Yeah, that doesn’t surprise me, I guess. Money changes people; status and power changes people.
Obesity as a moral failing - want to make a character seem bad? Just make them fat
Although, there were fat good guys, and many non-fat bad guys. There wasn’t a particularly late amount of obesity in the books. That point seems a stretch, to me.
Token minority characters that are often stereotypes or border on racism - the black kid is named Shacklebolt, the Asian girl is named two single syllable last names (might as well have called her Ching Chong),
Schacklebolt is pretty bad, but I think we also have to consider Rowling’s cultural upbringing. Of she were from the US, it would be blatantly shocking. The UK didn’t have systemic domestic slavery based on race; I don’t know that it’s fair to judge her based on US critical race theory; the UK has it’s own version, for sure, but it has different foundations.
Rowling has enough criticizable behavior; we don’t have to exaggerate by turning otherwise non- controversial facts into issues.
the 12 year old irish kid is obsessed with turning drinks into whiskey and blowing stuff up, etc.
That’s most 12 y/o boys, but making it the Irish kid is a fair point.
I think nearly all of these ignore counter-examples where, e.g., every other Irish person in the family isn’t an IRA stand-in. That also ignore the fact that every true villain is WAS(P), and that the “crazy” character is so white she’s practically albino.
The defense of the slavery of house elves using the exact same
It’s defense only used by villains. Hermione actively pursues ending the practice, and it’s described as being a terrible practice. How does the fact that villains - and only villains, or in one case, inherited - in the books practice slavery condemn Rowling?
criticism of Hermione as a girl with blue hair and pronouns for questioning and trying to change the system.
Are we ignoring that Hermione was one of the four, central hero’s of each of the novels? I don’t remember any criticism of her except by the establishment.
There are no good or bad actions, only good or bad people. It’s okay for the right people to use the torture spell, because they’re the “good guys.”
Yeah. I agree, there’s a lot of questionable justification of behavior in this. I mean, everyone lets slide the exact same justifications in GoT, but, hey.
And a resolution that basically resolves nothing. Harry doesn’t kill Voldemort, he kills himself due to a magic technicality, and Harry goes on to become a magic cop to ensure the flawed system that the early books criticized doesn’t change.
Agreed. An utterly unsatisfying resolution, which I interpreted as a statement that there are no good and bad people, just good and bad behavior. When the key hero turns out to be not such a hero in the end; when you expect something more noble, but what you get is reality - good doesn’t always triumph, people in wars die indiscriminately, and in the end centuries of established practices continue and survive intact despite great upheaval… yup! It’s a depressing statement, but I still think it was a statement.
I think Rowling changed as money changed her; she hid bigotry less as she became convinced of the armor of her own popularity; but she also had a kid who grew and changed in time with the novels, and she changed the story to match the loss of innocence and realization that fighting the establishment is hard, expensive, and not guaranteed to succeed. The good guys do not always win; they don’t always survive the encounter coming out the same person they started as.
I won’t defend Rowling, but I also think some of the criticisms are reaching, merely in an attempt to vilify her as much as possible mainly for her homophobic views. Which, ironically, there were no examples of in her novels, and so nothing to call her out about except by its absence.
Isn’t that the fate of any activist in a communal group? And, in the end, she was right, wasn’t she? Isn’t it better to teach that activism will usually be met with resistance, by even your friends, than to teach people to expect your revelation of inequality to suddenly be universally be adopted by your peer group?
Yeah, that doesn’t surprise me, I guess. Money changes people; status and power changes people.
Although, there were fat good guys, and many non-fat bad guys. There wasn’t a particularly late amount of obesity in the books. That point seems a stretch, to me.
Schacklebolt is pretty bad, but I think we also have to consider Rowling’s cultural upbringing. Of she were from the US, it would be blatantly shocking. The UK didn’t have systemic domestic slavery based on race; I don’t know that it’s fair to judge her based on US critical race theory; the UK has it’s own version, for sure, but it has different foundations.
As for Cho Chang, it is common for Chinese proper names to have two syllables (2 and 3 character names account for over 99% of the given names - 1 syllable named account for 0.6%). I don’t remember her background, but if any of her recent ancestors (parents, grandparents) were immigrants, then it would be less believable and more forced for her to not have a multi-syllable name.
Rowling has enough criticizable behavior; we don’t have to exaggerate by turning otherwise non- controversial facts into issues.
That’s most 12 y/o boys, but making it the Irish kid is a fair point.
I think nearly all of these ignore counter-examples where, e.g., every other Irish person in the family isn’t an IRA stand-in. That also ignore the fact that every true villain is WAS(P), and that the “crazy” character is so white she’s practically albino.
It’s defense only used by villains. Hermione actively pursues ending the practice, and it’s described as being a terrible practice. How does the fact that villains - and only villains, or in one case, inherited - in the books practice slavery condemn Rowling?
Are we ignoring that Hermione was one of the four, central hero’s of each of the novels? I don’t remember any criticism of her except by the establishment.
Yeah. I agree, there’s a lot of questionable justification of behavior in this. I mean, everyone lets slide the exact same justifications in GoT, but, hey.
Agreed. An utterly unsatisfying resolution, which I interpreted as a statement that there are no good and bad people, just good and bad behavior. When the key hero turns out to be not such a hero in the end; when you expect something more noble, but what you get is reality - good doesn’t always triumph, people in wars die indiscriminately, and in the end centuries of established practices continue and survive intact despite great upheaval… yup! It’s a depressing statement, but I still think it was a statement.
I think Rowling changed as money changed her; she hid bigotry less as she became convinced of the armor of her own popularity; but she also had a kid who grew and changed in time with the novels, and she changed the story to match the loss of innocence and realization that fighting the establishment is hard, expensive, and not guaranteed to succeed. The good guys do not always win; they don’t always survive the encounter coming out the same person they started as.
I won’t defend Rowling, but I also think some of the criticisms are reaching, merely in an attempt to vilify her as much as possible mainly for her homophobic views. Which, ironically, there were no examples of in her novels, and so nothing to call her out about except by its absence.
hermione was criticized a lot by pretty much everyone when she tried to free the house elves and made badges etc.
Isn’t that the fate of any activist in a communal group? And, in the end, she was right, wasn’t she? Isn’t it better to teach that activism will usually be met with resistance, by even your friends, than to teach people to expect your revelation of inequality to suddenly be universally be adopted by your peer group?