#J k rowling

[karlrincon]

Rest in peace to an absolute treasure, Dame Maggie Smith.

They’ve been reunited 🤍

[wizardpotions]

incase any of you needed a reminder that basically all bigotry falls into a pipeline JKR has become so transphobic shes moved on to holocaust denial about this

[georgies-ftts]

As much as i hate JKR i will not tolerate any slander or hatred aimed towards the kids that get casted in the Harry Potter reboot.

If they get accurate aged kids then they’re gonna be between 10-12/13 years old to represent year 7’s (11-12.) Chances are they’re child actors aiming for a big break which shouldn’t be biased on who they author of the books are or they are being pushed by their parents which is something that happens more often than not.

I refuse. point blank refuse to fuckin ‘cancel’ any kids casted. They are children and they deserve a chance.

I won’t be watching it. But i will not obliterate a child’s chances to succeed based on a woman’s shitty view of human beings

[ookaookaooka]

I’m hardly the first person to compare them but Terry Pratchett and J K Rowling really are polar opposites in terms of the way their writing treats weird characters. In Rowling’s writing, any weirdness is there to be laughed at (for example: Professor Trelawney, the fake seer who doesn’t know she’s an actual seer). In Pratchett’s writing, though, the characters’ weirdness is taken 100% seriously and the humor arises organically from the situation itself and is never at the characters’ expense (for example: in Making Money, the man who was born a clown and was never told so until he was 13 years old). In Rowling’s writing, the main characters poke constant fun at Professor Trelawney, making joke predictions and fudging homework and talking about how divination isn’t a legitimate field of study. Even after she gets fired and more or less drops the act, the joke changes to “look at this sad drunk lady” and the main characters express little sympathy. The narrative is saying she’s there to make one real prediction and otherwise she’s only there for comic relief. This sort of thing happens over and over in Rowling’s writing, where any quirkiness is there to be laughed at and the misfortunes of characters we’re not supposed to like are supposed to be funny, and it sends a message of conformity under threat of ridicule. In Pratchett’s writing, the clown man’s story is treated as a great tragedy: imagine growing up not knowing why you are the way you are, and then finding out the truth as a teenager! And knowing that your own mother kept the truth from you! This man was so deeply traumatized by this he denied himself any humor or fun for decades, and when he has a crisis and runs off to become a clown again, he is given support and medical treatment and is welcomed back to his job at the bank and accepted for who he is. The fact that this whole situation is hilarious is secondary. And again, this sort of thing happens over and over again in Pratchett’s writing, where characters’ quirkiness is embraced and often seen as irreplaceable by the end of the book, and it sends a message that our quirks are valuable and weirdness should be acceptable. It just strikes me as a much… kinder approach to people, you know?

[millaniumcat]

"But we need to separate the art from the artist..."

NO. STOP.

"Separating the art from the artist" and "death of the author" does not mean what most people think it means, and i am so sick of people using this as an excuse for an artists horrible behaviour. Yes, i am looking at you, J.K Rowling and Till Lindemann (and so many more.)

"Death of the author" is a LITERARY THEORY that argues that the meaning of a piece of art is determined by the readers interpretation, not the authors intention. It is a TOOL used by LITERARY STUDIES to determine the meaning of a piece of art.

It is not a good argument in an everyday discussion about problematic authors. And it is certainly not an excuse for people to keep supporting artists (and art!) that are queerphobic, transphobic, anti-feminisitc, antisemitic and misogynistic.

And no, "separation of artist and art" is not a reason to ignore the problematic views of the author that are INHERENTLY INCOPORATED in the art.

DO NOT EVER use "death of the author" or "separate art from artist" as an excuse. It is not.

[luciferslilith7]

November weather is Remus Lupin weather

Source ~ 📍 pinterest

[marauderstars]

JKR is now calling trans women “trans identified men” - while still somehow preaching about the ways that men police “femaleness.” JKR and her allies are the only ones who are allowed to gatekeep who and what counts as a woman, apparently. The hypocrisy here is multilayered - she rebukes someone who has a particular idea of what a woman is, and yet she herself has constructed a similarly limited idea of what a woman is - one that excludes trans women. But also - it’s not an accident that all the targets of this kind of transphobia (“protect women’s sport,” “protect women-only spaces,” “some trans women are abusers”) are trans women - not trans men. Under the guise of feminism, she denies the identities and rights of some of the most vulnerable and systemically oppressed women alive today. Trans women are women. To deny that because it doesn’t conform to your “sex-based” definition of womanhood - THAT is the very definition of misogyny.

[greencarnation]

[a-lady-in-shining-armour]

It’s so so funny that the same people that think J K Rowling should be literally arrested if not murdered for hurting trans people’s feelings also think there should be no consequences for them threatening her with violence. The disconnection from reality is insane, like that’s not how laws work in real life. If something is illegal for one person, it’s illegal for everyone. If refusing to accept a trans person’s view of gender was illegal, it would also be illegal for them to reject a radical feminists view of gender (it’s invalidating like you want to erase the existence of feminists!).

[vavuska]

J. K. Rowling vs David Tennant: where is the truth and where the lies?

Probably everyone have read something about an unpopular opinion posted by J. K. Rowling on Twitter (cough, I mean X), where she decided to go after David Tennant. She claimed that during an interview Tennant was talking about whinging f**kers who need to just shut up. These whinging f**kers who he is referring to are women who’s rights are being oppressed, according to J. K. Rowling.

Unfortunately, Tennant didn't say anything against oppressed and abused women. Actually, Rowling is *again* pursuing her personal crusade claiming female-only = no trans-women. Tennant, after accepting an award, took the microphone and gave a speech about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the UK, and the sad need for awards like the one he received (he was honored at the British LGBT Awards with Celebrity Ally award).

During the speech, Tennant also targeted UK Minister for Women and Equalities, Kemi Badenoch, who had previously said she would exclude trans-women from single-sex areas. Tennant said:

“I suppose if I’m honest I’m a little depressed by the fact that acknowledging that everyone has the right to be who they want to be and live their life how they want to live it as long as they’re not hurting anyone else should merit any kind of special or award or special mention because it’s common sense, isn’t it?” Tennant said in his speech. “It’s human decency. We shouldn’t live in a world where that is worth remarking on. However until we wake up and Kemi Badenoch doesn’t exist anymore — I don’t wish ill of her, I just wish her to shut up — whilst we do live in this world I am honoured to receive this.”

Tennant’s speech started a war of words with Badenoch, who later took to social media to say she would not shut up as the actor suggested. She went on to call Tennant “a rich, lefty, white male celebrity so blinded by ideology he can’t see the optics of attacking the only Black woman in government by calling publicly for my existence to end.”

Which, again, is a... Ehm... Lie, since Tennant didn't attack Minister Badenoch for her ethnicity or threatened her life. Tennant speech was critical of her position regarding trans rights and not her personal life. Tennant was calling out government bigots for their political opinions regarding social issues and not attacking anyone on personal basis and NEVER - NEVER said anything about institutional racism (which Minister Badenoch herself claimed it's not a problem in UK) and violence against women (both cis and trans) not being major problems.

In a separate red carpet interview on the awards ceremony, Tennant was asked to say something to the trans youth. He responded to don't feel judged or unloved, because transphobic politicians are just a little minority: “It's a tiny bunch of little whinging f**kers who are on the wrong side of history, and they’ll all go away soon.”

The whole interview is available under here and it's sweet and heartwarming:

As always, J. K. Rowling and conservative politicians are strumentalizing LGBTQ+ awareness contents to make the community and it's allies look like evil terrorists (“gender Taliban”) and therefore pursuing their anti-trans goals while also belittling abuse perpetrated on women in religious states and systemic racism. Since violence against women is overwhelmingly committed by cisgender men, why are the Tories blaming LGBTQ+ community and it's allies?

J. K. Rowling and Minister Badenoch demonstrated through their words, how danger narratives can be invoked not only to obscure (hetero) cis men’s violence and abuse against cis and trans women, but also justify violence against the whole LGBTQ + community in the holy name of (cis-hetero) women's safety. [Here my previous post about this]

[inafever]

It hurts really bad every time your fandom goes parentless again

[burningleaf2x9]

okay but like. if I didn't know that she's a homophobe and transphobe and just altogether awful, I would've thought J.K. Rowling to be the BIGGEST JEGULUS STAN to grace this earth. BECAUSE.

in canon, James played chaser, right? and yet. HE HAD A SNITCH. THAT HE PLAYED WITH. AND HE WASNT A SEEKER. so. you know who could've given him that snitch? REGULUS BLACK.

ALSO. to do with quidditch again, Harry is a seeker, right? IT COULD BE CAUSE OF REGULUS RAISING HIM OR SOMETIING OR GETTING THE TALENT FROM HIMMM.

also harry being considered for slytherin??? it COULD be regulus's influence.

ALSO. REGULUS TRYING TO GET THE HORCRUX???? TO PROTECT JAMES PERHAPS??? AS VOLDEMORT WAS HUNTING HIM????

[hazbinbabbling4ever]

Your daily reminder JK Rowling sucks.

[myboobsaresentientbeeings]

okay so i have a question:

i have a lot of Harry Potter merch. Not new one, i bought the last one like two years ago, but i still have it.

However I don't feel like wearing it anymore. I basically have this dilemma where the clothing is very comfortable and fits me well, but i don't want to be seen as supporting J.K. Rowling (which i am not).

What's your thought on this, would you think a person wearing hp merch is a J.K Rowling supporter if you saw them on the street ?

(If you're trans and or jewish, your opinion on this is especially appreciated, but i'll take opinions from anyone but Terfs, you can fuck off)

[lillyli-74]

AI by Lilly Li

We do not need magic to transform our world. We carry all of the power we need inside ourselves already.

~J.K. Rowling

[axolotl-of-the-century]