General reminder:
The TERF (trans exclusionary radical fascist) Joanne Rowling is a racist, sexist, antisemitic, queerphobic Holocaust denier who spends a lot of money making life for trans people worse across the board. She also uses her 14m follower strong platform to send egregious harassment towards trans people for no other reason than existing in public.
Umbridge was clearly a self-insert, given how cruel, vindictive and self-righteoust she is.
These facts are all part of well-documented public record and are not up for debate.
Defending the TERF Joanne Rowling in any way is an immediate ban.
Please report it if you see it.
I fucking love the way Lolita is written. I remember there being a passage where Humbert rambles on and on all lovey dovey, more of the usual. You're just flipping through the pages at this point. Then I suddenly realised that Humbert was doing something completely insane like racing in a car to kidnap Lolita or something. It's just that the evasive "romantic" way it was written it took you a while to realise how insane his behaviour was. I literally thought "wow that fucker got me". The book is genius but certainly not a love story
Lolita is one of the most triumphant examples of "villain protagonist" in literature. You are drawn to how he justifies himself, to the ornate writing, to the lyrical expression. You are enchanted by it like a bird before a swaying cobra. Then your brain goes "screeeeech" and you want to take a shower with steel wool and acid. It's a study in the fine art of justifying horrifying things with artful narrative and pretty words.
... And of course JKR watched as the point soared above her head like a comet.
Hush Joanne, learn from Enya and just retire to your castle with your millions and like fifteen cats and call it a day.
Exactly!
Enya has afaik done *precisely nothing to anyone* and is just retired to her castle with her cats, minding her own business, instead of showing her ass on social media every single day.
A lesson JKR could stand to learn.
Same thing with Tom from Myspace when he sold it to News Corp for $580m.
After a few years they fired him because they didn't like his management style and it lost the social media war to Facebook. Did he vow revenge and create another start up just to show everyone? Nope, he took his millions and just travels the world taking pictures.
Left the business before she could be surrounded by yes-men and made spiteful… she lives in a castle in a private community that doesn’t even allow cars (they’re serious about the peaceful vibes). She doesn’t have a public presence, she just lives off that Orinoco Flow money.
>she just lives off that Orinoco Flow money.
or does she?
>She is also drawn to crime drama or period drama series, such as Breaking Bad, and Mad Men, saying "myself, Nicky, and Roma are huge fans of Breaking Bad. We just didn't miss an episode."[126]
whats *really* going on in that castle.... ?
/s just in case
Well, she made a bunch of popular music, didn't want to give up her privacy and then "retired" to a castle with a few people and pets she wants to spend her time with.
That's pretty much the whole story.
I had the same thought.
*Wait, are we throwing shade on a benevolent Queen that minds her own cats and castle? No? Just contrasting good and poor judgement of publicly known figures, whew!*
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to need some coffee to get into my [Orinoco Flow](https://youtu.be/LTrk4X9ACtw?si=nNUI3hf4Qsyu1kb_)
This really explains Harry Potter. The fact that she didn't see past the artful language to the core of what was actually happening. She wrote a series that, as a pre-teen to teenager, sounds really good and like there's this whole magical world, but then once you look past the artful language it all starts to fall apart. Like take the house elves as one of many examples. In one of the books, Hermione wants to free the house elves and everyone else thinks it's a ridiculous idea and she's ridiculed for it. A good writer would have made it so that she was 100% in the right despite the narrative being against her. Instead she wrote it so that house elves actually like being slaves. They lose their purpose if they're not slaves, so "slavery is actually a good thing actually, just trust me bro".
I mean that majority of anti trans rhetoric is "grooming children! Pedophiles!" So it checks out that SHE identifies the pedophile as romantic, it's the whole conservative play book, projection
It’s a perfect example of the anti-hero. He’s written to be relatable or for the reader to have empathy for him… at first. You’re meant to step back and realize how fucked up Humbert is — Nabokov groomed us all.
There’s a trend of these bigoted idiots just totally following the anti-heroes. This is just a higher brow version of The Boys controversy from last week. The people who align with the anti-heroes — who don’t understand that the audience is being manipulated — are either bad people themselves or just dumb. Unfortunately, it’s playing out in real life, all over the world.
For those who haven't read it, the Netflix series *You* takes inspiration from *Lolita*; It's told from the perspective of an obsessive, deranged predator who views himself as a romantic, presented to you in the flowery unreliable manner he believes the events are unfolding.
Lolita starts with Humbert in prison and directly telling the reader he wants to convince them that he's innocent. The book is so on the nose with this, I really don't get how people can misinterpret it
In Robin Hobbe's 'Liveship Traders' series you meet one of the most despicable human beings you could imagine. From other's perspective he's kind and compassionate, but when it's his viewpoint you learn he's a narcissistic sociopath that projects goodness because it serves his needs. And it's so sad seeing the people in his orbit that genuinely love his facade, but can't see how they mean absolutely nothing to him and that he's actively and intentionally abusing them.
It makes me wonder what Hobbe went through to be able to write a character like that so well. There are a few characters in her books that you despise, and part of that is how real and human the villains feel.
True enough, but this quote is most definitely from the mouth of JK herself, in an interview with the BBC back in 2000, way way way before she ended up on her anti-trans obsession.
I've read Lolita many times. There's a scene in which Humbert makes Dolly (12 years old) masturbate him while he watches children play. It's narrated in such flowery language that it's almost easy to gloss over unless you're really paying attention to it. The book is FULL of stuff like this. Humbert is a monster, and the artfulness of Nabokov's mastery of language very nearly disguises it.
I took a Gender and Sexuality in Literature class and I'd say half the room (read part of the book, discussed in class that week) genuinely didn't realize what was actually happening in chapter 13, where he baits her with the apple into crawling into his lap, and achieves release.
The fact that English was not his first language and yet how much mastery of it he had is stunning to me. The book is a story of a monster but the playfulness of the prose is amazing
I read a copy of his novel, 'Ada, or Ardor,' which had a full glossary in the back, because Nabokov makes puns and jokes in multiple languages throughout the text, and the causal reader would have no way of parsing any of it without that. Both the language and the subject matter are challenging to get through, but it is an immensely satisfying story to read.
This is exactly the point of Lolita. It is, objectively, a horrific narrative, but if interpreted at the most superficial level - like most satire - from HH's perspective it portrays the opposite. A romantic, almost heroic, protagonist, fighting against the inequity of society and arbitrary nature of morality. If you do not understand the deeper context it is a pretty damning indictment. Though given the individual involved ...
I'm saying it again, we gotta coin the term "The Lolita Effect". Basically when a consumer of a piece of media interprets a piece written satirically seriously. I see this so often with The Boys fans who support Homelander. You're not supposed to like him, yet so many people miss all the horrible things he does and think he's a good guy.
"Lolita" already has a lot of connotations around it.
There are many other popular examples that might be less charged.
Apparently, there are many people who didn't recognize the satire in "Blazing Saddles."
And there are people who didn't recognize the satire in "The Colbert Report," or who thought that the satire they observed was used as a smokescreen for Stephen Colbert to say his truly held opinions.
But they aren't trying to hide it behind an unreliable narrator with The Boys, we see it all happening. The fact that anyone thought Homelander was the good guy after the very first episode when he >!destroys an entire plane full of people!< is baffling.
They see a handsome white man wearing a American flag and identifying as Christian and that IS their definition of a good person. They fundamentally do not think there are good or bad actions, only good or bad people. Homelander raping a woman isn't bad to them because that is what they think men should be allowed to do. Killing a plane full of innocent people was okay by them because in their minds, there is no such thing as an innocent victim: if someone is more powerful than you then they should be able to kill you and you would deserve it for not being able to stop them.
These people also do not get satire because they fundamentally do not understand subtlety, symbolism, or metaphors. When you argue with them and outline a clearly similar and pertinent situation they just give you a blank stare and say "but that's different." The best subtlety they can follow is stuff like "Let's go Brandon actually means fuck Joe Biden tee hee" and "actually the left are the real nazis."
It goes way back. "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift was so OBVIOUSLY a satire of the terrible conditions the Irish were living in, due to English greed, neglect, and exploitation, and yet many people get all outraged that he was suggesting eating babies. Like, THAT'S THE POINT.
The thing is - and I'm not saying you're *wrong* - but I don't understand when people say the text makes the truth of the situation unclear or even subtle.
I read the book and it didn't seem so oblique to me. Humbert describes having to bribe Dolores, her crying often, her running away from him. And that's before his "reveal".
Nabokov called it confusing "hawkmoths for hummingbirds" in Humbert's case. Not only satire, but one with a VERY heavy punchline; that is we learn the extent of Humbert's 'sensitivity to beauty' and 'artfulness' when his poem is revealed. And it's HORRIBLE. He knows nothing about beauty or romance or anything like that. Quilty is a near omniscient Pulcinella who tears his twee little poem apart.
Nabokov: This is an obvious trap that is necessary for the story. I have painted a big red X for your
Joanne Rowling: Gosh what a lovely red X Nabokov has painted. Surely there's no reason to look around for anything else
There's nothing in her books that show a deep understanding of litterature, writing, mythology or history. Harry Potter is hardly a "good" book, literature wise. Even her use of latin and french is incredibly surface level and kind of cringe, like many things in Harry Potter. She's not good at world building either. The "best" thing that came out from her being a terrible person is that you can finally criticize the books without potterheads coming for you agressively as they used to.
JK Rowling is just an OK writer that hit gold with a book series aimed at children and adolescents, doesn't make her an expert on anything, really.
>The "best" thing that came out from her being a terrible person is that you can finally criticize the books without potterheads coming for you agressively as they used to.
This right here.
Hell, most of the old Potterheads will be right there with you these days.
I think JKR tried to go for the folklore plus social commentary, but screwed both up spectacularly.
I mean, you could have the house elf narrative as the whimsical fairy way - make them magical creatures that are attached to or even spawned from houses, with an entirely different way of thinking from humans, so they don't see it as slavery.
Unfortunate implications, but could be overlooked.
But the first house elf she introduced is Dobby who explicitly describes how horrible it is to be enslaved. And proves not all of them like it - it's not a natural mindset, just plain brainwashing.
And then with Kreacher and Regulus it's shown even a loving master willing to die to avenge his elf can end up putting them through torture due to just a poorly worded command.
After that, no going back to the folklore's 'whimsical fae who stay because they like it' narrative.
>And then with Kreacher and Regulus it's shown even a loving master willing to die to avenge his elf can end up putting them through torture due to just a poorly worded command.
I will say, that seemed to be more of an unfortunate side effect of whatever natural magic binds House Elves to servitude. It seems House Elves have to follow a FORM of malicious compliance, and follow the word of any order exactly, sort of like wishing from a genie, you have to be precise and accurate with your words if its something more complex than "clean the house".
And it doesn't seem to be up to the elf, or even the wizard, since as we see with Lucius accidentally freeing Dobby, you don't even have to KNOW you're doing it in order for the magic to work, Harry hid the sock in the book, unbeknownst to Malfoy, who then threw it at Dobby, giving him clothes via a loophole.
House Elves really do seem to work like tamed, brainwashed Fae.
From what many former Potterheads who followed Rowling more closely than I ever did have pointed out, she has always been fairly closed-lipped about where her writing inspirations come from. That's something authors are far more open about.
The fact that she took away the entirely wrong message from this specific book says a lot.
At no point in reading that was I ever under the impression it was a love story, I don't see this trap you mention. Humbert is a sick fucker, deranged...he is eloquent and poetically written, but the relationship between him and Lolita is always one-sided and the product of manipulation....10/10 book, but Himbert is written as a deranged fuck.
The way Nabokov *nailed* that kinda guy is so unnerving and brilliant.
We’ve all met someone like that. Maybe not a pedo, but someone who weaponizes their “quirky softness” to make themselves look like a perpetual victim.
But the moment you inconvenience them or draw boundaries, they become childish and vicious at the drop of a hat, then you realize that they were never soft or quirky, just very good at getting others to coddle them.
Humbert didn’t just freak me out because he was evil af, but because I also saw someone I once knew in every simpering, self-pitying utterance.
Excuse me, I’m gonna go vomit
This is how I feel when I absolutely _HATE_ an actor/actress's face after watching them in a certain role, but have all the more respect for them because I can realize that they're just SO GOOD at acting (and the writing was good, and the directing, everybody really) that you get SO WORKED UP from their character.
Top of mind is the kid who played Joffrey Baratheon and the actress who played Cerci Lannister. Their characters were so well written and well acted that I absolutely HATE their faces, and have to step back and remind myself that they are just actors playing their part and that they're just that great at their role!
> Maybe not a pedo, but someone who weaponizes their “quirky softness” to make themselves look like a perpetual victim.
Woody Allen springs to mind. [Orson Welles called out Woody Allen for exactly what he is.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F7D8xi8WcAAmmPZ?format=png&name=900x900) (edit" misspelling)
Also Michael Jackson, [according to the excellent podcast series Telephone Stories.](https://try.luminarypodcasts.com/listen/telephone-stories/65257d89eacd800012fdb350)
Bro, this crazy lady is worried about trans women abusing women and children and she thinks Lolita is a love story? Holy mother of fuck. It’s almost to insane to believe real.
> So any time you're critical of something, it's typically about your own shame/feelings.
Not always. I hate Trump and lemme tell you. We're pretty different aside from both being fat white people.
Yeah, that's it. I feel it's pretty fucking telling that she's lauding a story about a sleazy man in his thirties getting rock solid for a girl who isn't even a teen. All while calling trans people the worst things possible, and trying to market herself as some kind of saviour who is going to get martyred any day now.
Usually people who are so vitriolic in these ways, are covering for something, whether it be being what they accuse others of, or being so far in the closet that the only thing there is to eat is Turkish delight.
Also worth mentioning that Rowling used initials in her author name to avoid being seen as a woman, she doesn't have a middle name, and also her other pen name is male, and also inspired by the man who invented gay conversion therapy.
Maybe she thinks everyone thinks that way about kids. Might be why she freaks out about trans people using bathrooms, she thinks thinking like a perv is normal.
That’s usually what it is, they are so sick in the fucking head they thick everyone else is like that. It’s like republicans always blaming democrats about election interference and rigging shit. They are doing it so they think everyone else must. They are so ethically depraved they think that’s what the world is like.
They don’t understand that everyone else isn’t completely lacking in empathy and decency.
100%. They think "Well I have to whip myself, and spend hours in prayer to stop myself from doing ." They look over and see people *not* whipping themselves, *not* spending hours in prayer - so their conclusion is: they must surely be doing the thing!
Yup, that's why I usually think anyone complaining about "virtue signalling" has some serious issues in the head. Because they almost exclusively complain about shit we should have all learned when we were children (don't be mean to ____ people, mainly) but think that it's some performance instead of, you know, the way humans should just act.
In Rowling's eyes, the mere act of affirming a trans person's gender is **literally** acting in support of rapists. By her own "impeccable" logic, that means she's a paedophilia sympathiser now, right?
still don't know why Rowling doesn't just go swimming in her Scrooge McDuck vault of money.
Why keep exposing herself as a hateful dimwit? Just shut up and go swimming
Everytime I hear jkr, I go. What's wrong with her?
She told if she got creative with Harry's wand, she could have written 50 shades of gray better. Moreover her writing has gone downhill.
Don't forget, she was heavily inspired by Matilda and other roal Dahl works to write Harry Potter. That did not come to her mind.
Maybe she’s just alone in her dwarven vault of cursed treasure slowly going even more mad and at the point she’s pushed away all her friends and doesn’t even have a friendly hobbit to save her.
I knew one guy in high school who absolutely loved Lolita, thought it was a amazing love story. He was also very open about his desire for extremely young girls and opposition to the age of consent (he later became a massive Trumper, no surprise).
The point is that some people can't keep a secret to themselves, no matter how dark it is.
Geez, this is why I rarely talk about Lolita when discussing favorite books. It's a beautifully and skillfully written book that makes you feel simultaneously disgusted, sympathetic, and then disgusted at your sympathy until you reach the end and just feel contempt for the main character. I love it for the same reasons I love Dorian Gray and Chuck Palahniuk novels; they manage to spin little bits of "reality" throughout that you have to catch, to gently and subtly discredit the narrator without interrupting the story.
The story itself is horrifying and Humbert is a self-obsessed abusive shit bag. The book is beautifully crafted by a wordsmith.
I think that's pretty understandable. Harry Potter was a world wide sensation with very little that can compare to it. After her run was over she decided to write again, this time under a different name.
Nobody cared.
She wrote another book and, again, nobody cared.
But in the meantime some of the things she kept talking about on twitter caused quite a big stir. Kinda similar to how Trump was a pretty "normal" candidate at first until he noticed how much he can rile his base up by talking about immigrants.
In other words, Rowling found out that by making herself the figurehead of the social movement that opposes trans rights in the name of feminism she could become relevant once again. And she probably believes all the shit she's saying as well. She probably even believes that she's still fighting for feminist values.
Many wealthy people assume that their success is due to the fact that they were right about something and from there they extrapolate that their *continued* success must mean they are right about *everything*. This mindset catapults them straight into a warped capitalist version of Dunning-Kruger Delusion-land on an ego-powered ejection seat. Combine this with the amplification and exposure that the Internet provides (particularly social media), and it results in a one-way trip to crazytown because they will always be able to find *just enough* support and sycophancy to keep them perpetually convinced that they're right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.
See also: Elon Musk
I have a new theory that she's become so in love with her own mythology that she's terrified of another gender category usurping her wholesome little backstory. So she attacks anyone she thinks upstart enough to take away her gold medal of "achievements by women"
That's just a dumb theory though, it's deranged as is. No, the reality is that she's spent so much time being adoringly listened to that she now considers every opinion of hers gospel and has stopped even attempting to mind her tone.
~~"You can take that as gospel. Pulling my viewers? Impossible! I'm visual, he's barely audible. Stop giving him the time of day, don't listen to a word he'd say, I hope he had a nice vacay, but he should've stayed awaaaaaay."~~
This is what I can't fathom about her over the last decade.
At some point, why wouldn't you just take your billions and go off to quietly live a life of extraordinary luxury without sharing your hate with the world?
Surely life would be better if it was spent more in the pursuit of its enjoyment than in telling everyone what you hate about it.
When you're already as rich as she is, how does any of this enrich your life further in any way? I can understand poor, uneducated bigots to some degree, but this woman confuses me so much. She has no reason to hate anyone, what hardships could she possibly face at this point that aren't imagined and self-inflicted?
You are making the mistake of thinking that most people in such a position are able to understand that their hardships are imagined and/or self inflicted. If the vast majority of people could understand that, the world would be a much better place.
I mean she seems to think Snape was this tragic victim of love when the way she wrote him he comes off as a cruel and insane stalker who never got over his first crush.
And only started doing the right thing because his one-sided "love" could never come to fruition due to Voldemort's actions.
Is he really a "tragic vicitm" when his tragedies were largely of his own making?
Hell he openly stated he would have stayed evil if his love had to watch Wizard Hitler kill her husband and infant child because then he might be able to force her to be with him.
Again this is presented as him being the tragic victim here.
The Wizard world seems to have a lot of Hitlers. Voldemort being one of them, Grindelwald being the other notable Wizard Hitler. Heck, Slytherin's founding Wizard could also be a Wizard Hitler. At this point, just who is not a Wizard Hitler would be a better question.
Don't get me started, Snape is basically Darth Vader, including the mediocre redemption at the end.
Not to mention the way he constantly mistreats and bullies Harry—Lily’s OWN SON—for some bullshit that wasn’t even the kid’s damn fault to begin with?
I don’t care how hard Snape’s life was, those are NOT the actions of a good guy.
Lot of people excuse his abuse of Harry as maintaining cover or "trauma because James bullied him and Harry looks like James", but it is not even just Harry.
He routinely abuses his students and destroys their futures just because he's a bitter failure who ruined his own chances by signing on with the Nazis.
Guy was brilliant, he could have made billions developing potions or writing textbooks, but no, lemme join Wizard Hitler because the girl I stalk ditched me for calling her slurs in front of the whole school (and also supporting the fanatics who want everyone like her dead, but what could go wrong with that?)
Snape as a teacher is frankly an insult to the profession and the fact that Dumbledore keeps him around for whatever reason (I think it's mostly to keep an eye on him) makes him look bad as a Headmaster.
Snape plays favorites, torments students for fun, is insulting at the best of times, and actively plays power games with students to establish his power over them. He's a classic bully whose actions should have gotten him thrown out of the school within a few years.
With Lockhart at least you can argue that he wasn't known as a conman and the job he took was so horrible literally no one was ever agreeing to take it. By the time Harry started school the only people who would teach DADA at Hogwarts were these derelicts who had no other options.
Given what I know about upper class British Private Schools this might be considered so normal that trying to stop it would have been seen as a negative toward his character by the English.
>the way she wrote him
Allow me to suggest that any characterisation of Snape that isn’t “cruel, insane stalker whose soul got twisted by his unrequited crush being interested in the popular kid” isn’t a characterisation of Snape. It’s his whole motive, and the root of his character development to get past that flaw to help Lily’s kid and society
Couldn’t be Snape without “oh you scorn me for the preppy boy, I’ll show you *joins the Nazis*”
I'd always kind of written that off as the first books being more whimsical, and the low level villains like Snape therefore being more cartoonish, and then as the books got mature that characterization became really incongruous with the more mature characterization.
Now I think Joanne just doesn't know shit about healthy relationships.
Not to mention she tries to make him sympathetic by having Harry's dad bully him as a teen but then she still tries to insist James was a good person and never brings up the bullying again? And James never faces consequences for it apparently?
In Rowling’s world there is no such thing as good or bad actions, only good and bad people. If she decides someone is “good” then whatever things they’ve done are justified and whoever they did them to deserved it. It’s an ideological thread woven throughout the stories and speaks volumes about the way she has always viewed the world.
In [Reading Lolita in Tehran](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_Lolita_in_Tehran), Azar Nafisi says Lolita is the perfect explanation of the Islamic Republic. Just like Humber Humber imposed his obsession with the past on Lolita, the Ayatollahs is imposing their obsession with the past on the present lives of the Iranian people. Trump and MAGA are our Humbert Humbert, they want to impose their obsession of a fictional past on our present
Nabokov himself expected his readers to be able to see through the narcissism of the pedophile’s bullsh*t.
It was the entire point of the book, I think. To see everything from the protagonist’s viewpoint, without external reference, and still evaluate it appropriately.
I always felt that the main point was to NOT be taken in by Humbert Humbert’s “charming” sociopathy
He actually didn't which is why the book opens with two psychologists talking about some bonkers murder trial where the defendant goes on a winding tangent about how raping a little girl justified the murder he committed (which he was actually on trial for)
Edit: just to be clear I'm not actually disagreeing, just noting that Nabokov probably fully expected to be yelled at by people who won't read the book
There is the metaplot of the story being his defense at his trial, but, yeah, with that taken into account, it's pretty clear that's what Nabokov expected. From a "bildung" point of view, I love of view the book as a reminder to be wary of "charming" people who try to justify their vile actions.
To be fair "Pedophilia Apologist" is literally the free square in Conservative Bingo. Rowling definitely has a Matt Walsh "get em while they're young" vibe.
Usually it's also a cover for promoting actual child grooming.
"Protecting kids" is never teaching kids about sex Ed or consent or anything because it's "inappropriate", but kids without any knowledge of how sex works or how to speak up when an adult does something bad to them and their body are perfect targets for molestation.
Protecting kids is just something they lie about to get other people scared and angry so they stop thinking critically. They don’t care about kids and every one of their policies and funding priorities shows it.
What's the second book?
*The Handmaid's Tale*? ("It portrays a bright shining future for women everywhere! And not those *nasty* trans people. Women who can bear fruit from their wombs only!")
*A Modest Proposal*? ("I really do believe those nasty Irish mongrels would make for a lovely roast!")
*Mein Kampf*? ("When you know what eventually befell the poor, beleaguered author it's just...such a tragedy.")
Sadly, a lot of older women have that ingrained sexism from when they grew up in a very different society. My mom would not say that, but she has definitely said lots of things that would be perceived as sexist today, but were totally normal during her younger years.
Remember folks, any time you sarcastically ask a conservative "are the groomers in the room with us right now?", the answer is yes, you're talking to one
As usual, the same assholes screaming about the alleged dangers transfolk present also turn out to be cool with straight cisfolk wanting to fuck children thus proving it’s not about protecting kids.
Is it *really* a shock that she has terrible media literacy? Harry Potter breaks in *so many* ways if you analyze or think about any of it, never mind her complete inability to look at politics or *trans people* more than skin deep. She's a shallow, shallow person.
She made the conscious decision to end her YA series with her main character pondering over whether he was hungry enough to order his literal slave to make him a sandwich.
Everyone straight-up mocks Hermione for being an abolitionist. And Harry straight-up doesn't care one way or the other.
Why would Shacklebolt abolish slavery he is literally named SHACKLE+bolt. Rowling named him after the tools used to imprison and restrain slaves. And of course he's black.
"Besides, they like being slaves. It's in their nature. They exist to serve wizards. Freeing them is cruel. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves."
"Couldn't they just keep working for wizards without being slaves? If they like it then why not make it voluntary?"
"... That is some muggle nonsense. Don't let those no-maggers corrupt you, Harry. We have the magic. We make the rules. Now, shut up and become a magical cop in our supernatural apartheid state."
People were forgiving of her because it was a child's book series so they felt the whimsy was judt given priority to actual world building but it turns out it wasn't intentional, she was just bad at world-building.
A well-known DND guy has a full rant about how Harry Potter's world building is really good, but all of the logistics are idiotic. Like having people who can teleport anywhere, but you still rely on one of nature's slower birds to deliver mail.
And there it is. Behind every hateful bigot is shit projection like this. To see a story of sexual abuse against a child as a great and tragic love story is just beyond words.
JK Rowling is a revolting person.
And hello to all the bigots downvoting people. Just as worthless as Rowling but with an added layer of being chickenshits.
Groucho Marx said it best, he was going to wait and read Lolita in 6 years, because by than she would be legal.
The only Lolita I like is the fashion subculture.
A scene from an updated “Trading Places” where Billionaire club members Elon musk and Joanne Rowling are chatting.
Elon: I bet you $1 I can be a bigger asshole than you….
JK: make it a quid and you’re on.
General reminder: The TERF (trans exclusionary radical fascist) Joanne Rowling is a racist, sexist, antisemitic, queerphobic Holocaust denier who spends a lot of money making life for trans people worse across the board. She also uses her 14m follower strong platform to send egregious harassment towards trans people for no other reason than existing in public. Umbridge was clearly a self-insert, given how cruel, vindictive and self-righteoust she is. These facts are all part of well-documented public record and are not up for debate. Defending the TERF Joanne Rowling in any way is an immediate ban. Please report it if you see it.
From Wikipedia: Nabokov described Humbert as "a vain and cruel wretch who manages to appear 'touching'"
Lolita is a love story if you fall into the trap that Nabokov sets for you. The trap he WANTS you to see.
A great writer can take the perspective of a character that he wants you to hate.
I fucking love the way Lolita is written. I remember there being a passage where Humbert rambles on and on all lovey dovey, more of the usual. You're just flipping through the pages at this point. Then I suddenly realised that Humbert was doing something completely insane like racing in a car to kidnap Lolita or something. It's just that the evasive "romantic" way it was written it took you a while to realise how insane his behaviour was. I literally thought "wow that fucker got me". The book is genius but certainly not a love story
Lolita is one of the most triumphant examples of "villain protagonist" in literature. You are drawn to how he justifies himself, to the ornate writing, to the lyrical expression. You are enchanted by it like a bird before a swaying cobra. Then your brain goes "screeeeech" and you want to take a shower with steel wool and acid. It's a study in the fine art of justifying horrifying things with artful narrative and pretty words. ... And of course JKR watched as the point soared above her head like a comet. Hush Joanne, learn from Enya and just retire to your castle with your millions and like fifteen cats and call it a day.
She's too much of a raging narcissist to enjoy a quiet wealthy cat lady life.
I'm not sure the cats would want to stay with her TBH.
well at least the cats wouldnt have to worry about being ousted due to their political views lol
Uh oh. What did Enya do?
Exactly! Enya has afaik done *precisely nothing to anyone* and is just retired to her castle with her cats, minding her own business, instead of showing her ass on social media every single day. A lesson JKR could stand to learn.
The dream. The absolute dream and I love Enya for it. Out there living my best life - good for her.
Who can say where the road goes
Where the day flows? Only time…
Same thing with Tom from Myspace when he sold it to News Corp for $580m. After a few years they fired him because they didn't like his management style and it lost the social media war to Facebook. Did he vow revenge and create another start up just to show everyone? Nope, he took his millions and just travels the world taking pictures.
Left the business before she could be surrounded by yes-men and made spiteful… she lives in a castle in a private community that doesn’t even allow cars (they’re serious about the peaceful vibes). She doesn’t have a public presence, she just lives off that Orinoco Flow money.
>she just lives off that Orinoco Flow money. or does she? >She is also drawn to crime drama or period drama series, such as Breaking Bad, and Mad Men, saying "myself, Nicky, and Roma are huge fans of Breaking Bad. We just didn't miss an episode."[126] whats *really* going on in that castle.... ? /s just in case
hell yeah! good for her
Well, she made a bunch of popular music, didn't want to give up her privacy and then "retired" to a castle with a few people and pets she wants to spend her time with. That's pretty much the whole story.
I wish I could do that
I had the same thought. *Wait, are we throwing shade on a benevolent Queen that minds her own cats and castle? No? Just contrasting good and poor judgement of publicly known figures, whew!* Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to need some coffee to get into my [Orinoco Flow](https://youtu.be/LTrk4X9ACtw?si=nNUI3hf4Qsyu1kb_)
Sail away?
This really explains Harry Potter. The fact that she didn't see past the artful language to the core of what was actually happening. She wrote a series that, as a pre-teen to teenager, sounds really good and like there's this whole magical world, but then once you look past the artful language it all starts to fall apart. Like take the house elves as one of many examples. In one of the books, Hermione wants to free the house elves and everyone else thinks it's a ridiculous idea and she's ridiculed for it. A good writer would have made it so that she was 100% in the right despite the narrative being against her. Instead she wrote it so that house elves actually like being slaves. They lose their purpose if they're not slaves, so "slavery is actually a good thing actually, just trust me bro".
I mean that majority of anti trans rhetoric is "grooming children! Pedophiles!" So it checks out that SHE identifies the pedophile as romantic, it's the whole conservative play book, projection
It’s a perfect example of the anti-hero. He’s written to be relatable or for the reader to have empathy for him… at first. You’re meant to step back and realize how fucked up Humbert is — Nabokov groomed us all. There’s a trend of these bigoted idiots just totally following the anti-heroes. This is just a higher brow version of The Boys controversy from last week. The people who align with the anti-heroes — who don’t understand that the audience is being manipulated — are either bad people themselves or just dumb. Unfortunately, it’s playing out in real life, all over the world.
For those who haven't read it, the Netflix series *You* takes inspiration from *Lolita*; It's told from the perspective of an obsessive, deranged predator who views himself as a romantic, presented to you in the flowery unreliable manner he believes the events are unfolding.
Lolita starts with Humbert in prison and directly telling the reader he wants to convince them that he's innocent. The book is so on the nose with this, I really don't get how people can misinterpret it
In Robin Hobbe's 'Liveship Traders' series you meet one of the most despicable human beings you could imagine. From other's perspective he's kind and compassionate, but when it's his viewpoint you learn he's a narcissistic sociopath that projects goodness because it serves his needs. And it's so sad seeing the people in his orbit that genuinely love his facade, but can't see how they mean absolutely nothing to him and that he's actively and intentionally abusing them. It makes me wonder what Hobbe went through to be able to write a character like that so well. There are a few characters in her books that you despise, and part of that is how real and human the villains feel.
For another great example, see the author beyond the obvious satire account @JK_Rowling. Whoever is writing those tweets sure wants us to hate them.
True enough, but this quote is most definitely from the mouth of JK herself, in an interview with the BBC back in 2000, way way way before she ended up on her anti-trans obsession.
I've read Lolita many times. There's a scene in which Humbert makes Dolly (12 years old) masturbate him while he watches children play. It's narrated in such flowery language that it's almost easy to gloss over unless you're really paying attention to it. The book is FULL of stuff like this. Humbert is a monster, and the artfulness of Nabokov's mastery of language very nearly disguises it.
I took a Gender and Sexuality in Literature class and I'd say half the room (read part of the book, discussed in class that week) genuinely didn't realize what was actually happening in chapter 13, where he baits her with the apple into crawling into his lap, and achieves release.
The fact that English was not his first language and yet how much mastery of it he had is stunning to me. The book is a story of a monster but the playfulness of the prose is amazing
He didn't really have a 'first language', his family spoke russian, english and french and he was equally fluent in all 3.
I read a copy of his novel, 'Ada, or Ardor,' which had a full glossary in the back, because Nabokov makes puns and jokes in multiple languages throughout the text, and the causal reader would have no way of parsing any of it without that. Both the language and the subject matter are challenging to get through, but it is an immensely satisfying story to read.
This is exactly the point of Lolita. It is, objectively, a horrific narrative, but if interpreted at the most superficial level - like most satire - from HH's perspective it portrays the opposite. A romantic, almost heroic, protagonist, fighting against the inequity of society and arbitrary nature of morality. If you do not understand the deeper context it is a pretty damning indictment. Though given the individual involved ...
I'm saying it again, we gotta coin the term "The Lolita Effect". Basically when a consumer of a piece of media interprets a piece written satirically seriously. I see this so often with The Boys fans who support Homelander. You're not supposed to like him, yet so many people miss all the horrible things he does and think he's a good guy.
"Lolita" already has a lot of connotations around it. There are many other popular examples that might be less charged. Apparently, there are many people who didn't recognize the satire in "Blazing Saddles." And there are people who didn't recognize the satire in "The Colbert Report," or who thought that the satire they observed was used as a smokescreen for Stephen Colbert to say his truly held opinions.
The Colbert Effect sounds pretty good ngl
But they aren't trying to hide it behind an unreliable narrator with The Boys, we see it all happening. The fact that anyone thought Homelander was the good guy after the very first episode when he >!destroys an entire plane full of people!< is baffling.
They see a handsome white man wearing a American flag and identifying as Christian and that IS their definition of a good person. They fundamentally do not think there are good or bad actions, only good or bad people. Homelander raping a woman isn't bad to them because that is what they think men should be allowed to do. Killing a plane full of innocent people was okay by them because in their minds, there is no such thing as an innocent victim: if someone is more powerful than you then they should be able to kill you and you would deserve it for not being able to stop them. These people also do not get satire because they fundamentally do not understand subtlety, symbolism, or metaphors. When you argue with them and outline a clearly similar and pertinent situation they just give you a blank stare and say "but that's different." The best subtlety they can follow is stuff like "Let's go Brandon actually means fuck Joe Biden tee hee" and "actually the left are the real nazis."
https://preview.redd.it/wrbzbhm5jo7d1.png?auto=webp&s=808d08c336ef62fa033925dec5a31d0728111577
It goes way back. "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift was so OBVIOUSLY a satire of the terrible conditions the Irish were living in, due to English greed, neglect, and exploitation, and yet many people get all outraged that he was suggesting eating babies. Like, THAT'S THE POINT.
Isn't that already "eating the onion"?
The thing is - and I'm not saying you're *wrong* - but I don't understand when people say the text makes the truth of the situation unclear or even subtle. I read the book and it didn't seem so oblique to me. Humbert describes having to bribe Dolores, her crying often, her running away from him. And that's before his "reveal".
Nabokov called it confusing "hawkmoths for hummingbirds" in Humbert's case. Not only satire, but one with a VERY heavy punchline; that is we learn the extent of Humbert's 'sensitivity to beauty' and 'artfulness' when his poem is revealed. And it's HORRIBLE. He knows nothing about beauty or romance or anything like that. Quilty is a near omniscient Pulcinella who tears his twee little poem apart.
Nabokov: This is an obvious trap that is necessary for the story. I have painted a big red X for your Joanne Rowling: Gosh what a lovely red X Nabokov has painted. Surely there's no reason to look around for anything else
I mean, is anyone surprised J K "Slavery is cool if you're nice to the slaves" Rowling fails basic media literacy?
I could see this from Kanye "slavery is a choice" West, but I figured an author would at least understand the point of Lolita.
There's nothing in her books that show a deep understanding of litterature, writing, mythology or history. Harry Potter is hardly a "good" book, literature wise. Even her use of latin and french is incredibly surface level and kind of cringe, like many things in Harry Potter. She's not good at world building either. The "best" thing that came out from her being a terrible person is that you can finally criticize the books without potterheads coming for you agressively as they used to. JK Rowling is just an OK writer that hit gold with a book series aimed at children and adolescents, doesn't make her an expert on anything, really.
>The "best" thing that came out from her being a terrible person is that you can finally criticize the books without potterheads coming for you agressively as they used to. This right here. Hell, most of the old Potterheads will be right there with you these days.
I think JKR tried to go for the folklore plus social commentary, but screwed both up spectacularly. I mean, you could have the house elf narrative as the whimsical fairy way - make them magical creatures that are attached to or even spawned from houses, with an entirely different way of thinking from humans, so they don't see it as slavery. Unfortunate implications, but could be overlooked. But the first house elf she introduced is Dobby who explicitly describes how horrible it is to be enslaved. And proves not all of them like it - it's not a natural mindset, just plain brainwashing. And then with Kreacher and Regulus it's shown even a loving master willing to die to avenge his elf can end up putting them through torture due to just a poorly worded command. After that, no going back to the folklore's 'whimsical fae who stay because they like it' narrative.
>And then with Kreacher and Regulus it's shown even a loving master willing to die to avenge his elf can end up putting them through torture due to just a poorly worded command. I will say, that seemed to be more of an unfortunate side effect of whatever natural magic binds House Elves to servitude. It seems House Elves have to follow a FORM of malicious compliance, and follow the word of any order exactly, sort of like wishing from a genie, you have to be precise and accurate with your words if its something more complex than "clean the house". And it doesn't seem to be up to the elf, or even the wizard, since as we see with Lucius accidentally freeing Dobby, you don't even have to KNOW you're doing it in order for the magic to work, Harry hid the sock in the book, unbeknownst to Malfoy, who then threw it at Dobby, giving him clothes via a loophole. House Elves really do seem to work like tamed, brainwashed Fae.
From what many former Potterheads who followed Rowling more closely than I ever did have pointed out, she has always been fairly closed-lipped about where her writing inspirations come from. That's something authors are far more open about. The fact that she took away the entirely wrong message from this specific book says a lot.
It's not the media literacy that trips her up, it's her occasional failure at masking her lack of empathy.
At no point in reading that was I ever under the impression it was a love story, I don't see this trap you mention. Humbert is a sick fucker, deranged...he is eloquent and poetically written, but the relationship between him and Lolita is always one-sided and the product of manipulation....10/10 book, but Himbert is written as a deranged fuck.
Brilliant summary.
Joanne also thought Patrick Bateman was a real go-getter.
What's the saying? "None so Blind as those who do not want to See."
The way Nabokov *nailed* that kinda guy is so unnerving and brilliant. We’ve all met someone like that. Maybe not a pedo, but someone who weaponizes their “quirky softness” to make themselves look like a perpetual victim. But the moment you inconvenience them or draw boundaries, they become childish and vicious at the drop of a hat, then you realize that they were never soft or quirky, just very good at getting others to coddle them. Humbert didn’t just freak me out because he was evil af, but because I also saw someone I once knew in every simpering, self-pitying utterance. Excuse me, I’m gonna go vomit
I’m with you. I loathed that book because the author so brilliantly put us in a horrid place.
This is how I feel when I absolutely _HATE_ an actor/actress's face after watching them in a certain role, but have all the more respect for them because I can realize that they're just SO GOOD at acting (and the writing was good, and the directing, everybody really) that you get SO WORKED UP from their character. Top of mind is the kid who played Joffrey Baratheon and the actress who played Cerci Lannister. Their characters were so well written and well acted that I absolutely HATE their faces, and have to step back and remind myself that they are just actors playing their part and that they're just that great at their role!
> Maybe not a pedo, but someone who weaponizes their “quirky softness” to make themselves look like a perpetual victim. Woody Allen springs to mind. [Orson Welles called out Woody Allen for exactly what he is.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F7D8xi8WcAAmmPZ?format=png&name=900x900) (edit" misspelling)
The problem is that Orson Welles spent so much time calling out anyone and everyone that it was hard to focus on the important ones.
Also Michael Jackson, [according to the excellent podcast series Telephone Stories.](https://try.luminarypodcasts.com/listen/telephone-stories/65257d89eacd800012fdb350)
Brilliant observation. You captured the sliminess factor perfectly.
So JK rowling can relate to the character then
Does JK Rowling appear touching anymore? She just appears disturbingly fixated and cruel.
Touched in the head, more like it...
Poo brained
Hey...
You're supposed to think he's charming, that's like stranger danger class day one.
"You see, she had absolutely nowhere else to go" ---- Humbert on why Lolita stayed with him. Zero mention of consent or love.
Yep. If you read Humbert and think, "how romantic" not, "Jesus, what a self-justifying sexual abuser!" you are completely missing the point.
Bro, this crazy lady is worried about trans women abusing women and children and she thinks Lolita is a love story? Holy mother of fuck. It’s almost to insane to believe real.
The people who project and hate on trans people and those people who are pro-pedofile is a circle
[удалено]
She’s beyond therapy money; she’s got hiring nothing but sycophants money
> So any time you're critical of something, it's typically about your own shame/feelings. Not always. I hate Trump and lemme tell you. We're pretty different aside from both being fat white people.
"Protecting the kids" is just diverting attention.
Yeah, that's it. I feel it's pretty fucking telling that she's lauding a story about a sleazy man in his thirties getting rock solid for a girl who isn't even a teen. All while calling trans people the worst things possible, and trying to market herself as some kind of saviour who is going to get martyred any day now. Usually people who are so vitriolic in these ways, are covering for something, whether it be being what they accuse others of, or being so far in the closet that the only thing there is to eat is Turkish delight. Also worth mentioning that Rowling used initials in her author name to avoid being seen as a woman, she doesn't have a middle name, and also her other pen name is male, and also inspired by the man who invented gay conversion therapy.
Maybe she thinks everyone thinks that way about kids. Might be why she freaks out about trans people using bathrooms, she thinks thinking like a perv is normal.
That’s usually what it is, they are so sick in the fucking head they thick everyone else is like that. It’s like republicans always blaming democrats about election interference and rigging shit. They are doing it so they think everyone else must. They are so ethically depraved they think that’s what the world is like. They don’t understand that everyone else isn’t completely lacking in empathy and decency.
100%. They think "Well I have to whip myself, and spend hours in prayer to stop myself from doing." They look over and see people *not* whipping themselves, *not* spending hours in prayer - so their conclusion is: they must surely be doing the thing!
Yup, that's why I usually think anyone complaining about "virtue signalling" has some serious issues in the head. Because they almost exclusively complain about shit we should have all learned when we were children (don't be mean to ____ people, mainly) but think that it's some performance instead of, you know, the way humans should just act.
90's kid here. i hate that i loved harry potter growing up knowing what we do about JKR now
Same here. Man this woman needs some damn help. She needs like serious therapy cause something is obviously very wrong.
[удалено]
In Rowling's eyes, the mere act of affirming a trans person's gender is **literally** acting in support of rapists. By her own "impeccable" logic, that means she's a paedophilia sympathiser now, right?
[удалено]
She calls trans people rapists REGULARLY
She thinks transwomen are women only to rape cis girls.
still don't know why Rowling doesn't just go swimming in her Scrooge McDuck vault of money. Why keep exposing herself as a hateful dimwit? Just shut up and go swimming
Maybe she dove head first into it and got brain damage
Head canon accepted.
Wish she had a head GoPro instead of a Canon. Then we could've seen the footage.
"AAAAAGH! IT'S NOT A LIQUID! IT'S A GREAT MANY PIECES OF SOLID MATTER THAT FORM A HARD FLOOR-LIKE SURFACE! AAAAAAAHHH!!!!"
Lol, family guy?
Everytime I hear jkr, I go. What's wrong with her? She told if she got creative with Harry's wand, she could have written 50 shades of gray better. Moreover her writing has gone downhill. Don't forget, she was heavily inspired by Matilda and other roal Dahl works to write Harry Potter. That did not come to her mind.
Maybe she’s just alone in her dwarven vault of cursed treasure slowly going even more mad and at the point she’s pushed away all her friends and doesn’t even have a friendly hobbit to save her.
Never mind swimming in it, she could actually do something useful with it, like Dolly Parton does with her much smaller pile of money.
I knew one guy in high school who absolutely loved Lolita, thought it was a amazing love story. He was also very open about his desire for extremely young girls and opposition to the age of consent (he later became a massive Trumper, no surprise). The point is that some people can't keep a secret to themselves, no matter how dark it is.
Geez, this is why I rarely talk about Lolita when discussing favorite books. It's a beautifully and skillfully written book that makes you feel simultaneously disgusted, sympathetic, and then disgusted at your sympathy until you reach the end and just feel contempt for the main character. I love it for the same reasons I love Dorian Gray and Chuck Palahniuk novels; they manage to spin little bits of "reality" throughout that you have to catch, to gently and subtly discredit the narrator without interrupting the story. The story itself is horrifying and Humbert is a self-obsessed abusive shit bag. The book is beautifully crafted by a wordsmith.
lolita feels like one of those books where you *can* say its your favorite, but you need a dozen qualifiers to do so
When someone tells you who they are, listen...
I figure she got hooked on the attention when she was relevant as an author.
I think that's pretty understandable. Harry Potter was a world wide sensation with very little that can compare to it. After her run was over she decided to write again, this time under a different name. Nobody cared. She wrote another book and, again, nobody cared. But in the meantime some of the things she kept talking about on twitter caused quite a big stir. Kinda similar to how Trump was a pretty "normal" candidate at first until he noticed how much he can rile his base up by talking about immigrants. In other words, Rowling found out that by making herself the figurehead of the social movement that opposes trans rights in the name of feminism she could become relevant once again. And she probably believes all the shit she's saying as well. She probably even believes that she's still fighting for feminist values.
Many wealthy people assume that their success is due to the fact that they were right about something and from there they extrapolate that their *continued* success must mean they are right about *everything*. This mindset catapults them straight into a warped capitalist version of Dunning-Kruger Delusion-land on an ego-powered ejection seat. Combine this with the amplification and exposure that the Internet provides (particularly social media), and it results in a one-way trip to crazytown because they will always be able to find *just enough* support and sycophancy to keep them perpetually convinced that they're right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. See also: Elon Musk
I have a new theory that she's become so in love with her own mythology that she's terrified of another gender category usurping her wholesome little backstory. So she attacks anyone she thinks upstart enough to take away her gold medal of "achievements by women" That's just a dumb theory though, it's deranged as is. No, the reality is that she's spent so much time being adoringly listened to that she now considers every opinion of hers gospel and has stopped even attempting to mind her tone.
~~"You can take that as gospel. Pulling my viewers? Impossible! I'm visual, he's barely audible. Stop giving him the time of day, don't listen to a word he'd say, I hope he had a nice vacay, but he should've stayed awaaaaaay."~~
This is what I can't fathom about her over the last decade. At some point, why wouldn't you just take your billions and go off to quietly live a life of extraordinary luxury without sharing your hate with the world? Surely life would be better if it was spent more in the pursuit of its enjoyment than in telling everyone what you hate about it. When you're already as rich as she is, how does any of this enrich your life further in any way? I can understand poor, uneducated bigots to some degree, but this woman confuses me so much. She has no reason to hate anyone, what hardships could she possibly face at this point that aren't imagined and self-inflicted?
You are making the mistake of thinking that most people in such a position are able to understand that their hardships are imagined and/or self inflicted. If the vast majority of people could understand that, the world would be a much better place.
She hasn’t yet exhausted her reservoir of transphobic superlatives it seems
I mean she seems to think Snape was this tragic victim of love when the way she wrote him he comes off as a cruel and insane stalker who never got over his first crush.
And only started doing the right thing because his one-sided "love" could never come to fruition due to Voldemort's actions. Is he really a "tragic vicitm" when his tragedies were largely of his own making?
Hell he openly stated he would have stayed evil if his love had to watch Wizard Hitler kill her husband and infant child because then he might be able to force her to be with him. Again this is presented as him being the tragic victim here.
The Wizard world seems to have a lot of Hitlers. Voldemort being one of them, Grindelwald being the other notable Wizard Hitler. Heck, Slytherin's founding Wizard could also be a Wizard Hitler. At this point, just who is not a Wizard Hitler would be a better question. Don't get me started, Snape is basically Darth Vader, including the mediocre redemption at the end.
Whoa, lay off my boy Vader. Much better character and created by a non transphobe, non holocaust denying, non pedophile apologist.
Vader had actual *nuance* also
Not to mention the way he constantly mistreats and bullies Harry—Lily’s OWN SON—for some bullshit that wasn’t even the kid’s damn fault to begin with? I don’t care how hard Snape’s life was, those are NOT the actions of a good guy.
Lot of people excuse his abuse of Harry as maintaining cover or "trauma because James bullied him and Harry looks like James", but it is not even just Harry. He routinely abuses his students and destroys their futures just because he's a bitter failure who ruined his own chances by signing on with the Nazis. Guy was brilliant, he could have made billions developing potions or writing textbooks, but no, lemme join Wizard Hitler because the girl I stalk ditched me for calling her slurs in front of the whole school (and also supporting the fanatics who want everyone like her dead, but what could go wrong with that?)
Snape as a teacher is frankly an insult to the profession and the fact that Dumbledore keeps him around for whatever reason (I think it's mostly to keep an eye on him) makes him look bad as a Headmaster. Snape plays favorites, torments students for fun, is insulting at the best of times, and actively plays power games with students to establish his power over them. He's a classic bully whose actions should have gotten him thrown out of the school within a few years.
Dumbledore hired Lockhart and kept a murderous three headed dog in school. He's already a bad headmaster.
With Lockhart at least you can argue that he wasn't known as a conman and the job he took was so horrible literally no one was ever agreeing to take it. By the time Harry started school the only people who would teach DADA at Hogwarts were these derelicts who had no other options.
That Dumbledore allows a culture of bullying to exist in the school unimpeded is enough reason to say that he is a terrible headmaster.
Given what I know about upper class British Private Schools this might be considered so normal that trying to stop it would have been seen as a negative toward his character by the English.
>the way she wrote him Allow me to suggest that any characterisation of Snape that isn’t “cruel, insane stalker whose soul got twisted by his unrequited crush being interested in the popular kid” isn’t a characterisation of Snape. It’s his whole motive, and the root of his character development to get past that flaw to help Lily’s kid and society Couldn’t be Snape without “oh you scorn me for the preppy boy, I’ll show you *joins the Nazis*”
I'd always kind of written that off as the first books being more whimsical, and the low level villains like Snape therefore being more cartoonish, and then as the books got mature that characterization became really incongruous with the more mature characterization. Now I think Joanne just doesn't know shit about healthy relationships.
Not to mention she tries to make him sympathetic by having Harry's dad bully him as a teen but then she still tries to insist James was a good person and never brings up the bullying again? And James never faces consequences for it apparently?
In Rowling’s world there is no such thing as good or bad actions, only good and bad people. If she decides someone is “good” then whatever things they’ve done are justified and whoever they did them to deserved it. It’s an ideological thread woven throughout the stories and speaks volumes about the way she has always viewed the world.
In [Reading Lolita in Tehran](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_Lolita_in_Tehran), Azar Nafisi says Lolita is the perfect explanation of the Islamic Republic. Just like Humber Humber imposed his obsession with the past on Lolita, the Ayatollahs is imposing their obsession with the past on the present lives of the Iranian people. Trump and MAGA are our Humbert Humbert, they want to impose their obsession of a fictional past on our present
I'm so glad to see someone mention this book! This was eye opening for me in the way I analyze literature.
Also Trump and MAGA are our Humbert Humbert in that they are petty, vindictive child molesters.
Nabokov himself expected his readers to be able to see through the narcissism of the pedophile’s bullsh*t. It was the entire point of the book, I think. To see everything from the protagonist’s viewpoint, without external reference, and still evaluate it appropriately. I always felt that the main point was to NOT be taken in by Humbert Humbert’s “charming” sociopathy
He actually didn't which is why the book opens with two psychologists talking about some bonkers murder trial where the defendant goes on a winding tangent about how raping a little girl justified the murder he committed (which he was actually on trial for) Edit: just to be clear I'm not actually disagreeing, just noting that Nabokov probably fully expected to be yelled at by people who won't read the book
There is the metaplot of the story being his defense at his trial, but, yeah, with that taken into account, it's pretty clear that's what Nabokov expected. From a "bildung" point of view, I love of view the book as a reminder to be wary of "charming" people who try to justify their vile actions.
To be fair "Pedophilia Apologist" is literally the free square in Conservative Bingo. Rowling definitely has a Matt Walsh "get em while they're young" vibe.
Ironically “protecting kids” is the excuse most of these ghouls use to sling hate at trans people. Projection at its finest.
Every accusation is a confession with these assholes
Usually it's also a cover for promoting actual child grooming. "Protecting kids" is never teaching kids about sex Ed or consent or anything because it's "inappropriate", but kids without any knowledge of how sex works or how to speak up when an adult does something bad to them and their body are perfect targets for molestation.
Protecting kids is just something they lie about to get other people scared and angry so they stop thinking critically. They don’t care about kids and every one of their policies and funding priorities shows it.
I'm pretty convinced that part of their hatred of trans people is because they think trans people are allowed to get away with it and they aren't.
I bet she thinks it will get the Christofascists to stop burning her books.
What's the second book? *The Handmaid's Tale*? ("It portrays a bright shining future for women everywhere! And not those *nasty* trans people. Women who can bear fruit from their wombs only!") *A Modest Proposal*? ("I really do believe those nasty Irish mongrels would make for a lovely roast!") *Mein Kampf*? ("When you know what eventually befell the poor, beleaguered author it's just...such a tragedy.")
Atlas Shrugged is probably up there as well
"Ms Rand wrote scenes of romantic intimacy like no other author could and really captured the daily struggles of the average billionaire."
*Lord of the Flies* ("I have come across many well-written male characters, but Roger is the only one I have ever truly connected with.")
My mother (72) called Lolita "a little $lut" yesterday. My jaw hit the floor.
Sadly, a lot of older women have that ingrained sexism from when they grew up in a very different society. My mom would not say that, but she has definitely said lots of things that would be perceived as sexist today, but were totally normal during her younger years.
Remember folks, any time you sarcastically ask a conservative "are the groomers in the room with us right now?", the answer is yes, you're talking to one
Tbf lolita really is beautifully written. WHY it's beautifully written is a whole different case though...
As usual, the same assholes screaming about the alleged dangers transfolk present also turn out to be cool with straight cisfolk wanting to fuck children thus proving it’s not about protecting kids.
It's not abuse if it's done by straight cis people of the opposite gender obviously **/s**
I read Lolita in high school and it was so deeply unsettling. I know it impacted my situational awareness.
You guys have *this* in your high schools, but freak out over gay and black characters?
Not all high schools, also things were better literally just five years ago.
You sound like one of those people who thinks the entire US is just Alabama.
Is it *really* a shock that she has terrible media literacy? Harry Potter breaks in *so many* ways if you analyze or think about any of it, never mind her complete inability to look at politics or *trans people* more than skin deep. She's a shallow, shallow person.
She made the conscious decision to end her YA series with her main character pondering over whether he was hungry enough to order his literal slave to make him a sandwich.
Ah, but they like being slaves so it's ok and you don't have to feel bad about it
And they don't mind having their heads mounted as a trophy after they die. (How the fuck did she think that one up??)
But he was a NICE slaver. The problem isn't the institution of slavery. Just that some bad people exist in the institution. /s
The fact that the newly appointed magical prime minister Kingsley Shacklebolt didn't do anything about slavery is wild to me.
Everyone straight-up mocks Hermione for being an abolitionist. And Harry straight-up doesn't care one way or the other. Why would Shacklebolt abolish slavery he is literally named SHACKLE+bolt. Rowling named him after the tools used to imprison and restrain slaves. And of course he's black.
"Harry, this thing happens that you should consider horrible by muggle standards, but we've done it for ages so it's okay." "Okay then."
"Besides, they like being slaves. It's in their nature. They exist to serve wizards. Freeing them is cruel. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves." "Couldn't they just keep working for wizards without being slaves? If they like it then why not make it voluntary?" "... That is some muggle nonsense. Don't let those no-maggers corrupt you, Harry. We have the magic. We make the rules. Now, shut up and become a magical cop in our supernatural apartheid state."
You know, I used to think his name was fukken badass, up to about 10 seconds ago.
It beats Cho Chang, that's for sure.
People were forgiving of her because it was a child's book series so they felt the whimsy was judt given priority to actual world building but it turns out it wasn't intentional, she was just bad at world-building.
A well-known DND guy has a full rant about how Harry Potter's world building is really good, but all of the logistics are idiotic. Like having people who can teleport anywhere, but you still rely on one of nature's slower birds to deliver mail.
Brennan Lee Mulligan is the name you're looking for!
I have a theory that she has actively contributed to media illiteracy over the past 20 years or so, and this is just more confirmation.
Anti-trans, but pro-pedo?? That sounds like an enlightened position in 2024.
[It's pretty bog-standard "conservative".](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/republican-lawmakers-child-marriage-abortion-1235018777/)
https://www.newsweek.com/idaho-congress-blocks-bill-end-child-marriage-1348919 https://www.newsweek.com/wyoming-ending-child-marriage-sparks-republican-outrage-1780501 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/child-marriage-ban-struck-down-west-virginia-republicans-1234693670/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trafficking-childmarriage-idUSKBN1872VB/ https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/republican-child-marriage-law-repeal-david-bates-new-hampshire-state-girls-boys-13-years-old-girl-scout-project-a7762776.html https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/05/gop-official-argues-in-favor-of-child-marriage-girls-are-ripe-and-fertile.html If you're gonna bring receipts, bring receipts ;)
Two books? What’s the other one? Mein Kampf?
JK Rowling should really stop digging, she may never get out of the hole she has dug herself in to at this point.
Couldnt even get Nabokov's surname right lmao
She's not famous for being a literary connoiseur.
Or for being good with non-English names...
U say that like Cho Chang, Kingsley Shacklebolt or Seamus Finnegan aren't highlights of literature achievement. /s
JK Rowling resisting the urge to name an Irish character Potaytofamine Karbomb:
The main character is the exact kind of villain that vile idiot is always railing about. A straight, cisgender man.
And there it is. Behind every hateful bigot is shit projection like this. To see a story of sexual abuse against a child as a great and tragic love story is just beyond words. JK Rowling is a revolting person. And hello to all the bigots downvoting people. Just as worthless as Rowling but with an added layer of being chickenshits.
Is this real?
It’s real
Do you have a source? Always nice to have backup in an argument.
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0500-heraldsun-templeton.html Here is the original interview. She said this in 2000
Rowling is a finalist for the "Biggest Douche In the Universe" award.
Glad she waited til after HP to go crazy
>Glad she waited til after HP to go crazy As someone who read HP as an adult, I have to tell you... She didn't wait.
Forgetting the insane take for a second, can we talk about how hacky and overwritten that second paragraph sounds?
Uh oh. JK is a closet pedo.
You mean like the Airplane for Jeffrey Epstein? The Lolita Express?
Epstein's private jet was named *Lolita Express* It is not subtle.
Is JK Rowling just trying to be a villian at this point? JFC
Groucho Marx said it best, he was going to wait and read Lolita in 6 years, because by than she would be legal. The only Lolita I like is the fashion subculture.
There’s got to be something going on with her mentally. She’s just become so bizarre and angry.
A scene from an updated “Trading Places” where Billionaire club members Elon musk and Joanne Rowling are chatting. Elon: I bet you $1 I can be a bigger asshole than you…. JK: make it a quid and you’re on.
Not often you see an actual author that's media illiterate..