#faction conflict soapbox

[fitzefitcher]

Okay I know I’m kicking the hornet’s nest by asking this but it is for research purposes, so! What are y’all’s opinions on horde v alliance? I’m talking unfair favoritism, feeling shunted/ignored, feeling like you’re being punished for no good reason, etc etc etc. I already have a few theories on why faction pride tends to come to a head (yeah we are going to talk about horde bias for a minute if I get to doing an essay about this) but I would like to hear y’all’s opinions and experiences, either by replying to this post or sending me an ask, either is fine, anon is currently on

Like, genuine opinion, not vitriol, please behave yourselves when giving answers and respect other people’s experiences w the game

[midnightactual]

Anonymous wrote in:

You know the soul society hasn't changed at all there still corrupt as ever. Most of all there enemies are a person are group they fucked over. I always felt it would more interesting arc for ichigo to go against the organization he is so quick to defend for some reason. Who knows it might even bring some sort of character development form aside from him wanting to say ill protect my friends which is the most basic protag thing ever.

There’s a criticism of Harry Potter that floats around, and I can't speak to its applicability regarding that series since I've never read or watched it... but damn if it doesn't apply to Bleach. Hot take, I’m sure, but rather than bang on about it, let me just rewrite it a little by changing some terms and you can see what you think for yourself:

It very neatly describes the way liberals see the world and political struggle.

Lots of people complain about the anti-climactic ending, but I really don't think it could [be] any other way. I'd like to imagine that there's some alternate universe where [Kubo] actually believed in something and [Ichigo] was actually built up as the anti-[Aizen] he was only hinted as being in the beginning of the [manga]. Where [he] opposes all the many injustices of the [spirit] world and determines to change their frequently backwards, insular, contradictory society for the better, and forms his own faction antithetical to the [Espada] by adopting new methods, breaking the rules, and embracing change and the progression of history. While [Aizen] clings to an idyllic [imagining] of the past and the greatest extent of his dreams is to become the self-appointed god of [an] eternally stagnant Neverland, [Ichigo] has embraced the possibility of a shining future and so can overcome the self-imposed limits [Aizen] could never cross, and [Aizen] is ultimately defeated by this.

But that would require [an Ichigo] that believed in something, and since [Kubo] is a liberal centrist [misanthrope who] doesn't really believe in anything, [Ichigo] can't believe in anything. [Ichigo] lives in a world [fraught] with conflict and injustice, a stratified class society, slavery of sentient [artificial souls], the absurd charade the [spirit] world puts up to enforce their own self-segregation, a corrupted and bureaucracy-choked government, rampant racism, so on and so forth. But [Ichigo] is little more than a passive observer for most of it, only the [slavery] really bothers him (and then, really only racism against [mod souls]). In fact, when [Rukia] stands up against the slavery of [mod souls], she's treated as some kind of ridiculous Soapbox Sadie. For opposing chattel slavery. In the end, the biggest force for change is [Aizen] and [Ichigo] and friends only ever fight for the preservation and reproduction of the status quo. The very height of [Ichigo's] dreams is to join the [Gotei 13], a sort of [spirit] FBI and the ultimate defenders of the [spirit] status quo. [Aizen] and the [Espada] are the big instigators of change and [Ichigo] never quite gets to [Aizen's] level. [Ichigo] doesn't even beat [Aizen], [Aizen] accidentally [imprisons] himself because he violated some obscure technicality that causes one of [Kisuke's Kidō spells] to [activate on] him.

And this is really the struggle of liberals, they live in a world fraught with conflict, but aren't particularly bothered by any of it except those [bits] that threaten multicultural pluralism. They see change, and the force behind that change, as a wholly negative phenomenon. Even then, they can only act within the legal and ideological framework of their society. So, for instance, instead of organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activity against Trump and the far-right, all they can do is bang their drum about what a racist bigot he is and hope they can catch him violating some technicality that will allow them to have him impeached or at least destroy his political clout. It won't work, it will never work, but that's the limit of liberalism just as it was the limit of [Bleach].

Bleach had a lot of conceptual problems, but Kubo’s general hatred of any kind of human relationships, generalized misogyny and racism and anti-LGBTQ attitude, and his unwillingness to imagine revolutionary activity against literal cosmic injustice were probably the biggest problems with it—and the last really screwed the plot and the character arcs, because it meant the series could never end as anything other than a reaffirmation of the status quo to which all the characters had to bend the knee.

[tepot]

Originally posted on 4chan, on the limits of Harry Potter and the worldview of JK Rowling. [Source]

“It very neatly describes the way liberals see the world and political struggle.

Lots of people complain about the anticlimactic ending, but really I don’t think it could be any other way. I’d like to imagine that there’s some alternate universe where Rowling actually believed in something and Harry was actually built up as the anti-Voldemort he was only hinted as being in the beginning of the books. Where he’s opposed to all the many injustices of the Wizarding World and determines to change their frequently backwards, insular, contradictory society for the better, and forms his own faction antithetical to the Death Eaters and when he finally has his showdown with Voldy, Harry surpasses by adopting new methods, breaking the rules and embracing change and the progression of history. While Voldemort clings to an idyllic imaging of the past and the greatest extent of his dreams is to become the self-appointed god of an eternally stagnant Neverland, Harry has embraced the possibility of a shining future and so can overcome the self-imposed limits Voldemort could never cross, and Voldemort is ultimately defeated by this.

But that would require a Harry that believed in something, and since Rowling is a liberal centrist Blairite that doesn’t really believe in anything, Harry can’t believe in anything. Harry lives in a world drought with conflict and injustice, a stratified class society, slavery of sentient magical creatures, the absurd charade the Wizarding World puts up to enforce their own self-segregation, a corrupt and bureaucracy-choked government, rampant racism, so on and so forth. But Harry is little more than a passive observer for most of it, only the racism really bothers him (and then, really only racism against half-bloods). In fact, when Hermione stands up against the slavery of elves, she’s treated as some kind of ridiculous Soapbox Sadie. For opposing chattel slavery. In the end, the biggest force for change is Voldemort while Harry and friends only ever fight for the preservation and reproduction of the status quo. The very height of Harry’s dreams is to join the Aurors, a sort of wizard FBI and the ultimate defenders of the wizarding status quo. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are the big instigators of change and Harry never quite gets to Voldy’s level. Harry doesn’t even beat Voldemort, Voldemort accidentally kills himself because he violated some obscure technicality that causes one of his spells to bounce back at him.

And this is really the struggle of liberals, they live in a world fraught with conflict, but aren’t particularly bothered by any of it except those that threaten multicultural pluralism. They see change, and the force behind that change, as a wholly negative phenomenon. Even then, they can only act within the legal and ideological framework of their society. So, for instance, instead of organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activity against Trump and the far-right, all they can do is bang their drum about what a racist bigot he is and hope they can catch him violating some technicality that will allow them to have him impeached or at least destroy his political clout. It won’t work, it will never work, but that’s the limit of liberalism just as it was the limit of Harry Potter.”

[the-grey-hunt]

Text ID of the 4chan screenshot. Split into smaller paragraphs for accessibility. ID begins: "It very neatly describes the way liberals see the world and political struggle.

Lots of people complain about the anti-climactic ending, but really I don't think it could [end] any other way. I'd like to imagine that there's some alternate universe where Rowling actually believed in something and Harry was actually built up as the anti-Voldemort he was only hinted at being in the beginning of the books.

Whereas he's opposes all the many injustices of the wizarding world and determines to change their frequently backwards, insular, contradictory society for the better, and forms his own faction antithetical to the Death Eaters and when he finally has his showdown with Voldy, Harry surpasses by adopting new methods, breaking the rules and embrasing change and the progression of history.

While Voldemort clings to an idyllic imaging of the past and the greatest extent of his dreams is to become the self-appointed god of a eternally stagnant neverland, Harry has embraced the possibility of a shining future and so can overcome the self-imposed limits Voldemort could never cross, and Voldemort is ultimately defeated by that.

But that would require a Harry that believed in something, and since Rowling is a liberal centrist Blairite that doesn't really believe in anything, Harry can't believe in anything. Harry lives in a world drought with conflict and injustice, a stratified class society, slavery of sentient magical creatures, the absurd charade the wizarding world puts up to enforce their own self-segregation, a corrupted and bureaucracy-choked government, rampant racism, so on and so forth.

But Harry is little more than a passive observer for most of it, only the racism really bothers him (and then, really only racism against half-bloods). In fact, when Hermione stands up against the slavery of elves, she's treated as some kind of ridiculous Soapbox Sadie. For opposing chattel slavery. In the end, the biggest force for change is Voldemort and Harry and friends only ever fight for the preservation and reproduction of the status quo.

The very height of Harry's dreams is to join the aurors, a sort of wizard FBI and the ultimate defenders of the wizarding status quo. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are the big instigators of change and Harry never quite gets to Voldy's level. Harry doesn't even beat Voldemort, Voldemort accidentally kills himself because he violated some obscure technicality that causes one of his spells to bounce back at him.

And this is really the struggle of liberals, they live in a world fraught with conflict, but aren't particilarly bothered by any of it except those bit that threaten multicultural pluralism. They see change, and the force behind that change, as a wholly negative phenomenon. Even then, they can only act within the legal and ideological framework of their society.

So, for instance, instead of organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activigy against Trump and the far-right, all they can do is bang their drum about what a racist bigot he is and hope they can catch him violating some technicality that will allow them to have him impeached or at least destroy his political clout. It won't work, it will never work, but that's the limit of liberalism just as it was the limit of Harry Potter." End ID.

Also, I must add this, every time, because when 4chan is right, it is so devastatingly right:

[sagolii-sandcat]

I ranted about this in my guild discord but fuck it I’ll rant here too: the faction war is the most boring part of WoW. I am so tired of Horde vs Alliance. It’s bullshit. Literally no reason to keep fighting beyond some interpersonal issues between racial leaders. Every issue, and I mean EVERY issue, the horde and alliance have with each other can be EASILY solved without violence at this point.

The orcs are clear cutting Ashenvale. Night Elves can get lumber from trees without cutting them down using wisps. Fuckin trade something for it jesus christ. Everyone’s happy. There’s no reason to fight over it outside “orcs are assholes.”

In Ashran we are literally FUCKING SKINNING EACH OTHER. For what? Ohhh a titan artifact, I hear you say. Lemme ask you this: what the fuck does that thing even DO? Do you know? I sure as shit don’t know. No one fucking knows! But goddamn are we gonna commit some war crimes to get it.

Alliance sinks a goblin ship. “No witnesses”. WHY. WHY ARE YOU SO GODDAMN STUPID. 

Why would tauren hate draenei? Why would gnomes despise trolls? Cuz they’re on the other side, of course.

Every xpac blizzard has to come up with some bullshit reason to keep this war going and it drags the writing so far down because motivations are so muddled and convoluted it just doesn’t make sense. Look at Legion. What’s driving the conflict now? Alliance believes the horde got Varian killed because witnesses saw them pull back at the Broken Shore. But the horde didn’t get Varian killed, they were being overrun. They HAD to pull back. I know that. You know that. Alliance doesn’t know that. Why? BECAUSE SYLVANAS FOR SOME REASON WON’T JUST SAY “HEY YO HERE’S WHAT WENT DOWN REAL SORRY ABOUT THAT” That’s it that’s all she’s gotta do. That’s like one letter to Anduin. Boom. Broken Isles conflict over.

“But it’s World of WARcraft! Not World of PEACEcraft!” Goddammit shut the hell up I’ve got demons to kill I don’t need Axeshit Murderfucker, the Draenei Defenestrator to get on his soapbox and explain his beef with ME IN PARTICULAR while we’re both neck deep in demons. There’s enough shit to fight.

[mugasofer]

It very neatly describes the way liberals see the world and political struggle.

Lots of people complain about the anti-climactic ending, but really I don’t think it could any other way [sic]. I’d like to imagine that there’s some alternate universe where Rowling actually believed in something and Harry was actually built up as the anti-Voldemort he was only hinted as being in the beginning of the books. Where he’s opposes [sic] all the many injustices of the wizarding world and determines to change their frequently backwards, insular, contradictory society for the better, and forms his own faction antithetical to the Death Eaters and when he finally has a showdown with Voldy, Harry surpasses by [sic] adopting new methods, breaking the rules and embracing change and the progression of history. While Voldemort clings to an idyllic imaging of the past and the greatest extent of his dreams is to become the self-appointed god of a eternally stagnant Neverland. Harry has embraced the possibility of a shining future and so can overcome the self-imposed limits Voldemort could never cross, and Voldemort is ultimately defeated by this.

But that would require a Harry that believed in something, and since Rowling is a liberal centrist Blairite that doesn’t really believe in anything, Harry lives in a world drought [sic] with conflict and injustice: a stratified class society, slavery of sentient magic creatures, the absurd charade the wizarding world puts up to enforce their own self-segregation, a corrupted and bureaucracy-choked government, rampant racism, so on and so forth. But Harry is little more than a passive observer for most of it, only the racism really bothers him (and then, really only racism against half-bloods). In fact, when Hermione stands up against the slavery of elves, she’s treated as some kind of ridiculous Soapbox Sadie. For opposing chattel slavery. In the end, the biggest force for change is Voldemort and Harry and friends only ever fight for the preservation and reproduction of the status quo. The very height of Harry’s dreams is to join the aurors, a sort of wizard FBI and the ultimate defenders of the wizarding status quo. Harry doesn’t even beat Voldemort, Voldemort accidentally kills himself because he violated some obscure technicality that causes one of his spells to bounce back at him. And this is really the struggle of liberals, they live in a world fraught with conflict, but aren’t particularly bothered by any of it except those bit that threaten multicultural pluralism. They see change, and the force behind that change, as a wholly negative phenomenon. Even then, they can only act within the legal and ideological framework of their society. So, for instance, instead of organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activity against Trump and the far-right, all they can do is bang their drum about what a racist bigot he is and hope they can catch him violating some technicality that will allow them to have him impeached or at least destroy his political clout. It won’t work, it will never work, but that’s the limit of liberalism just as it was the limit of Harry Potter.

[jasonfry]

Author’s Notes: Imperial Justice, Pt. 2

WARNING: These notes will completely spoil Servants of the Empire: Imperial Justice. Haven’t read it? Stop and go here.

(Part 1 of Imperial Justice notes are here. Go here for notes for Edge of the Galaxy and here for Rebel in the Ranks.)

Part 2: Justice

In the second part of Imperial Justice, Zare discovers the consequences of continuing his quest to find Dhara, pushing him to a fateful decision. He’s made enemies of both Roddance and Oleg, and the net seems to be closing on him. It’s definitely closing on Merei -- and worst of all, our protagonists no longer have each other, as their relationship goes from strained to finished.

Maybe this is a good place to stop and talk about being cruel to fictional characters.

UH-OH, Y’ALL, HE’S DRAGGING OUT THE SOAPBOX.

About a million years ago, a small but vocal segment of Star Wars fandom lost its collective mind about (wait for it) Kevin J. Anderson’s decision to kill off General Madine in Darksaber. I read the back-and-forth in disbelief. General Madine? Really? The guy who was inserted into Return of the Jedi as insurance in case the Mon Calamari masks weren’t expressive enough? Beyond that, I couldn’t figure out what those angry fans wanted. A novel in which Madine accompanied Luke & Co. on picnics, everyone was nice to each other and nothing bad ever happened?

Unfortunately, that pretty much was what this segment of the fanbase wanted, for every character you’d expect them to care about and a bunch of others besides. (Once again: Madine? Really?) I’ve learned that every fandom has this faction, and every writer has to politely but pointedly ignore its members, because there’s no storytelling that way – no conflict, no suspense, no growth and ultimately no measurable audience.

As fans, few of us take things that far. (Thank goodness!) But even a moderate-sized draught of Protect My Favorites is bad for storytelling. A book will fail if readers don’t care enough about the characters. But a book will also fail if the author cares too much about the characters. That’s not your job. Your job is to manipulate them as required for the story --  to which the storyteller must be “eternally and unswervingly loyal,” in the words of the great Isak Dinesen. 

And sometimes that means your job is to be one cold-blooded motherfucker. Isak Dinesen probably wouldn’t have put it that way, but I bet she would have nodded.

I THINK HE’S CLIMBING OFF THAT THING. IT’S OK TO COME BACK.

Imperial Justice is indeed cruel to Zare and Merei, pushing them to breaking points beyond which they’re no longer the same people. But that cruelty is in service of the story and their breakup is an unhappy but logical outcome of their situation. They’re extremely capable, but they’ve navigated wrenchingly difficult times in part by being able to rely on each other for comfort and counsel. Once that’s taken from them, they struggle to adjust. Rather than helping each other through tough patches by talking, their inability to talk makes those tough patches worse. And once they can talk again, during Zare’s winter break, they discover it’s too late.

Zare returns to the Academy and is assigned, along with other cadets, to supporting Kallus’s crackdown on dissent – an exercise that Roddance hopes will force him into a mistake and his dismissal from Imperial service.

He’s paired with Oleg, his nemesis, and goes door to door asking Lothal citizens about their neighbors’ loyalties. The techniques are straight out of the fascist playbook, from breaking down social bonds by recruiting informants to using the letter of the law as a weapon. Same goes for the rhetoric that accompanies those techniques. It’s hard to disagree that evading even a minor law is wrong. It’s tough to argue that treason doesn’t, in fact, begin with disloyal thoughts. And it’s difficult to raise practical objections to rigorous law enforcement when you know you’ll be accused of being soft on crime. 

Whether you’re in a galaxy far far away or a divided county close to home, opposing such rhetoric demands you say “yes but” to seemingly straightforward propositions, something depressingly few people have the strength and/or intellectual honesty to do. It’s tempting to drop the “but” and not think about the bigger picture, with its gray areas and complications and imperfect answers. (Of course, as a member of the military, Zare has far less leeway than that.)

There is some pushback to Kallus’s orders and discussion of those gray areas, which I used to explore the key characters’ different points of view. As true believers, Oleg and Roddance don’t care about those gray areas. Chiron is painfully aware of them but trusts that someone with more authority will do the right thing. It’s Zare who sees what Chiron can’t – that the Empire’s abuses aren’t a bug but a feature.

Things get worse from there, with Zare and the other cadets ordered to take the children of fugitives into “protective custody.” That forces Zare to confront the question that breaks him: What isn’t he willing to do in order to find his sister? Is Dhara’s life worth bringing pain and misery to many other families? Zare eventually finds his limits and vows that he won’t obey an order he knows is wrong, even though he knows such an order is inevitable. This is the trap Roddance has set for him, and Zare escapes it only because Oleg stumbles into his own trap first.

Merei, meanwhile, grows increasingly desperate to escape her mother’s investigation and Laxo’s organization. She and Jix cook up a plan to use a pulse-mag to erase her records at Bakiska’s – an attempt that relies more on bluster than planning, and predictably fails. But Merei then improvises, faking her own kidnapping and engineering an Imperial raid she convinces herself will send Laxo to prison. Instead, it results in the crime boss’s death, leaving Merei to live with the consequences.

I’d sketched out a chillier endgame, in which Laxo’s death was what Merei intended. My editor Jen Heddle objected to that, and she was right. The sticking point wasn’t the audience but the character -- that was too ruthless for Merei at that point in the story. Having Laxo’s death be accidental, even if Merei should have realized the danger, was a better way of showing she was in deeper than even she realized, and raised the interesting question of how she’d react to a miscalculation that got people killed.

The lesson, as always: storytelling is a collaborative process, and editors are there to help you. Listen to them!

Notes on this section:

I enjoyed writing the scene of Merei, Rosey and Laxo’s thugs in the back of the speeder van. Girl’s got sand, as they put it in True Grit. Though I do feel kind of bad that I stuck Wookieepedia with a character whose name might be Gort and might be Vort and might be neither.

Laxo calling Merei “clever girl” is, of course, a nod to Jurassic Park – and one that foreshadows Laxo’s fate.

I liked the scene of Merei telling Zare how she waved to him when she passed the Academy, and being upset when she figures out he wasn’t there. If we think back to breakups, often we’ll remember a little thing that somehow became a big thing – and our queasy realization that the reaction was the tipoff that something was really wrong.

Holshef steps into Beck’s role as the conscience of Lothal, something that’s important in The Secret Academy. But note Holshef isn’t actually present in Imperial Justice beyond this brief flashback. I tried to thread a needle there: I needed to establish Holshef so he didn’t come out of nowhere in the next book, but I didn’t want to lose the focus on Merei. (I also didn’t have the word count to stretch out the way I’d need to.) So I wrote a brief scene to plant the seed and moved on.

Jix was an interesting character to play with. I saw his interest in Merei and her reaction to it as a way to ratchet up the emotional pressure on her. I also liked portraying a character who’s admirable but a little shy of “hero” status. Jix really is brave and wants to help Merei, but he’s just not cut out for this – as will become painfully clear in the next book. Merei, on the other hand, is figuring out that she’s capable of far more than she might have guessed.

I often say that writing for kids isn’t different than writing for adults, beyond the protagonists and manuscripts being shorter. It’s a good line, but only mostly true. One difference is what you show and what you don’t: we mulled showing Zare and Oleg rounding up children, but a) I didn’t have the word count and b) I thought that scene was too upsetting for a kids’ book. 

Still, I’m not sure I would have included that scene in a work of adult fiction, either. Zare’s reaction is the most important takeaway from it, along with learning that he tried to minimize the kids’ trauma. I was able to establish both those things with a bit of dialogue and a quick flashback. I find that’s often a useful way to approach a scene, particularly when you’re pressed for space: figure out the scene’s primary function in the story, look for a secondary function, and think about how to check those things off as quickly and efficiently as possible. 

The customs raid is where everything comes crashing down for Oleg – and we get the payoff from that seemingly stray detail about his uncles from Rebel in the Ranks. Oleg is done in by blind adherence to the letter of the law and guilt by association – an ironic comeuppance given his budding career as an eager young fascist. But we also see Zare smoothly take over the investigation when Oleg falters, and immediately capitalize on his rival’s stumble. Zare wouldn’t have raided the warehouse in the first place, and his decency compels him to speak up for Oleg – but that doesn’t stop him from eliminating an enemy. I don’t love recalling Imperial Justice, but I am proud of that scene: it advances the plot, characters and theme, and accomplishes all that in less than four pages. 

I needed readers to react to Laxo’s demise by thinking that on some level he had it coming. That’s why we see him callously betray Pinson, and order Merei to watch as Holshef is turned over to a bounty hunter, which will lead to the gentle poet’s detention and death. Laxo’s charming, but has neither honor nor morals – Merei knows that sooner or later, he’ll sell her out too. Still, I wanted things to be a little more nuanced than that. So we also see that Laxo genuinely likes Merei and is more exasperated and disappointed than angry about the debacle with the pulse-mag. 

Does the Inquisitor believe Zare has Force powers like his sister’s? Or is he merely using Zare to get to Ezra, Kanan and the other rebels? It’s not entirely clear in Servants of the Empire, and I liked the ambiguity. That said, I think the Inquisitor’s last line to Zare reveals a lot.

I had to do a few things in a hurry to get Zare “in place” for his cameo with Ezra from “Vision of Hope,” so we see him get his promotion and his new code clearance. The toughest part was arranging their meeting, since much of the book had shown Zare unable to speak freely with Merei. The obvious answer was to send a (very freshly repainted) Chopper. But how would Zare and the droid communicate? I fussed over various answers before going low-tech: a hidden note, complete with pen. Sometimes a plot solution is worse than the problem, so you just move on as quickly as you can.

Zare’s meeting with Ezra is followed by a brief scene in which Zare manhandles Oleg and essentially boots him out of the story. I liked that scene because it showed us a righteous and ruthless Zare. He’s changed since the beginning of Imperial Justice, but is that a good thing? Zare isn’t sure, and neither are we. (That last line sucks, though – it’s simultaneously purple and empty.) As for Oleg, I don’t know what became of him and ultimately it isn’t important. Oleg has no character arc – he’s a little jerk when he arrives and a little jerk when he departs. I can picture him as a brutal Capital City cop embittered by the theft of his chance at Imperial glory, or living out some similarly small and mean existence.

Epilogue

The epilogue is essentially a preview of The Secret Academy, setting up a few things that are important to that book. We find out that Zare hasn’t escaped but been maneuvered into greater danger by his enemies. Zare and Merei are moving on completely different tracks that may or may not converge. And Merei can’t resist more electronic snooping, suggesting that her getaway may not be so clean.

All of those elements would come into play in the series finale -- but that’s another set of notes. See you soon!

[ryttu3k]

Description: A text post originating from 4chan. It has an image of Daniel Radcliffe holding a bottle and looking intense with the caption “Hey guys, wanna buy some magic?”, and a long text post, which reads as thus:

“It very neatly describes the way liberals see the world and political struggle.

Lots of people complain about the anticlimactic ending, but really I don’t think it could be any other way. I’d like to imagine that there’s some alternate universe where Rowling actually believed in something and Harry was actually built up as the anti-Voldemort he was only hinted as being in the beginning of the books. Where he’s opposed to all the many injustices of the Wizarding World and determines to change their frequently backwards, insular, contradictory society for the better, and forms his own faction antithetical to the Death Eaters and when he finally has his showdown with Voldy, Harry surpasses by adopting new methods, breaking the rules and embracing change and the progression of history. While Voldemort clings to an idyllic imaging of the past and the greatest extent of his dreams is to become the self-appointed god of an eternally stagnant Neverland, Harry has embraced the possibility of a shining future and so can overcome the self-imposed limits Voldemort could never cross, and Voldemort is ultimately defeated by this.

But that would require a Harry that believed in something, and since Rowling is a liberal centrist Blairite that doesn’t really believe in anything, Harry can’t believe in anything. Harry lives in a world drought with conflict and injustice, a stratified class society, slavery of sentient magical creatures, the absurd charade the Wizarding World puts up to enforce their own self-segregation, a corrupt and bureaucracy-choked government, rampant racism, so on and so forth. But Harry is little more than a passive observer for most of it, only the racism really bothers him (and then, really only racism against half-bloods). In fact, when Hermione stands up against the slavery of elves, she’s treated as some kind of ridiculous Soapbox Sadie. For opposing chattel slavery. In the end, the biggest force for change is Voldemort while Harry and friends only ever fight for the preservation and reproduction of the status quo. The very height of Harry’s dreams is to join the Aurors, a sort of wizard FBI and the ultimate defenders of the wizarding status quo. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are the big instigators of change and Harry never quite gets to Voldy’s level. Harry doesn’t even beat Voldemort, Voldemort accidentally kills himself because he violated some obscure technicality that causes one of his spells to bounce back at him.

And this is really the struggle of liberals, they live in a world fraught with conflict, but aren’t particularly bothered by any of it except those that threaten multicultural pluralism. They see change, and the force behind that change, as a wholly negative phenomenon. Even then, they can only act within the legal and ideological framework of their society. So, for instance, instead of organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activity against Trump and the far-right, all they can do is bang their drum about what a racist bigot he is and hope they can catch him violating some technicality that will allow them to have him impeached or at least destroy his political clout. It won’t work, it will never work, but that’s the limit of liberalism just as it was the limit of Harry Potter.”

Transcript was originally typed up by @tepot​ in June 2020, here.

surprisingly, this still remains probably the best and most concise explanation as to why the harry potter franchise didn't work and never could work in a satisfying way because of the author's limited perception of life and politics

[fitzefitcher]

faction conflict soapbox, pt. 2

school 2: I’m tired of faction conflict, in general

@alldepressednshit​ said: To be honest, it feels overdone. Also, it keeps getting sidelined by *insert world-threatining asspull* BfA could’ve been great if it was an actual civil war. Like a baron zemo type setting out to destroy the horde and alliance from within.

@ashyteg​ said: I wish we could all hang out and play hearthstone

@baenling said: annoying as fuck. should have been over in mists of pandaria. literally zero reason for the faction war to continue

@swampgallows​ said: i just like being a zombie lady with a conscience and an ability to be hugged by huge monster people who are my family and would never hurt me

Anonymous asked: I wish people would stop bickering over which faction is worse, admit both factions are problematic and stop trying to morally high road the other for faction pride.

Anonymous asked: Hi yes I have come to talk about Horde vs Alliance. Honestly I use to be a big fan of it back in the day. Two big factions, warring over resources that would occasionally have to realize there are bigger threats. Thought it was fun, had faction pride in grinding up PVP reps to be like: Yes FOR THE HORDE. I just think things took a big downturn in Mists. Before it felt kind of balanced, sure Garrosh was "bad" but at the time i thought: well Varian started the war back in Wrath. 1/?

Having the war break out across the continents when before it was sort of like a cold war with a few active fighting spots was cool! I didn't think the Horde was being portrayed as 100% evil! But after that... I don't think the Alliance has really been shown ever in the wrong or negative. And that's just fucking boring. Not to mention literally punishes half the player base for preferring one faction. The Horde has so much creative potential but they never use it. So really sours it. 2/2

so I think the core issue with this is probably less that the faction conflict itself is happening, and more that it's happening but without any sense or meaning, and that it's happening in such a way that feels extremely unbalanced on either side. faction conflict, when it's done well, can be an extremely rewarding and memorable experience.

 like, anybody that's played vanilla will tell you how fun an experience the scarab wall event was, and I myself remember how fun the thunder isle event was. and I think what worked for those events was that they were less like. Dark, Gritty War Conflict, and more played like a high school field day. Like there's certainly competition, and faction pride, but it's actually fun because it's more focused on Achievement than it is on Active Conflict. Like, people meme on the Argent Crusade Sponsored Renaissance Faire, but tbh that's some the most fun I've had with wow, and it ended being a really memorable experience for me and many of the people I was playing with at the time, in part because it was so light-hearted and silly and campy. in my opinion, wow is at its best when it leans into the stupid, silly camp, and that's why hearthstone has a better handle on warcraft and its characters than wow does lmao.

But I will acknowledge that this doesn't always work beyond just gameplay mechanics and overall experience- I love the argent tournament, but as a story, it's dumb as fuck, and at the time, felt extremely out of place for the wrath storyline. Like, we did naxx, then ulduar, and we were revving up to do ICC, which was (and still is, for the most part) regarded as one of its most serious story arcs, and it held a lot of gravity to it in terms of buildup, and the sort of consquences it would have afterwards. Whether or not those consequences were actually addressed afterwards are another issue entirely, but the point here is, ICC is an extremely memorable raid, and was very rewarding as an experience and story end (for the most part, let's stay on topic though), and it absolutely would not have worked if they had leaned into the campy silliness that worked for other things in wow. Here, the grim seriousness does work, because there was plenty of setup and payoff for it. like, even well before we get to ICC, or even wrath, there's buildup for the scourge starting in vanilla, and even in w3.

I think the wrath expansion in general was very very memorable, bc it was an expac where the stakes were pretty well-balanced in terms of alliance and horde content. like, the alliance's bone to pick with scourge is fairly obvious, and while the horde's was less so, the forsaken's was even more obvious, and there was planting and payoff of how the horde needed to go, both because the forsaken are their ally and this is their time of need, and that the scourge are a threat to everyone. truthfully, the alliance side of things I don't remember quite as well, but it was more staged as like, the alliance sort of acknowledging that Arthas (and that many aspects of the Scourge including KT and the cult of the damned) are very much problems that stemmed from the Alliance, and that they had a sort of responsibility to take care of it and make things right, even if they weren't necessarily Directly responsible for Arthas himself. So, there's equal setup in place for both factions, and equal stakes, even if they're not the same, and what faction conflict that does happen within the storyline has a setup and payoff. like, let's look at the wrathgate: a rogue faction of forsaken unleash hell on everyone at the battle of the wrathgate, whether they be scourge, alliance, or horde, and there are immediate consequences afterwards for each faction that feel engaging and meaningful. horde-side, you have to drive out the traitors that turned against your ally and retake one of your core cities, and alliance-side, you're taking immediate action against a faction that just completely fucked you over at a really key battle against a mutual enemy, a particular part of that faction that was already on thin fucking ice to begin with in terms of like. doing morally questionable, reprehensible things. and the ending, while daunting and honestly a little emotionally frustrating, neither punishes nor rewards either faction, and amps up the conflict in a way that feels realistic given the circumstances. And I think that this was really memorable as a questline, and as an expansion, because again, there was setup and payoff, but also, the prior two expansions weren't super focused on the faction conflict as much as wrath had started drumming up.

yes, there was conflict, obviously, but it wasn't so all-consuming as to make it tiresome or overwhelming or frustrating, and didn't feel particularly unbalanced or unfair. I think it should also be noted that faction conflict had never taken the spotlight so strongly in this way before, so it was this novel thing still being explored, and again, working off of things that had previous setup, felt like reasonable or realistic consequences, and above all, were balanced in what sort of story beats were being explored for either faction. wrath for the most part felt like a very natural, very organic step forward in the wow storyline overall, and while I don't agree with every decision made with it, particularly towards the end, I cannot deny that it was definitely one of if not my favorite expansion, and was extremely formative for how I engage with wow, and with stories as a whole.

all that being said, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that faction conflict in recent years has been souring the game for a lot of people, and I can't really blame them, as I, too, have a bone to pick with it. bofa in particular was pretty rough for a number of reasons, but I think the number one reason is how unbalanced it felt in terms of storyline for either faction. bofa imo sortof works as a synopsis for why Horde Bias(TM) is such a huge point of contention between horde and alliance, in that the horde faction spent most of the expansion losing characters, whether that be to character death or death of character development, watched their faction tear themselves apart for what feels like dozens of times now, and basically felt as though that the Evil label was being forced on them, and that they had no choice in the matter for any of this. The alliance faction, meanwhile, didn't really get much of anything. Kul Tiras isn't really as rewarding a leveling experience as Zandalar is in terms of the individual zone stories being strung together, the allied race factions they got didn't feel as fun or varied as the ones the horde got, and seemingly had no actions, issues, or consequences with any sort of serious examination. It's hard to have fun or get any sort of emotional satisfaction from a story that doesn't really let you do anything, and doesn't really show that your actions have any consequences at all, whether they be good or bad, and seemingly is spending all of their time and attention on the other faction. Like, the horde is suffering, and that suffering is definitely, wholly unfair, but the alliance seemingly isn't getting any sort of attention, at all. But because they're not constantly getting a bat to the head story-wise, horde players (including myself) just get really frustrated when accused of favoritism, because like. There is literally no benefit whatsoever to having blizzard's attention, when all blizzard does is take away everything you love lmao. This, I would say, is a matter of violence vs. negligence. Both are forms of harm, but they are radically different in terms of how they hurt you, and neither is inherently more hurtful than the other.

I think if I were to propose a solution to this, I think that the first step should be to pull back on faction conflict as a major component to the story, which they have at least partially. But I think the next step is to give a fairer distribution of attention to characters. Like, I complain about the Horde losing characters, and I'm not taking that back because it's True, but it would be remiss of me not to touch on the fact that, for how many dozens of characters the alliance has, the only ones who really get the attention are like. Human Males. In particular, Anduin. And if they're not Anduin, they're usually characters within Anduin's immediate peer circle. And then the characters that aren't human men and do get attention are usually ones that are getting shafted, somehow, or are getting painted as Wrong and Violent and Stupid for Disagreeing With Anduin- i.e., tyrande. And before Anduin, the only character that really got any sort of serious attention was Varian, which is probably why alliance players as a whole took his death so hard. It's hard not to feel some kind of way about losing a favorite toy when that toy is damn near the only one you functionally have lmao.

I know shadowlands as an expac has been pretty polarizing to people in terms of experience, but tbh I think this is a good step forward in resetting the stakes, and making things in either faction feel a little more balanced. I do think that the consequences of the conflict in bofa has to be addressed Eventually, and I'm honestly a little afraid of what they're going to do next, but this is alright for now.

[fitzefitcher]

faction conflict soapbox, pt. 1

okay so it seems like for the most part, there are a couple consistent schools of thought here:

school 1: I'm tired of the Horde being the Bad Guy 24/7

school 2: I'm tired of faction conflict, in general

school 3: Really Deeply wish that the Alliance's crimes would actually be Addressed, At All

school 4: Nuanced Wild Card:tm: opinions that I'll have to tackle individually lmao

so let's get started, obviously this is going to be a long-ass post, so I'm going to preemptively break up my answers to these into separate posts, for readability and also for my own sanity lmao. this will be under my essay tag but also the tag faction conflict soapbox, for blacklisting reasons.

school 1: I'm Tired of the Horde being the Bad Guy 24/7

@lokaror: i dont tend to have much of it these days. But i hate the "Horde is always the bad guy" stuff. When faction war happens its rarely with too much nuance on either side. The group that is primarily outcasts banding together seemingly always having the bad apples chafes too. But i also see from alliance side that it can be just as raw the other way.

The alliance sprang up out of need to for mutual defense, and the horde is the horde because they also need mutual aid and defence. We can't really put too much real world ideals to either, but at its core its always a tinder that can be lit. No way around that.

@chryseis: Long time blood elf player! I still love the horde (even though most of my favourite lore characters are alliance lol) because it feels like more of a community than the alliance with their high king. However I'm getting super sick of the horde always being the bad guy, and the fact that blizz has used the same evil warchief plot twice! Having said that, some of my worst/funniest online interactions have been with men on twitter who play alliance and genuinely (1/2)

Believe that anyone who plays horde is a terrible war criminal and not someone playing a computer game lmao (2/2)

@arkhamarchitecture​:  Feels a lot like Blizzard can't resist making the Horde the villains and even when the Alliance does wrong, it gets written off and excused, like they're not allowed to be the bad guys. Which in turn makes a lot of Alliance players treat the Horde like Blizzard is biased in our favor just because the story is always about us? Even though the story is about our side apparently being full of godawful people? It's really infuriating.

I think a core issue w this is the way that the game often presents the Horde and its various characters without the same empathy that it gives to its Alliance characters (note I said "empathy" and not "nuance" or "character development," we'll get back to that later), so it's not that horde people are incapable of inspiring empathy or aren't empathetic themselves, clearly they are and have evoked that reaction enough from players to arrive at this conclusion, it's that the same sort of steps taken with portraying alliance characters aren't taken with horde characters. like, I've already covered this a bit in my sylvanas essay, but like, we're not really given any opportunity to understand what's going on inside her head, so the actions she takes feel nonsensical, unecessary, or even needlessly cruel, and seemingly as players interacting with this game we have to make a lot of extra effort in order to even attempt to understand it. like, example, the "before the storm" novel portrays her as this horrible, conniving, manipulative Evil Dictator, for not wanting to share vital information about azerite with a faction whose leader has effectively done nothing to curb the warmongering tendencies of its other leaders, when in fact, it's very understandable why she wouldn't wanna do this. But again, the author (Christie Golden, bc of course it is) very explicitly portrays her as Bad Bad Evil Zombie Lady for Daring to think that they can't trust the same faction that seems to take issue with the mere concept of the horde having the Audacity of thinking they Deserve to Live lmao. Like, clearly this is Happening, but's never talked about or formally addressed.

likewise, with Garrosh, our other Bad Bad Evil Dictator Warchief, despite all the weird, wretched, horrible shit he was doing, it unfortunately makes a really terrible kind of sense if examined further.

why did he turn away from the horde leaders? because they had all uniformly rejected him from the getgo. cairne said he'd never accept him, vol'jin said he'd kill him, sylvanas made it clear she would never respect his authority. all before he'd done a single solitary thing as warchief.

why did he turn to war so quickly and so strongly? because nothing else was working. thrall's horde had tried diplomacy for years, and it amounted to nothing, because no matter what he did, no matter how far the horde ran from the eastern kingdoms, the alliances wouldn't stop chasing them and trying to kill them. the alliance would never see them as actual people, they'd only ever see them as twisted monsters and bloodthirsty, mindless beasts.

why did he turn to such violent, inhumane methods? bc the entirety of his first real brush with warfare was in northrend, against the scourge, an enemy that will keep getting up again and again and again until they're utterly annihilated. and before that, all his experiences with conflict were with demons, who were similarly impossible to kill.

like, obviously none of these reasons make it okay for him to do what he had done. just because something is understandable, doesn't mean it's acceptable. but it's never portrayed as understandable. it's never addressed, at all. there is no nuance attached to any of his actions- it is only ever portrayed as Evil, as Manipulative and Conniving and Violent and Warmongering, even though there is a whole slew of reasons for how and why we got here. there is no emotionality, there is only cruelty.

edit: whoops, forgot a relevant ask. added now.

[beesandwasps]

[Image ID: an anonymous reply post to a discussion board. The reply text, which is the focus, reads:

It very neatly describes the way liberals see the word and political struggle.

Lots of people complain about the anti-climactic ending, but really I don't think it could any other way. I'd like to imagine that there's some alternate universe where Rowling actually believed in something and Harry was actually built up as the anti-Voldemort he was only hinted as being in the beginning of the books. Where he's opposes [sic] all the many injustices of the wizarding world and determines to change their frequently backwards, insular, contradictory society for the better, and forms his own faction antithetical to the Death Eaters and when he finally has his showdown with Voldy, Harry surpasses by adopting new methods, breaking the rules and embracing change and the progression of history. While Voldemort clings to an idyllic imaging of the past and the greatest extent of his dreams is to become the self-appointed god of a eternally stagnant Neverland, Harry has embraced the possibility of a shining future and so can overcome the self-imposed limits Voldemort could never cross, and Voldemort is ultimately defeated by this.

But that would require a Harry that believed in something, and since Rowling is a liberal centrist Blairite that doesn't really believe in anything, Harry can't believe in anything. Harry lives in a world drought [sic] with conflict and injustice, a stratified class society, slavery of sentient magical creatures, the absurd charade the wizarding world puts up to enforce their own self-segregation, a corrupted and bureaucracy-choked government, rampant racism, so on and so forth. But Harry is little more than a passive observer for most of it, only the racism really bothers him (and then, really only racism against half-bloods). In fact, when Hermione stands up against the slavery of elves, she's treated as some kind of ridiculous Soapbox Sadie. For opposing chattel slavery. In the end, the biggest force for change is Voldemort and Harry and friends only ever fight for the preservation and reproduction of the status quo. The very height of Harry's dreams is to join the aurors, a sort of wizard FBl and the ultimate defenders of the wizarding status quo. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are the big instigators of change and Harry never quite gets to Voldys level. Harry doesn't even beat Voldemort, Voldemort accidentally kills himself because he violated some obscure technicality that causes one of his spells to bounce back at him.

And this is really the struggle of liberals, they live in a world fraught with conflict, but aren't particularly bothered by any of it except those bit [sic] that threaten multicultural pluralism. They see change, and the force behind that change, as a wholly negative phenomenon. Even then, they can only act within the legal and ideological framework of their society. So, for instance, instead of organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activity against Trump and the far-right, all they can do is bang their drum about what a racist bigot he is and hope they can catch him violating some technicality that will allow them to have him impeached or at least destroy his political clout. It won't work, it will never work, but that's the limit of liberalism just as it was the limit of Harry Potter.

The original post, to which this text was a reply, is a meme of a drunk Daniel Radcliffe holding a bottle, with the captions “HEY GUYS” and “WANNA BUY SOME MAGIC?”]

[bearfeathers]

[text from image]

It very neatly describes the way liberals see the world and political struggle.

Lots of people complain about the anti-climactic ending, but really I don't think it could any other way. I'd like to imagine that there's some alternate universe where Rowling actually believed in something and Harry was actually built up as the anti-Voldemort he was only hinted as being in the beginning of the books. Where he's opposes all the many injustices of the wizarding world and determines to change their frequently backwards, insular, contradictory society for the better, and forms his own faction antithetical to the Death Eaters and when he finally has his showdown with Voldy, Harry surpasses by adopting new methods, breaking the rules and embracing change and the progression of history. While Voldemort clings to an idyllic imaging of the past and the greatest extent of his dreams is to become the self-appointed god of a eternally stagnant Neverland, Harry has embraced the possibility of a shining future and so can overcome the self-imposed limits Voldemort could never cross, and Voldemort is ultimately defeated by this.

But that would require a Harry that believed in something, and since Rowling is a liberal centrist Blairite that doesn't really believe in anything, Harry can't believe in anything. Harry lives in a world drought with conflict and injustice, a stratified class society, slavery of sentient magical creatures, the absurd charade the wizarding world puts up to enforce their own self-segregation, a corrupted and bureaucracy-choked government, rampant racism, so on and so forth. But Harry is little more than a passive observer for most of it, only the racism really bothers him (and then, really only racism against half-bloods). In fact, when Hermione stands up against the slavery of elves, she's treated as some kind of ridiculous Soapbox Sadie. For opposing chattel slavery. In the end, the biggest force for change is Voldemort and Harry and firiends only ever fight for the preservation and reproduction of the status quo. The very height of Harry's dreams is to join the aurors, a sort of wizard FBI and the ultimate defenders of the wizarding status quo. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are the big instigators of change and Harry never quite gets to Voldy's level. Harry doesn't even beat Voldemort, Voldemort accidentally kills himself because he violated some obscure technicality that causes one of his spells to bounce back at him.

And this is really the struggle of liberals, they live in a world fraught with conflict, but aren't particularly bothered by any of it except those bit that threaten multicultural pluralism. They see change, and the force behind that change, as a wholly negative phenomenon. Even then, they can only act within the legal and ideological framework of their society. So, for instance, instead of organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activity against Trump and the far-right, all they can do is bang their drum about what a racist bigot he is and hope they can catch him violating some technicality that will allow them to have him impeached or at least destroy his political clout. It won't work, it will never work, but that's the limit of liberalism just as it was the limit of Harry Potter.

Can’t stop thinking about the “why fake leftists like Harry Potter” Greentext

[experimentkraj]

Here's what the image says, for those of you who can't read the small text: (under the cut because its pretty long)

"It very neatly describes the way liberals see the world and political struggle.

Lots of people complain about the anti-climactic ending, but really I don't think it could any other way. I'd like to imagine that there's some alternate universe where Rowling actually believed in something and harry was actually built up as the anti-Voldemort he was only hinted as being in the beginning of the books. Where he's opposes all the many injustices of the wizarding world and determines to change their frequently backwards, insular, contradictory society for the better, and forms his own faction antithetical to the Death Eaters and when he finally has his showdown with Voldy, Harry surpasses by adopting new methods, breaking the rules and embracing change and the progression of history. While Voldemort clings to an idyllic imaging of the past and the greatest extent of his dreams is to become the self-appointed god of a eternally stagnant Neverland, Harry has embraced the possibility of a shining future and so can overcome the self-imposed limits Voldemort could never cross, and Voldemort is ultimately defeated by this.

But that would require a Harry that believed in something, and since Rowling is a liberal centrist Blairite that doesn't really believe in anything, Harry can't believe in anything. Harry lives in a world drought with conflict and injustice, a stratified class society, slavery of sentient magical creatures, the absurd charade the wizarding world puts up to enforce their own self-segregation, a corrupted and bureaucracy-choked government, rampant racism, and so forth. But Harry is little more than a passive observer for most of it, only the racism really bothers him (and then, really only racism against half-bloods). In fact, when Hermione stands up against the slavery of elves, she's treated as some kind of ridiculous Soapbox Sadie. For opposing chattel slavery. In the end, the biggest force for change is Voldemort and Harry and friends only ever fight for the preservation and reproduction of the status quo. The very height of Harry's dreams is to join the aurors, a sort of wizard FBI and the ultimate defenders of the wizarding status quo. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are the big instigators of change and Harry never quite gets to Voldy's level. Harry doesn't even beat Voldemort, Voldemort accidentally kills himself because he violated some obscure technicality that causes one of his spells to bounce back at him.

And this is really the struggle of liberals, they live in a world fraught with conflict, but aren't particularly bothered by any of it except those bit that threaten multicultural pluralism. They see change, and the force behind that change, as a wholly negative phenomenon. Even then, they can only act within the legal and ideological framework of their society. So, for instance, instead of organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activity against Trump and the far-right, all they can do is bang their drum about what a racist bigot he is and hope they can catch him violating some technicality that will allow them to have him impeached or at least destroy his political clout. It won't work, it will never work, but that's the limit of liberalism just as it was the limit of Harry Potter.

surprisingly, this still remains probably the best and most concise explanation as to why the harry potter franchise didn't work and never could work in a satisfying way because of the author's limited perception of life and politics

[kanthandlethis]

[ID: A forum post with a periwinkle background, including a title line, a few paragraphs of text, and a thumbnail of a meme of Daniel Radcliffe looking frantic with the top caption "HEY GUYS" and bottom caption "WANNA BUY SOME MAGIC." The title reads, "Anonymous 06/08/17 (Thu) 11:36:36" followed by a code indicating the size and title of the jpg.

The body of the post reads, "It very neatly describes the way liberals see the world and political struggle. Lots of people complain about the anti-climactic ending, but really I don't think it could any other way. I'd like to imagine that there's some alternate universe where Rowling actually believed in something and Harry was actually built up as the anti-Voldemort he was only hinted as being in the beginning of the books. Where he's opposes all the many injustices of the wizarding world and determines to change their frequently backwards, insular, contradictory society for the better, and forms his own faction antithetical to the Death Eaters and when he finally has his showdown with Voldy, Harry surpasses by adopting new methods, breaking the rules and embracing change and the progression of history. While Voldemort clings to an idyllic imaging of the past and the greatest extent of his dreams is to become the self-appointed god of a eternally stagnant Neverland, Harry has embraced the possibility of a shining future and so can overcome the self-imposed limits Voldemort could never cross, and Voldemort is ultimately defeated by this.

But that would require a Harry that believed in something, and since Rowling is a liberal centrist Blairite that doesn't really believe in anything. Harry can't believe in anything. Harry lives in a world drought with conflict and injustice, a stratified class society, slavery of sentient magical creatures, the absurd charade the wizarding world puts up to enforce their own self-segregation, a corrupted and bureaucracy-choked government, rampant racism, so on and so forth. But Harry is little more than a passive observer for most of it, only the racism really bothers him (and then, really only racism against half-bloods). In fact, when Hermione stands up against the slavery of elves, she's treated as some kind of ridiculous Soapbox Sadie. For opposing chattel slavery. In the end, the biggest force for change is Voldemort and Harry and friends only ever fight for the preservation and reproduction of the status quo. The very height of Harry's dreams is to join the aurors, a sort of wizard FBI and the ultimate defenders of the wizarding status quo. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are the big instigators of change and Harry never quite gets to Voldy's level. Harry doesn't even beat Voldemort, Voldemort accidentally kills himself because he violated some obscure technicality that causes one of his spells to bounce back at him.

And this is really the struggle of liberals, they live in a world fraught with conflict, but aren't particularly bothered by any of it except those bit that threaten multicultural pluralism. They see change, and the force behind that change, as a wholly negative phenomenon. Even then, they can only act within the legal and ideological framework of their society. So, for instance, instead of organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activity against Trump and the far-right, all they can do is bang their drum about what a racist bigot he is and hope they can catch him violating some technicality that will allow them to have him impeached or at least destroy his political clout. It won't work, it will never work, but that's the limit of liberalism just as it was the limit of Harry Potter." End ID]

surprisingly, this still remains probably the best and most concise explanation as to why the harry potter franchise didn't work and never could work in a satisfying way because of the author's limited perception of life and politics

[justthatspiffy]

screenshot text below the cut:

“It very neatly describes the way liberals see the world and political struggle.

Lots of people complain about the anti-climactic ending, but really I don’t think it could [end] any other way. I’d like to imagine that there’s some alternate universe where Rowling actually believed in something and Harry was actually built up as the anti-Voldemort he was only hinted as being in the beginning of the books. Where [he] opposes all the many injustices of the wizarding world and determines to change their frequently backwards, insular, contradictory society for the better, and forms his own faction antithetical to the Death Eaters and when he finally has his showdown with Voldy, Harry surpasses by adopting new methods, breaking the rules and embracing change and the progression of history. While Voldemort clings to an idyllic imaging of the past and the greatest extent of his dreams is to become the self-appointed god of [an] eternally stagnant Neverland, Harry has embraced the possibility of a shining future and so can overcome the self-imposed limits Voldemort could never cross, and Voldemort is ultimately defeated by this.

But that would require a Harry that believed in something, and since Rowling is a liberal centrist Blairite that doesn’t really believe in anything, Harry can’t believe in anything. Harry lives in a world [fraught] with conflict and injustice, a stratified class society, slavery of sentient magical creatures, the absurd charade the wizarding world puts up to enforce their own self-segregation, a corrupted and bureaucracy-choked government, rampant racism, so on and so forth. But Harry is little more than a passive observer for most of it, only the racism really bothers him (and then, really only racism against half-bloods). In fact, when Hermione stands up against the slavery of elves, she’s treated as some kind of ridiculous Soapbox Sadie. For opposing chattel slavery. In the end, the biggest force for change is Voldemort and Harry and [friends] only ever fight for the preservation and reproduction of the status quo. The very height of Harry’s dreams is to join the aurors, a sort of wizard FBI and the ultimate defenders of the wizarding status quo. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are the big instigators of change and Harry never quite gets to Voldy’s level. Harry doesn’t even beat Voldemort, Voldemort accidentally kills himself because he violated some obscure technicality that causes one of his spells to bounce back at him.

And this is really the struggle of liberals, they live in a world fraught with conflict, but aren’t particularly bothered by any of it except those bit that threaten multicultural pluralism. They see change, and the force behind that change, as a wholly negative phenomenon. Even then, they can only act within the legal and ideological framework of their society. So, for instance, instead of organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activity against Trump and the far-right, all they can do is bang their drum about what a racist bigot he is and hope they can catch him violating some technicality that will allow them to have him impeached or at least destroy his political clout. It won’t work, it will never work, but that’s the limit of liberalism just as it was the limit of Harry Potter.”

surprisingly, this still remains probably the best and most concise explanation as to why the harry potter franchise didn't work and never could work in a satisfying way because of the author's limited perception of life and politics

[magicalgirlmindcrank]

"It very nearly describes the way liberals see the world and political struggle.

Lots of people complain about the anti-climatic ending. but really I don't think it could any other way. I'd like to imagine that there's some alternate universe where Rowling actually believed in something and Harry was actually built up as the anti-Voldermort he was only hinted as being in the beginning of the books Where he's opposes all the many injustices of the wizarding world and determines to change their frequently backwards, insular, contradictory society for the better, and forms his own faction antithetical to the Death Eaters and when he finally has his showdown with Voldy, Harry surpasses by adopting new methods, breaking the rules and embracing the progression of history. While Voldermort clings to an idyllic imaging of the past and the greatest extent of hid dreams is to become the self-appointed God of an eternally stagnant Neverland, Harry has embraced the possibility of a shining future and so can overcome the self-imposed limits Voldermort could never cross, and Voldermort is ultimately defeated by this.

But that would require a Harry that believed in something, and since Rowling is a liberal centrist Blairite that doesn't really believe in anything, Harry can't believe in anything. Harry lives in a world drought with conflict and injustice, a stratified class society, slavery of sentient magical creatures, the absurd charade the wizarding world puts up to enforce their own self-segregation, a corrupted and bureaucracy-choked government, rampant racism, so on and so forth. But Harry is little more than a passive observer for most of it, only the racism bothers him (and then, really only racism against half-bloods.) In fact, When Hermione stands up against the slavery of the elves, she's treated as some kind of ridiculous Soapbox Sadie. For opposing chattel slavery. In the end, the biggest force for change is Voldermort and Harry and friends only ever fight for the preservation and reproduction of the status quo. The very height of Harry's dreams is to join the aurors, a sort of wizard FBI and the ultimate defenders of the wizarding status quo. Voldermort and the big instigators of change and Harry never quite gets to Voldy's level. Harry doesn't even beat Voldermort, Voldemort accidentally kills himself becasue he violate some obscure technicality that causes one of his spells to bounce back at him.

And this is really the struggle of liberals, they live in a world fruaght with conflict, but aren't particulkarily bothered by any of it except those bit that threaten multicultural pluralism.The see change, and the force behind that change, as a wholly negative phenomenon. Even then, they can only act within the legal and ideological framework of their society. So, for instance, instead of organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activity against Trump and the far-right, all they can do is bang their drum aboutwhat a racist bigot he is and hope they can catch him violating some technicality that will allow them to have him impeached or at least destroy his political clout. It wont work, it will never work, but that's the limit of liberalism just as it was the limit of Harry Potter."

surprisingly, this still remains probably the best and most concise explanation as to why the harry potter franchise didn't work and never could work in a satisfying way because of the author's limited perception of life and politics