29
votes
Who did JK Rowling become? Deciphering the most beloved, most reviled children’s book author in history
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Who Did J.K. Rowling Become?
- Authors
- Molly Fischer
- Published
- Dec 22 2020
- Word count
- 7158 words
This article digs into the history of JK Rowling and trans rights; if you want to learn more about the philosophy driving JK Rowling and other Brits, I suggest checking out this long read by Laurie Penny:
For people who'd like a simple easy to read debunking of the transphobic garbage in JKR's essay I recommend Katy Montgomerie's work: https://katymontgomerie.medium.com/addressing-the-claims-in-jk-rowlings-justification-for-transphobia-7b6f761e8f8f
And for a more direct, almost line-by-line debunking, I would also highly recommend Eevee's counter-essay, Rowling is dangerously wrong.
That link for me led to a paywall, but if you use a Twitter link, (https://t.co/WhBwkj9lac) it goes to the full article.
Still needs a (free) medium account.
Great article! I was sort of up to date with Rowling's views, so while that didn't give me much info, it's great to hear how she's slowly eroding any sense in her world because she just absolutely refuses to do any kind of research when writing in foreign cultures. I mean, what the fuck:
The only way to write this is to conjure the idea up in your mind, going "sounds about right" and then just writing it down and for some reason everyone in the UK editing those books thought that she must've done her due diligence because somewhere around that the time the US got founded. A singular internet search would've solved this! A SINGLE ONE.
I understand the draconian grip she keeps on the wizarding world, but at the same time, the fact that she then refuses to commit to any lore, a timeline, anything is shocking. It would make collabs way better if she set up a wiki, it wouldn't even have to be public, and gave authors a line to her for any further questions. But the fac that she doesn't even want to publish an enclycopedia tells you everything that you need to know. Which is fine! Harry Potter is a great example of just how little worldbuilding you need to tell a great story, which is kind of strange that the article decribes the world as deep and vast, when it's really not. Only the bare necessities are set up, and most of the concepts introduced follow Chekhov's gun to a Trans rights.ARE YA PROUD OF ME YET
But that JKR then insists on doing world-building via Twitter is what really irks me. Like pick one. Leave the story as is, which is fine, or do proper world-building (also fine) in a structured way. Create timelines, explain the details like how spells are created, the magical attitude towards
date-rape drugslove potions, you know all the shit that makes up the fantastic little thing named lore.Yes. And when she does a cursory bit of research she fucks it up.
https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/1310777365207773190?s=20
Good research is preferable but I’m not inclined to hold that against a series of novels about kid wizards flying around England in magical brooms.
thanks for this twitter thread, it was a glorious read.
idk, it makes a decent case that she's a lazy writer, but calling her a "bad writer" is just ... denying reality because you don't like the person. Harry Potter might not be on the same level as ASOIAF (for example) but it inspired far more and i am ready to bet will have a much longer legacy than grrm's books.
I think lazy fits best. However her work after the main HP series has been pretty lackluster, including approving Cursed Child. A lot of creators out there create something akin to a one-hit wonder, and maybe HP was that for JKR, and she managed to stretch it out to 7 books.
I don't care for Harry Potter, watched 2 or 3 movies because my SO is a huge fan, but didn't do anything for me.
But i read The Casual Vacancy. My ex SO was a huge Harry Potter fan (wtf i only date HP fans) and wanted me to read something from her. It was a really good book.
I spent a while puzzling over what’s supposed to be wrong with that quote because I assumed it was an intentional paradox, perhaps involving magical time travel or prophecy.
Probably not, considering JKR swore off time travel shenanigans after the 3rd HP book made things really complicated until she solved it by having a shelve fall over in the 5th book.
I haven't read the article yet but I figured here is as good a spot to place my general JK thoughts as anywhere.
It seems so wild to me that someone who's basically whole theme of the HP series (especially books 6 & 7) is that maybe we force people in to certain categories too early doesn't seem to understand that some people are trans.
Do you really think that's the point of those books? I mean the hogwarts houses, the "chosen one" theme, the fact that basically everyone squarely falls on either good or bad side (the sole exception being Snape, and he's for this reason the most discussed character in the series)? I don't think that's what you can take away from the books.
Maybe not the whole point, but it's definitely a theme, especially in regards to Snape. Dumbledore even says maybe we sort too early.
I can easily see that as a major point in the books though. Your points are also valid and obvious things to take away from the books, but the fact that we put people into neat boxes (houses) and then expect them to conform to the stereotypes of those houses is a strong through line in the books. It's somewhat ironic that those house stereotypes are constantly broken and yet, as you said, all of the characters are very squarely good or evil. There is no inbetween. It's like she doesn't even see the obvious contrasts in her own work.