who was more important to me and I don't regret that choice at all.
I cannot enjoy something by someone that hates my friends.
It’s not wonder we have such a bad reputation in the gay community. The way you can’t even support our trans community members by letting go of this bullshit?
Are the books poorly written though? seriously? Does anyone have examples? The only thing I found weird was in the first book where it describes some sort of old camera in the dersleys house or something, which is an odd thing to have in 1990.
You think it’s poorly written?! That’s interesting, I never have thought they were but also I have only ever listened to them in audiobook form with the British narrator. I also will never stop loving Harry Potter, don’t care about JK Rowlings political opinions.
The poorly written bit is a common refrain for those trying to shame people who like it. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny because you have to be a pedant to care about all the little plot holes and inconsistencies in the first place.
its ok to love a story for the story itself
Poorly written? Weird take. Those books are excellent.
Gay man doesn't support trans people, more at 7! (also look at his post/comment history and its clear he rlly does agree with her)
OP: I don't care about JK's politics! (read: transphobia) Also OP: Goes into paragraphs-long rants defending JK's transphobia and rambling about pronouns. Might be hard to see, given that the mods cleaned up his comments but not the post itself, but just check his history. It's utterly unsurprising when people make "apolitical" posts that they really just don't want you questioning their politics.
Since when has Harry Potter been poorly written?
Since about the late 1990s. It wasn't even debated back then. "Lively kid's fantasy crossed with a school novel, good fare for its age group, but stylistically ordinary, imaginatively derivative, and ethically rather mean-spirited". With a side of "not that creative, you just haven't seen a British school before". Which is okay. As long as we don't pretend it's some Lois Lowry level fine writing