#anti rowling

[fangirl-nadir]

The world would be so much better if Rowling died in a sudden, painful accident

[thenightling]

In defense of John Lithgow

In defense of John Lithgow...

It's official. John Lithgow is going to play Dumbledore for the Harry Potter TV series.

I noticed John Lithgow is already getting a lot of hate for accepting the role and being treated as a transphobe by default. There's a very public open letter essentially telling him he's not an ally if he doesn't quit.

Here are some things to consider.

1. If he quits, it doesn't change how much money J. K. Rowling gets for the project. They would just find someone else.

2. John Lithgow just starred in a very pro LGBTQAI+ movie as a gay grandfather to a nonbinary grand-child. He is pro-nonbinary and trans rights and actively supported the community up to this point.

3. John Lithgow is from the US. This violates J. K. Rowling's stance for Dumbledore to only ever be played by NON-American (preferably UK or Irsh) actors). His casting specifically undermines her very firm stance that prevented Robin Williams from playing Hagrid in the movies and this casting choice IS a middle finger to J. K. Rowling.

Think about it. They chose a very vocally pro-LGBTQAI+ actor who just starred in an LGBTQAI+ family film about a gay grandfather and nonbinary grand child. And not just that. He's American. He's precisely the sort of person she does NOT want as Dumbledore. Consider this spite-casting. Notice J. K. Rowling has not commented yet about the casting. She is NOT happy and is probably under an NDA preventing her from speaking out against it. If she actually liked the casting you know she'd have said something by now.

So please don't think ill of John Lithgow over this.

He was also Emperor Norton in the very pro Queer The Sandman audio drama, which features nonbinary and trans actors and characters such as Mason Alexander Park as Desire and Reece Lyons as Wanda.

[alpaca-clouds]

About supposed "Historical Revisionism"

I have seen something going around with the entire Neil Gaiman debate. Basically there were people saying: "Well, I never liked his writing either way." To which others would reply: "Let's not do the same historical revisionism, that people try with Rowling. There is a reason those books were so popular." And stuff like that. Basically saying that any comment on the books maybe not being as good as the hype suggests somehow is historical revisionsm and wrong.

But folks, here is the thing: A lot of popular stuff is actually not good. Stuff does not become popular by being good, but by catering to the taste of a lot of people.

Harry Potter never was really a good book series. Like, there are plot holes in those books deeper than the Mariana Trench, the characters have close to no development over the course of seven books, and the worldbuilding is lackluster at best, and quite racist at worse. And those things have been noted both by book critics and people in Livejournal since the books came out in the 90s. It was just that this criticism was kinda drowned out by the hype, because those books gave a lot of kids a certain type of escapism, that at the time very little other media gave them.

But the criticism was always there.

And let's face it: Twilight was just as popular. With the main difference being that the criticism was less drowned out simply because it was mainly targeted at girls, and it is always cool to criticize "girl stuff". And I guess, if Stephanie Meyer turned out to be more problematic than your average mormon, people would generally go: "Eh, figures," because often the same people who would defend the same issues in Harry Potter would love to hate on those "promatic" things in Twilight. Because, again: Twilight was for girls, and thus it was fine to rant about it despite it being popular.

And when it comes to Neil Gaiman? Well, I will openly say, that I personally always liked his often deeply sarcastic voice in the books. I liked the humor in many of his books. But there have been people criticising those books with very valid criticism at the very least since the dawn of the internet. Because the books aren't perfect. And let's face it: There is a lot of abuse of women in Gaiman's books for example. And without knowing those things that we now know, a lot of people decided to read this as criticism of the patriarchy and men who abuse women. But now? Well, now some people start to wonder if it was something else.

Generally speaking: Yeah. Popular stuff is not popular because it is good. To put it very zynically: Popular stuff is popular, because it fits with the lowest common denomenator. Or to put it less cynically: Popular stuff is popular, because it manages to come out at point where it can fill a certain need.

I mean, just look at the MCU. We were so hyped by that franchise. And now, slowly, a lot of people start to be criticial of the new movies - and when we look back on the old movies, we suddenly start seeing the same issues in those as well. And yes, certain people have criticized many of the same things from the very beginning there, too. To note that maybe the MCU was never quite as good, as we have given it credit for is also not historical revisionism.

Things can be good and popular. Things can be average and popular. And yes, things can also be bad and popular.

Popularity just generally does not say a whole lot about quality.

And yeah. Well. Harry Potter never has been good. I loved those books when I was a kid, even though some stuff (for me it was mainly how much the books excuse bullying) even irked me back then. But it is very normal to reexamine stuff that you once liked and realize that maybe it never really has been as good as you once believed.

[lopazroyale]

This is happening. I don't care where. BUT it's happening!

My niche HP theory is that Tom Riddle couldn't give less of a shit about blood purity. He grew up during WW2 and saw both the muggle world's and the Wizarding world's prejudices and since the wizards were even more old-fashioned and disconnected from the muggle world, he decided to use their snobbish views and purebloods' fear of dying out and losing power to Muggleborns. Tom Riddle was an angry young man who saw how blood supremacy and hatred of muggles destroyed his family and left him with nothing. And the uptight filthy rich pureblood pricks got to parade around in his house at Hogwarts acting as if they owned the world? Imagine his fury.

My theory is that Riddle planned the downfall of purebloods at muggleborns' expanse. He promised purebloods to make their wet dreams come true: muggleborns and half-bloods would serve them instead of overtaking their places. He was an extremely intelligent, cunning, talented wizard who had a huge (albeit destroyed) legacy to back him up. A war started, purebloods would never win without Lord Voldemort, but at the end of the day, the majority still knew they served a half-blood with a muggle last name. The irony. He let purebloods destroy themselves - the majority of them died fighting for blood supremacist cause. As for the muggleborns and half-bloods, well, he didn't really care about them. He wanted to rule the purebloods, as he believed was his right, but at the same time, he resented them. There is no way that the orphan who survived the Blitz didn't want to stab a pureblood next to him during lunch at Slytherin table who bragged about his papa's influence on the ministry and made fun of muggle wars. Tom Riddle has also worked in retail.

Additionally, we see on several occasions that Voldemort respects qualities in a person, not their status. He called James Potter brave, even though he thought he was a fool. But openly insulted and made fun of Malfoys during a Deatheaters meeting.

This theory of mine has another one attached to it, which is that after making so many horcruxes, his mind and sanity were severely fractured. That's why he never changed his plans, because at that point, starting a war for the second time made little sense. Voldemort is self-serving and that served no further purpose for him. He just needed to kill Harry to ensure his immortality and let the world know that a child handn't defeated him. The darkest of magic which psychically altered his appearance didn't have any negative effects on his mentality and judgment? Highly unlikely. Which would explain why he wasn't as terrifying and cunning when he came back. Voldemort was a mere shadow of Tom Riddle and couldn't accomplish what he did. If Tom Riddle had stopped at three horcruxes, realistically, he would've won.

[wolf-tail]

Even if Rowling wasn't completely off the holocaust denying deep-end, the way she wrote those wizard books kind of pisses me off now that i'm older because they have so much potential to be better than they actually were.

Like, middle school me was eating that shit up for a reason, you don't become one of the most popular authors in the world who created one of the most well-known pieces of literature in the world off of dumb luck. There were things she did right. Unfortunately , now that i'm older I can see everything she did wrong. And my writer's brain mixed with my ego is telling me that I could make it better.

Implant a heavier theme of the wizarding world's patronizing bullshit and entitlement. Like seriously, the complete unwarranted superiority complex that these chuckle fucks have is obnoxious beyond belief. Even middle school me knew that there was no good reason to keep magic away from the people they made up a slur for. Maybe that should have been the main theme of the books.

Seriously, it ties in so well with the evil wizard supremacy sublot. The solution to systemic discrimination is not to get rid of bigoted people. It's to tear down those systems entirely. The wizarding world seriously needs a status quo shake up.

Revamp the house elves or just cut them out entirely. Just don't fucking justify slavery. IT'S NOT THAT HARD!!!

Maybe this is lefist brain talking but do not make Harry grow up to be a fucking magic cop. In fact, I would have had made the Aurors be unbelievably awful and corrupt, just like a real cops!

Give the characters of color less racist names.

Stop describing your female villains as "mannish"

The greedy goblin banker theme is one of the most disgustingly antisemetic things i've ever had the displeasure of putting up with. What the fuck is wrong with you Joanne!? I would just cut that shit out.

The violent fatphobia grosses me out so much. When I was little I wanted Dudley to get a PROPER redemption arc so bad and not be abused for his weight. In fact , if I were Rowling, I would have added in a sublot about Dudley discovering his own magic to and having to unlearn the shit his parents taught him, as well as deal with their painful rejection of him. That would've been really cool.

Apparently lycanthropy was supposed to be a metaphor for HIV??? Ew, Joanne. No. It's like she never talked to a gay man in her life.

The "love" potions piss me off SO BAD. Voldemort's mother was not in love. She was a rapist. I would change that up entirely.

Snape is not a hero. He was an incel in a hate group. Acknowledge him as such and don't have Harry name his fucking kid after him.

Hey, quick question, why does the school have a blood supremacist house???? Why was this allowed??? Why did she write Slytherin to just be openly discriminatory towards mixed blood kids????

Whatever the dad Weasely's name is, I would have played off his whole "weeb for nonmagical people" thing as more patronizing and accidentally insensitive than endearing. He reminds me of white moms who say konichiwa to the waiter at Chinese restaurants and think they're "cultured".

For the love of god, treat the female characters other than Hermione with an OUNCE of respect.

Now that I know more about animal welfare and the exotic pet industry, Hagrid kinda gets on my nerves. I would add a sublot about him learning to respect the boundaries of wild animals.

I can't think of anything else that ticks me off about the books right now but I will come back to this if I do.

[axelwolf8109]

Just realized I never really paid attention to where Snape landed in POA and his ass was sprawled in a bed 😂

[360degreesasthecrowflies]

JK Rowling's religion, part 1

This is just a small observation I just had that I may expand into a longer post but,

I've just realized that: we know (or if you didn't, now you do) that JK Rowling is, and has been since writing Potter, if not before, a member of a church that believes in predestination. That is, that every person is born either Good or Bad and that all of their actions through life can't change their eventual fate, but just are predestined to have always been that way.

So that's her core belief religion-wise.

With that in mind... it's actually entirely unsurprising for her to oppose (and likely to have always opposed, or at the very best, tolerated while looking down on) trans people, because she believes that fundamentally ANY person's nature cannot be changed at all in any way - thus any attempt to 'alter' what she believes to be the natural order of things is essentially challenging her god and her fundamental beliefs, or in her eyes, playing at being as good as a god.

On the plus side, this means that her bigotry isn't necessarily specifically directed at trans people (although, every time she does attack trans people it harms the overall cause of trans people's equality and being respected) - they are rather just the most visible targets that she can't resist attacking because she perceives their very existence to be a personal attack on her religion. (which, yknow, obviously isn't true, but we're dealing with a narcissist religious nut here, people)

On the minus side - how many other of her fans does she secretly look down on and believe to be evil people? One of the tenets of her church belief is that only a small percentage of people are truly Good and worthy of Heaven. (naturally she includes herself in this, which is why she believes she can behave as she likes, because her seat to eternity is already booked - talk about twisting the fundamentals of Christianity!) And I mean a miniscule percentage, 1% or thereabouts. The rest of us are essentially NPCs to her mind, which probably isn't helped by the fact she lives in a literal castle and mostly communicates through her Twitter proclamations and spats.

She's been very good at hiding this religious belief (which, for any international readers, is very uncommon within her native UK, over 50% of which is atheist with a further 25% being only culturally religious) when she was younger and more worried about keeping her bag. But now she's older and established within society - and much less likely to follow the advice of her publicist and team - will she still be able to keep it under her witch's hat when she gets asked to start promotional touring the new HBO adaptation?

[funnylittlelad]

do not blaze anything to do with harry potter onto my dash or i will hunt you with my blade that only harms those complicit in transphobia.

[guardianjameslight]

Oh yeah, black Snape ruins the show, not Rowling's bigotry, not the fact that it's a pathetic cash grab or that it will be compared to the movies. This show is DOA, but not because a black man plays Snape. It's been DOA since day 1.

[bluewithpurplepolkadots]

I’ve been watching some waaaay too long video essays on YouTube about the many flaws of Harry Potter as well as how it (as we all know by now) basically shows off Rowlings milquetoast neoliberal leanings where societal change = bad. And yes, that’s very true and I think a major part of it. It’s a major reason why the ending to the seven book series was never going to be really satisfying and the signs were there early on.

But I do think one thing people miss is that the statute of secrecy and postering about how it’s necessary in the apparent extra canonical material that these video essayists have read, isn’t just because of her political leanings.

A lot of the success with HP I think, is tied up with the idea of it maybe being real. That a secret society of ‘super special awesome’ assholes exists and you just need a letter to arrive to be a part of it. And in our world the wizards didn’t reveal themselves, obviously. (Because…they don’t exist: but you get what I’m driving at right?)

Like maybe if Rowling wasn’t politically limp and an ass it would happen that a story where the WW gets revealed would happen. But you also probably would have to contend with the money obsession she has: as well as everyone else tied with the IP (Warner Bros etc) who benefited from the illusion.

[overlord-of-fantasy]

Tbh we should have known something was weird about Rowling, when she said that unicorns only like girls, because they are pure. This bugged me even when I was 8...

[not-mary-sue]

Rowling is back on Twitter and I think her PR team are about to break.

[gryficowa]

If you consider yourself a feminist, but you don't care about non-white women, trans women, trans men, or cis men who experience toxic masculinity, then you are not a feminist, you are TREF

The rights of trans people are also the rights of cis women, because many cis women have problems with procedures because of fucked up laws, and many cis women are attacked for being "Not women enough", because they don't have a uterus, because they don't have periods, because they are infertile, etc...

By taking away the rights of trans women, you are taking away the rights of cis women

By saying that "Trans men are manipulated women" you are spreading misogyny because you claim that women are worse than men and less intelligent, this is not feminism, this is anti-feminism

By assuming that trans women are aggressive because they are men, you are spreading sexism, which is contrary to feminism and the fight against toxic masculinity

If you assume that black women are aggressive and overly masculine unlike white women, you are a misogynist and racist, not a feminist

If you assume that Muslim women are enslaved by the hijab and force them to take it off, you don't care about women, you are Islamophobic and you force women to wear whatever you want, which is against the idea of ​​feminism

If you assume that a woman has to prove to you that she is a woman, you are a misogynist and a sexist, not a feminist

If you don't care about women from Congo, Sudan, Palestine, Syria etc… you are not a feminist, you are ignorant

If you don't care about women with disabilities, you're an ableist

You are not a feminist, you are a TREF who calls himself a "Feminist" (specifically a "Radical Feminist") and you are a parasite which makes it difficult to fight for the rights of all women

Women are strong, men and women are not as different as you want to believe, gender roles are harmful and harmful so don't defend them and don't fucking promote them, stop lying that you're a feminist when you spread transphobia, sexism, misogyny and racism

You're not a feminist, you're a piece of shit

[jaegerisim]

NEW TAG GAME!

tell me in the tags what JK Rowling's racist/terf and homophobic ass would have named your character!!!

[digitaldraperyco]

🔥 DD Norma – Now 40% OFF! 🔥

Looking for a stunning, ultra-detailed character to enhance your renders? DD Norma for Genesis 8 & 8.1 is the perfect blend of beauty and versatility! Whether you're creating portraits, fantasy scenes, or fashion renders, Norma delivers high-quality realism with endless customization.

✨ Features: ✔ Custom sculpted face & body – No merchant resources! ✔ 8 eye colors for the perfect gaze. ✔ 8 makeup styles + natural look for endless variety. ✔ 8 lip colors + natural lips to fit any mood. ✔ 5 LIE options – Two eyeliner styles & three blush variations. ✔ Normal map ON/OFF – Control fine details for the perfect finish. ✔ 64 high-resolution 4K textures for lifelike skin, bump, specular, and SSS. ✔ Iray-ready presets for seamless rendering.

🔥 LIMITED-TIME 40% OFF! Don't miss your chance to add DD Norma to your collection at a special price!

📌 Get her now: 👉 DD Norma on RenderHub

[thereisnolumos]

I also don't like how Jk Rowling treats traditionally feminine characters. Examples Lavander Brown, Fleur, the Pavarti twins, Pansy Parkson. With the exception of Luna(who I feel is feminine but mix with weird girl) all her characters feel like either self inserts of herself or Mary Sues. I love Hermione but it's kinda telling that's she's supposed to be a self insert of Jk Rowling.

The internalized misogyny of this woman is astonishing. To her there is only two possible ways how you can be a good female: you either a mother, or you’re “not like other girls”

The way she treats traditionally feminine characteristics is disgusting: she laughs at Pansy’s girly pink cloak in book 4, she despises Fleur for her effortless femininity and the fact that she realizes and uses her feminine qualities to her advantage, Lavander and Parvati are treated as idiots for believing and loving Divination and giggling and being compassionate towards Trelawney… the list goes on

Luna is treated as a “good example of womanhood” only because she’s not like others and we don’t really see any traditionally feminine qualities with her. Hermione is her self insert, and though I love the potential of this character, she’s insufferable in books towards other girls and women. She doesn’t focus on appearance, but of course she “cleans up” nicely and is breathtaking when it’s required. Ginny is popular among guys and girls, it’s written she has girl friends, but we never even given names to them. They’re there simply to show that Ginny’s popular. And we barely see feminine qualities from her, same as Luna. We’re told she’s cool because of her quidditch skills and wit and… that’s it. And Harry things she’s gorgeous.

Actually, the way I see it: Hermione is her self insert, Ginny is who she wished to be and all the other females who don’t fit with her ideals are a threat