#j k Rowling

[ilredeiladri]

Look, my fellow aces, we are part of the "being hated by J K Rowling for fucking no reason" Club now 🤗

[comicgeekscomicgeek]

God, she keeps finding new lows to sink too.

So JKR is anti asexual now to

[ookaookaooka]

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

[devils-queen]

A lot of my friends have come to me about that author saying asexuality is "invalid" or something along those lines and I want to say to my fellow asexual's to not listen to someone who doesn't have the brain capacity to understand how gender, identity and sexual attraction works.

There are many people out there lacking stimulus to the brain and she is one of them. I implore you not to listen to someone who named the one ethnic minority in their book 'Cho Chang' and made one character gay years later because it was trendy.

[jdtrashman]

Looking back, it's insane how spoiled we were by J. K. Rowling's unmasking.

The signs WERE all there from the beginning, from interviews to her personal life to the work itself. So when the mask finally came off for good, our eyes were shot open to all the red flags.

And a lot of folks keep expecting that same revelation every single time another beloved artist turns out to be a bastard. But here's the thing; Rowling is an outlier. Most predators are nowhere near as unsubtle. And everyone telling you all these "solutions" to make sure you don't get hurt again are in willful denial of this

"Don't trust charming people", "don't trust people who declare themselves allies of this or that cause", "charisma is a red flag". All of that may be true, but lemme tell ya - it won't save you.

Because here's the uncomfortable truth: there were zero signs. I followed Gaiman for years, both with his work and here on tumblr. Never noticed a single red flag - and looking back, I can't think of a single sign. And the same can be said for all of you.

It is possible to commit no errors and still lose.

[smol-trans-goblin]

~A MESSAGE TO J.K. ROWLING~

When I was young, your writing inspired me. It made me hopeful. I hyperfixated on it for years, played Harry Potter Trivial Pursuit, drew my Patronus, and infodumped on my dad for hours on end. I turned my garage into Honeydukes for my eighth birthday, and put a drawing of Moaning Myrtle in my family's bathroom. My grandma and I watched the movies together, staying up late and complaining about the fact that Peeves didn't make an appearance. I idolized you.

Then I realized I was a transgender boy.

I read about what you'd said. How we were predators and r@p1sts. How trans women were just 'men in dresses'. How there were no trans kids. I lost that spark of happiness I used to get from seeing Platform 9 3/4 pins on people's bags, from finding fanfiction on ao3, from my Snitch replica that hung from my ceiling. My Harry Potter paperbacks, well-worn from taking them everywhere, were left to gather dust on my shelf.

And now this.

I am not looking for attention. I am not trying to "let complete strangers know I don't fancy a shag." I am not pretending I'm oppressed. I AM oppressed. Yesterday, I marched with thousands of people, to fight the people like you, who ARE oppressing us, who want us to disappear. I can't believe I loved you, I wanted to be you, I trusted you. And you betrayed me. You betrayed us. I don't understand how you sleep at night, knowing what you've said.

I hope the dementors come for you next.

[karlrincon]

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

They’ve been reunited 🤍

[mea-cuppa-part-2]

[marauderstars]

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

[millaniumcat]

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

NO. STOP.

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

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

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

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

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

[onlyancunin]

Just a quick request ~

Please don't separate my art from me as an artist.

There's a post circulating about how it's alright to separate art from artist if you want to appreciate just the art.

I starkly disagree with that stance. People did that to me before and it felt incredibly offensive and objectifying.

If you can't see the artist in their art, you're not looking hard enough. Don't do that to the art, don't do that to the artist. If you hate me, hate my creations as well, don't be an apologist coward.

And if you love my art but hate me as a person, hateromance me. Don't go around proving how you can't see the humanity in the creation. How you can't see the person beyond their way of communication.

[greencarnation]

[a-lady-in-shining-armour]

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

[vavuska]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tharmony]

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

[inafever]

It hurts really bad every time your fandom goes parentless again