I fear Arabella Stanton is about to get the Ellie treatment from the Internet. Godspeed, Arabella, may your eyes never scroll to the bottom of Reddit threads.
I fear Arabella Stanton is about to get the Ellie treatment from the Internet. Godspeed, Arabella, may your eyes never scroll to the bottom of Reddit threads.
Perhaps it's still better than getting the "creepy countdown till they're 18 years old" fan pages treatment though. But yes project fan culture or producers aside, I hope these and all child...
Perhaps it's still better than getting the "creepy countdown till they're 18 years old" fan pages treatment though.
But yes project fan culture or producers aside, I hope these and all child actors are protected and loved by the adults involved in their projects and their lives.
The most recent of this I've seen is Dafne Keen. Didn't see any actual countdown websites, but it's definitely something I noticed both directly and indirectly reading through the lines. She...
Perhaps it's still better than getting the "creepy countdown till they're 18 years old" fan pages treatment though.
The most recent of this I've seen is Dafne Keen. Didn't see any actual countdown websites, but it's definitely something I noticed both directly and indirectly reading through the lines. She starred in Logan as a 12 year old and His Dark Materials from 14 to 17. I don't think anyone here needs more to be said about nerd culture/fan spaces behavior.. hope her mental health is alright because she has probably had a ton of unwanted attention from an early age (nearly every girl has experience with it, many from before puberty even, but it's amplified a thousand times over when you're the face of a tv show.) As for Arabella Stanton, I really hope production companies and Hollywood etc. has learned a thorough lesson about protecting child actors - not just girls of course, but certainly also boys. I imagine boys are at the receiving end of a lot of weird crap as well, some of the same things, but probably different in nature? In any case.. kids need protection from nerd culture/capital G gamers/incels/etc. because needless to say, those spaces can be extreme.
And then there is of course the color of her skin.
Gosh the internet is stupid. I guess she isn’t « conventionally attractive », but she is still quite attractive. Not to mention she is a fantastic actor from the roles I have seen her in.
Gosh the internet is stupid. I guess she isn’t « conventionally attractive », but she is still quite attractive. Not to mention she is a fantastic actor from the roles I have seen her in.
Ehhhhh. I think we should be able to say someone doesn’t deserve that level of hate just because of what they look like rather than have to resort to saying she is attractive. I don’t believe...
Ehhhhh. I think we should be able to say someone doesn’t deserve that level of hate just because of what they look like rather than have to resort to saying she is attractive. I don’t believe Ramsey is a good performer either, but that also doesn't make this intense hate campaign any better. It wasn’t ultimately her decision to be cast, someone else made that decision.
Did you see her in Game of Thrones? She owned any scene she was in. I don't really remember having strong opinions in Last of Us season 1. We only watched the first two episodes of season 2 and...
Did you see her in Game of Thrones? She owned any scene she was in. I don't really remember having strong opinions in Last of Us season 1. We only watched the first two episodes of season 2 and thought she did alright and had some pretty good scenes.
I think that may be a bit reductive, since the hate (though still far from what is reasonable) that I’ve seen has all been squarely aimed at her acting ability and the writing of her character. Of...
I think that may be a bit reductive, since the hate (though still far from what is reasonable) that I’ve seen has all been squarely aimed at her acting ability and the writing of her character. Of course you may have seen differently, and I wouldn’t deny some of that exists because it always does.
Most of what I remember seeing is people complaining that Kaitlyn Dever should’ve been Ellie explicitly because Kaitlyn looks more like video game Ellie than Bella, and nothing else. I try stay...
Most of what I remember seeing is people complaining that Kaitlyn Dever should’ve been Ellie explicitly because Kaitlyn looks more like video game Ellie than Bella, and nothing else. I try stay out of online discourse about stuff like that, though, so haven’t seen anything lately
The showrunners had Kaitlyn as Ellie in an earlier adaptation that didn't go anywhere but for this show it was too late and she aged out of it. So they cast her as Abbie. That's where the internet...
The showrunners had Kaitlyn as Ellie in an earlier adaptation that didn't go anywhere but for this show it was too late and she aged out of it. So they cast her as Abbie. That's where the internet story stems from. It's a disguised critique of Bella Ramsey.
Huh, that's interesting, cause I think she is attractive. I've only seen her in Last of Us (though haven't watched the second season yet) and thought she did great in the first season.
Huh, that's interesting, cause I think she is attractive. I've only seen her in Last of Us (though haven't watched the second season yet) and thought she did great in the first season.
I had no idea what you meant, until I Googled her. Holy shit. People are awful. It's a fake show about a fake character - why are people so rude and racist?!She's like 12. Damn people. Do better.
I had no idea what you meant, until I Googled her. Holy shit. People are awful. It's a fake show about a fake character - why are people so rude and racist?!She's like 12. Damn people. Do better.
Indeed. I have to decide if I want to watch and support her transphobia or not. But even if she wasn't directly involved it would be a decision to make, as while when I first read the novels, I...
is being exec produced by the source material’s author J.K. Rowling, who has attracted controversy aplenty for remarks around trans rights
Indeed.
I have to decide if I want to watch and support her transphobia or not. But even if she wasn't directly involved it would be a decision to make, as while when I first read the novels, I didn't spot much wrong; since then, enough problematic things have been pointed out that reflects poorly on Rowling. It's not just transphobia. And that's neverminding the lazy writing. It's a pity that she's otherwise a decent storyteller.
It sounds like you've made your decision, honestly. You don't have to watch a show based on a popular-but-problematic series of books written by a bigot.
It sounds like you've made your decision, honestly.
You don't have to watch a show based on a popular-but-problematic series of books written by a bigot.
I have mixed feelings about it. I really do have to decide. I will frankly say that I eat at Chick-Fil-A from time to time, although the religious association of the company bothers me, as well as...
I have mixed feelings about it. I really do have to decide.
I will frankly say that I eat at Chick-Fil-A from time to time, although the religious association of the company bothers me, as well as past (and possibly present) donations to organizations I dislike. But it's hard to decide what's best and where to draw lines. Most corporations funnel money to our oligarchs who have destroyed our democracy and brought us fascism. And I can't boycott everyone. So I have to pick and choose what's more important to me and what will make an impact.
I definitely will not support JK Rowling directly if I can avoid it. But I will have to admit that there are so many authors with problems… it's hard to keep up and decide what crosses the line.
I feel that it might be more important to speak out against bigotry than to boycott. I used to tend toward more absolute reactions; now I seek more nuance.
Everyone has their own line, I know queer folks that eat the hate chicken, and others who won't touch it. And I still have Amazon Prime even though I think I shouldn't... But for me, the fact that...
Everyone has their own line, I know queer folks that eat the hate chicken, and others who won't touch it. And I still have Amazon Prime even though I think I shouldn't...
But for me, the fact that the author has explicitly said that the money she makes equals support of her is a hard line.
Well. That makes it a bit easier. I won't type the string of frustrated expletives that went through my mind (directed at her), but i'm sure thinking them. Thank you.
But for me, the fact that the author has explicitly said that the money she makes equals support of her is a hard line.
Well. That makes it a bit easier.
I won't type the string of frustrated expletives that went through my mind (directed at her), but i'm sure thinking them.
Not even just the WW's acceptance, but the narrative itself only portrays Hermione as ridiculous for caring about their enslavement. The HIV/AIDs analogy of the werewolves - where the bad guy is...
Not even just the WW's acceptance, but the narrative itself only portrays Hermione as ridiculous for caring about their enslavement.
The HIV/AIDs analogy of the werewolves - where the bad guy is attacking children
The goblins and antisemitic tropes.
The "mannish hands and square jaw" of Rita Skeeter
Implied rape of Umbridge
All the weird race based names
If you're a villain you're probably fat or ugly, or "greasy"
The fantasy racism
This one's mostly just because of what we know about the author:
Kidnapping a reporter that writes mean things about you (she's very retaliatory on social media to criticism)
I don't buy the claim that a lot of these things are deliberate, as these interpretations are often contradicted by the text of the work. For example, people bring up the antisemitic tropes in how...
Exemplary
I don't buy the claim that a lot of these things are deliberate, as these interpretations are often contradicted by the text of the work.
For example, people bring up the antisemitic tropes in how the goblins are represented. But these tropes were "standard goblin portrayal" for so long that I would bet most people in the '90s, including an uneducated waitress, would have had no idea of their sordid history. To further compound things, it seemed pretty clear to 14 year old me that Voldemort and his Death Eaters were an allegory for white supremacy and Nazi Germany. So I don't think J.K. Rowling is antisemitic.
I also think the modern narrative around the portrayal of House Elves is born more from the film series than the books. The movies mostly glossed over it, so all you really see is some mistreated slave creatures and Hermione getting upset. I don't think Rowling's intent with this plot line was to say that the enslavement of House Elves was perfectly fine, but to illustrate just how backwards and regressive most of the Wizarding World still was. Without context like that, the ease with which fascist elements take control over the Ministry of Magic in the later books wouldn't make as much sense. Both Harry and Hermione serve as inserts for the reader, being the two major characters unexpectedly brought into the "Wizarding World" from the "Real World", and I think it's no coincidence that they are the most sympathetic on these kinds of issues.
This doesn't excuse the nasty things Rowling actually does believe (and regularly espouses on social media), but I don't feel comfortable ascribing many of these other beliefs to her and I think they are a product of people trying to apply American left/right politics to someone who doesn't live on that same spectrum.
I don't think they are deliberate at all, they're just a part of her world view, which is why I find it so damning myself, personally. One moment that sticks out to me in this way from the books,...
I don't buy the claim that a lot of these things are deliberate
I don't think they are deliberate at all, they're just a part of her world view, which is why I find it so damning myself, personally.
One moment that sticks out to me in this way from the books, is when Harry is attempting to get the memory from Slugworth. Slugworth mentions something about testing all his wine for poison by having the castle house elves try it. So he's just ... okay with poisoning the house elves. And HARRY'S response to this is to just shrug to himself and think "better not tell Hermione about that".
Another thing I find rather telling is how much time is spent on the racism aspect of magical creatures not being allowed wands, and not really having any rights. And at the end of the books... none of that has changed. It's not addressed at all. Nobody made anything better, they just killed Voldemort, and then went back on their merry way in the world where magical creatures are lesser.
It's not commentary from Rowling, it's just the way things are. And she doesn't care to question it.
There are so many utterly bizarre narrative choices when it comes to the different sentient species in the HP universe. Really there are a lot of strange choices in general.
There are so many utterly bizarre narrative choices when it comes to the different sentient species in the HP universe. Really there are a lot of strange choices in general.
They may not be deliberate but they can indeed still be present. Those two things aren't exclusive. Just as Snape betraying the wizard Nazis for a girl he calls a slur doesn't make him stop being...
I don't buy the claim that a lot of these things are deliberate, as these interpretations are often contradicted by the text of the work.
They may not be deliberate but they can indeed still be present.
For example, people bring up the antisemitic tropes in how the goblins are represented. But these tropes were "standard goblin portrayal" for so long that I would bet most people in the '90s, including an uneducated waitress, would have had no idea of their sordid history. To further compound things, it seemed pretty clear to 14 year old me that Voldemort and his Death Eaters were an obvious metaphor for white supremacy and Nazi Germany. So I don't think J.K. Rowling is antisemitic.
Those two things aren't exclusive. Just as Snape betraying the wizard Nazis for a girl he calls a slur doesn't make him stop being a wizard Nazi.
Either way, I didn't say that she was antisemitic. I was pointing out issues of concern
I also think the modern narrative around the portrayal of House Elves is born more from the film series than the books.
I remember reading the books, before the films came out, and being frustrated that even her best friends, who include Harry, who also grew up in the same world she did, telling her to lay off.
Hermione is the literal only person shown giving a shit and her personal crusade is given zero credence. Iirc Harry never freed Kreacher either (yes he was very conflicted about it at one point but decided to keep owning a slave) and he's the hero.
.
This doesn't excuse the nasty things Rowling actually does believe (and regularly espouses on social media), but I don't feel comfortable ascribing many of these other beliefs to her and I think it's a product of people trying to apply American left/right politics to someone who doesn't live on that same spectrum.
I was pointing out issues with the content of the work.
Re: house-elves, Having read the books many times, I see it more as the struggle that early abolitionists have in a culture which sees slavery as intrinsic and natural. The context is that...
Re: house-elves, Having read the books many times, I see it more as the struggle that early abolitionists have in a culture which sees slavery as intrinsic and natural. The context is that Hermione is nearly always correct in the books, and Ron nearly always wrong. Ron supports house elf slavery, and exhibits many obviously weak or flawed arguments, to the extent it seems a straw man.
I see it as an interesting thought experiment of a modern viewpoint on slavery being transplanted into a culture where the concept is just so alien even professor Lupin can’t get it.
It would make more sense to me if there werent multiple muggle born students in the school at all times. If it was an indictment of the British school system's failure to teach their own history,...
It would make more sense to me if there werent multiple muggle born students in the school at all times.
If it was an indictment of the British school system's failure to teach their own history, I'd have needed to see something to that effect.
And ultimately that's my issue, the narrative never does anything but tell Hermione that she's wrong. Our mentor figure, our hero, our best friend, they all say slavery is fine. Only the "bossy know it all" objects. Ron just keeps being portrayed as an idiot with his arguments, but Harry never ever frees his slave.
I don't think the author intended more nuance than that.
I see your point, but I also see it in the context that it is a tiny side slice of a large story. I wouldn’t expect it to have a complex and fully thought out subtext across 6 books, especially in...
I see your point, but I also see it in the context that it is a tiny side slice of a large story. I wouldn’t expect it to have a complex and fully thought out subtext across 6 books, especially in what ultimately is a children’s book.
I think like a lot of literature it depends on your starting point and personal context to how you end up interpreting it, and I suspect our starting points will differ significantly (which is not a problem and what makes life interesting).
If you introduce a "wow slavery is bad" story and resolve it with "stop fussing about it Hermione you're so bossy", i think that you shouldn't introduce a slavery story. I was 13 when the first...
If you introduce a "wow slavery is bad" story and resolve it with "stop fussing about it Hermione you're so bossy", i think that you shouldn't introduce a slavery story.
I was 13 when the first book was published so I grew up with the books and have gone through the disillusionment and adult assessment/analysis of them since then. I also grew up reading Orson Scott Card and Piers Anthony and Marion Zimmer Bradley and wasn't new to authors turning out to be awful people by that point (and seeing this appear in their books, even if unintentionally)
Piers Anthony was one that caught me by surprise when I was older, which is strange in some ways because unlike some authors the messed up stuff was pretty much all right there in the books. I was...
Piers Anthony was one that caught me by surprise when I was older, which is strange in some ways because unlike some authors the messed up stuff was pretty much all right there in the books. I was just young and naive enough that most of it sailed right over my head. Looking back, there were a lot of books in the SFF genres with some deeply messed up sexual/gender dynamics, and I read a lot of them without really being conscious of those dynamics at all. It's made me wonder for a long time what sorts of unconscious attitudes I might have picked up from the things I was reading.
Honestly, it all went over my head until the incarnations of immortality books near the tail end. Up until that point there was weird sexuality stuff but it was successfully couched. I wasn't a...
Honestly, it all went over my head until the incarnations of immortality books near the tail end. Up until that point there was weird sexuality stuff but it was successfully couched. I wasn't a xanth reader I was eating a lot of his. I don't need to know how to describe it like evolutionary sci-fi? and I was a little too old for those I think at the time. But I was the kid who was working my way through the science fiction and Fantasy section of the library without really any guidance. As you may be able to tell by the authors on that list
Ha, yeah this was very much me as well. My grandmother worked as the accountant at the local library, so I spent a lot of days there over the summers and basically spent all my time mining the SFF...
But I was the kid who was working my way through the science fiction and Fantasy section of the library without really any guidance
Ha, yeah this was very much me as well. My grandmother worked as the accountant at the local library, so I spent a lot of days there over the summers and basically spent all my time mining the SFF sections for anything that looked remotely interesting.
As far as Anthony goes, I mostly read his Xanth books which were pretty obviously low effort fluff, so I didn't really take him very seriously and it wasn't a huge blow to my childhood or anything when I realized how much of a weirdo he was, but it was a bit of a shock when I thought back.
I would find it interesting to know more about what JK Rowling’s thoughts were when making the story line, as it isn’t how I would have progressed, for much the same reasons you say. I wonder if...
I would find it interesting to know more about what JK Rowling’s thoughts were when making the story line, as it isn’t how I would have progressed, for much the same reasons you say. I wonder if there was initially more planned which got lost/cut to make more room for another larger plot line.
I don’t read it as a condoning slavery, it doesn’t fit with creating Dobby as a character, or Hermione’s unrelenting commitment to stopping it throughout the series. Again, I see it as Hermione being so obviously in the right from any modern reader, that is likely an intentional technique, albeit one that wasn’t fully tied up.
To be honest, if I was Harry or Hermione, I don’t actually know what the best way to deal with it would be: when the people you are trying to free are so brainwashed into the system they actively reject any attempts to be freed. If you were Harry or Hermione (to clarify not the author’s perspective, the actual characters), what do you think would be the right action to take?
Talk to Dumbledore about it. Harry should back Hermione up and not dismiss her. When they're older they apologize to Hermione for being wrong Freeing his slave even though there's a risk - and it...
Talk to Dumbledore about it.
Harry should back Hermione up and not dismiss her.
When they're older they apologize to Hermione for being wrong
Freeing his slave even though there's a risk - and it doesn't matter because it's the right thing to do.
Even something like "you're right Hermione but I don't know how to fix it, the adults think it's fine... Maybe this is just beyond us."
"Promise me we'll fix it someday, when we're in charge?"
"Of course."
And then they work on it in the afterword.
I don't know, I am not a writer. They're not real people, they're explicitly under the control of an author, and if that author can't make it work without writing a narrative that justifies slavery, then she shouldn't write it. And I'm not saying you can't portray a society that owns slaves, I'm saying the narrative itself doesn't disapprove of that
It's also very troubling to me how often the House Elves themselves echo real world, Lost Cause adjacent pro-slavery propaganda. Dobby is an aberration in Harry Potter for having the desire for...
It's also very troubling to me how often the House Elves themselves echo real world, Lost Cause adjacent pro-slavery propaganda. Dobby is an aberration in Harry Potter for having the desire for freedom. He's not a vanguard, or especially brave, or a victim of exceptional cruelty. He's just cracked, and every other house elf agrees.
Loudly and often, even by the other freed elf whose name I forgot. Could you do some sort of really poignant narrative about being in chains for so long that it takes a while for you to see...
Loudly and often, even by the other freed elf whose name I forgot.
Could you do some sort of really poignant narrative about being in chains for so long that it takes a while for you to see freedom for what it is or even to believe that it's possible?
To clarify, my question isn’t about the writing or story but about the hypothetical situation of an enslaved people who reject being freed. It’s tricky, and I don’t think I have a good answer of...
To clarify, my question isn’t about the writing or story but about the hypothetical situation of an enslaved people who reject being freed. It’s tricky, and I don’t think I have a good answer of how to deal with it. To me, it’s an interesting problem, and it makes me think.
While I agree talk to wise people is always good, I meant how would you deal with this hypothetical situation?
It’s a tangent and if you don’t want to go down this route that’s fine. For me, I’m engaging in this as an interesting uninvested conversation, whereas I wonder if for you it is more a passionate debate about the authors perceived misdeeds. I’m not here to win, just talk and share.
Sure but you asked how the characters should handle it. They're children. It would be reasonable for them to ask adults or wait until they've saved the world from wizard Nazis and reassess as...
Sure but you asked how the characters should handle it. They're children. It would be reasonable for them to ask adults or wait until they've saved the world from wizard Nazis and reassess as adults. That's my genuine answer to your original question.
To your new question about what I would do, besides trying to find every expert on the matter possible, I'd pass a law requiring every owner of slaves give them the option to be freed and failing that an order to obey no further orders and be required to provide them with more than adequate food and shelter for the rest of their lives. The sale and purchase of slaves is illegal. Anyone found giving a slave orders will forfeit their home to their former slaves. All slaves are free in practice if not in magic.
As I said, though, this isn't particularly realistic, in part because the world building holds up only if not looked at in any amount of bright light, but hey, if we can kill Wizard Hitler we can solve slavery right?
But I'm not really interested in discussing whether one should continue enslaving people who want it. This discussion isn't really a watsonian one. Nor is it a "debate about the author's misdeeds". I don't really have an interest in debating those. She's actively harmful to people like me and worse to trans women. They're not up for debate.
I was more getting at how to achieve cultural change in such a scenario to lead to seeing slavery as wrong, rather than what legislation would lead to a banning of slavery (but that’s okay, I...
I was more getting at how to achieve cultural change in such a scenario to lead to seeing slavery as wrong, rather than what legislation would lead to a banning of slavery (but that’s okay, I didn’t really ask clearly what I meant). But I can see this conversation chain has reached its conclusion. Thanks for your replies, and introducing me to “watsonian” as a terminology!
If she was unable to give it sufficient nuance to not include the slave race constantly insisting that the person who opposes slavery is wrong to do so, she should have just not included the plot...
I wouldn’t expect it to have a complex and fully thought out subtext across 6 books, especially in what ultimately is a children’s book.
If she was unable to give it sufficient nuance to not include the slave race constantly insisting that the person who opposes slavery is wrong to do so, she should have just not included the plot point to begin with. Especially since it's such a superfluous plot thread that could be almost entirely cut without affecting the series as a whole.
The deal with house elves may be a "tiny side slice of a large story", but it was a significant story element in at least one entire book in said series. I think we do ourselves, and our kids, a...
The deal with house elves may be a "tiny side slice of a large story", but it was a significant story element in at least one entire book in said series.
I think we do ourselves, and our kids, a disservice if we think that kids can't handle nuanced and complicated topics. We don't need to introduce slavery to a kid's book then handwaive it away because "kids won't see it" or some such. Kids do see it, and when they see their hero characters actively supporting it ... it can be problematic.
Maybe I’m projecting, as a kid I definitely missed a lot of the more nuanced aspects of text and concentrated on the main story, but maybe I’m in the minority. To be honest, I think it would be...
Maybe I’m projecting, as a kid I definitely missed a lot of the more nuanced aspects of text and concentrated on the main story, but maybe I’m in the minority.
To be honest, I think it would be interesting to know what kids who read it take home about the whole house elf/slavery theme.
I agree with your reading. The world described is an wildly flawed one ethically, with terrible horrors like house elf slavery; to neatly resolve all such evils would seem contrived. And yet they...
I agree with your reading. The world described is an wildly flawed one ethically, with terrible horrors like house elf slavery; to neatly resolve all such evils would seem contrived. And yet they give verisimilitude to the world by their inclusion. They indicate a world with many different struggles, wherein the focus of this narrative is a particular one, but where one can imagine for themselves a growing struggle against this social ill subsequent to the conclusion of the novel.
Winning world war two didn't repair all the ills of Allied society - our world is similarly imperfect. And yet we can still have powerful and dramatic narratives set against that backdrop, where one of many evils are overcome.
All this being said, I don't really care for Harry Potter at all, though I did as a young kid.
I think the worst thing about how Rowling handled House Elves in the HP books is how the arguments for House Elf slavery echo real-world arguments in favor of black slavery: that they prefer...
I think the worst thing about how Rowling handled House Elves in the HP books is how the arguments for House Elf slavery echo real-world arguments in favor of black slavery: that they prefer servitude or are somehow naturally predisposed toward it, and that they have traits that make them good slaves and would make them too dangerous to be free. Then, after echoing those real world arguments, the books reinforce those arguments repeatedly - by having trusted characters repeat them, by having the House Elves themselves reinforce them through repeating them or through their actions, etc.
If Rowling was merely attempting to present House Elf slavery as an unvarnished look at a fatal flaw of Wizarding society, I think she did a piss-poor job of it. She consistently undercuts any anti-slavery message, frequently using the House Elves themselves as the mouthpieces for pro-slavery apologia. It's weird, and while I suspect it has as much to do with Rowling's failings as a writer and her (apparent) difficulty with introspection as it does with any harmful intent of hers; as somebody who grew up in the deep south, so much of how she handles the House Elf situation echoes the Lost Cause crap that I heard all the time as a kid that it's impossible to excuse.
The depravity of the situation is captivating and forces introspection on the subject. Whilst I don't think a lot of her as an author, I think she's - here - giving her readers enough credit to...
The depravity of the situation is captivating and forces introspection on the subject. Whilst I don't think a lot of her as an author, I think she's - here - giving her readers enough credit to see through the veil themselves.
That trusted characters can't see the horrors right in front of them is itself a statement on how such institutions persist. As you say, characters echo the real world talking points around abolition. Hermione's persistence in the face of others' amusement reads as inspirational to me.
Resolution would serve to undermine the message in my view.
Whether they're deliberate and whether they're contradicted by the text are two different things. I think the text pretty strongly supports the antisemitism in the way goblins are portrayed -- and...
I don't buy the claim that a lot of these things are deliberate, as these interpretations are often contradicted by the text of the work.
Whether they're deliberate and whether they're contradicted by the text are two different things. I think the text pretty strongly supports the antisemitism in the way goblins are portrayed -- and I think you're overplaying how "standard" some of the more egregious elements are -- but whether it's deliberate on Rowling's part is more or less irrelevant to that. I think it's perfectly likely that it was something she was completely oblivious to. But even if she were an utter saint in all other respects that accidentally wrote something problematic through exclusively obliviousness, that doesn't remove the problems from the text itself.
Similarly, whether she intended to write horrific slavery apologia that echoed racist myths from centuries ago doesn't ultimately matter, because it doesn't change the fact that the books depict a world in which there is a slave race that is better off being slaved and prefers it, actually, and the only problem is that they don't have good enough masters, and those who oppose the institution of slavery on principle are naive and misguided. I simply disagree with you that this problem is born from the films, since the films (wisely) do not include the vast majority of the incredibly tone-deaf house elf stuff from the books. Many of the other flaws in Harry Potter are more understandable and can be overlooked more easily in my opinion, but this plot/worldbuilding element is both repeatedly present and really badly executed.
Moreover, some of these things are things we know were deliberate, because she came out and said they were. Rowling came out and explicitly said werewolves were a metaphor for HIV/AIDS in Harry Potter, for instance, and that makes it way worse when that metaphor is really, really badly handled in the books.
Then you have the prequel films: It's established in the books and surrounding Rowling ex cathedra that Grindelwald had something to do with World War II, implying Grindelwald achieved far worse...
Then you have the prequel films:
It's established in the books and surrounding Rowling ex cathedra that Grindelwald had something to do with World War II, implying Grindelwald achieved far worse things than Voldemort.
The movies come out, and Grindelwald's whole apparent motivation is...he saw a prophecy about WWII and wanted to stop it.
He gives a speech about this and the auror types warp in and start shooting everyone with magic. The titular "Crimes of Grindelwald" mostly are public speaking.
Like, obviously the end of his logic is "wizards should rule the world so regular humans don't do holocausts and atomic bombings," but really? Making the big villain's motivation "wants to stop the Holocaust?" When the obvious way to write that would be depicting Grindelwald and historical fascists as having overlapping ideals, and tying it into the Nazis' obsession with the occult?
Couple that with the goblin stuff, and it really isn't a good look at all.
You aren't missing much. Even if Rowling weren't a piece of shit, they're just bad films. Only the first one has much worth salvaging in it, and upon a recent-ish rewatch I was forced to remember...
You aren't missing much. Even if Rowling weren't a piece of shit, they're just bad films. Only the first one has much worth salvaging in it, and upon a recent-ish rewatch I was forced to remember how small a fraction of the overall film that stuff composed -- it's not enough to make it worth watching except somewhere like on a plane imo.
I consider that the least problematic of the lot (in a vacuum). Exploring slavery as a topic in books is not problematic, even if its inclusion is simply part of the world building. Slavery is...
I consider that the least problematic of the lot (in a vacuum). Exploring slavery as a topic in books is not problematic, even if its inclusion is simply part of the world building. Slavery is arguably still accepted in some places in the world and not too long ago accepted almost everywhere else. To write a story that takes a similar approach to how humans did it for millennia is alright with me, as long as it's about creating verisimilitude and not glorifying slavery in some form of course.
It's when you put all the things together besides slavery that it's a little sus.
Yes, including a difficult subject in a story does not mean (hopefully) condoning said thing. Voldemort is basically a Nazi wizard with a bunch of followers who like to use words like "mudblood"...
Yes, including a difficult subject in a story does not mean (hopefully) condoning said thing. Voldemort is basically a Nazi wizard with a bunch of followers who like to use words like "mudblood" in private. And they're portrayed as the bad guys.
"Cho Chang" as a name. It'd be like naming someone Smith Fitzgerald - taking the surnames of two different cultures and mashing them together. Cultural appropriation of the Indigenous peoples of...
"Cho Chang" as a name. It'd be like naming someone Smith Fitzgerald - taking the surnames of two different cultures and mashing them together.
I'm just an ABC (American Born Chinese), but I've read a few HP books in Chinese, and I'm totally fine with Cho Chang as a name（秋张 in the book). One common complaint about it is that it doesn't...
I'm just an ABC (American Born Chinese), but I've read a few HP books in Chinese, and I'm totally fine with Cho Chang as a name（秋张 in the book).
One common complaint about it is that it doesn't consistently follow any official romanization system. I always find this funny because my name doesn't either, and I don't find that problematic. Maybe my parents didn't know better, or maybe they just thought it looked better to change it up. Translating between languages doesn't always follow the rules. You can't say that "Cho" always maps to the surname 卓. So I find this angle of criticism to be mostly nitpicking.
Also, there are plenty of Chinese people with single character given names. I know a few personally, and skimming the first page of Google results suggests about 20% of people in China have single character given names. So, nothing weird about that either.
I wasn't suggesting that single-character names are unusual or weird. The specific choice of "Cho" and "Chang", particularly given Rowlings' general disregard for foreign cultures and peoples,...
I wasn't suggesting that single-character names are unusual or weird. The specific choice of "Cho" and "Chang", particularly given Rowlings' general disregard for foreign cultures and peoples, gave me (and plenty of others) pause. Like how Anthony Goldstein is the singular identified Jewish character, or Seamus Finnegan for the singular identified Irish character.
EDIT TO ADD: I really ought to acknowledge here that Cho Chang is possibly/probably the weakest example I could have used to demonstrate Rowlings' disregard for anything not English, and that I do not speak for anyone other than myself here. I certainly don't, and would not, speak to or against anyone's lived experience.
My dad knew a Chinese fella in his class with the first name Satan, so given because his parents liked the sound of it. Still, her naming choices do give the Seamus McCarbomb vibes.
My dad knew a Chinese fella in his class with the first name Satan, so given because his parents liked the sound of it. Still, her naming choices do give the Seamus McCarbomb vibes.
With the American administration threatening to levy extremely high tariffs against UK filmmakers it's really reassuring to see the TV series mostly sticking with a British cast. As far as I can...
I fear Arabella Stanton is about to get the Ellie treatment from the Internet. Godspeed, Arabella, may your eyes never scroll to the bottom of Reddit threads.
Perhaps it's still better than getting the "creepy countdown till they're 18 years old" fan pages treatment though.
But yes project fan culture or producers aside, I hope these and all child actors are protected and loved by the adults involved in their projects and their lives.
The most recent of this I've seen is Dafne Keen. Didn't see any actual countdown websites, but it's definitely something I noticed both directly and indirectly reading through the lines. She starred in Logan as a 12 year old and His Dark Materials from 14 to 17. I don't think anyone here needs more to be said about nerd culture/fan spaces behavior.. hope her mental health is alright because she has probably had a ton of unwanted attention from an early age (nearly every girl has experience with it, many from before puberty even, but it's amplified a thousand times over when you're the face of a tv show.) As for Arabella Stanton, I really hope production companies and Hollywood etc. has learned a thorough lesson about protecting child actors - not just girls of course, but certainly also boys. I imagine boys are at the receiving end of a lot of weird crap as well, some of the same things, but probably different in nature? In any case.. kids need protection from nerd culture/capital G gamers/incels/etc. because needless to say, those spaces can be extreme.
And then there is of course the color of her skin.
What is the Ellie treatment? I don't follow a lot of internet going-ons anymore outside of Tildes
Bella Ramsey has gotten a wave of hate for playing Ellie in The Last Of Us because she’s not attractive
Gosh the internet is stupid. I guess she isn’t « conventionally attractive », but she is still quite attractive. Not to mention she is a fantastic actor from the roles I have seen her in.
Ehhhhh. I think we should be able to say someone doesn’t deserve that level of hate just because of what they look like rather than have to resort to saying she is attractive. I don’t believe Ramsey is a good performer either, but that also doesn't make this intense hate campaign any better. It wasn’t ultimately her decision to be cast, someone else made that decision.
Did you see her in Game of Thrones? She owned any scene she was in. I don't really remember having strong opinions in Last of Us season 1. We only watched the first two episodes of season 2 and thought she did alright and had some pretty good scenes.
I think that may be a bit reductive, since the hate (though still far from what is reasonable) that I’ve seen has all been squarely aimed at her acting ability and the writing of her character. Of course you may have seen differently, and I wouldn’t deny some of that exists because it always does.
It’s definitely mostly based on her looks. Jokes like “The Chopped Of Us” or “The Down Of Us” are certainly taking a shot at her face.
Most of what I remember seeing is people complaining that Kaitlyn Dever should’ve been Ellie explicitly because Kaitlyn looks more like video game Ellie than Bella, and nothing else. I try stay out of online discourse about stuff like that, though, so haven’t seen anything lately
The showrunners had Kaitlyn as Ellie in an earlier adaptation that didn't go anywhere but for this show it was too late and she aged out of it. So they cast her as Abbie. That's where the internet story stems from. It's a disguised critique of Bella Ramsey.
Dever was considered back when it was being developed as a movie
I got the details wrong, you're right! Thanks.
Kaitlyn Dever and Cailee Spaeny are actresses frequently brought up. Both of which are pretty girls.
Huh, that's interesting, cause I think she is attractive. I've only seen her in Last of Us (though haven't watched the second season yet) and thought she did great in the first season.
I had no idea what you meant, until I Googled her. Holy shit. People are awful. It's a fake show about a fake character - why are people so rude and racist?!She's like 12. Damn people. Do better.
Indeed.
I have to decide if I want to watch and support her transphobia or not. But even if she wasn't directly involved it would be a decision to make, as while when I first read the novels, I didn't spot much wrong; since then, enough problematic things have been pointed out that reflects poorly on Rowling. It's not just transphobia. And that's neverminding the lazy writing. It's a pity that she's otherwise a decent storyteller.
It sounds like you've made your decision, honestly.
You don't have to watch a show based on a popular-but-problematic series of books written by a bigot.
I have mixed feelings about it. I really do have to decide.
I will frankly say that I eat at Chick-Fil-A from time to time, although the religious association of the company bothers me, as well as past (and possibly present) donations to organizations I dislike. But it's hard to decide what's best and where to draw lines. Most corporations funnel money to our oligarchs who have destroyed our democracy and brought us fascism. And I can't boycott everyone. So I have to pick and choose what's more important to me and what will make an impact.
I definitely will not support JK Rowling directly if I can avoid it. But I will have to admit that there are so many authors with problems… it's hard to keep up and decide what crosses the line.
I feel that it might be more important to speak out against bigotry than to boycott. I used to tend toward more absolute reactions; now I seek more nuance.
Everyone has their own line, I know queer folks that eat the hate chicken, and others who won't touch it. And I still have Amazon Prime even though I think I shouldn't...
But for me, the fact that the author has explicitly said that the money she makes equals support of her is a hard line.
Well. That makes it a bit easier.
I won't type the string of frustrated expletives that went through my mind (directed at her), but i'm sure thinking them.
Thank you.
I am sorry the world is this way. And I wish it weren't. Curse her all you like though.
If it makes you feel better, her grave, like Thatcher's, is on track to be designated a gender-neutral toilet.
Wow that's rude.
Say "all-gender" because it'll upset her more.
I assume you’re talking about the wizarding world’s weird acceptance of elf slavery? What else?
Not even just the WW's acceptance, but the narrative itself only portrays Hermione as ridiculous for caring about their enslavement.
The HIV/AIDs analogy of the werewolves - where the bad guy is attacking children
The goblins and antisemitic tropes.
The "mannish hands and square jaw" of Rita Skeeter
Implied rape of Umbridge
All the weird race based names
If you're a villain you're probably fat or ugly, or "greasy"
The fantasy racism
This one's mostly just because of what we know about the author:
Kidnapping a reporter that writes mean things about you (she's very retaliatory on social media to criticism)
I don't buy the claim that a lot of these things are deliberate, as these interpretations are often contradicted by the text of the work.
For example, people bring up the antisemitic tropes in how the goblins are represented. But these tropes were "standard goblin portrayal" for so long that I would bet most people in the '90s, including an uneducated waitress, would have had no idea of their sordid history. To further compound things, it seemed pretty clear to 14 year old me that Voldemort and his Death Eaters were an allegory for white supremacy and Nazi Germany. So I don't think J.K. Rowling is antisemitic.
I also think the modern narrative around the portrayal of House Elves is born more from the film series than the books. The movies mostly glossed over it, so all you really see is some mistreated slave creatures and Hermione getting upset. I don't think Rowling's intent with this plot line was to say that the enslavement of House Elves was perfectly fine, but to illustrate just how backwards and regressive most of the Wizarding World still was. Without context like that, the ease with which fascist elements take control over the Ministry of Magic in the later books wouldn't make as much sense. Both Harry and Hermione serve as inserts for the reader, being the two major characters unexpectedly brought into the "Wizarding World" from the "Real World", and I think it's no coincidence that they are the most sympathetic on these kinds of issues.
This doesn't excuse the nasty things Rowling actually does believe (and regularly espouses on social media), but I don't feel comfortable ascribing many of these other beliefs to her and I think they are a product of people trying to apply American left/right politics to someone who doesn't live on that same spectrum.
I don't think they are deliberate at all, they're just a part of her world view, which is why I find it so damning myself, personally.
One moment that sticks out to me in this way from the books, is when Harry is attempting to get the memory from Slugworth. Slugworth mentions something about testing all his wine for poison by having the castle house elves try it. So he's just ... okay with poisoning the house elves. And HARRY'S response to this is to just shrug to himself and think "better not tell Hermione about that".
Another thing I find rather telling is how much time is spent on the racism aspect of magical creatures not being allowed wands, and not really having any rights. And at the end of the books... none of that has changed. It's not addressed at all. Nobody made anything better, they just killed Voldemort, and then went back on their merry way in the world where magical creatures are lesser.
It's not commentary from Rowling, it's just the way things are. And she doesn't care to question it.
There are so many utterly bizarre narrative choices when it comes to the different sentient species in the HP universe. Really there are a lot of strange choices in general.
They may not be deliberate but they can indeed still be present.
Those two things aren't exclusive. Just as Snape betraying the wizard Nazis for a girl he calls a slur doesn't make him stop being a wizard Nazi.
Either way, I didn't say that she was antisemitic. I was pointing out issues of concern
I remember reading the books, before the films came out, and being frustrated that even her best friends, who include Harry, who also grew up in the same world she did, telling her to lay off.
Hermione is the literal only person shown giving a shit and her personal crusade is given zero credence. Iirc Harry never freed Kreacher either (yes he was very conflicted about it at one point but decided to keep owning a slave) and he's the hero.
.
I was pointing out issues with the content of the work.
Re: house-elves, Having read the books many times, I see it more as the struggle that early abolitionists have in a culture which sees slavery as intrinsic and natural. The context is that Hermione is nearly always correct in the books, and Ron nearly always wrong. Ron supports house elf slavery, and exhibits many obviously weak or flawed arguments, to the extent it seems a straw man.
I see it as an interesting thought experiment of a modern viewpoint on slavery being transplanted into a culture where the concept is just so alien even professor Lupin can’t get it.
It would make more sense to me if there werent multiple muggle born students in the school at all times.
If it was an indictment of the British school system's failure to teach their own history, I'd have needed to see something to that effect.
And ultimately that's my issue, the narrative never does anything but tell Hermione that she's wrong. Our mentor figure, our hero, our best friend, they all say slavery is fine. Only the "bossy know it all" objects. Ron just keeps being portrayed as an idiot with his arguments, but Harry never ever frees his slave.
I don't think the author intended more nuance than that.
I see your point, but I also see it in the context that it is a tiny side slice of a large story. I wouldn’t expect it to have a complex and fully thought out subtext across 6 books, especially in what ultimately is a children’s book.
I think like a lot of literature it depends on your starting point and personal context to how you end up interpreting it, and I suspect our starting points will differ significantly (which is not a problem and what makes life interesting).
If you introduce a "wow slavery is bad" story and resolve it with "stop fussing about it Hermione you're so bossy", i think that you shouldn't introduce a slavery story.
I was 13 when the first book was published so I grew up with the books and have gone through the disillusionment and adult assessment/analysis of them since then. I also grew up reading Orson Scott Card and Piers Anthony and Marion Zimmer Bradley and wasn't new to authors turning out to be awful people by that point (and seeing this appear in their books, even if unintentionally)
Piers Anthony was one that caught me by surprise when I was older, which is strange in some ways because unlike some authors the messed up stuff was pretty much all right there in the books. I was just young and naive enough that most of it sailed right over my head. Looking back, there were a lot of books in the SFF genres with some deeply messed up sexual/gender dynamics, and I read a lot of them without really being conscious of those dynamics at all. It's made me wonder for a long time what sorts of unconscious attitudes I might have picked up from the things I was reading.
Honestly, it all went over my head until the incarnations of immortality books near the tail end. Up until that point there was weird sexuality stuff but it was successfully couched. I wasn't a xanth reader I was eating a lot of his. I don't need to know how to describe it like evolutionary sci-fi? and I was a little too old for those I think at the time. But I was the kid who was working my way through the science fiction and Fantasy section of the library without really any guidance. As you may be able to tell by the authors on that list
Ha, yeah this was very much me as well. My grandmother worked as the accountant at the local library, so I spent a lot of days there over the summers and basically spent all my time mining the SFF sections for anything that looked remotely interesting.
As far as Anthony goes, I mostly read his Xanth books which were pretty obviously low effort fluff, so I didn't really take him very seriously and it wasn't a huge blow to my childhood or anything when I realized how much of a weirdo he was, but it was a bit of a shock when I thought back.
I would find it interesting to know more about what JK Rowling’s thoughts were when making the story line, as it isn’t how I would have progressed, for much the same reasons you say. I wonder if there was initially more planned which got lost/cut to make more room for another larger plot line.
I don’t read it as a condoning slavery, it doesn’t fit with creating Dobby as a character, or Hermione’s unrelenting commitment to stopping it throughout the series. Again, I see it as Hermione being so obviously in the right from any modern reader, that is likely an intentional technique, albeit one that wasn’t fully tied up.
To be honest, if I was Harry or Hermione, I don’t actually know what the best way to deal with it would be: when the people you are trying to free are so brainwashed into the system they actively reject any attempts to be freed. If you were Harry or Hermione (to clarify not the author’s perspective, the actual characters), what do you think would be the right action to take?
Talk to Dumbledore about it.
Harry should back Hermione up and not dismiss her.
When they're older they apologize to Hermione for being wrong
Freeing his slave even though there's a risk - and it doesn't matter because it's the right thing to do.
Even something like "you're right Hermione but I don't know how to fix it, the adults think it's fine... Maybe this is just beyond us."
"Promise me we'll fix it someday, when we're in charge?"
"Of course."
And then they work on it in the afterword.
I don't know, I am not a writer. They're not real people, they're explicitly under the control of an author, and if that author can't make it work without writing a narrative that justifies slavery, then she shouldn't write it. And I'm not saying you can't portray a society that owns slaves, I'm saying the narrative itself doesn't disapprove of that
It's also very troubling to me how often the House Elves themselves echo real world, Lost Cause adjacent pro-slavery propaganda. Dobby is an aberration in Harry Potter for having the desire for freedom. He's not a vanguard, or especially brave, or a victim of exceptional cruelty. He's just cracked, and every other house elf agrees.
Loudly and often, even by the other freed elf whose name I forgot.
Could you do some sort of really poignant narrative about being in chains for so long that it takes a while for you to see freedom for what it is or even to believe that it's possible?
Someone probably could but not this author.
To clarify, my question isn’t about the writing or story but about the hypothetical situation of an enslaved people who reject being freed. It’s tricky, and I don’t think I have a good answer of how to deal with it. To me, it’s an interesting problem, and it makes me think.
While I agree talk to wise people is always good, I meant how would you deal with this hypothetical situation?
It’s a tangent and if you don’t want to go down this route that’s fine. For me, I’m engaging in this as an interesting uninvested conversation, whereas I wonder if for you it is more a passionate debate about the authors perceived misdeeds. I’m not here to win, just talk and share.
Sure but you asked how the characters should handle it. They're children. It would be reasonable for them to ask adults or wait until they've saved the world from wizard Nazis and reassess as adults. That's my genuine answer to your original question.
To your new question about what I would do, besides trying to find every expert on the matter possible, I'd pass a law requiring every owner of slaves give them the option to be freed and failing that an order to obey no further orders and be required to provide them with more than adequate food and shelter for the rest of their lives. The sale and purchase of slaves is illegal. Anyone found giving a slave orders will forfeit their home to their former slaves. All slaves are free in practice if not in magic.
As I said, though, this isn't particularly realistic, in part because the world building holds up only if not looked at in any amount of bright light, but hey, if we can kill Wizard Hitler we can solve slavery right?
But I'm not really interested in discussing whether one should continue enslaving people who want it. This discussion isn't really a watsonian one. Nor is it a "debate about the author's misdeeds". I don't really have an interest in debating those. She's actively harmful to people like me and worse to trans women. They're not up for debate.
I was more getting at how to achieve cultural change in such a scenario to lead to seeing slavery as wrong, rather than what legislation would lead to a banning of slavery (but that’s okay, I didn’t really ask clearly what I meant). But I can see this conversation chain has reached its conclusion. Thanks for your replies, and introducing me to “watsonian” as a terminology!
Alas, I knew how to change minds at the population level about human rights I would have a different job.
If she was unable to give it sufficient nuance to not include the slave race constantly insisting that the person who opposes slavery is wrong to do so, she should have just not included the plot point to begin with. Especially since it's such a superfluous plot thread that could be almost entirely cut without affecting the series as a whole.
Yeah, I wrote out a longer comment before seeing your (much) more succinct one, but I think this is the clincher for me.
The deal with house elves may be a "tiny side slice of a large story", but it was a significant story element in at least one entire book in said series.
I think we do ourselves, and our kids, a disservice if we think that kids can't handle nuanced and complicated topics. We don't need to introduce slavery to a kid's book then handwaive it away because "kids won't see it" or some such. Kids do see it, and when they see their hero characters actively supporting it ... it can be problematic.
Maybe I’m projecting, as a kid I definitely missed a lot of the more nuanced aspects of text and concentrated on the main story, but maybe I’m in the minority.
To be honest, I think it would be interesting to know what kids who read it take home about the whole house elf/slavery theme.
As a kid I was pissed at how they treated Hermione because she was right. And I felt kinship to her for that.
I agree with your reading. The world described is an wildly flawed one ethically, with terrible horrors like house elf slavery; to neatly resolve all such evils would seem contrived. And yet they give verisimilitude to the world by their inclusion. They indicate a world with many different struggles, wherein the focus of this narrative is a particular one, but where one can imagine for themselves a growing struggle against this social ill subsequent to the conclusion of the novel.
Winning world war two didn't repair all the ills of Allied society - our world is similarly imperfect. And yet we can still have powerful and dramatic narratives set against that backdrop, where one of many evils are overcome.
All this being said, I don't really care for Harry Potter at all, though I did as a young kid.
I think the worst thing about how Rowling handled House Elves in the HP books is how the arguments for House Elf slavery echo real-world arguments in favor of black slavery: that they prefer servitude or are somehow naturally predisposed toward it, and that they have traits that make them good slaves and would make them too dangerous to be free. Then, after echoing those real world arguments, the books reinforce those arguments repeatedly - by having trusted characters repeat them, by having the House Elves themselves reinforce them through repeating them or through their actions, etc.
If Rowling was merely attempting to present House Elf slavery as an unvarnished look at a fatal flaw of Wizarding society, I think she did a piss-poor job of it. She consistently undercuts any anti-slavery message, frequently using the House Elves themselves as the mouthpieces for pro-slavery apologia. It's weird, and while I suspect it has as much to do with Rowling's failings as a writer and her (apparent) difficulty with introspection as it does with any harmful intent of hers; as somebody who grew up in the deep south, so much of how she handles the House Elf situation echoes the Lost Cause crap that I heard all the time as a kid that it's impossible to excuse.
The depravity of the situation is captivating and forces introspection on the subject. Whilst I don't think a lot of her as an author, I think she's - here - giving her readers enough credit to see through the veil themselves.
That trusted characters can't see the horrors right in front of them is itself a statement on how such institutions persist. As you say, characters echo the real world talking points around abolition. Hermione's persistence in the face of others' amusement reads as inspirational to me.
Resolution would serve to undermine the message in my view.
Whether they're deliberate and whether they're contradicted by the text are two different things. I think the text pretty strongly supports the antisemitism in the way goblins are portrayed -- and I think you're overplaying how "standard" some of the more egregious elements are -- but whether it's deliberate on Rowling's part is more or less irrelevant to that. I think it's perfectly likely that it was something she was completely oblivious to. But even if she were an utter saint in all other respects that accidentally wrote something problematic through exclusively obliviousness, that doesn't remove the problems from the text itself.
Similarly, whether she intended to write horrific slavery apologia that echoed racist myths from centuries ago doesn't ultimately matter, because it doesn't change the fact that the books depict a world in which there is a slave race that is better off being slaved and prefers it, actually, and the only problem is that they don't have good enough masters, and those who oppose the institution of slavery on principle are naive and misguided. I simply disagree with you that this problem is born from the films, since the films (wisely) do not include the vast majority of the incredibly tone-deaf house elf stuff from the books. Many of the other flaws in Harry Potter are more understandable and can be overlooked more easily in my opinion, but this plot/worldbuilding element is both repeatedly present and really badly executed.
Moreover, some of these things are things we know were deliberate, because she came out and said they were. Rowling came out and explicitly said werewolves were a metaphor for HIV/AIDS in Harry Potter, for instance, and that makes it way worse when that metaphor is really, really badly handled in the books.
She wasn't uneducated: she was university educated with a B.A. in French and Classics.
Then you have the prequel films:
It's established in the books and surrounding Rowling ex cathedra that Grindelwald had something to do with World War II, implying Grindelwald achieved far worse things than Voldemort.
The movies come out, and Grindelwald's whole apparent motivation is...he saw a prophecy about WWII and wanted to stop it.
He gives a speech about this and the auror types warp in and start shooting everyone with magic. The titular "Crimes of Grindelwald" mostly are public speaking.
Like, obviously the end of his logic is "wizards should rule the world so regular humans don't do holocausts and atomic bombings," but really? Making the big villain's motivation "wants to stop the Holocaust?" When the obvious way to write that would be depicting Grindelwald and historical fascists as having overlapping ideals, and tying it into the Nazis' obsession with the occult?
Couple that with the goblin stuff, and it really isn't a good look at all.
I didn't watch them - maybe the first on a plane - so I have less to say other than the nazi parallels did not seem well handled.
You aren't missing much. Even if Rowling weren't a piece of shit, they're just bad films. Only the first one has much worth salvaging in it, and upon a recent-ish rewatch I was forced to remember how small a fraction of the overall film that stuff composed -- it's not enough to make it worth watching except somewhere like on a plane imo.
Yeah I've not heard good things, so I'm not upset. I also don't feel any need to enrich her further.
Yeah, for sure I agree. It's just handy when I don't even have to give up anything particularly worth experiencing for that purpose lol
I consider that the least problematic of the lot (in a vacuum). Exploring slavery as a topic in books is not problematic, even if its inclusion is simply part of the world building. Slavery is arguably still accepted in some places in the world and not too long ago accepted almost everywhere else. To write a story that takes a similar approach to how humans did it for millennia is alright with me, as long as it's about creating verisimilitude and not glorifying slavery in some form of course.
It's when you put all the things together besides slavery that it's a little sus.
Yes, including a difficult subject in a story does not mean (hopefully) condoning said thing. Voldemort is basically a Nazi wizard with a bunch of followers who like to use words like "mudblood" in private. And they're portrayed as the bad guys.
All the other clichés, though...
I like this take. It's very reasoned.
"Cho Chang" as a name. It'd be like naming someone Smith Fitzgerald - taking the surnames of two different cultures and mashing them together.
Cultural appropriation of the Indigenous peoples of North America by claiming everything they did was wizardry.
There's others too.
I'm just an ABC (American Born Chinese), but I've read a few HP books in Chinese, and I'm totally fine with Cho Chang as a name（秋张 in the book).
One common complaint about it is that it doesn't consistently follow any official romanization system. I always find this funny because my name doesn't either, and I don't find that problematic. Maybe my parents didn't know better, or maybe they just thought it looked better to change it up. Translating between languages doesn't always follow the rules. You can't say that "Cho" always maps to the surname 卓. So I find this angle of criticism to be mostly nitpicking.
Also, there are plenty of Chinese people with single character given names. I know a few personally, and skimming the first page of Google results suggests about 20% of people in China have single character given names. So, nothing weird about that either.
I wasn't suggesting that single-character names are unusual or weird. The specific choice of "Cho" and "Chang", particularly given Rowlings' general disregard for foreign cultures and peoples, gave me (and plenty of others) pause. Like how Anthony Goldstein is the singular identified Jewish character, or Seamus Finnegan for the singular identified Irish character.
EDIT TO ADD: I really ought to acknowledge here that Cho Chang is possibly/probably the weakest example I could have used to demonstrate Rowlings' disregard for anything not English, and that I do not speak for anyone other than myself here. I certainly don't, and would not, speak to or against anyone's lived experience.
My dad knew a Chinese fella in his class with the first name Satan, so given because his parents liked the sound of it. Still, her naming choices do give the Seamus McCarbomb vibes.
Oh I didn't even think about getting into the prequels. She used a BADGER for the UK but thought it was appropriate to use a THUNDERBIRD?
With the American administration threatening to levy extremely high tariffs against UK filmmakers it's really reassuring to see the TV series mostly sticking with a British cast. As far as I can tell the only American actor announced is John Lithgow, playing Dumbledore.