Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

How J. K. Rowling Became Voldemort

Posted on 7/12/20 at 11:46 am
Posted by Dire Wolf
bawcomville
Member since Sep 2008
36587 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 11:46 am
Wouldn’t be an Atlantic article without useless context about the author.

quote:

It has taken two decades, but I am finally ready to admit that I was the world’s most annoying teenager. My parents are Catholic, and I used to delight in peppering them with trollish questions, preferably several hours into a long car journey. “Why does the Mass service refer to God as ‘he’ and ‘father’?” was a favorite. “Does God have a Y chromosome, then? Does God have, like, testicles?” I was openly dismissive about transubstantiation, by which the host is consecrated, and according to Catholic doctrine, literally turns from mere bread into the body of Christ. “But all the atoms stay the same!” I would insist. “That makes no sense!”


quote:

My parents humored me, but predictably, I didn’t find their responses satisfying. Realizing that your omniscient parents are, in fact, just regular, flawed humans is a vital part of growing up. So is learning that their values are different from yours—that they are products of a particular time and place. Ideas and beliefs that they accept without question make no sense to you, and vice versa. As the 20th century ended in the liberal West, the tenets of feminism seemed irrefutable to me: Of course I would go to university and get a job. A family would come later, if at all. (My mother, by contrast, had her first child at 25.) Gay rights were the same: Why on earth couldn’t two men get married? In my 20s, when The God Delusion came out, I bought it immediately. I was proud to call myself an atheist. Religion was nothing but a tool of patriarchal oppression

Younger Millennials—those born around 1990, the same time as Harry Potter’s lead actors Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson—feel just as strongly about transgender rights. To many of them, it is the social-justice cause, their generation’s revolutionary idea. They see little difference between the objections of some older left-wing feminists to the idea that individuals alone decide their gender, and those of social conservatives: Both groups are reactionary, trapped in outdated concepts of what it means to be a man or a woman.

And Millennials dominate the Harry Potter fandom, a community large enough to have spawned hundreds of thousands of pieces of fan fiction. So it is unsurprising that two major fan sites, The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet, have distanced themselves from the books’ author, J. K. Rowling, after she argued last month that “woman” should remain a biological category. The two sites announced last week that they will remove her photograph from their sites, stop linking to her website and writing about her other endeavors, and tag Twitter posts that include news about her with the hashtag #JKR, so users can filter out triggering content from their social-media feeds. To preserve their love of Harry Potter, its fans must erase its author. Rowling, like Voldemort, is so evil that even mentioning her violates a taboo: She Who Must Not Be Named. (Dumbledore would not have approved of this practice. As he tells Harry in The Sorcerer’s Stone, “Always use the proper name for things. Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself.”

.


quote:

The difficulty of adulting also includes the acknowledgment that people are fallible, and the world is complicated. Parents, and heroes, have feet of clay. Call it a loss of youthful idealism, or call it pragmatism, it is what allows us to survive in the adult world. And this is the struggle facing Harry Potter fans. They have long resented Rowling’s continued involvement in the Potter universe, which pollutes their pristine childhood memories of the work. There was disquiet when she only retrospectively made the original books more inclusive—announcing that Dumbledore was gay—and when she referenced “Native American wizards” in a story on Pottermore. Both incidents forced fans to confront the fact that the series is the product of Britain in the ’90s, a time and place whose unquestioned assumptions were different from those of the here and now. The first book was published in 1997, when British popular culture was startlingly white, the legalization of gay marriage was more than a decade away, and the country’s most popular newspaper carried a picture of a topless woman on its third page every day. At the time, the Potter books—with their well-rounded female characters and their rejection of the idea of aristocracy—were progressive. Now they are historical.


quote:

Rowling’s views on gender, although compassionate, are undoubtedly challenging to the cherished beliefs of her Millennial fandom. Her post raised questions about sexual violence, early transition, and the climate of intimidation that surrounds discussions of these topics. She argued that her own experience of domestic violence had taught her the value of single-sex spaces, but also wrote about her sympathy for transgender victims. This counted for little to her critics. In Vogue, Raven Smith characterized the author’s post as “a long scroll of rhetorical emotion usually confined to those long-arse breakup texts from your ex.” In Vox, Aja Romano called it “a profoundly hurtful piece of writing, riddled with hand-wringing, groundless arguments about villainous trans women, outdated science, and exclusionary viewpoints. Especially gutting was the essay’s self-centeredness.” Romano, who uses both they and she as pronouns, recounted how she had removed Rowling’s books from her shelves, unable to reconcile her Potter fandom and her nonbinary identity.


Another 80k meaningless words here

Posted by HempHead
Big Sky Country
Member since Mar 2011
55438 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 11:52 am to
Adults who still gush over Harry Potter or give a frick about Rowling are pathetic.
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
108098 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 11:52 am to
quote:

It has taken two decades, but I am finally ready to admit that I was the world’s most annoying teenager. My parents are Catholic, and I used to delight in peppering them with trollish questions, preferably several hours into a long car journey. “Why does the Mass service refer to God as ‘he’ and ‘father’?” was a favorite. “Does God have a Y chromosome, then? Does God have, like, testicles?” I was openly dismissive about transubstantiation, by which the host is consecrated, and according to Catholic doctrine, literally turns from mere bread into the body of Christ. “But all the atoms stay the same!” I would insist. “That makes no sense!”


So you were just born a annoying count then? I guess she really took the Joker's advice and made a career out of it.

This post was edited on 7/12/20 at 11:53 am
Posted by GeorgeTheGreek
Sparta, Greece
Member since Mar 2008
66401 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 11:52 am to
Who gives a frick?
Posted by Lawyered
The Sip
Member since Oct 2016
29224 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 11:58 am to
This bitch has way too much time on her hands to write shite that nobody cares about
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
108098 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 12:00 pm to
quote:

This bitch has way too much time on her hands to write shite that nobody cares about



She's a bitch and thus became a professional bitch. They'll pay you for this shite.
Posted by MusclesofBrussels
Member since Dec 2015
4448 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 12:04 pm to
quote:

Atlantic


Terrible site
Posted by Muthsera
Member since Jun 2017
7319 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 12:05 pm to
Rowling posed 3 questions:

1. Should groups legitimately be secure in their right or preference to lobby together (I am a woman voting with other women for women's issues)? Rowling says yes, her critics say yes.

2. Can two groups that agree on many issues rightfully disagree on others? Rowling says yes, her critics say No.

3. Does a political disagreement necessarily mean you are opposed to another group or actively choosing to damage them or their other political causes that you might agree with? Rowling says yes, her critics say "Shut up die, TERF bitch!"

A good comparison would be to say "Can you support black people, feel that you are voting in the best interests of black people, and still oppose reparations?"

It was stupid of her to think explaining what should be a fairly elementary idea would be possible in a social media conversation.
Posted by Sponge
Member since Nov 2018
3749 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 12:07 pm to
quote:

Both groups are reactionary, trapped in outdated concepts of what it means to be a man or a woman.

Stressing the role evolutionary biology plays in shaping the differences between male and female is not an outdated concept.

And there is plenty of data from the Nordic countries that show the harder you try to mitigate that role, the more push-back you get, resulting in more polarizing differences.
Posted by USMEagles
Member since Jan 2018
11811 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 12:10 pm to
Rowling writes a lot like TulaneLSU.

EDIT: Oh, wait, that's not Rowling's writing. It's just some clown from the Atlantic Monthly. Oh well.
This post was edited on 7/12/20 at 12:12 pm
Posted by DaleGribble
Bend, OR
Member since Sep 2014
6821 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 12:12 pm to
This smug frick is a perfect example of why we are so screwed today. An entire generation of idiots like this, that think that they have all of the answers when they really don't know jack shite about history or the real world.

Golf clap for the teachers and parents that produced this garbage generation.
Posted by Havoc
Member since Nov 2015
28181 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 12:12 pm to
frick all of that shite.
Posted by OBReb6
Memphissippi
Member since Jul 2010
37683 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 12:17 pm to
Are some of you figs still actually playing Harry Potter?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram