[davidjay]

I just don't get the hate. I can't understand it at all.

[RedSparrows]

One of the curious/interesting things I've seen is the smoothing out of Rowling - that is, a consistent attitude to her that places her, naturally, on a teleology: she is anti-trans, therefore she is anti-semitic (due to the goblins), therefore she is one step away from full fash. Any day now, she'll manifest in her true form.

I suspect in many cases that IS a pretty consistent through-line: prejudice breds prejudice, etc. But surely not in all? I'm not particularly interested in defending Rowling or not, nor in the goblin thing (which strikes me as a persistent, widely-based trope, and to make it a sign of Rowling's distinct 'evil' is a stretch), but I am interested in the need for her to be 'just on the cusp' of being the ultimate satan, the fash.

I think part of this plays on a general contempt for liberalism in online culture. That is, there's a lot of sympathy for more radical trains of thought (yet a distinct lack of radical participation, speaking broadly across society), and liberalism is seen - certainly by the committed - as a de facto enabler of fascism etc. It's a very well-worn story that only has so much play, historically. See also: centrist dads, 'milquetoast' commentators, etc. Thus Rowling's clear moral message in Harry Potter - that Nazis are bad, OK - is taken as a sop, rather than anything meaningful (and sure, it does have numerous thematic oddities and gaps, such as the elves), because Rowling says things that other people vehemently disagree with. Ergo her politics are entirely suspect; thus one cannot be flawed and mistaken, one must be evil.

None of this is to say I actually agree with Rowling on anything: her morals in HP seem... OK? If not particularly interesting, and there are some bits like the elves that are handled very peculiarly given the logic of the heroes themselves. As for trans issues, I can't see any other position being viable than arguing for their rights as humans, first and foremost. It just strikes me that each 'side' in this argument has a story it NEEDS her to play a role in.

[Andy McDandy]

Some of the arguments against her are pretty weak. She's supposed to be a racist because she gave stereotypical names to characters, such as Seamus Finnegan for an Irish guy, Desi characters called Padma and Pavrati and so on. Now, aside from some fucking leaps of imagination (Seamus likes pyrotechnics, therefore all Irish people are terrorists), it seems that JKR is being told to walk a tightrope - write representative characters, but don't make them clichés. But at the same time, mention their background in passing or play down its importance, and you're whitewashing.

Above all though, I seriously wonder why as a society we're looking for moral guidance from a writer of books about fucking wizards. She has opinions, people have options. Like not buy the book or watch the film or play the game. As said before, cancellation all too often means being ignored or denied one outlet among many for expressing one's opinions.

As for TERFs...right. I know people, some transitioning and some not, who say that the anti-trans movement is an effective genocide. I personally believe that self-determination and identification is one of the most basic and fundamental rights anyone has. Nobody knows you better than you, and it is perfectly possible to adapt our society to accommodate transitioning people - indeed just like making places and services accessible for people with disabilities (or encouraging greater participation by women, POCs, gay people etc in public life), a lot of those adaptations are easy to implement, or already there, and benefit everyone. But what you can't easily do is change attitudes. There are people who will always want someone to point at and laugh at. They can't do that to past foci of attention for their 'otherness' any more, so Trans people are who's left. And yes, unchecked, it leads to people getting stabbed in public parks. But as trans people become more visible, more part of the mainstream, transphobia will become in time as socially unacceptable as racism, sexism or homophobia are, at least blatantly. Some people will carry those attitudes to the grave, and shame on them. We laugh at the caricature of the racist granddad, perhaps in 30 years time it'll be the transphobic granddad we all want to shut up at Christmas.

But yes, JKR. She's an author. A very successful and popular one, but still an author. While authors do explore big themes and examine the human condition, and sometimes they are big literary names and sometimes genre authors, she is not someone I look to for moral guidance.

[Crabcakes]

It’s like Clarkson. He’s a often bigoted fucking oaf who doesn’t check what his column ghost-writer says until too late, BUT he clearly cares a huge amount about the farming community in the U.K., is pro-Europe etc. and a talented broadcaster.

Some people have enormous trouble these days with people they dislike being reasonable in some capacity, or people they like not being reasonable in some capacity.

Obviously there are some who go completely off the deep end and make it near impossible to view their previous efforts without at the very least a sadness that they turned out to be so unhinged (G. Linehan, for example). But for Rowling I suspect the reaction is so intense simply because for many she created such a group of pure heroes it’s just impossible to believe she could be unsupportive of what they consider an open and shut issue about people’s right to be who they want without prejudice and *also* the creator of characters who - to be honest - would also probably not hold the same opinion as her. The fact that she has some things elsewhere in her work that are almost certainly at worst just a bit lazy rather than some antisemitic or racist scheming is just ‘evidence’ for people who now feel betrayed to uncover, and make themselves feel reassured for making a black and white decision about her.

It also probably doesn’t help that by sheer luck, the trio of kids chosen to portray those heroes have turned out to be some of the most delightful, well balanced people in the business - Daniel Radcliffe in particular.

[Tubby Isaacs]

There is a history of some, to say the least, careless associations by Rowling on Twitter on trans rights. She doesn't always come across as someone who is just concerned about single sex spaces. But the stuff about her books seems weak to me. Like they were around for 25 years, and suddenly people realised they're bad.

[The Weeping Angel]

Considering how many vile things are said about her I'd say she's been very reasonable.

[The Weeping Angel]

Another normal response

[MisterMuncher]

There is a history of some, to say the least, careless associations by Rowling on Twitter on trans rights. She doesn't always come across as someone who is just concerned about single sex spaces. But the stuff about her books seems weak to me. Like they were around for 25 years, and suddenly people realised they're bad.

I don't know if "suddenly realised" is the particular form I'd choose for it, and I'm picking my words pretty carefully here, and sticking with those with sincere objections vs. joining in the pile-on

JK isn't HP Lovecraft, but there's no shortage of things in her books that slip by on old cliche and were perhaps a bit under-examined and analysis by the audience at the time, because they were children.

It's always awkward to return to works you loved as an adult and see that, in places, they've got some fairly unpleasant stuff (again, perhaps not deliberately on the part of the author) you hadn't noticed before. You can also understand people going hard on it now at least in part as overcompensating for their youthful blindness. JK isn't special or unique in this, it's happened to all creatures great and small.

[Andy McDandy]

As said, it's a tightrope. Write a British-Asian character (for example), and give them a storyline about racism and arranged marriages, and you're recycling clichés. Write a bland character who's called Kavita or Shahid but there's nothing remotely distinctively Asian about them and you're doing tokenism. Same with disability - for every wheelchair user who loves seeing someone like them portrayed as "just one of the gang", another will object to brushing the very real issues of isolation they face under the carpet.

[The Weeping Angel]

As said, it's a tightrope. Write a British-Asian character (for example), and give them a storyline about racism and arranged marriages, and you're recycling clichés. Write a bland character who's called Kavita or Shahid but there's nothing remotely distinctively Asian about them and you're doing tokenism. Same with disability - for every wheelchair user who loves seeing someone like them portrayed as "just one of the gang", another will object to brushing the very real issues of isolation they face under the carpet.

I've come to conclusion that you can't win with people like this.

[MisterMuncher]

Outside of complete lunatics, you absolutely can. It's lazy and reductive to paint everyone on that side of the fence as completely unreasonable and unpleasant, especially when the likes of Ann Leckie, James SA Corey, NK Jemisyn and plenty of F/SF authors can manage diverse representation just fine. There's been an active campaign from terrified straight white boys against all these nasty women, queers and darkies getting in their clubhouse for the last decade, ffs.

Rowling didn't help herself with trying to fudge her way around the lack of diversity with retcons and side-stories. It all felt exactly as tacked on and forced as it was. I mean it was right there to explain it as the wizarding world still existing with notions of colonial era, Hogwarts as Eton, and even that slow reform sticking in the craw of the big bads. It's dramatically satisfying in a way that "That dude there, whose romantic relationships aren't mentioned at all. Yeah, he's gay as fuck" just isn't.

[The Weeping Angel]

Outside of complete lunatics, you absolutely can. It's lazy and reductive to paint everyone on that side of the fence as completely unreasonable and unpleasant, especially when the likes of Ann Leckie, James SA Corey, NK Jemisyn and plenty of F/SF authors can manage diverse representation just fine. There's been an active campaign from terrified straight white boys against all these nasty women, queers and darkies getting in their clubhouse for the last decade, ffs.

Rowling didn't help herself with trying to fudge her way around the lack of diversity with retcons and side-stories. It all felt exactly as tacked on and forced as it was. I mean it was right there to explain it as the wizarding world still existing with notions of colonial era, Hogwarts as Eton, and even that slow reform sticking in the craw of the big bads. It's dramatically satisfying in a way that "That dude there, whose romantic relationships aren't mentioned at all. Yeah, he's gay as fuck" just isn't.

That maybe the case but a lot of the stuff is just mental perhaps the most bizarre claim was the idea that the Weasleys were anti-Irish because they were poor and all had red hair.

[MisterMuncher]

That's not what is usually cited as the anti-Irish stereotype.

That would be Seamus Finnegan. The explicitly Irish character with the knack for blowing stuff up (films, mostly, but it's there in the books).


At root is a fundamental failure to deal maturely with the lack of diversity in the first place, and taking cheap shortcuts to brand extension. Or even to simply ignore the complaints rather than drawing attention to it with said cheap shortcuts.

[Crabcakes]

The other issue with the Potter books is after the first few they were progressively less well edited as her fame grew and the publisher became more fearful of pushback, so when more characters were added it was in an environment where the lazier parts weren’t going to be pulled up.

The last book was overlong, convoluted and a chore. It read like she was fed up of writing it.

[MisterMuncher]

Protection from Editors has been the death of many a good writer.

[The Weeping Angel]

That's not what is usually cited as the anti-Irish stereotype.

That would be Seamus Finnegan. The explicitly Irish character with the knack for blowing stuff up (films, mostly, but it's there in the books).

Well the person who said that cited it as an example. Then again they were American.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Rowling works in the same way as many other authors, especially those writing for younger audiences or for film.

Terry Pratchett (who resented her success, thinking himself rightly the more original author) calls the spine of this style 'narrativium' - the plots of stories that are already embedded in the consciousness of the reader. The last couple of books, for example, are a perfect example of the 'Hero's Quest', one of the seven plots.

Christopher Booker (I know) lists these as:

• Overcoming the monster.
  Rags to riches.
  The quest.
  Voyage and return.
  Comedy.
  Tragedy.
  Rebirth.

Most of the Potter books follow one of these, I'm sure you are imagining them as you read this...

Potter also uses the literary device of archetypes (not stereotypes) in creating characters that are immediately familiar and understood by less sophisticated readers because their like has been seen in literature for centuries. This is very common, actual originality is quite rare.

This chimes with Pratchett's Narrativium, of course. We know what to expect because the archetype is familiar. Whether that means that the elves are archetypically Jewish I leave to you. I think it is incidental, they are archetypal bankers. If they were stereotypes I would expect some linguistic markers, which I don't recall. The list of archetypes is endless in the novels.

I'm not sure at which point it happens but fairly early on Rowling starts writing cinematically, a style which allows the novel to be easily adapted to a screenplay. Which I think is both a benefit and a fault of the later books.

The only other works of hers that I know well are the Cormoran Strike detective novels, again heavily influenced by their intended screen adaptation. There is much more deviation from the primal plots described by Booker, but the characters have many archetypal characteristics.

But then cast your mind to almost any successful film (especially stuff such as Indiana Jones or Star Wars) and you will see precisely the same bones under the skin.


https://www.masterclass.com/articles/a- ... archetypes
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/wr ... archetypes

[MisterMuncher]

I was quickly skimming "The Wee Free Men" before turning it over to the kid last night, and it's genuinely impressive how PTerry was making a story from Tiffany discovering along with the reader that she was archetypally "WITCH".

A very, very clever man.

[Bones McCoy]

The other issue with the Potter books is after the first few they were progressively less well edited as her fame grew and the publisher became more fearful of pushback, so when more characters were added it was in an environment where the lazier parts weren’t going to be pulled up.

The last book was overlong, convoluted and a chore. It read like she was fed up of writing it.

As #2 son said: "Tolkien on steroids" when they spend about 200 pages wandering about a forest and having obscure dreams.

Rowling's strength was her ability to juggle a large cast of 1 and a half dimensional characters.
A bit like Chuck Berry, she could paint a picture in a couple of sentences, and add enough depth to make them interesting.
She would manage 20 odd characters like this in a volume.

There are a number of weaknesses, but it was children's literature, so we don't need a dork-like laser focus on plot holes, deus ex machina solutions, chosen one fantasies and cooking the books so Gryffindor pip Slytherin at the post on the final page.

Her greatest error is one of several other authors.
Over engagement with the audience.
It's a feature of dork-culture.
Shatner parodied it on Saturday Night Live, a sketch based around a Q&A sesison at a Con.

Returning to Tolkien, his author's notes, bundled with the books as appendices provoked a lot of intrest.
He became engaged in written correspondence with fans, before becoming exhausted by the whole process.

Rowling's misfortune was to repeat the process publicly on social media.
She did this with the hate mob of the Mail and Express on her case, looking to denounce any hint of wokeness.
On the other hand was a fanbase including a diverse set of kids who hoped to find "a character like me" among that massive cast.
It was all well intentioned, but social media's a poisoned well.
It also crossed the old adage, always eave the public wanting more.

[Samanfur]

I'm not sure at which point it happens but fairly early on Rowling starts writing cinematically, a style which allows the novel to be easily adapted to a screenplay. Which I think is both a benefit and a fault of the later books.

I think that it was around the fourth book. She was certainly writing the characters as their cinematic counterparts by the fifth - Ron in particular came off worse for that.

I remember seeing an interview with her at around the time that the sixth book was being written, where she said that she'd changed how she was going to portray some things in the books, because she was conscious that someone was going to have to animate whatever it was later on.

She lost respect from me for that.