you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (18 children)

And according to Joanne KKK Rowling, that's the only way you can be a woman; if you can produce children.

Harry Potter books don't have that assertion to me. There are different positive female figures in the books.

There's no character there beyond that.

Did you read my comment? There were examples of characters beyond that. Your own examples, in fact.

pro-slavery bits.

Hermione is opposed to slavery, even though elves themselves don't consider it so (who knows why - they are magical creatures).
And Hermione is a positive figure. I was sympathetic with her goal when I read the books.

Cho Chang

Chang is a common Chinese surname. Cho - was a miss.
Overall it looked like the author wasn't really bothered to choose some real real name and chose to construct one to emphasize the character's origin.
By the way: Cho Chang was a positive figure also.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    And according to Joanne KKK Rowling, that's the only way you can be a woman; if you can produce children.

    Harry Potter books don't have that assertion to me. There are different positive female figures in the books.

    Book: has one character whose main sense of identity is being a mother

    Critic: "THIS BOOK IS SAYING THE ONLY VALID WAY TO BE A WOMAN IS TO BE A MOTHER!!1!!1!1!1!"

    It's obnoxiously close to this broader view in society:

    Woman: is a mother

    Society: "SO YOU THINK A WOMAN'S SOLE PURPOSE IS TO BE A MOTHER?!?!?!?!!?!"

    Also, are we just going to ignore Professor McGonagall being childless and devoted to her career in academia in which she thrives and holds the respect of her peers and pupils?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    Also, are we just going to ignore Professor McGonagall being childless and devoted to her career in academia in which she thrives and holds the respect of her peers and pupils?

    You know what, that's fair. McGonagall is a mostly unproblematic character, I feel. There are some moments where I feel like she meted out very strange punishments, like sending the kids out into a dangerous forest they were prohibited from being in because it's potentially lethal, or when she locked Neville out of the Gryffindor common room while a murderer was on the loose.

    That said, Caroline Easom did a video on the female characters that appear in the top 100 characters by mention in the books and there are some less savoury patterns in how Joanne portrays women.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

    Sure. If it makes you feel better, then whatever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

    There is no argument. You're allowed to believe what you wish, wrong or not. I just don't have the energy to waste on apologists and supporters of such heinous politics. Rowling's politics are apparent in all of her writing, she's always championed outdated eugenicist beliefs. If you choose to ignore that, that's your prerogative and I don't think anything I say or show you will convince you otherwise.

    Ergo, this conversation here is just a waste of time for the two of us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    If you're under the impression that I support Rowling - I'm not. Fuck her.
    I'm protecting the books.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    Given that Rowling is still making money and is actively using that money to harm people, you cannot extricate the art from the artist.

    If one want a whimsical world of magic, I'd recommend Terry Pratchett's Discworld series. If one wants a little darker story about a magical school, I'd recommend the Scholomance series by Naomi Novik.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    you cannot extricate the art from the artist.

    Yet you can. The books (plot) themselves don't become bad because of that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    No, they're bad entirely on their own merit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    That's separate from whether you separate them from the artist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    I'm getting pretty tired of this tirade, honestly.

    Rowling's hateful and bigoted ideology is reflected in the books, it's right there for anyone to see. You cannot extricate that from the story she tells. The story is bad, because her ideology is bad.

    That's not to say that there aren't redeemable moments. Hitler treated most anyone badly, but he was pro animal-rights. I somehow don't find that redeems him or his works as a whole. Apply the same to Rowling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    There’s no character there beyond that.

    Did you read my comment? There were examples of characters beyond that.

    "Character" as in personality, not other fictional people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children)