#people like JK Rowling don't have imagination | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

sideprince · 3 months

Note

Hello hello, love your blog and all the meta! Do you have any thoughts or saved meta on Snape’s accent? I don’t remember us seeing any indications in book-canon about him having an accent that stands out in any way, but I’d imagine that a poor boy growing up in the midlands (or in the north, as we thought before Spinner’s End was revealed to be in Cokeworth), to have a strong regional accent. Since this is an obvious class marker would he have tried to tone it down or hide it as he got older in Hogwarts? Thoughts?

Hello! Thank you, I'm always surprised anyone reads my posts so that's such a nice thing to hear! I've actually been thinking about Snape's accent lately so I love this ask and also get out of my head.

The books seem to show Snape speaking the Queen's English (ie. the dialect spoken primarily in the South of England and considered by some to be "proper" English, those people being dismissive of regional dialects in ways I personally don't agree with). This can be deduced more from seeing how the dialogue of characters like Dobby and Hagrid are written than anything else. Hagrid is written as speaking with a thick West Country accent, with a lot of "yeh" instead of "you" and "ter" instead of "to" etc. You also see similar clearly denoted regional dialects with characters like Mundungus Fletcher (whose accent is Cockney):

“Blimey,” said Mundungus weakly ___ “Keep your ’airnet on!” said Mundungus

-Order of the Phoenix, Ch. 2

“Well, you’re a bunch of bleedin’ ‘eroes, then, aren’t you, but I never pretended I was up for killing meself -”

-Deathly Hallows, Ch. 11

Because we see these characters with their pronunciations clearly written into their dialogue, we're meant to assume the other characters speak the Queen's English, as no specific dialect is otherwise indicated. McGonagall is Scottish but it's never mentioned that her accent might be as well, and her dialogue doesn't indicate it is either. In fact, if you do a quick search on potter-search.com for the word "Scottish" the only instance that comes up in any of the HP books - which are set in the Scottish Highlands with McGonagall as a prominent Scottish character - is at the end of Deathly Hallows when the dragon the trio break out of Gringotts deposits them in the middle of a Scottish loch. It’s the only time the word Scottish is used in the whole series. I think that says a lot about JK Rowling as the writer and what her own biases are when it comes to writing representatively of the places her story - and its characters - inhabit.

I don't think Rowling put that much thought into Snape's accent and where he's from. The underlying message is that the Queen's English is the "default" accent and peppering her books with regional dialect in the dialogue of folksy characters like Hagrid gives them a bit of color, or that giving someone like Mundungus a Cockney accent denotes his being an untrustworthy criminal (and it's not exactly a revelation that she has unchecked internalized biases that show through her writing). But I also think that she wrote Snape with Alan Rickman in mind and that made her vision of him a bit conflicting, ie. she wrote his backstory as growing up in a Midlands slum and yet he speaks like the RADA trained actor she envisioned him as in her mind.

That won't stop me from coming up with meta about Snape's accent, though! I've been thinking about it lately, actually, because I see a lot of posts that talk about how he must have lost his accent at school to fit in with the other Slytherins, since there are, historically, many pure-bloods and Sacred 28 families in that house and he would have had a hard enough time fitting in as it was. I've always thought these theories made sense but lately I've been wondering if there could be an alternate reading of Snape's accent.

We don't really know much about Snape's mother but I've thought about how she might have come from a reasonably well-off wizarding family, or at the very least from a higher class background than she ended up raising her son in. Although most Brits grow up speaking with the accent of their region, some do grow up speaking how they're taught to at home if it diverges from other locals. The example that comes to mind is how John Lennon always had a scouse accent having grown up middle class in Liverpool, while Paul McCartney - also from Liverpool - spoke the Queen's English because his mother insisted on teaching him to speak it at home, despite their family being working class, in order to give him a leg up through the classist confines of British social classes.

So my own meta has lately been to play with the idea that Snape always spoke with the accent we see his adult self speaking with, because his mother wanted him to have a chance to do better in life than what she was able to give him (again, given how classist British society is, and was especially back in the 60s). It may also explain why he had so few friends as a child: if he was raised to speak the Queen's English in a working class slum, the other children may have ostracized him for it and he may have inadvertently alienated them.

The idea that Snape has always spoken with the accent he has as an adult is partly supported by the conversations we see between Snape and Lily as children, where Snape's accent isn't written in the regional dialects we see other characters having. There are a few minor moments where young Snape seems to have a Northern lilt, but it comes off more as something that slips into his speech than characterizes it, when compared to Mundungus or Hagrid (emphases mine):

‘We’re all right. We haven’t got wands yet. They let you off when you’re a kid and you can’t help it. But once you’re eleven,’ he nodded importantly, ‘and they start training you, then you’ve got to go careful.’ ______ ‘They wouldn’t give you to the Dementors for that! Dementors are for people who do really bad stuff. They guard the wizard prison, Azkaban. You’re not going to end up in Azkaban, you’re too -‘ He turned red again and shredded more leaves. Then a small rustling noise behind Harry made him turn: Petunia, hiding behind a tree, had lost her footing. ‘Tuney!’ said Lily, surprise and welcome in her voice, but Snape had jumped to his feet. ‘Who’s spying now?’ he shouted. ‘What d’you want?’

-Deathly Hallows, Ch. 33

There's a bit of Northern in how he says "you've got to go careful" and shortens "do you" into "d'you" but overall his speech is fairly standard Queen's English. It sounds more like a kid trying to sound cool, the way the Weasley twins and even Ron often do (Ron saying "geroff" to his mum, the twins shouting "oy" to each other or saying "blimey" even though they all grew up in Devon and their speech is generally also written following standard Queen's English).

Young Snape's accent may also have been something that caught Lily's attention or just put her at ease - seeing this skinny, twitchy kid wearing odd looking clothes and looking uncared for and poor but hearing him speak with a more familiar accent and vocabulary would have made it easier for her to connect with him. We see from Petunia's dialogue as an adult that she speaks the Queen's English, so we can assume the two girls grew up speaking it at home. There aren't really any colloquialisms in her speech, and what little (and it's really so, so little) we see of Lily seems to show the same.

Some people claim that Snape’s Northern accent comes out when he's triggered, but I can't find examples of it. At his most triggered in the Shrieking Shack in PoA, he still speaks as he always does:

'SILENCE! I WILL NOT BE SPOKEN TO LIKE THAT!’ Snape shrieked, looking madder than ever. ‘Like father, like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck, you should be thanking me on bended knee! You would have been well served if he’d killed you! You’d have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black - now get out of the way, or I will make you. GET OUT OF THE WAY, POTTER!'

-Prisoner of Azkaban, Ch. 19

Even in HBP when he's fleeing and Harry triggers him, his speech is consistent with hiw it’s written through the rest of the series:

'No, Potter!’ screamed Snape. There was a loud BANG and Harry was soaring backwards, hitting the ground hard again, and this time his wand flew out of his hand. He could hear Hagrid yelling and Fang howling as Snape closed in and looked down on him where he lay, wandless and defenceless as Dumbledore had been. Snape’s pale face, illuminated by the flaming cabin, was suffused with hatred just as it had been before he had cursed Dumbledore. ‘You dare use my own spells against me, Potter? It was I who invented them - I, the Half-Blood Prince! And you’d turn my inventions on me, like your filthy father, would you? I don’t think so … no!’ Harry had dived for his wand; Snape shot a hex at it and it flew feet away into the darkness and out of sight. ‘Kill me, then,’ panted Harry, who felt no fear at all, but only rage and contempt. ‘Kill me like you killed him, you coward -‘ ‘DON’T -‘ screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them, ‘- CALL ME COWARD!'

-Half-Blood Prince, Ch. 28

There isn't really much in these moments to suggest a Northern accent coming out. So in a radical departure from the fandom, I've been mulling over the meta that Snape always had the accent we see him with. It's not as unlikely as people think, and certainly not impossible.

#Asks #meta #greysleipnir

70 notes · View notes

gauntletqueen · 2 months

Note

the italian boxer isn't a cop, isn't 100% white, and was crying because of her dead dad. she's come out in support of the other boxer people are using her as a weapon against to be racist. the way the olympics and the media is treating both boxers is really fucked up, i do not think the italian woman did anything wrong, she's just a useful tool of oppression people are utilizing against her will

Okay you're part right, part wrong. I've done some more looking into it and I'm glad I did cause it's Nuanced~ Not here to prove you wrong, just gonna list it all out clearly so we can all understand the situation better.

I haven't personally seen any racism coming into the controversy so I don't understand why you're bringing that up, or that Angela Carini isn't fully white. The most I can see is a few mentions of Italian politicians using the situation to try and earn some brownie points by standing behind Angela Carini, but even then they're also latching onto the narrative that Imane Khelif had an unfair advantage, due to her being transgender. She isn't, btw. She's a cis woman,another case of transphobes jumping at any opportunity to try to push their bullshit, even when the target isn't trans, and nobody had even accused them of being trans before that point.

While I can't find definitive proof that Angela herself is a cop, she was raised by cops and is a member of the boxing division of one of Italy's police forces. I can't figure out if that means that she is also an actual cop but that's probably where the assumption comes from.

"she was crying because of her dead dad" is true, but oversimplifying it. Specifically, she's said that her brother and late father were boxers before her, and taught her the sport. She wanted to honor them in the olympics, but the tension, stress and expectations got too much for her in the match against Imane, who it seems fought much harder than Angela was used to. This caused her to have an emotional breakdown. That's all extremely reasonable honestly I can't imagine having to handle to pressure of representing your country At The Olympics, especially not when there are also such big personal stakes. Supposedly she was cited as shouting "it's not fair!" as she left the ring. This is what got transphobes like JK Rowling and Musk to co-opt the story into their bigotted narrative that Imane must be transgender, as transphobic women in the past have blamed their losses on the fact that a transgender woman Was Involved.

It's likely that they might also have used Imane's disqualification from participating in the 2023 IBA Women's World Boxing championship. The organization had declared her testosterone levels to be too high, which supposedly "proved they had XY chromosomes". Since then, the International Olympic Committee has removed the IBA as the organizers of boxing at the olympics due to "continuing irregularity issues in the areas of finance, governance, ethics, refereeing, and judging" So. Perhaps they are a bad judge of chromosomes. Because again, Imane is a cis woman.

Anyway. Angela has stated (translation taken from Wikipedia, the original italian article is behind a paywall) "I want to apologize to her and everyone else. I was angry because my Olympics had gone up in smoke. I don't have anything against Khelif. If I were to meet her again, I would embrace her"

So yeah, she's done nothing wrong, she just cracked under immense pressure, and might be a cop or cop-sympathetic, but that doesn't seem to really have anything to do with the situation. The important thing is that rightwing bigots jumped at the chance to make her a martyr against her will, as you said.

53 notes · View notes

mdhwrites · 4 months

Note

I’m honest to god baffled that fantasy shows like Steven Universe, Amphibia, Star Vs The Forces Of Evil, and Gravity Falls have an abundance of memorable human characters with memorable locations that make you want to live in that human community while The Owl House BARELY has any of that.

Camila, Jacob, and Masha are probably the only human side characters that are memorable and have a impact on the story, and Gravesfield is too forgettable and full of not so good people (which even then is questionable considering Luz’s antics) that it makes it hard to want to live there.

It’s almost as if TOH is desperate to want people to want to live in the demon realm and forget about appreciating Earth and being human, which ends up making it even more immature compared to other shows that at least TRY to express how important it is to appreciate your human side and it makes the main human characters much more likable cause they know being human is just as important.

If Luz doesn’t bother to appreciate her human world more, why should I care about her?

This isn't a bug; It's a feature.

(Before I begin, just as a reminder: Fuck JK Rowling. I hate how much I have to praise Harry Potter for this.)

There is a LOT to say about TOH wanting to be the Harry Potter for a new generation. The concept that all of humanity is worthless so you should escape into our other side of reality is a big thing there too. Part of why Harry Potter, and ESPECIALLY Hogwarts, means so much to people that they literally can't give it up is because of the escapist fantasy involved with it. The story made one believe anyone could be whisked away to a fantasy realm where they were important. Where they could face the bullies and win. Where they could be so much more than reality made them feel.

The Isles is pretty clearly meant to feel similar. It's the ONLY explanation for why Belos' tyranny isn't actually present besides to make being an apprentice to Eda even cooler than it normally would be. The Coven System could be inspired by a lot of things, like D&D, but it's hard to deny that Harry Potter is the easiest example, especially with The First Day reinforcing that even the school is divided up by these covens. There is ZERO bigotry, of literally any sort, even magical preference, because that would make the Isles unappealing. It wouldn't be somewhere anyone would want to escape to because the world would be too much like our own.

This is further reinforced by how Harry Potter has the Dursleys while TOH has just implied repression of Luz... Except that it DOES have more, doesn't it?

This is part of why I think TOH fails in this regard. Why we don't see a lot of TOH OCs, or Hexside OCs, minus future kids which is just mashing the canon characters together. It's too insincere and too modern a work in order to actually be the escapist fiction it wants to be. Again: There are MAJOR storytelling concessions to make it more attractive as escapist fiction but it won't commit.

This is why we have Camila as our main representative of humanity. The 'trope' is to make her awful. The worst person imaginable. The Dursleys fit that after all. But modern writing trends are too self aware for that sort of thing. They need to try and twist tropes to look clever (I would date the start of this somewhere around Frozen) or else they look silly and are to be thrown away. So instead of the evil home life to run away from like in Harry Potter, where that gives Harry permission to only care about the new world he's entering, even if it's just a secret society, we instead have Camila. The saint. The one who is first wronged by Luz and never really gets made up to by Luz because, well, that goes against the fact that Luz is clearly meant to, even by the end of S1, want to choose the Isles over humanity EVERY TIME. Why she starts an entirely new life there without even thinking about things like, I dunno, how the fuck do I keep dating this witch when I go home. Amity and her never do have a real conversation about the promise because that's inconvenient to the escapist fantasy.

This attempt at being 'clever' over being sincere is also why Hogwarts is a much more magical, literally and figuratively, setting than the ENTIRE ISLES. There is magic and secrets and interesting discoveries at literally every turn at this one school. Meanwhile, TOH wants to be able to make modern social commentary despite the fantasy land its in, and also wants to be taken more seriously than fantasy often is, so it needs to be grounded and mundane and mostly like our own world because otherwise they might actually have to make a world that's interesting. It fits into modern writing trends that give Twitter easy fodder to talk about THEMES, regardless of how well those are actually tackled, but get in the way of being escapist. Of creating a world that you'd actively beg to live in.

This is actually something I'll give modern isekai and is a large part of why it's so popular: It is extremely escapist. Even the more serious ones still make the main character be the biggest badass ever and the 'dark' elements actually conform just to make him a bigger badass. To give him more than he already would have by genre convention. They do that mostly through sincerity of concepts. By going "This is what we're doing, this is what we're giving the audience, FUCKING GO."

TOH never has that unity of purpose.

BUT

This lack of unity of purpose also meant that while PLENTY of anime are bigger, more popular and more influential than TOH, as far as western media goes, it was a strength. Like I said, it leans into current trends with writing. It is unique, even amongst anime, for having an explicitly LGBTQIA+ main character, adding to the escapism for those specific groups. All while packaged as a kids show for those who don't like kids shows, much like how Avatar for many is anime for those who don't like anime.

Now this is where I might talk about the other shows you brought up, especially Amphibia but, well... None of them are going for such pure escapism. Bare minimum, their main influences aren't pure escapism. They're more rooted in old isekai or just straight aren't influenced by isekai or Harry Potter. They're genuinely more complex about the relationship between the worlds because for their stories, both worlds actually matter. Neither is meant to be entirely abandoned like TOH wants to abandon the human realm.

There is a reason why Luz ends the series only learning about magic after all despite claiming to live in both realms because she has no interest in the human realm. There's a reason the villain is pro-human realm. It's all meant to point to not just wanting to run away but encouraging it. That's not even always a bad thing. I've written porn for god's sake, the last thing I can criticize is the desire for escapist fiction. It has its place.

TOH would fill that place better if it would just be honest about what it was. I'm still glad it comforts those who need it to be their escape though. See you next tale.

======+++++======

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

#the owl house criticism #toh critical

48 notes · View notes

sprinkleonthatcriticism · 24 days

Text

I understand why a lot of people would NOT like this and they are in their right to either dislike it or provide valid criticisms towards it...

HOWEVER, the response to this series (that isn't even released yet and the pilot has NOT been created) just feels too hostile tbh.

(Not censoring Gangle's username because.... imagine wishing death on someone for just liking harry potter and being cringed--) Like, we should be encouraging small indie game devs, series creators and such not discourage them by being hostile/bullying said creators while not providing actual criticism or simply hating them because the art-style has already been done before...

Like yes, I do find it kinda cringe to have your Harry Potter houses up on your kickstarter like that but I'm not going to judge because as long as they ain't actually supporting JK Rowling and these guys aren't freaks of nature.. I don't see any real harm. If you couldn't tell, I'm a firm believer of separating the art from the artist in some cases.. I'm willing to give Steph and Kris the benefit of a doubt, also I don't think they did anything that warrant the hostility and toxicity their getting, like none of them diddled a child or donated money to a hate group (correct me if I'm wrong lmaooo)

I think you guys need to stop judging a book by it's cover.. again, you're allow to critic them, give them a few pointers and yeah, you can dislike the upcoming show's art style (I personally don't like the art style and if this series becomes successful, I may or may not watch it) and all but being hostile towards a indie series is just trashy and discouraging towards not just them but other people who WANT to start a kickstarter, patreon or even a ko-fi so they could fund their own indie series, games and all. I think we should give all Indie series and games a chance instead of being judgey. (Go support them)

#adulting #adulting kickstarter #indie #indie series #indie animation #indie animations #kickstarter

18 notes · View notes

avelera · 2 years

Text

"I read it to find out what the fuss was about, and remained somewhat puzzled; it seemed a lively kid’s fantasy crossed with a school novel, good fare for its age group, but stylistically ordinary, imaginatively derivative, and ethically rather mean-spirited."

- Ursula K. Le Guin

It's been understandably popular to take pot-shots at Harry Potter lately because of JK Rowling's truly disgusting and reprehensible comments lately. This quote above by Le Guin, which I agreed with even while a teenager, got me thinking about my own views on the series and apropos to nothing, I felt this was a better place to expound upon them than Twitter.

I have a knee-jerk dislike of the very human condition of saying we, "Always knew something," after the fact, that we "Always knew" someone problematic™️ was problematic or we always knew this thing that was popular was Bad Art after it became less popular. I find it intellectually dishonest.

So I'll preface all of this by saying: I had minor issues with the Harry Potter series back when it came out that went against the mainstream view of it, in that I thought it had many good qualities as a book series, but not enough to warrant its popularity compared to other, similar YA and fantasy series. I was genuinely baffled by its superstar popularity but as a fantasy book reader in the days before it was easy to access online fandom, I would take what I could get and I certainly didn't mind fangirling about Harry Potter stuff with friends even if it wasn't my #1 favorite series of all time. I enjoyed the fanfic for Harry Potter immensely so that allowed me to sort of blend in with those who enjoyed its popularity. (Special shoutout to MY favorite Harry Potter book of all time, "Harry Potter and the Battle of Wills" by Jocelyn over on fanfiction.net, that was MY Harry Potter series lol.)

So here's the thing, it's easy to say, "I always hated Harry Potter" or "I always knew it was trash" and that's a lie. For me, the truth is:

I enjoyed Harry Potter much like I did many of the fantasy series of its day.

What they had going for them was their pacing, whimsy, and inherent mystery structure in the first 3 books. They're fast, fun, easy reads with a likable protagonist. They are not bad books. But as Le Guin says, they're stylistically ordinary and imaginatively derivative. There's a lot of books like them.

I did not think the books were better than Pratchett, or Gaiman, or Garth Nix, or Dianne Wynn Jones, or any of the many other fantasy authors I was reading at the time. I was confused by their popularity as compared to better books like Pratchett's Discworld which, while popular, never got a theme park made for them in terms of order of magnitude popularity.

Now, JK Rowling on the other hand I had some issues with from the start, if not the ones that emerged later with her being a bigot. It is worth mentioning for the sake of intellectual honesty that decades ago, she gave a lot to charity and was a voice for tolerance in the early 00's when Bush/Blair, the Iraq War, etc were in full swing. It makes it all the more heartbreaking and baffling to see her swing towards bigotry on LGBT+ issues. Truly, a lot of young people first learned to stand up to fascism and be accepting of those different from them because of Harry Potter, just like they did reading the Ender's Game series by Orson Scott Card, and in both cases it's absolutely heartbreaking and so very confusing to see these authors fall to the very dark side they wrote against in their books. I have no answer for how or why this happened. I don't say this to make an excuse for either of them, simply to express confusion and mourn the loss of someone who was once a voice for some level of good in the world.

Now, my issues with JK Rowling were writerly, and they are the ones I feel somewhat empowered to say I "always knew" and "always had an issue with" and that, like the worst sort of hipster, "I talked about before it was cool".

Really my dislike began when JKR very famously said in the early 00s that she didn't read any fantasy before writing Harry Potter. Considering how derivative it is (heck, Neil Gaiman already had a YA series about a black-haired wizard boy with a scar) it left one wondering if she was lying or she truly was that ignorant in the genre in which she wrote. Either way, not a good look, and it soured me towards her pretty permanently as an author.

Terry Pratchett, the author I would actually follow into Hell, criticized her for this comment and got a lot of flack for it, asking how in the world she could not realize she was writing fantasy. This solidified my opinion of her as something of a hack, even if she had stumbled upon a winning story. Neil Gaiman also chimed in saying he didn't feel ripped off but seemed to tacitly agree with Pratchett that her lack of institutional knowledge about fantasy was odd.

As a big fantasy fan of the early 00s, I can say that fantasy was still a bit of a forbidden genre (at least in the Anglosphere), one not taken seriously. So for JK Rowling to be asked if she wrote fantasy had a layer of nuance, basically she was being asked if she meant to write a fantasy novel, ie, in a "lesser" genre, barely above dime story penny dreadfuls in value.

No one literary would admit to writing fantasy at the time, it was a whole thing where if you admitted to writing fantasy you were "downgraded" as an author in terms of prestige (Stephen King went through a lot of this). BUT, if a fantasy book achieved popularity, it was labeled as "literary" so the literary folks could claim ownership of the quality genre fiction, and never have to admit that "literary" is a genre and not a mark of quality (a deep-seated rage button issue for me and a rant for another day).

So when JK Rowling said, "She didn't know she was writing fantasy." That meant something. And what it meant was she was throwing the rest of the genre under the damn bus. With her visibility she could have helped actively tear down the biases against fantasy (something she did indirectly with the popularity of her books). Or she could have simply had humility and said she wasn't as versed in the genre as she should be given where her book ended up being shelved, but there's a lot of good works there and she's honored to be among them.

She did neither. She stuck to her ignorance (what would become a common trait of hers, apparently) and did very little to elevate others in the genre, or the genre itself, and indeed, seemed to try to distance herself from it in what was the safe move at the time.

I cannot stress enough how intellectual dishonest, arrogant, and safe it was for popular writers who got dubbed "literary" when they were in fact writing genre fiction to cleave to that title of literary, guard it jealously, and refuse to acknowledge that literary is a genre of its own, not a mark of quality. To be labeled "genre fiction" was to be considered "lesser" and that stigma is still out there, though much lessened by the wave that began with the Lord of the Rings movies, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, and the Marvel films making so much money and really setting up genre fiction to at least be seen as lucrative if not artistic. We have come a long way from how fantasy was viewed 20 years ago.

JK Rowling also said she wrote no other books before Harry Potter. That's another puzzling instance where either she's lying, sold her soul to the Devil (and hey, maybe she did and he's collecting by making her turn into a frothing bigot), or was simply a more lucky and less skilled writer than people realized. Every writer has a closet full of short stories and novels they've written before publishing their first work. I can't stress enough how bizarre it is for her to claim she never wrote anything else before putting pen to paper with Harry Potter, that simply does not happen. Then again, her later books make it seem more likely that is true.

Writerly aside, but JK Rowling is utter garbage at structure. She lucked into the perfect scaffolding for a basic plot with the Harry Potter school year, but as Fantastic Beasts and her other, non-school based plot structures reveal, she didn't realize what a crutch that was for her because the woman does not and has not learned how to build a plot that isn't strung up on the structure of a school year for building tension and story beats.

Look, JK Rowling has always been a weird author. She really did come out of nowhere in terms of previous works. She doesn't acknowledge her peers in the genre that built her fortune, not even to confess that while she didn't know about them, she's now learning about a wonderful rich genre out there. She went the other direction and disavowed fantasy (it's possible she backtracked since and had nice things to say about the fantasy genre, I'd love to hear it if so).

There was in fact always subtle bigotry and a ton of tokenism in the Harry Potter books. That said, in the 90s, that was pretty par for the course, and she deserved some kudos for making the books so explicitly about fighting fascism, even if I'm not sure she fully understood her own themes.

To say these books were unpopular or that they had no writerly merit at all is intellectually dishonest. They were popular for a reason, mostly because they're fun. However, they were not unique, there were many like them, she got very lucky and it's bizarre how little she's acknowledged this or her peers. Of all the negative tendencies any human has, I'm shocked and dismayed that her tendency to stick to her ignorance like she did with the wider fantasy genre is the one that won out and was transferred to LGBT+ issues, to the point of doing active damage to her works and brand. But as her attempts to branch out from Harry Potter have further confirmed, JK Rowling was always a stylistically ordinary writer. Her mean-spiritedness didn't stand out as much in the 90s but it absolutely does now and it's ugly how she leaned more into sticking with the moral heights she reached at that time rather than trying to learn and grow as a person.

JK Rowling went full Whedon and figured because she was slightly ahead of the curve in the late 90s that she had nothing more to learn and it hurts when people who are creative, people whose job it is to have empathy for other walks of life, never learn or grow and stick to their old laurels that are increasingly out of date. I personally don't think myself as a hardcore Harry Potter fan, I have no horse in this race for the redemption or lack thereof of JK Rowling or the book series. I can only offer my view as a fantasy writer and someone who grew up through the cultural phenomenon of these books.

But, as usual, Ursula Le Guin was right, I agreed with her then, and her words have only borne out more and more with time.

#jk rowling critical #hp meta #hp critical

328 notes · View notes

gameoftomes · 9 months

Text

All you need to know about Game of Tomes

Game of Tomes is a writing game on Twitch that models itself after NaNoWriMo (an organization with a whole mess of problems involved with not listening to anyone under the board about anything), the former NaNo House Cup (based on the books by famous TERF JK Rowling) run on Twitter (now X), and the Song of Ice and Fire books by George R.R Martin. In was concieved by narcissist SableAradia (also known as Diane Morrison, author of A Few Good Elves, a space opera fantasy that sympathizes with both Nazis and imperialistic powers as things that are bad but formed by flawed people and we wouldn't hate them if just understood them better) and her husband Erin Righ, an actual diagnosed psychopath who occasionally forgets to take his meds and then shouts at people for imagined slights

They are aided in this endeavour by moonflower_writer, someone who seems to have joined a writing community with the sole goal of being its only member, since she has a tendency to whine about people until Sable gets tired of hearing her whine and bans them. She usually is quiet for a week or two until she finds a new target of unacceptable behavior, so arguably this almost works, but not for very long

As long as you stay far, far away from the pillars of the community and founding members, the game is a lot of fun to play. We have a lot of fun storylines we aren't paying people any money to write for us or act in, and getting involved is a oneway ticket to Abuse Town, but we do encourage participation. Particularly if you like being paid in exposure and us getting all the credit and money for something you created after we bullied you into it

Do let us know how we can strip you entirely of any desire to write ever again in your life today!

(this is why you don't stab your social media person in the back, you assholes)

#game of tomes #sabelaradia #erinrigh #moonflower #nanowrimo #nano house cup #george rr martin #game of thrones #song of ice and fire #a few good elves #nazis #imperialism #twitch #twitch streamer #twitch stream

35 notes · View notes

marta-bee · 1 month

Text

I've been fixating a bit on Good Omens, specifically on Neil Gaiman being accused of sexual assault and the petition to get Amazon to fire Neil as writer of Good Omens S3.

What I've read about Neil Gaiman assaulting those women seems credible to me. I mean, I try to believe women who say they're assaulted generally and give wide berth for the sometimes odd ways trauma can keep them from coming forward as soon as I'd like, or giving clean accounts of their assault. But I was busy, I hadn't read the reporting, and I also liked Gaiman's writing and felt like I knew him (of a sort) because of years of following his Tumblr feed. Now I've done the reading, and at least based on the evidence available... I believe them.

Which raises a very uncomfortable question. I like the Good Omens novel, and the show, and I do want to see what happens. I enjoy the fanworks even more, but the originals also has a special place in my heart.

A lot of discussion around the petition starts with the (strange to me) idea that no one owns art once it's shared publicly. I do think we all own our experience of the story, and if the creator meant us to experience it a certain way, it's their responsibility to lead us down that road. Probably it's impossible to create that experience in the same way for all readers or viewers, because humans are messy and we bring all sorts of glasses, rose-tinted or otherwise, to everything we read. (I'm thinking of that line from the Lord of the Rings introduction: "It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved.") So yes, people are going to experience fiction from their own vantage-point, and our own experience of a story is our own. I'm really not very interested in interviews or other secondary statements about what an author meant. I mean, if JKR wanted Dumbledore to be gay she should have written him that way, etc., etc.

Even so! The story as it is (not as it's experienced, which can be quite different) really is the work of the people doing the telling. We all have the right to our own perception, the story that lives rent-free in our head.

But to say the person who fashioned the story doesn't in some sense own it -- legally or ethically -- just feels odd to me. I suppose Amazon would be within their rights to fire Gaiman. Maybe they'd even legally be allowed to not film the third season. But to say he's just one writer among many, and that we're entitled to the show without the brain that (co-)birthed it? That doesn't feel accurate and I don't think I can get on board with it. It actually seems extremely presumptuous and entitled to me. I'm imagining if someone objected to something they found out about me and decided to just rewrite one of my fanfics. That would feel invasive af, and I can't imagine anything I could do that would give them that right.

What are the other options? Well, the obvious one is the JK Rowlings approach: she created the story, it's hers, and it's precisely because she's so hateful now we shouldn't engage with it. Applying this to Gaiman, maybe we say we can't watch or reread it, maybe we push Amazon not to release it or other companies not to develop his stories into shows. Morally that makes more sense, though it feels like a shame because Good Omens pokes fun at religion's foibles in a way I know a lot of people found very helpful. It also seems like good queer representation, and it's also just plain fun. I'd hate for us all to lose that.

Personally, I've gotten quite good over the years at enjoying good stories told by bad people. I still watch my DVD's of Oliver Twist and The Pianist, even knowing what Roman Polanski did. The Cosby Show still makes me laugh. Etc. It helps those are things I already own so I'm not giving those people I object to more money. Not sure what I'd do about Good Omens S3; probably I'd pirate it or wait for DVD's I could get through my library, because there's not another season we need to get greenlit and I'd rather avoid giving him more money if I can help it. But I don't feel some moral imperative to shun meaningful, enjoyable art because someone involved with it did something wrong. Certainly not the other art people have made around it, including fanworks.

I can respect people who come down on the other side and say, nope, Good Omens = Neil Gaiman so I'm no longer going to touch it. This idea that we can somehow cut Gaiman out of this story and somehow enjoy it without worry just doesn't sit right with me.

(I can 100% understand people who can't read the book or watch the show without thinking of him, to the point it's no longer enjoyable. I tend to get engrossed in what I watch to the point I'm not thinking of the RL people behind it, so that's less of a problem for me personally; but that's my personal quirk. And thank goodness for that- I studied philosophy, and there are lots of "interesting" biographies going on there...)

#neil gaiman #fandom #philosophy #marta blathers

10 notes · View notes

lunatheseus · 1 year

Text

harry potter (canon) couples that I could get behind + commentary

Hermione Granger x Harry Potter: Idk… I can kinda get behind this- they should relate to each other when it comes to the wizarding world. Because they were both raised by muggles, it must’ve been hard to figure out the magical world right off the bat. They also trust each other a ton. (Way more than Ron did, anyway) When Hermione brings Umbridge to the forest to trick her, Harry at first doesn’t know what she’s about to do, but he trusts her. They’re also not jealous of each other, whether it comes to romantic interest or just their capabilities in something. Hermione didn’t care that Harry was the Chosen one, and Harry didn’t care that Hermione topped him in every class.

Hermione Granger x Draco Malfoy: Popular, maybe basic opinion, but these two are the perfect balance of opposites and likes. They are both opposites when it comes to the obvious: Hogwarts houses, blood status, athletics, etc. But they both have many things in common: heavy expectations, being at the top of each class, and other more deep-rooted ideologies. This would give them both something to learn, but also something to relate to. In addition, after the war, Draco could improve his reputation by helping all of the causes and organizations that Hermione started over the years. He has a ton of money, why not donate some? I also think they could be adorable together, Draco spoiling Hermione, Hermione exposing Draco to muggle culture.

Luna Lovegood x Draco Malfoy: Besides the similar white-blonde hair and the same blood status, these two could not be more different. However, it can be a good thing. While Luna can teach Draco about leading life with love and a bit more imagination (like how she was brought up), and Draco can hold Luna to the real world and teach her about the more traditional way of life. On top of that, after the war, Luna doesn't seem like the person to care about Draco's ruined reputation. She would help him get over caring too much about what other people think and instead enjoy life more often. I feel that her forgiving nature would help Draco lead a better life. (Besides, his parents can't possibly be THAT opposed, she's a pureblood, after all)

Theodore Nott x Hermione Granger: Similar reasoning as to the Hermione x Draco ship reasoning, but also remembering that Theo and Hermione don't have as much history, which could be both bad and/or good, that's up to interpretation. I also love that Hermione used a time turner in her younger years, and Theo gets in trouble for being involved in handling illegal magical goods, ie a time turner.

Draco Malfoy x Theodore Nott: With both of their father's being servants of Voldemort, the two supposedly bonded, finding solace in each other. They both also survive the war, so helping each other through hardships would be a critical piece of the story because of how much they relate to and understand when it comes to one another. I also love how Theo was never really in Draco's "Gang" which makes me believe that he has his own independent mind, which is always important.

Luna Lovegood x Theodore Nott: Sunshine x Grumpy? Both see Thestrals? Like the Luna x Draco reasoning, they can learn lots from each other, + ignore the society's views on them because they both don't care.

Luna Lovegood x Neville Longbottom: Ok EVEN THOUGH Luna Lovegood x Rolf Scamander is the most genius idea that JK Rowling has had in her entire career, this could work. The fact that both passionate about their own respective interests makes conversation and life very unique. They're both also good listeners, which makes open communication very effective. Luna could teach Neville to ignore the haters, and Neville is a good anchor for Luna.

Pansy Parkinson x Neville Longbottom: I think that Pansy x Neville isn't such a bad idea. They're kind of opposites, but I love the idea that Neville gives so-called ice-queen-Pansy a safe space to be herself, to be a soft and warm. On the flipside, I think Pansy could teach Neville a thing or two about not being a pushover, and maybe even adding a little snark to conversations.

Pansy Parkinson x Harry Potter: I feel like this would work really well. Honestly though, Pansy would wear the pants in this relationship hands down. I feel like they would have a ton of chemistry... and they would learn a lot from each other. Pansy would humble Harry, Harry would humble Pansy. Simple.

Draco Malfoy x Ginny Weasley: Both Quidditch Fanatics? Both have passionate and fiery personalities? Both have unusually coloured hair? Enemies to Lovers? HMMMM?

Blaise Zabini x Ginny Weasley: Both fit as heck, both very sassy and witty. They'd charm the pants off of each other, both figuratively and literally... they'd have fun. I'd say this is better than Ginny x Draco

Astoria Greengrass x Theodore Nott: idk why but this just works

Theodore Nott x Harry Potter: again, idk why but this would work too

Chicken x Ron Weasley: Whoever did this is an effing genius: Chickron | Shipping Wiki | Fandom

72 notes · View notes

goodluckclove · 2 months

Text

Actual Hot Take: Ramble Incoming

I'm in a mood, less than a week out from my hysterectomy, and I have some thoughts. Rough thoughts. Medium spicy.

They're about world-building and critiques and readers and writers. It turned into a big ramble as I processed some feelings - you'll note the subject change partway through - so I'm throwing a read more.

I would say here that this is my own personal opinion but essentially I realized that my real issue here was how sick I am of cynicism in lit spaces and like...yeah I don't think that's a crazy hot take. I feel at this point that I am incapable of hot takes.

I am deeply intimidated by the kinds of writers and readers who eviscerate logistical world-building choices in genre fiction. I usually only see it in sci-fi and fantasy communities but I have to imagine it happens in every genre.

Maybe an unrealistic fabric is used in a historical fiction novel. Or a poor choice of saddle in a western. Or a medical inaccuracy in a horror scene. It has to happen all the time because certain people have expertise that research might miss, or a writer's research could be wrong, or they could've just not researched at all. But for some reason specifically the Speculative Fiction crowd are the most likely, in my experience, to lose their goddamned minds.

Has anyone read Greg Egan's Schild's Ladder? It's about the hardest sci-fi out there. So esoteric and thorough in its scientific accuracy that when I tried to read it it circled back around and sounded like fantasy. Listen to this excerpt from the plot summary:

Huh? Huh???

I don't know about you, but this is virtually indistinguishable to me from the schizophrenic rambling of Philip K Dick. I did not hate the book. I couldn't finish it because I had no fucking clue what anyone was talking about, but I enjoy it's existence. The prose was pretty retro. It's like a pulp novel from an alternate universe where everyone has a PhD in Quantum Physics.

It's just a weird spectrum, the questions you're supposed to answer and the ones you're allowed to leave a mystery. What mysteries will the reader use against you as proof that you didn't think it through? People say write for yourself, and you should, but some of those same people are quick to produce massive think pieces on why your choices make you a bad writer. That's just a thing some writers choose to do. And there's really no way to predict what someone might get unreasonably rant-y about. As I put my writing more out there I have no idea what people will use to claim I put no thought into the most emotionally vulnerable writing I've ever created.

And they say that's not supposed to bother you. But like. Of course it does? There's a level of thick skin you're supposed to develop about writing, but I don't think that applies to all aspects of writing or all the time. If someone disregards my entire novel that I gave myself tendonitis over because my depiction of back of house food service wasn't realistic or my magic system didn't go in a direction they thought it should, I'm going to be upset. It won't ruin my life or get me to give up writing - I don't see anything doing that at that point. But I'll get sad. I'll probably get pretty sad and it's weird that I feel like it's bad for writers to admit that.

My hot take, nestled within this hot take, is that I think this applies to every writer. Even the ones that react with ego and anger to massive critiques on their books - right before we cringe and scoff and laugh online - are probably also just sad that we didn't like their writing. Unless they specifically didn't try, or posed a scam in the form of a book, they're likely sad they offered something born out of creative effort and got rejected. Nobody likes that.

It's one thing if the writer themselves has some trash beliefs. I am fine with people eviscerating JK Rowling or any of the writers who feel like the best way to get a book deal is to bring down other writers or pretend to be a different race online. But it's just crazy to be a writer in an age where you might publish a book someone hates so much that they release a three hour-long video essay roasting entire segments for a potentially incalculable audience.

I used to be into that kind of stuff, but after being here for so long relishing in that rage-bait feels weird. Because a lot of the people here, even if they write themes I'm not interested in, seem like nice enough people actually trying to do something. I had strangers on here send me their writing and someone sent me what was clearly a fetish thing and even though I wasn't into the kink I talked to the person about it and they were perfectly civil and courteous. I'm almost 30 and I'm learning that while some artists are using their medium to push unhealthy beliefs or hateful ideologies, a lot more people just want to tell a story that feels important to them. Even if other people don't like it.

I don't know. I was angry at first when I started this but by now I'm just sentimental and I think people should stop treating complaining as their primary hobby. I think critiques are important, but there comes a line in which I'm forced to think you'd just like hearing yourself talk. And if you like to talk why not talk about something you enjoy?

If you've read this far (you're very odd), I'm going to go ahead and list a few books that inspired my writing and say why I like them a lot.

Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut: Love my man Vonnegut. His prose is so warm and easy to read and his stories are so wild and interesting to think about. Everyone should read Vonnegut he's great and he seemed like a pretty nice guy.

Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison: This book wrecked me hard. Some of the descriptions were so beautiful I put the book down and let out a sigh. When I finished I walked out of whatever classroom I was in without asking for permission from the teacher and spent the rest of class wandering campus in the rain and weeping openly.

Griffin and Sabine by Nick Bantock: it's a trilogy told through postcards and letters you can physically open and remove the pages. Has some of the most beautiful romantic intimacy between two people who never meet. There's one particular letter I read and reread a lot when I was younger because it was exactly what I wanted in life.

#writeblr #writing community #writers on tumblr #on writing #hot take maybe #not really #who cares #people should enjoy things more

7 notes · View notes

voxofthevoid · 2 months

Note

Nah, bro, rooting for russians to migrate to ao3 is crazy. No one educated enough on the functioning of russian laws and their culture wants that.

First of all, they are stealing like crazy. U will be surprised by the amount of works they "translate" with no heads up for original authors on ao3. Even worse than that, russia does not have established laws regarding copyright issues with fanfiction - meaning that A LOT of authors quite literally print and SELL fanfiction. It's a normal story especially with big fandoms, such as Harry Potter, Marvel universe etc.

Funny story, one of the most popular russian Harry Potter wannabe story "Tanya Grotter" tried to access western market and lost miserably to JK Rowling - which is like... lmfao... they didn't even try to mask it as original content. I have zero respect for this woman whatsoever, but it's still crazy to me, that they tried to capitalize on her works this boldly. https://blogs.princeton.edu/cotsen/2018/06/tanya-grotter-and-the-magic-of-international-copyright/

Second of all, it's a very closed community and there is a REASON why they didn't and aren't moving to ao3 anytime soon - russian "culture" has no respect for authenticity and originality. russians are still in their "colonizers" era and I can assure you - the amount of artists creating just for the sake of their passion is laughable in comparison with authors looking strictly for recognition and a bag of rice. They are making capitalistic hell out of fanfiction with no consequences. Add to that mix a great sense of patriotism and nostalgia for soviet culture and it's wraps for us.

Btw Google how many languages are you allowed to write with on Ficbook?

I can tell right away. Only one. Russian. No Ukrainian, Kazakh, Moldovan, English languages are allowed. And you can say, well, #they r pressuring them because of politics rn, they banned LGBT works lately, too. No honey it was ALWAYS like that. Since the very beginning of the Ficbook. I can assure you, you are NOT welcomed there, but your works may find a new russian author someday. With a good usage of VPN, of course, and language skills. Nothing personal, just business. At the end of the day, what's more desirable than forbidden fruit?

So, no - you don't want them to move on ao3. You really don't. And I wish people would be more aware of what kind of mentality and opinion they REALLY have on people like you especially. Not that left-wing 0.008% that long ago flew russia and now live in other countries spending whatever they want. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania with highest amount of russian citizens now demand a B1 official language certificate confirmation from foreigners - a normal request every other country has when making a visa or citizenship. Who were screaming the loudest in protest, demanding to get rid of it in favor of one CERTAIN language and rhetoric of all those countries still being under CERTAIN country meaning their rights are "violated"? I let you guess, it's starts with R.

I frequently see you posting a lot of info about Palestine, which is good, but I wonder if you even know what the hell r you talking about when you posting something like this. Imagine saying - let's now give more platform to Israel to express their thoughts on whatever topics using fanfiction, artworks etc. What a great idea 💡 👍 I wonder what could possibly go wrong - certainly not increased procentage of propaganda thorough mass media... certainly not🤭 Only #fluff, #enemies to lovers, #countries r currently at war, #love wins #AUs. Amazing. I suggest you to get out of your bubble sometimes, might be groundbreaking and not comforting, but it'll get better.

Or not.

Either way, awareness is not a talent - it's a skill. You're currently lacking.

Shove your condescending bullshit up your asshole until you choke it back out of your mouth, you steaming pile of shit.

#anon #don't be that anon

12 notes · View notes

yogorlhilanne · 6 months

Text

BREAKING MY SILENCE

I'll probably make this on Twitter also, though I doubt it'll really attract (on both Tumblr and Twitter) many people but OH MY FUCKING GOD. THIS NEEDS TO BE SAID.

I know OTHER people have probably talked about this (or maybe not)— plus the Harry Potter fandom is probably dead at this point or maybe still thriving somehow in ways I don't really know but LILY FUCKING EVANS MADE THE WORST DECISION POSSIBLE AFTER ENDING HER AND SEVERUS' FRIENDSHIP.

Look, she was like practically a minor character yet was kinda important to the plot but honestly she deserved to be with someone better than James Potter. No hate or dumb reasons are gonna be thrown at Lily but girlie was dumb as fuck entirely for having a kid with her friends bully who made his school life HELL.

It's been on my mind the more I think about Severus' past and James and Sirius bullying.

I genuinely like Sirius as a character but bro cannot be bullying Snape, like sweetheart we know your an inbred rich child but that doesn't mean you should bully someone who's the LITERAL opposite of you. (expect for neglect and abuse)

James was a fucking jock.

LISTEN & IMAGINE. A friend of yours who you've know for maybe about 6 years calls you the worst insult ever, in a fit of rage, you break the friendship and ofc, leave. That's genuinely completely understandable to one who has common sense.

BUT THEN, after that, you go on to marry your ex friends bully that HAS MADE YOUR EX FRIENDS SCHOOL LIFE MISERABLE AND SHITTY.

Sure it's COMPLETELY understandable how Lily can be mad at Severus for calling her a "Mudblood" because that's a canonical slur against muggle-borns, really, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN SHE HAD TO MARRY SEVERUS' BULLY WHO BULLIED HIM RELENTLESSLY, and that's so fucked up in many ways. And YES. As far as I'm concerned, Lily seemed to only like James because:

He wasn't strongly associated with the dark arts

Wasn't associated with future death eaters/followers of Voldemort

I don't think it's confirmed how long James and Sirius had been bullying Snape but it makes me SOOOO fucking livid that like... HOW THE FUCK DO YOU ACTUALLY LIKE A CHARACTER IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEIR FLAWS AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS? (*Cough Cough* James and Sirius "fans" *COUGH*)

If I'm being 100% honest, I've never seen anyone say "James/Sirius is better than Snape" ever and not even ONCE in my lifetime being in the Harry Potter fandom.

There's really not much on Snape's past during his school years but in all honesty, Lily Evans was dumb as fuck for dating her friends bully like okay, MAYBE James and Sirius did take accountability at one point and confessed to Lily. JUST MAYBE. But I don't remember nor heard anyone saying that was true nor JK Rowling saying anything about them taking accountability.

AND I DON'T THINK THEY EVEN APOLOGIZED TO SNAPE EITHER. (Maybe regretted it but that's not taking accountability for one's actions, perhaps Remus did but never heard anyone saying that was true either because it's probably just a headcannon and Remus probably didn't even bully Snape at all)

Lily Evans... I love you and all and I don't hate you... You just disappointed me.

LIKE IF I WERE IN LILY'S SHOES I WOULDN'T GET TOGETHER WITH JAMES BECAUSE MY FRIEND HAS ALREADY LIVED A HARD LIFE AT HOME, (she probably didn't know but I would've ask Snape what his home life was and would've saved him unlike Lily) AND JUST BECAUSE SNAPE WASN'T RICH NOR GOOD LOOKING DOESN'T MEAN YOU GET A FUCKING PRIVILEGE TO BULL HIM. OR JUST BECAUSE HE FUCKING EXISTED.

Also I get that Lily was mainly mad at Severus because of his Slytherin friends and that he called her a "Mudblood" BUT IGNORING THE FACT HE GOT BULLIED RELENTLESSLY, NEARLY DIED TO A "prank", LIVED IN AN ABUSIVE HOUSEHOLD (she didn't knew that but imma just put it there anyways) AND THAT HE HAD HOPED THAT HOGWARTS WOULD HAVE MADE HIS LIFE BETTER BUT IT GOT DESTROYED, IS UTTERLY DISAPPOINTING AND FLABBERGASTING TO ME.

No hate to people who genuinely ship James and Lily (love the fanarts) but Lily deserved better than that. Perhaps she also knew about the werewolf incident but if I were her I would've BITCH SLAPPED Sirius to remind him of being inbred and stupid as fuck BECAUSE WHAT????

A prank—as far as I acknowledge, shouldn't put someone's life in DANGER and in a LIFE OR DEATH situation SIRIUS 'INBRED' BLACK.

I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYONE YET TALKING ABOUT THIS AND SHITTING ON LILY (for being flawed ofc yet dumb as shit). Lily in general is a good person but she had flaws that needed to be talked about and HERE I AM.

James & Sirius bullying was ignorant and really unjustifiable, Peter and Remus should've known better but I don't ENTIRELY blame them but they should've known fucking better. Lily WAS understandable up until she got together with James and I kinda wanna bitch slap her right now.

Honestly if I were Lily, I genuinely would've gotten together with Snape and ACTUALLY helped him like any person with COMMON SENSE would do.

And to end it off with a cherry on top. James and Sirius bullying Snape should be talked about more and we should shit on them for their flaws yet ignorance actions that they didn't even try to take any single OUNCE of accountability for. Just because you learned from your bullying mistakes and "becoming a more mature and better person" isn't justifiable and shows your blind fucking ignorance to your affects of bullying to other people you dumb dipshit fucker.

(Will possibly edit this again but I'll post this now bc it's been in my drafts for some time and it NEEDS to be sent out rn)

#breaking my silence #harry potter #hp fandom #james potter #sirius black #severus snape #lily evans #essay #rant post #ranting

12 notes · View notes

its-cunt-dracula · 2 years

Text

Scott Cawthon vs J K Rowling

@horrorfem tagged me in a post where I mentioned hating Scott Cawthon in the tags and she asked me to explain. I decided not to piggyback off that post and just make my own cause I got a lot to say.

For those of you not in the know Scott Cawthon is the guy who made Five Nights at Freddy's (FNaF for short cause I don't have all day). I super popular, super successful video game from 2014 that shaped the indie horror scene to this day. Every other indie horror is just people trying to recreate Scott's success. I used to babysit a kid who was obsessed with the first game so I know a little too much about the franchise considering I never played any of the games. I don't like jump scares, I consider them cheap. But this is not a review.

Anyway, in 2021 someone shared online this man's donations (which were publicly available) and they trended on Twitter. Almost all of his donations were to republicans, including Donald Trump. So he basically came out as a republican on Reddit where he played the victim because people were mean to him online. God, men get criticism for their hurtful ideology and actions once and act like they're the most opressed of them all. He also particularly mentioned that he was pro-life (i e anti-women). Which really irks me the wrong way when I see he has 6 kids. Did his wife want all of them? Did she have any choice?

You can google the post and read it all online pretty easily. What I wanted to point out was how people reacted to finding out their favourite game dev is a piece of shit.

======

Notice how they're all so understanding and nice? Obviously there were people mad back then too, but the backlash he faced for donating money to fucking Donald Trump was so tame compared to JK for stating sex is real and immutable.

A few people were at most silently boycotting him and not buying the new game, Security Breach (the 8th game in the series not counting the spin off. I can imagine this man with little money bags for eyes like a cartoon character) But nobody was intentionally spoiling the game so that people don't buy it or pester everyone who did. The youtubers covering the game weren't repenting for their sins by donating money to Planned Parenthood or pro LGBT organisations. Some of them acknowledged the controversy before playing and theorising about the game like no tomorrow. I'm curious if fucking MatPat is gonna cover Hogwarts Legacy and just shrug off when people talk about JK. Doubtful.

And look at how many awards his fucking post got. It infuriated me to no end.

For those not in the know, reddit awards cost real money. People were throwing real money at this guy for saying he thinks "Donald Trump was the best man to fuel a strong economy and stand up to America's enemies abroad". That's a direct quote from his post. He tries to placate by saying I donated to black people, women, gay people... but he just think a straight, white man is the best for the job tho. I wanna fight him.

He would never in a hundred years have gotten such a mild reaction if he were a woman. Especially since he was a game dev, he didn't just own the universe the game was set in.

People act as if for every new purchase of Hogwarts Legacy JK Rowling personally strangles a trans woman to death.

#radfem #radfemsafe #radblr #personal rant #jk rowling #hogwarts legacy discourse

54 notes · View notes

jk-scrolling · 1 year

Text

JK Rowling's New Friends viewer transcript

Again, feel free to fix any mistakes I made or repost this wherever you like. This is from last year, but I think it's still valuable for anyone who's still in doubt that JK Rowling's deeply anti-trans (not merely pro-woman, as she's portrayed herself.) Original video by Shaun here: https://youtu.be/Ou_xvXJJk7k

Hello, everyone. Today I'd like to talk about something that's been bothering me for a while. It's a particular contradiction - one that comes up over and over whenever trans people or trans issues are mentioned either online or in the press by people who self-describe as gender critical, and I think I should start today by showing you an example of that contradiction. "

So in June of 2020, author JK Rowling published a statement on her website titled “J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues” and in that statement, Rowling explains why she decided to throw her weight behind the gender critical crowd. There's been a lot written and spoken about this statement, but I want to focus on one particular part of it right now and that is JK Rowling's description of Magdalen Berns. Magdalen Berns was a British YouTuber who Rowling describes as “an immensely brave young feminist” who was “a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn't believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises.” And because of this, she says, when Rowling followed Berns on Twitter, she was subjected to abuse from trans activists.

Rowling also talked several times about her concerns in her piece. She doesn't want to be quote “slurred as a bigot” for “having concerns about single sex spaces,” for instance, and she ends her piece with a request for empathy for the women whose quote “sole crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats and abuse.”

So this is the framing: Magdalen Berns and women like her simply believe in the importance of biological sex. They just want their concerns to be heard, and they don't want to be called bigots because of that. And just because of those things, they and their supporters are bombarded with unwarranted social media abuse.

Now, even if we're trying to be as fair and objective as we can be here, it has to be said that this framing looks rather one-sided, right? All the aggression and abuse is coming from just the one side, in Rowling's view: “We are all meek angels with just a few concerns, but we're getting shouted down by completely unreasonable social media abusers, you know." So let's examine this framing: Is how JK Rowling described Magdalen Berns accurate? What was she actually like?

Well, I imagine many of you will be familiar with her now-infamous blackface tweet where she calls trans women quotes “blackface actors who are motivated by sick sexual perversions.” You see, Magdalen Berns was not passively voicing concerns. She wasn't simply stating her opinion that biological sex is important. She spent her time attacking transgender identities, which she repeatedly declared were invalid in her YouTube videos. She consistently made a point of misgendering any trans person she mentioned, and she was also more than willing to attempt to ally herself and her cause with figures on the far right. She could be seen on Twitter sharing Breitbart News stories about their neo-Nazi poster boy, Milo Yiannopoulos, praising him and asking for him to share her YouTube videos. She even defended Yiannopoulos after he was widely criticized as a result of condoning - in a podcast - child molestation.

As a side note here, Berns has also called what she considers trans activism to be a quote “child safety issue,” which is utterly ludicrous when considered in contrast to her defense of a white nationalist who said child sexual abuse could be a quote “hugely positive experience.” That is what he said.

Berns could also be seen giving a platform to the controversial figure Posie Parker, who we'll talk more about in a moment. She also had a habit of focusing on George Soros as the person who she claimed was funding the EU transgender lobby, which is a little suspect - especially considered in light of her willingness to pal around with racists. (Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_conspiracy_theories)

So what's my point here? Well, there's a huge contradiction between the Magdalen Berns described by JK Rowling and the Magdalen Berns who actually existed. I myself interacted with Magdalen several times on Twitter, and this is just my subjective view but she was consistently aggressive and unreasonable, and someone who I thought was motivated not by some concern she had about single sex spaces, or a desire to protect her rights, but by her hatred and disgust of trans people. You can't call people pathetic sick fuck pervert blackface actors, and then say “oh sorry, I just believe in the importance of biological sex. I just have a few concerns.”

So where does this leave us with regards to JK Rowling and how she chose to portray Berns? Well, it would be premature to come to any conclusions right now. I think, after all, Magdalen Berns is only one person. So if we want to build a proper argument here, we need some more evidence, I think.

So let's pick back up with Posie Parker. So Parker, also known as Kellie-Jay Keen Minshull, is someone who thinks that quote “women who call themselves men should be sterilized.” So that's the sort of person she is. Parker is a controversial figure, even within the gender critical movement, and something that happened very recently serves as a good example of why that is. On Sunday, September 18th of this year, (note: 2022) Parker organized an event called Let Women Speak, which took place in Brighton. It featured gender critical speakers talking about what they see as the dangers of what they call “trans ideology,” and it also attracted a crowd of counter-protesters who turned up to protest the event.

But the event also attracted some other people, and these were far-right nationalists such as the Tommy Robinson linked Hearts of Oak group, who streamed the event live on the internet. Posie Parker has defended including these groups as part of her events. She sees the issue of stopping so-called trans ideology as so important that she's willing to welcome in anyone who agrees with her on that particular issue, even if they also happen to be racist, homophobic, misogynist, or outright fascist.

Parker is friendly with white supremacist YouTubers. She has appeared on Tucker Carlson, and she herself has a history of making racist statements - that again, is controversial even within the gender critical movement. Some gender critical people refuse to associate with her, and the group Women's Place UK put out a statement explaining why they were cutting all links with Parker, saying quote “women's liberation cannot be won by aligning with reactionary or oppressive groups or individuals who would deny women our rights and increase division and injustice.”

Another person upset about the far-right infiltration of the gender critical movement is Angela Wild, a member of the group Get the L Out, who viewers of my other videos will definitely remember. This is her alongside Rowling at a much-publicized lunch, in a photograph featuring many of the other prominent figures of the UK's anti-trans movement. Wild recently stated on Twitter: “I’m horrified. we seem to have handed over our movement to people who go around preaching racists(sic) and misogynistic hatred. There was a time it was shameful to be a racist. Nowadays we can't even name racism anymore, letalone denounce racist infiltration. It's one thing about being called far-right by the TRAs” - that's what she calls trans rights activists - “& laugh it off BC frankly, I’d rather cut both my legs" - off, I guess? - "than to accept Heritage Foundation money, an alliance with Matt Walsh, or proclaim proudly that 'on the issues, Trump is my man.' But when the far right speaks at GC events unchallenged, we have no leg to stand on to tell them 'that's not true' Because hey, it IS true. Well, #notinmyname.”

On the other hand, there are many prominent people within the anti-trans movement who were supporting Parker even despite her history of racism and her openness to working with the far right. Returning to this image, we can see both Maya Forstater and Helen Joyce standing on either side of Rowling, there. They both attended Posie Parker's event. This is them traveling to the event. This is Helen Joyce at the event holding a cut-up Pride flag - she's not gay herself, by the way - and this is both Helen and Maya speaking at the event in clips uploaded by Hearts os Oak to their Twitter account HeartsofOakUK.

So this event exposed something of a schism in the anti-trans movement. Some of them are happy to work with people like Posie Parker and the far-right groups that she welcomes to her events, and some of them are not, and there was much discussion on the issue in the wake of this event. JK Rowling chose to weigh in by using her platform to condemn the protesters at the event - not the far-right presence inside the event, but the people who were there to protest the event. Rowling's language is also offensive and absurd and incorrect: The protesters were “howling at lesbians for not doing dick,” apparently. She also explains in the replies to her tweet that quote “woman(sic) unafraid and unashamed of saying that they love only women are the greatest affront to patriarchy. “

But JK Rowling seems to be a bit confused here, to be charitable. This was not a lesbian event. The organizer, Posie Parker, is married to a man. Speaker Maya Forstater is married to a man. Speaker Helen Joyce is married to a man. By their own definition of lesbian, they are certainly not lesbians, and I doubt the men from the far right groups present at the events identify as lesbians, to make a minor assumption, there.

There were some lesbians at the event, I’m sure, but there were also a bunch of straight conservative homophobes. Posie Parker herself has argued that the quote “LGBTQ community is attempting to indoctrinate and groom children" in a video titled “Thank you Marjorie Taylor Greene.”

Something else that needs to be mentioned here is Parker's association with an American group called Hands Across the Aisle, an organization that claims to want to unite radical feminists with conservative Christians in order to oppose what they call “gender identity ideology.” Hands Across the Aisle was founded by Kaeley Triller and Emily Zinos, both of whom oppose gay rights and campaigned to outlaw abortion. Zinos attends anti-abortion rallies, as seen here, and Triller writes anti-abortion articles like this one titled “Women Won't Be Liberated Until We're Free From Abortion” posted on the website The Federalist. (Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(website))

Hands Across the Aisle claims Posie Parker as a member. Here she is meeting founder Emily Zinos, and the group of posted fundraising campaigns in support of Parker on both their Facebook page and their website. So Parker is associated with and has taken money from conservative anti-abortion campaigners in the US, and this is something I want to highlight in particular here, because of course, the argument that the anti-trans crowd always uses to defend their position is that they're acting in defense of women's rights: They aren't attacking trans people, they're simply defending the rights that feminism has won for women, they say. But what does it mean for that claim when the person making it is working with and is funded by conservative anti-abortion groups?

On a similar note, one of the speakers at the event I showed there was Maya Forstater. Here's another picture of her getting all chummy with Rowling, there. And she says “JK Rowling has been such a source of strength to me and to so many women standing up for women's rights.“ So that's what Forstater is doing in her own words; standing up for women's rights. I mentioned this because Forstater is due to speak at another event very soon, that being “Lawfare: the use and abuse of law to fight for freedom.” That's an event being put on as part of the Battle of Ideas Festival by the group ADF UK.

So who are ADF UK? Well, they're the UK branch of the US-based Alliance Defending Freedom and, to quote the Southern Poverty Law Center: “Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia; and claims that a "homosexual agenda" will destroy Christianity and society.”

The ADF also campaigns to outlaw abortion: Their website proclaims the overturning of Roe versus Wade as a victory, and is generally just covered in anti-abortion rubbish. The first president of the ADF was a man called Alan Sears who wrote a book called "The Homosexual Agenda: The Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today." The second President of the ADF was attorney and Baptist Minister Michael Farris, who in 2003 wrote a legal brief arguing against the Supreme Court overturning sodomy laws in the Lawrence v. Texas decision. So what is Maya Forstater doing speaking at an ADF event? She claims to be standing up for women's rights but she's working with people who campaign to take those rights away. They want to take away a woman's right to have an abortion, f she's a lesbian they want to take away her right to get married to anyone except a man, and if she had sex with another woman, they want to send her to prison.

Anyway, what about the other speaker at Posie Parker's event, Helen Joyce? Is she merely standing up for women's rights? Well, another person at the event was another Helen - Helen Staniland. Now Staniland hosts an online show called Wine with Women - that's "Wine" spelled without an H, there - and a few months ago, she had Helen Joyce on as a guest. Now this interview caused quite a bit of alarm, and rightly so. In it, Joyce openly talks about wanting to reduce the number of trans people: All trans people, even if they are happily transitioned, she says, are a problem for the world because they need what she calls "special accommodations. Every trans person is a difficulty, she says. I watched this whole interview and it was utterly horrible and very revealing. The clarification that she wants to reduce the number of people who transition even if they are happily transitioned is especially awful, and the talk about trans people being quote "difficulties who are problems for the world because they need special accommodations" just sounds like fascist eugenics rhetoric.

The first thing that came to mind for me listening to this interview were those Nazi party propaganda films about disabled people that I watched as part of making my video on The Bell Curve: They too talked about groups of people as costly problems burdening the rest of society. This interview again put lie to the claim that Joyce and her allies just have some concerns or just want to protect women's rights. This is her on the offensive talking about keeping down the number of trans people like there's some invasive pest or something.

Moving on, let's talk about Allison Bailey, who's standing between Joyce and Forstater in the picture there. Bailey is someone who has also defended joining forces with bigots, and I quote "to be clear: every woman & girl must know that their sex-based rights will disappear if they do not pay attention & join this struggle. This is so regardless of their skin color, age, economic status, politics, education etc. Whether they are non-racist, racist, homosexual, or homophobic." "This is a danger & a struggle the likes of which none of us has ever known. Adhering to any given political or philosophical belief system is not the immediate priority. If I am being attacked & someone is willing to come to my rescue, I'm not going to ask about their politics before welcoming their help." Don't worry, though. She doesn't personally condone bigotry, as she actually abhors it, she says, but just not enough to not welcome the help of racists and homophobes in her movement.

Allison Bailey is one of the founders of the anti-trans group LGB Alliance. Now another founder of LGB Alliance is Bev Jackson who has defended working with the US-based right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation. I've mentioned the Heritage Foundation before in another video of mine, because they were anti-sex education. The Heritage Foundation are the worst; they're climate change deniers, they oppose gay marriage, they work to scale back voting rights, they campaigned to overturn Roe versus Wade. But Bev Jackson is open to working with them.

And speaking of the Heritage Foundation, let's give a mention to Julie Bindel, the person on the lower right of the picture, there. Julie Bindel is a journalist who frequently works with Heritage Foundation speaker Jennifer Lahl. There's Lahl talking on a Heritage Foundation panel, there. Here she is on another panel. Here she is doing a talk with Julie Bindel. Another talk with Julie Bindel. Here's a picture of them just hanging out. So it's safe to say that Julie Bindel is pretty obviously open to working with Heritage Foundation speakers, so that's a plus one to open to working with anti-abortion groups, there.

And before we move on, I should point out one of Jennifer Lahl's fellow Heritage Foundation speakers, Gary Powell, seated next to her there. And just to bring things full circle here, Gary Powell used to work with the LGB Alliance. He was on their online comms team and responsible for updating their social media feeds.

All this makes me wonder about the people who earnestly believe in the LGB Alliance - you know, the people who who take it at face value and trust that it's an organization that exists to defend gay rights. Did they ever think for an organization that exists to support gay rights, the LGB Alliance sure seems friendly with people who work with the Heritage Foundation, an organization that opposes gay rights? That's strange, isn't it? It's a little suspect, there. Not really what you'd expect.

Anyway, next up let's talk about Caroline Farrow. Now Farrow is someone who earlier this year tweeted out how she was feeling emotional because her life is being quote "invaded by insane trans rights activists." Then she'd say she saw JK Rowling "coming out fighting & she lost it" to which Rowling replied "big love to you xxx." What a lovely moment, there. So who is Caroline Farrow, the person to whom Rowling is sending love and kisses? Well Caroline Farrow is the director of the UK branch of the organization CitizenGO. So who are CitizenGO? Now if you've been paying attention to the rest of the video today, I doubt this revelation will be all that shocking to you, but CitizenGO are a far right anti-abortion anti-gay rights organization. This one originated in Spain and not the US, though, so that's a novelty at least. CitizenGO defended Russia's laws pertaining to so-called "gay propaganda." They've campaigned against abortion in Kenya, where they astroturfed the debates online. They paid Kenyan people to tweet health disinformation and anti-abortion arguments.

Farrow herself has written anti-abortion articles. She's tweeted that homosexual acts are sinful. Here she is campaigning against a Pride parade. You get the picture. Farrow is also notorious in Ireland for downplaying the Catholic Church's infant mass graves scandal. And as a side note here, Farrow is currently running a crowdfunder for her own legal fees through the CitizenGO site. There are people who call themselves feminists donating money to this organization.

So I want to talk about something in particular in relation to Farrow, and that is platform responsibility. Let's imagine a possibility: Maybe JK Rowling didn't know who Caroline Farrow was - she just saw someone praising her on Twitter and responded in kind, inadvertently supporting an anti-abortion homophobe in front of her millions of followers. Now that is lazy and irresponsible, but possible. Maybe. But here's the thing; following her tweet, hundreds of people immediately pointed out to Rowling who Farrow is, providing every sort of evidence you can ask for. It made the news, this tweet. Forbes talked about this tweet. So she knows now, doesn't she? But this tweet is still up. Rowling didn't delete this even after being told who Farrow was, and the sorts of things that CitizenGO are up to.

Now unfortunately, this is a pattern. As another example, Rowling has praised the anti-trans work of self-described "theocratic fascist" Matt Walsh, a man who is currently in hot water after an audio recording surfaced of him seeming totally cool with adult men impregnating minors, so long as they also get married to them. Matt Walsh has also spoken in favor of arranged marriages. But even after a flood of complaints about her praise for a creepy fascist, JK Rowling's tweet in support of his work remains online. Just a couple more examples, Rowling sent a nice reply to the account literarygoon - someone who had previously threatened to set those who believe in gender ideology on fire, urinate on them, kill them, and bury them in the desert. Lots of people informed Rowling about that, but her reply to him remains. Dennis Kavanagh, writing on the account jebedoo2, was suspended from Twitter for saying that he preferred AIDS to the work of charities like Stonewall and Mermaids. When he returned to Twitter, JK Rowling was there to welcome him back, even though she was told why he was suspended, and he himself claimed to quote "stand by every word." In her Twitter replies, he was later suspended again for threatening those charities and their friends, saying he would quote "fucking nail you to a wall." Rowling was also told about this, of course, but again ignored it. And we can't say that she doesn't see these replies because when people point these things out to her, she blocks them. She blocked me for criticizing her in her Twitter replies, so she is aware of all this, but ignores it because she has to.

She wants to pretend that all social media abuse - all the death threats, all the violent fantasies about setting people on fire and cutting them up and nailing them to things - she wants to pretend that all that is solely originating from people critical of her and her allies, and in order to preserve that fantasy she must deliberately overlook the abuse originating from inside her own camp. She just quietly pretends not to notice it and blocks anyone who points it out to her.

The last person I want to talk about today day is not one of JK Rowling's new friends, but one of her old friends; Baroness Emma Nicholson. Rowling co-founded the Children's High Level Group charity (note: now known as Lumos) with Nicholson way back in 2005, but still jokes around with her, making fun of trans people on Twitter. Emma Nicholson is a homophobic conservative politician who opposed same-sex marriage, opposed lesbians being parents, supported Section 28 (note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28), and she's proposed legislation to limit access to abortion. As recently as two years ago, Nicholson could be seen arguing against same-sex marriage, which saw her receiving much criticism as well as being removed from her position with the Booker Prize Foundation. Nicholson has also in the past had her house protested by a lesbian activist group.

Nicholson has also attended and given speeches at Posie Parker's events. At one of which, at least, she stated her intention to get Posie Parker into Parliament. Emma Nicholson is a typical example of a bigot who's found that homophobia simply doesn't have the same level of open institutional support that it once had, and so now uses transphobia as a way to advance her bigotry. And I want to make something very clear here; Emma Nicholson is a politician voting on and proposing actual laws. She isn't "yer Nan" who just doesn't know all the PC words, or whatever - she has actual power that she has wielded to attempt to stop same-sex marriage and roll back abortion rights, and she's been welcomed into the gender critical so-called "feminist" movement just because she's willing to be transphobic.

With this in mind, I want to think about JK Rowling's claim that she supports abortion and gay marriage. Twitter user Katy Montgomerie prompted Rowling earlier this year to say that she has always supported abortion and gay marriage, but I wonder what that means in light of everything that we've talked about today. What does it mean to support abortion rights and gay marriage if you also support people who are working to outlaw those things? If you're friends with politicians who introduce anti-abortion bills? Several groups we've talked about today actively campaigned to take away abortion rights and gay marriage rights, and many people that JK Rowling support either work for those groups directly or are open to working with them as part of an anti-trans movement. The transphobes are so desperate for allies in their crusade against trans people that some of them are willing to join up with groups who, if they got their way, would force all women back into the kitchen and all gay women back into a closet in that kitchen. The anti-trans movement claim to only be protecting their rights but these are the very same rights that they're willing to risk by allying themselves with far-right reactionary movements that seek to take those rights away.

This alliance threatens women's rights far more than anything trans people are accused of doing, and it seems obvious to say this, but it reveals that this movement is not really about protecting women's rights, but can only be about attacking trans rights. Unfortunately, the divide in the anti-trans movement between those open to working with conservatives and the far right and those who are not is being won by the people who are willing to do so. The people not willing to align themselves with racists, homophobes, and misogynists are being sidelined, and the ones who are are being left to run the ship. And this is who JK Rowling surrounds herself with - literally surrounds herself with.

Rowling herself has very recently shown where she stands on the issue: She posted a picture of herself in a shirt criticizing Nicola Sturgeon for being a quote "destroyer of women's rights." Now this shirt is a design from Posie Parker's online store, which can be seen advertising the shirts under Rowling's tweet. Posie Parker, remember, throws rallies that fascist groups are openly welcome to attend. She works with and is funded by an anti-abortion organization. She thinks quote "women who call themselves men should be sterilized." And JK Rowling is helping to advertise her t-shirts.

So what's my point today? Is it that JK Rowling is a bad person? Well, not really, although she is. My point today was to show the worrying links between the UK's anti-trans movement and far-right groups. JK Rowling just happens to be right in the middle of all this. If I had to make a concluding point about Rowling it would be that she knows what she's doing. I think we've seen enough evidence today to fairly make that judgment. When she shows kindness towards ultra-conservative bigots, she knows exactly what she's doing. When she attacks and mischaracterizes the people who protest those ultra-conservative bigots, she knows exactly what she's doing. She is a long time friend of ultra-conservative bigots, after all: That's just who she is, and everything she says about respecting trans people and marching with them if they were discriminated against or whatever else - it's just a lie. She's just a liar. The contradiction I mentioned at the start of the video isn't really a contradiction at all: It's just a conscious misrepresentation of the anti-trans movement.

And I'd like to end today by thinking again about Angela Wild, the person who said she was horrified about the gender critical movement being handed over to the far right. And I'd like to have a brief word with anyone who has thus far supported the anti-trans movement but now, like Angela, has some concerns about all the racists and homophobes turning up. So hello! Whatever you think trans people are up to, it has to be said that objectively it is some small beans compared to the outlawing of abortion and the re-criminalization of gay sex. Now I'm not speaking for anyone but myself here, but trans people are not your enemies, trust me, but the Heritage Foundation, CitizenGO, the ADF, Hands Across the Aisle, and groups like them, they are actually coming for your rights. They have people working around the clock trying to undo the last century of feminism. Are you content to be used by them? Especially if you're not straight yourself. You're going to be relegated to being the gay camouflage for a bunch of straight conservative homophobes who work with the US religious right. Do you really think that they'd stop after pushing just trans people back in the closet? Of course they wouldn't. The moment you're done helping them push trans people in, you'll feel the hands on your back, believe me. So, you know, get out now. That's my advice.

Anyway thanks a lot for watching, everyone, and thank you especially to all my supporters over on patreon, some of whom are scrolling by right now. Patreon backers get early access to all my videos, so if that's something you feel like checking out, I'll leave the link below in the video description. You can also follow me on Twitter and twitch, if you like. I will leave those links below as well. So thanks a lot for watching today, folks. I'll see you next time.

#jk rowling #shaun #transphobia #abortion rights #heritage foundation #transcript #alliance defending freedom #gender critical #LGB Alliance

21 notes · View notes