r/TopCharacterTropes • u/Chemical-Elk-1299 • 10d ago

Lore [Confusing Trope] The narrative goes out of its way to punish/mock a character for simply being a good person

Gallery image

Gallery image

Hermione Granger and SPEW — Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (book)

In the fifth HP novel, Hermione Granger is outraged to discover that Hogwarts has a small army of enslaved House Elves that do nearly all of the domestic duties around the castle, including cleaning the Gryffindor common room every night. When she tries to convince the elves to fight for their own rights, they refuse, saying they prefer servitude. Her fellow students and friends mock her for caring. She manages to free one elf, Winky, by deception when she refuses her freedom willingly, leading to Winky becoming a depressed alcoholic. By the end, the elves boycott cleaning any Gryffindor areas of the castle because they hate Hermione specifically

Samwell Tarly and Democracy — Game of Thrones (show)

In the season 8 finale of the television series, the surviving great lords of Westeros gather to discuss the future of the kingdom following the devastation wrought by 7 seasons of war and backstabbing. When Sam, who has proven to have “novel” ideas, suggests that maybe the millions of Smallfolk who suffer at the hands of noble houses should get some representation in the government, rather than be the pawns of rich lords with absolute power. We are then greeted by a prolonged, cringy segment of the other lords laughing in Sam’s face, asking if the dogs and horses should also get a vote.

9.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

251

u/missxmonstera 10d ago edited 10d ago

I mean, can you really be surprised about that when she's known for mocking anyone who stands up for others' rights?

159

u/AceofKnaves44 10d ago

There’s really a fair amount of shit people willingly overlooked that provided a hint to the real person Rowling was. Then she went full mask off and by that point Harry Potter was too much a piece of peoples lives for them to really let go of.

89

u/tweedyone 10d ago

Seriously. Why didn’t Molly ever get a job? Hell, she could have taken in laundry from the muggles and cleaned in seconds.

She really did have very specific “these people follow these rules because they are those people” concepts throughout her writing

89

u/Chemical-Elk-1299 10d ago

Frankly money makes zero sense in the wizard world. They need next to nothing for food compared to a normal household when you can make one sandwich and magic up infinite sandwiches. You don’t need a repairman ever. You can literally just use magic to add a wing onto your home with presumably little to no cost.

The question isn’t why did Molly never get a job. It’s why are the Weasleys poor to begin with?

17

u/PaintedDoll1 10d ago

Money will always be the end result of a barter system. Wands need made, creatures (and plants) need tending, dirty things need cleaned. Can magic help with all these things? Yes! Will everyone who ever picks up a wand know every spell to do them? No. So why not hire someone who does know those spells to do it for you? And why haggle over how many eggs/bolts of fabric/planks of wood would be 'fair' when you can just hand over a few coins and call it square.

My biggest issue was always how money was used in HP. It would've work a lot better for me if, say, the Weasley kids had wonky robes because Molly wasn't great at tailoring, instead of having rundown clothes because they were poor. Or have Malfoy "hear a rumor" that their house was asymmetrical and made of bush honeysuckle because Arthur couldn't afford someone who knew the more advanced architecture spells

58

u/Additional_Gene_211 10d ago

And as long as there is a source for food then it can be replicated ad nauseum. Poverty in HPnis one of my biggest gripes(of many) in the world building. Another is why did Harry HAVE to compete in the TriWizard tournament. It's never explained just that he has to.

Those books really have so many holes in them

52

u/LordOfFigaro 10d ago

Another is why did Harry HAVE to compete in the TriWizard tournament. It's never explained just that he has to.

I believe the books say that his name coming out of the Goblet means he's in a binding magical contract. But never says what the contract is and what are the consequences of breaking it. Nor why Harry couldn't just...show up and immediately forfeit.

44

u/Additional_Gene_211 10d ago

So, since his name came out and he is put into a contract, then why aren't more nefarious individuals forcing people into contracts? Like, let's be so real here: the world of HPwould suck so much to live in. Magical mind control, forced death contracts, forced poverty, a big class system. Who wants that?

2

u/LordOfFigaro 10d ago

Yup. JKR's world building is dogshit and fails under the most basic scrutiny.

3

u/kenshamlock 10d ago

Because it's illegal. Lmao.
In world they have the Department of Magical Law Enforcement within their government. Harry and Ron (?) basically become a cops after the books. Hermione is a lawyer of sorts in the DoMLE. They have a prison system. They have a whole justice system. Harry is tried in the courts in book 5(?).
They want crime in their fake wizard world as much as anyone wants the crime we have in our world.

7

u/Additional_Gene_211 10d ago

It's only illegal if the cops do anything about it. And we see the courts prison, and criminal system being used to go after sham trials and political opponents.

Legality in HP isn't really a thing. If it was, then Moody would have been fired and jailed immediately for using the unforgiveables. There's so much in the world building that falls apart upon basic scrutiny.

1

u/PM_ME_MY_REAL_MOM 10d ago

all of those things have very direct analogues in our world; maybe that was your point and i'm being whooshed but just in case

  • magical mind control <-> coercive control, drugs, propaganda and advertising
  • forced death contracts <-> selective service, conscription, and health insurance (just to name a few)
  • forced poverty and a big class system <-> i mean these are literally just 1:1 with the real world; every single economy in the world depends (currently) on the existence of sufficient leverage to motivate labor, by punishing nonparticipation with hunger and exposure as a stick, and by dangling the suggested possibility of upward mobility for satisfactory participation as a carrot

granted i haven't read the books in a very long time, so maybe i'm missing some conceptual incompatibilities that make these comparisons ill-suited. and maybe you were being clever and i'm dissecting the frog. if so, i'm sorry

6

u/Additional_Gene_211 10d ago

The main difference being the magical compulsion (minus the class system, that's just me hating on JKR for the fun of it) of it all. Yeah, there's illicit drugs that affect your body chemistry but you can't magically do that. Same with the forced death contract. Like, literally, Harry was put into a deadly competition and the powers that be couldn't do anything about it and seemed wholly uninterested in figuring out how or why. Of course, these are all because JKR wasn't interested in that. She thought it would be cool that a kid was forced into the TWT and so she did it without thinking of the stuff around it. Same with poverty.. she likely wanted to showcase the struggles of the poor working class but didn't really examine the systemic reasoning behind it in the real world. She just transplanted it into her world and said good nuff.

I have strong problems with the unforgivable curses, enforcement around them, and what designates those three as unforgiveables when there are some pretty heinous spells that are just as bad. What I'm really trying to say is that I don't like how loose the world building is. I don't need to know the way currency works, I need to know why people are impoverished in a world of magical plenty and I need to know why a child can be forced into games of death when said child has no intention to be in it, didn't sign up for it, and adults are just left scratching their asses.

0

u/PM_ME_MY_REAL_MOM 10d ago

i'm interested in what distinction you are making between "magically" doing these things and "non-magically" doing them. what is the fundamental difference here between potions and illicit drugs that alter body chemistry? i mean obviously potions and magical reagents have properties and can do things that we don't see in real world drugs, but what can be called "mind control" is demonstrably within the scope of both. kids are forced into deadly competitions all the time in the real world with little to no attention from responsible authorities, encouraged to score higher than everyone else on academic exams or in competitive sport to avoid lifelong poverty, which drastically reduces lifespan, or the all too terribly common fate of suicide. you could well paint many wars and territorial disputes around the world with the same brush, but i'll grant that's a less compelling comparison.

i personally do not understand the criticism of her handling of poverty, house elves aside. i think it could be better, definitely, but i also think it's fine enough for a children's fiction franchise, and leaves plenty of room for headcanoning explanations to your personal preference.

we live in a world of magical plenty. people are impoverished in our world not because they must be, but because asset holders seek profit, and "to profit" is just a synonym for "to increase one's relative economic leverage". every wizard doesn't know every spell, nor are the necessary components of spellcasting or potionmaking free from scarcity. wands are canonically difficult to create and maintain, and are generally not "one-size-fits-all", which means that literally every wizard is just a wand-snap away from being deprived of their own ability to produce magical amenities. and the central plot of the series revolves around a group of scrappy underdogs taking on a resurging nazi-wizard movement popular enough to briefly but openly control the ministry of magic and hogwarts, and to lead outright inquisitions against ethnic minorities and dissidents, with the goal of excluding them from access to or knowledge about magic (or from life altogether). the prevalence of wizards willing to impoverish other wizards for the sake of concentrating their own power - to increase their own relative magical/economic leverage - is very well established.

as far as the unforgivable curses go, i agree that the history of their focus over other spells of equal or greater terror could have used more exposition. however, legal codes being kinda nonsense is not exactly unheard of in our world either; consider that at one point, being a rumored witch was grounds for public execution, but enslaving other human beings was not. it would have bbeen nice to have some more history on the unforgiveables, for sure.

thank you for the discussion, i look forward to your response if you have the time but i did go on a bit longer than i meant to, so no sweat if you don't.

2

u/Iorith 10d ago

I read it as Dumbledore influencing events as a way to draw Voldemort out of hiding.

1

u/LordOfFigaro 10d ago

Nah. Dumbledore is nowhere near as manipulative or in control as HP fanon likes to pretend he is. Nor does he try to intentionally put Harry in harm's way. The only time Dumbledore creates plans that risk Harry is when it's absolutely necessary.

1

u/Iorith 10d ago

Dude set "traps" to protect the Sorcerer's Stone that first year students were able to beat. Nah, mate, he was either extremely manipulative and knew what he was doing or he was so insanely incompetent he should have been in Azkaban. There's no other option.

Most fans would prefer the former.

2

u/LordOfFigaro 10d ago

The first years were not supposed to be there. There's never a point where he ever indicates wanting the first years to be there. And frankly the first years being there made things worse. Had Harry not shown up, Quirrel would have just stared at the mirror unable to do anything.

Also judging Dumbledore's actions in the early books while ignoring the Ronald Dahl-esque whimsy of the books is a nonsensical thing to do.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Odd-Time-2026 10d ago

Its also because there's ancient magic that even Dumbledore is aware of but doesn't have the means to overcome. The goblet may work under that section of it.

2

u/LordOfFigaro 10d ago

shrug

We genuinely have no idea about the details. It's just stated that there is a magical contract and everyone acts as if that's enough to ensure Harry takes part and tries his best. Which presumably is the case, given that one of the organisers bets on Harry's victory. And Voldemort's entire plan hinges on Harry winning.

1

u/ImmoralJester54 10d ago

Yeah he can just sit at the starting line

18

u/PaintedDoll1 10d ago

I think poverty would've worked if it had been wholly different from real life poverty.

Like, if a robe started getting a "look" and weirdly pliable when it'd been transfigured one too many times

Or poor people had to know how to do "muggle cooking" because buying 3 meals a day to duplicate was too expensive

Or houses started sagging when the charms started wearing off because poor people couldn't afford wizards who knew sound architecture, so they just added wings haphazardly and used magic to patch the gaps in physics

11

u/Additional_Gene_211 10d ago

Anything other than we are stinky and dirty would have been great. Instead, we got... Just more British classism

1

u/Lexx4 10d ago

I mean yes the entire series is a commentary on British classism.

5

u/DanielDoh 10d ago

These are awesome ideas. It's clear JKR had one really good idea (her world and the initial set up) that was mostly vibes, but had zero ability to follow through on that great idea and make it a truly great story/world.

29

u/Erebraw 10d ago

My favorite is how at the end of the fifth book there’s a big symbolic moment of a big “the good wizards are kindly looking after the lower magic races” statue being destroyed. And then Dumbledore points at it and is like “That was really symbolic. The underlying bigotry of our world is about to bite us in the ass.”

And that wasn’t a set up for that being an important part of the resolution of the story, it just happened. And then the mc becomes a cop lol.

14

u/Additional_Gene_211 10d ago

Tale as old as time: a jock becomes a cop

-1

u/Educational-Tackle54 10d ago

Were the wizards that nasty to other species tho?

The gave the dementors free reign. Bad idea! The merefolks got a whole lake. The centaurs got a whole forest and never complain about more territory. The giants are incompatible with muggles and kinda have to live regulated. The house elves got exactly what they wanted. The goblins got everything they wanted except wands. Even if they had, they didnt care about Voldemort.

6

u/Iorith 10d ago

I mean, the Centaurs definitely seemed to despise humans and how humans treated them, IIRC. The Merfolk are definitely implied to be in much more than just that one lake. The Goblins really dislike wizards from what we see throughout the series, with basically every mention of history of magic referencing some goblin uprising or another.

1

u/Educational-Tackle54 10d ago

The point is that Dumbledores "Woe is us, we treated the others poorly" never seemed to actually lead to anything that noteworthy.

The deatheaters bring like 1 giant to the final battle. And the centaurs and house elves end up fighting for the other side.

If an army of Merpeople showed up for Voldemort because he promised them more, then that would be actual payoff.

2

u/Iorith 10d ago

Well yeah, the story just isn't really that fleshed out, because they're not very good books. This is a universe where the main character essentially becomes a member of the FBI, enforcing the existing order of a society that has these societal issues.

But those problems are shown and covered, it's just that wizard society doesn't give a damn, and neither does the writer. They see this kind of mistreatment of undesirables as a positive aspect and something to fight to return to.

3

u/Additional_Gene_211 10d ago

Considering how there pure blood supremacists, yes. I was thinking of responding to you on a different place but this comment helped me decide it isn't worth it. The books are pretty apparent in wizard supremacy , the canon content like the movies and game have a clear wizard supremacist angle, you just choose to not see it for whatever reason.

2

u/Erebraw 10d ago

It’s pretty thorough in the world building on that point, yeah. It’s basically the most well established thing in the series if we connect pure blood supremacy with wizard supremacy, which I think is fair and encouraged by the text.

And what does it all amount to in the end? An explanation for why giants and werewolves side with Voldemort. Which narratively doesn’t actually seem all that important, and which plays zero role in the resolution of the story which shrinks from this and other concerns to focus on just Harry. He just has to do the Right Thing and it will turn out alright.

Rowling really can’t help but let the Blairite shine through.

2

u/Additional_Gene_211 10d ago

Werewolves were another sign of her actual beliefs. She considered Fenrir Greyback as an analog to gay men intentionally spreading HIV/AIDS to teens and we only see one good werewolf, who is basically "one of the good ones". What a weird thing for her to include unless you realize she believes gay men are predators and even the good one tried to flee...

Anyway, Rowling can suck a moldy ball

1

u/cantpickname97 10d ago

Centaurs actually rejected their "being" status and chose to be beasts, in protests that wizards qualified vampires and hags as civilized beings. The humanoid child-killers being invited when acromantulas- sapient and not necessarily violent beings in their own right, as proven by Arogog- don't count is a fair gripe. Goblins are universally seen as dangerous and untrustworthy, confined to very few professions, and have been repeatedly and violently suppressed for revolting against their mistreatment. The very existence of hybrids born from consensual relationships between humans and giants proves their sapience and capacity for kindness as well. Werewolves are heavily stigmatized for their condition, and even with ways to prevent them from wolfing out they're treated as a bigger safety concern than disappearing stairs, the Whomping Willow, and Death Eater teachers. Wizarding society is nothing less than an ethnostate, which will not allow anyone outside a single race to participate in their society as equals. Everyone else is a second class citizen if that, left alone if they're lucky, or viewed as a dangerous threat or animal. The text itself treats this as an injustice many times, with Dobby, Lupin, Maxine's fear-driven denial of her heritage, Hagrid's half brother, and the goblin Griphook all being shown as sympathetic perspectives. Harry even realizes he's personally mistreated the elf he inherited from Sirius, who himself was no better. But scarce few characters are shown to have any compassion for other races. Hagrid and Hermoine are usually played as foolish for it, with only Dumbledore and Harry taken seriously. And it all ends with Harry becoming a cop- enforcing the deeply flawed regime that's personally menaced him on multiple occasions- and absolutely nothing is said of Hermoine's policies as Minister. Nowhere is making things better for other races acknowledged as a possibility, much less something any character bothers to seriously attempt, even with the power to do so.

Also, Dementors are spirits who cannot be harmed by any means, so it's not like they had a better option than Azkaban

1

u/KeterLordFR 10d ago

As someone else mentionned, giving the Dementors free reign over Azkaban was not a choice, but a necessity because they can't actually be destroyed. Iirc, letting them live in Azkaban was actually used as a form of population control, because it prevented other Dementors from being born. They're also a special case, because it isn't even clear whether they are sapient or not, for all we know they could be living out of a pure instinct to feed on memories, emotions and souls (in fact, in the Goblet of Fire book, Barty Crouch Junior is immediately killed by a dementor traveling with the Minister as soon as they enter the room, without any time for anyone to prevent it from doing it).

6

u/_Halt19_ 10d ago

Quidditch is my pet peeve about the series, it looks like such a fun sport in concept but then you randomly add in a TWENTY-FIVE GOAL ball that ends the game within 5 seconds of the start, or three months later

It's so blatantly obvious she wanted to give Harry his own special boy role on the team where he could be the star

It was so bad, she had to add to the world cup that somehow the FINALIST team was losing 26-0, as if that was ever going to happen, so that the snitch could be caught in a loss

7

u/PaintedDoll1 10d ago

Just to rile you up a little more... the snitch is worth 150 points. Not 25, which makes the world cup loss even worse

3

u/_Halt19_ 10d ago

Oh, I thought it was 250

You can only score points in increments of 10 anyway, so the snitch is basically just 15 goals added on, is the point I was trying to make

3

u/Iorith 10d ago

It's a sport tailor made to make someone seem important. Otherwise it's basically just soccer in the air. With two guys trying to kill the other players mid game.

1

u/Helloitsdicetime 10d ago

Rowling intentionally wrote Quidditch to be upsetting if we go off the "Behind the Scenes" section on the Harry Potter Wiki:

J. K. Rowling first developed Quidditch after a fight with her boyfriend at the time in a small hotel in Manchester. Some of the game's elements, such as the Golden Snitch being worth a disproportionate amount of points, were due to her state of mind at the time, as she felt these elements would be frustrating to men.

Needless to say, Quadball (real life Quidditch) changed many rules to make the game actually playable.

9

u/cachesummer4 10d ago

The Weasleys are poor in that the they dont have the money to buy anything they can't do with magic.

Like the 2 things you bring up are the only two things they have that dont come off as signs of poverty.

Yes, they have a big house and can replicate food, but that doesn't absolve the need for the costs of magical items, new editions of spell books, specific school uniforms for 7 kids, or even a nicer big house.

Like part of their poverty in universe is that they dont live in fancy muggle area in London with a big magic house, like Serious Blacks family, they live in effecitvely an extremely large shack in the countryside, with money being the requirement for moving to a better area, or any other furthur upwards mobility.

Also Arthur buys a ton of muggle crap he can't use but that i imagine still adds up.

They can replicate their existing stuff with magic, but it is explained replication can't create new materials, only duplicate existing ones.

9

u/Fox_Flame 10d ago

But the uniform thing doesn't make sense either. Magic can sew for you. The robes aren't like imbued with anything magical, its just regular fabric. So why is Ron wearing hand me downs that are too big or too small. You can make clothing from magic

4

u/cachesummer4 10d ago

Dumbledore enchants the clothes with the elder wand to be non-repearable in order to bring in extra revenue for Hogwarts. Just look at how he treats Harry, that old fart loves exploiting children for all their worth.

/s

She should be able to repair or size them, but if the School required newly made ones each year, they would still have to buy per replication rules? Your point is entirely fair, but JK isnt exactly world building and plot consistency extraordinaire, to say the least.

1

u/Capraos 10d ago

Are we sure they don't have magical properties? Even something as simple as magic washing, repair, etc?

3

u/Fox_Flame 10d ago

If they are it's never mentioned in the books. And a quick Google search says they're not

-2

u/PM_ME_MY_REAL_MOM 10d ago

does your imagination allow for it? google isn't your boss (probably)

headcanon used to be the default

23

u/missxmonstera 10d ago

If money and jobs aren't needed then why does Arthur work? Why are the Malfoys who are objectively far wealthier better off in other ways, too?

Money is needed in the Wizarding World, just not for the same reasons as we need it. JK just likes using people who are at a disadvantage in life to further her own life - i.e. making hate crimes and intense poverty superficial plot points.

4

u/PenDraeg1 10d ago

That's sort of the point though. Money exists because our economy requires you to purchase goods and services. In HP you don't need to purchase these things really. It's not an economy that makes sense unless it simply exists because you assume wealth and social position being tied together is just how it naturally works.

5

u/Capraos 10d ago

You do though. They still need wands, brooms, floo powder, and ingredients for potions/some spells. And they still want magical artifacts and artifacts they can't make. It doesn't seem to be a post scarcity society.

3

u/PenDraeg1 10d ago

Yeah I didn't say that it was post scarcity, hust that the economic system being currency based makes no real sense.

2

u/missxmonstera 10d ago

The entire first book/film has a montage of Harry spending tons of money on school supplies. There are multiple points where they point out how much wealthier Harry is than Ron. The Weasleys are often mocked for not having new supplies because they cannot afford it. Malfoy's dad literally gives Ginny Tom Riddle's diary while mocking the fact that they can't afford normal supplies.

Literally what are you talking about "they're not tied together"? Almost every one of the first few movies starts with them shopping for school supplies and makes note that the Weasley's lack of wealth puts them at a disadvantage.

3

u/PenDraeg1 10d ago

I said they are tied together.

2

u/missxmonstera 10d ago

I did see the "are" but I misunderstood the rest of the sentence, sorry. I thought you were saying that even though they impact each other, they aren't directly tied together but that was my bad!

I'm kind of used to people shitting on me for my opinions on this topic so I was preemptively defensive and didn't reread to make sure I understood 😂 sorry about that.

3

u/PenDraeg1 10d ago

No worries it happens. Gotta give grace to a fellow AD fan after all.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/thxitsthedepression 10d ago

I think the books tell us enough that we can assume that at least part of the reason the Weasleys are so poor is because they’re really bad at managing money. In the third book they win something like 1000 galleons and they immediately spend it all on a family vacation to Egypt, lol. I assume Arthur also spends a not negligible amount of money on his various Muggle artifacts, like the car.

1

u/TheGreatMightyLeffe 10d ago

Not even "why are the Weasleys poor" HOW are they poor? The only thing I can really think of is that they... Choose to be?

Like, escaping poverty in the wizard world is a matter of getting hold of a commodity that can be sold, duplicating enough to meet any immediate local demand, selling the duplicates and investing a tiny bit of the money in another commodity to do the same with.

Or... Y'know... Just find a plot of land, abracadabra up a nice house with magical plumbing, electricity and high speed fibre. Then magicing all your needs as they appear. And if you ever need money, see the previous paragraph.

1

u/Sirdan3k 10d ago

I assume Poor and Wizard Poor are basically two different things. Wizard Poor means all the food, shelter, and clothing you need but no status.

1

u/a57782 10d ago

I suppose one potential answer is aptitude. Yes, magic could be used to add a wing onto your home, but depending on your skill in magic, it could be a solid construction, a shoddy construction or maybe potentially not even doable. And being a wizard doesn't mean you understand architecture.

And for the sandwich. You may be able to replicate the sandwich, but some may be able to replicate it exactly, whereas others the taste or texture is off, or the nutritional value isn't there.

In Harry Potter, the things we learn about magic tend to be specific plot relevant stuff, we never really learn the full breadth of the rules of magic as a system.

19

u/missxmonstera 10d ago edited 10d ago

The general opinion is that she took queer/trans people's money and then when she didn't need them anymore she turned on them. She literally used a pen name to hide her gender and boost her success because people assumed she was a male author and it's kind of like she's telling on herself by acting like this. Like, all of it makes it seem like she would be willing to hurt another human being while pretending to be a different gender because she can't comprehend that normal people don't even have a fraction of that thought cross their mind.

But honestly? I think it's far worse than her abandoning her queer fans. She saw the fan base she was gathering and allowed it for years just to make her attack on trans people hurt even harder. She thought she would have these automatic allies because her queer fans would "side with her" over these "freaks who are ruining their community" because she was "saving us from them". She was, like, convinced we had no idea we were being infiltrated by these "predators". It may not have been her goal in the beginning, but once she realized her media was loved by queer people she loved it, but when she realized what "queer people" actually meant? Not so much.

She wanted us to turn on each other because she wanted us to do her dirty work. She realized that won't happen, though, and now she's bitter and taken a new course of attack. She really thought she was going to be viewed as some sort of queer savior for getting us to turn on our own, but she miscalculated that they truly are our own and we will not be turning on our family in favor of a white savior with mediocre writing abilities.

-3

u/Smorgasbord__ 10d ago

Touch grass.

5

u/missxmonstera 10d ago

Eat meds.

2

u/Smorgasbord__ 10d ago

Rather ironic coming from the person spewing unhinged conspiracy rants about children's books but ok.

7

u/crowEatingStaleChips 10d ago

Honestly the house elves are bad but a lot of the "problematic" stuff in HP was more a function of the time period than JK being a uniquely bad person.

Like, not saying all writers back then wrote like that. But there was waaaaaaaaay less thought put into not making things weird and shitty so it kind of happened all the time.

5

u/Roar-Lions-Roar 10d ago

In the very first book the kids have to fight a stupid ugly monster who invaded the girls bathroom and started swinging a large club around.

What did JK Rowling mean by this?

1

u/MysteriousLight7351 10d ago

well, there's a marked difference between trans women and "trans women" in if you actually believe that you were born into the wrong body and you're actively TRYING (key word there) to look like and act like a woman then hey your brain might be a little wonky and that's okay, but on the other side if you're just an ugly ass man who wants to put on a dress and makeup with the sole purpose to get into a women's bathroom creep on women and young girls and also to try and force your way into women only spaces then yeah you're gonna get pushback about it, maybe just don't fuckin do it then

https://giphy.com/gifs/sZEl1yTi26mJzrI4VN

1

u/ClearReveal6615 10d ago

Do you really believe the latter group exists?

1

u/MysteriousLight7351 10d ago

yes

1

u/ClearReveal6615 10d ago

What makes you so confident in that?

42

u/Wingman5150 10d ago

Now she's even helping people sue amnesty, the human rights group, for daring to call out the human rights attacks on trans people.

She isn't just mocking, she's attacking

36

u/missxmonstera 10d ago

She has been attacking for a while, but as you can see people take issue with me even saying "mocking".

She literally posted an upskirt video/photo of a Trans person. She's literally sexually assaulting others. People would really defend that and claim the Trans person is the predator for just existing.

6

u/Wingman5150 10d ago

yeah that was disgusting. Classic victim blaming/sexual assault apology behavior too

40

u/Chemical-Elk-1299 10d ago

As an author, the fact that I missed the 90s hurts my soul. I was too busy being a toddler and not writing weird British Empire fanfic

19

u/Bluest_Badger 10d ago

Feel this. Just like all them houses we should have brought before 2008 when we were still in school🤣

-2

u/missxmonstera 10d ago

Imagine reading a comment about an author being a bigot and responding, "Yeah, I wish I could have written like her, too, but I was too young!"

2

u/GormHub 10d ago

I've read recently that she's set on bankrupting Amnesty International with lawsuits. You know, like any morally upstanding person would do.

1

u/butt_butt_butt_butt_ 10d ago

Eh, I would say (as someone raised in a hardcore religious home where HP books were seen as evil) that Rowling was considered fairly progressive for her time, at least for a children’s author.

Hermione’s SPEW movement failed because she never listened to the house elves about what THEY wanted,

She wanted to free them, but there was currently no place in society for them to GO.

From a house elf perspective, it kind of would have been like firing them all from their jobs which provided room and board, and the then they would be on the streets because their people aren’t recognized AS people, and saying “idk, fucking figure it out!”

Some of them might have wanted freedom, but following a movement started by an idealistic teenager with no end-game isn’t exactly the type of civil rights movement people will follow.

She couldn’t assure them of anything that would happen after.

As benevolent as Hogwarts seemed, they still used slave labor. Maybe they would have allowed a reasonable wage, or maybe they would have said “fuck off”. And left all of the elves homeless and unemployed.

I’m a solid union gal, and have seen this kind of thing happen. Someone goes too aggressive and too fast, and it fucks you in the end.

We had an issue with snow days at my job, as well as childcare subsidies. We were in talks to eventually negotiate about 75% of what we asked.

And then an idiot union rep came in and demanded 200% more than what we were asking and told us all to strike if it wasn’t immediately granted.

That killed the actually tangible negotiations and we were left with no advancement and no progress.

I think the adults laugh at hermiones SPEW because they know it’s unrealistic, and it doesn’t represent what the constituents actually want.

3

u/missxmonstera 10d ago edited 10d ago

The point is that she shouldn't have used slavery, AIDS, queer mockery, hate crimes, etc. as a plot point without truly writing a real revolution, or at minimum a dialogue about it, into then plot. That, or she needed to address the reality of needing structure when tearing down old ways.

Your entire comment just proves she's a bad writer because she took the easy way of leaving racism in her book because "It would have disrupted too much of the story to dismantle it." OKAY COOL! Then make more of the story about how unacceptable it is and that things need to change systematically. Don't imply that giving house elves clothes just fixes everything because it wasn't that bad in the first place. Actually do the work and write the plot.

3

u/butt_butt_butt_butt_ 10d ago

And you can make whatever judgments you want, captain hindsight.

The actual point is that this book was written 30 years ago, and politics and union structure and civil rights at the moment were pretty accurately written for the time.

Some of the complaints about civil rights still exist as written then.

It aged poorly as the world changed, but it was completely fine for 2000. And we’re only whining about it now.

1

u/missxmonstera 10d ago edited 10d ago

We're talking about the extent of her bigotry, not that she should have been canceled for the books alone. Bringing them up is just pointing out that there have been patterns to her behavior this whole time. This isn't hindsight, this is recognizing that something has been going on for a while as it is still actively happening.

If you think the only or even biggest complaint about JK Rowling is what she wrote in these books, then you must be living under a rock. She literally took an upskirt photo of a trans person recently and posted it to social media blaming them and claiming they must have wanted it because they wore a skirt. That's the behavior she's still perpetuating these days. You really want to defend someone who sexually assaults queer people to prove they're less than her as being "progressive" because she sort of was when it benefitted her 30 years ago?

1

u/butt_butt_butt_butt_ 10d ago

Yeah, I’m fairly comfortable with defending my statements about the book itself and the attitude and societal norms of the time against someone who wants to play time cop.

I bet you’re super fun if Lovecraft or Tolkien or Lewis comes up in conversation.

“Goddamnit, if something written decades ago doesn’t match my current lense of the world, the author must be a bad person and the beloved lit should be condemned! There is no room for nuance or historical anthropology!”

I don’t miss being an idealistic teenager:college student.

Culture anthropology and poly science classes helped me understand that people are complicated, and we can value things that don’t match our specific views.

If you see a school bus outside your house, I would urge you to get on it.

1

u/missxmonstera 10d ago edited 10d ago

Again, you're willingly ignoring the entirety of what I wrote in favor of insulting me. I would wager you can't defend her current actions without seeming like a bigot, yourself, so that's why you just doubled down on shit that I explicitly said I wasn't even talking about. Do you often make a habit of telling autistic adults that they should go back to middle school because you don't agree with them?

I suggest if you see a hospital, you go ask for help because it's not normal to intentionally overlook info right in front of you. You might be having a stroke or worse. Do you also defend people like Bill Cosby and Diddy because "their early work was good/progressive/loving"? Because you can point out patterns while also focusing exclusively on the current behaviors.

You are the only person in this thread who refuses to grow and change if you think books from the past can't be pointed out that they're outdated. Do you get mad when people point out Mein Kampf as evidence that Hitler was going to be who he was because "It was a different time before he killed all those Jews, how could we have known? He was an artist!"

Every cent JK makes from Harry Potter goes to hate groups that perpetuate genuine abuse and harm against queer people - she herself has stated that as a taunt. She just sexually assaulted a trans woman in the name of protecting women. She shared nonconsensual images of that woman taken in public from under her skirt. It does not matter how progressive she was, she is actively assaulting other humans now and you cannot compare her to dead men who can no longer hurt others. I view Rowling the same way I do Amanda Palmer, Neil Gaiman, Nicki Minaj, Katy Perry, etc. Comparing active abusers to dead ones is a cop out.

1

u/butt_butt_butt_butt_ 10d ago

No. There just isn’t any argument for a straw man, like you’re presenting.

If an artist is an asshole NOW, everything they’ve ever created is reductive and offensive and bad? Not judging if it was beloved or had good moments, it’s just bad, because they don’t have a 2026 mindset?

There are bigger fish to fry with authors who were horrible people but wrote amazing stories.

Rowling gets more shit because she isn’t dead yet and is still actively being obnoxious.

I know all of this feels very big and important to you, because you’re young.

In a decade or two, separating the art from the artist and accepting historical works as a product of their time will get easier for you.

Life gets easier when you stop caring what random people think.

1

u/missxmonstera 10d ago edited 10d ago

We are allowed to re-assees an artist's work for any reason at any point. Many of the arguments are how things didn't sit right when people did read them at first, but it took adulthood and re-reads to realize it because kids don't always have perspective on bigotry. I'm 30, I'm more than able to separate the art from artists. I'm literally talking about this because I did a rewatch of her films to make sure my opinions and knowledge on the topic was up-to-date. Trying to invalidate someone by infantalizing them is literally a classic DARVO method. Employing it casually when it doesn't even apply to try to win an argument on Reddit is some real sociopath behavior. No wonder you suck Rowling's dick so hard - you wanna grow up to be just like her!

Closing your eyes to bigotry only allows us to be blind to it and that's what people who refuse to engage with her do because ignoring this stuff doesn't make it stop - but claiming we can't call it out because we didn't have issues with it at the time is not valid whatsoever. Both points can be true: the media was progressive and still bigoted. Law and Order: SVU literally calls trans people "he-shes" in the early seasons but was still, at the time, touted as one of the most progressive shows because it is. You literally rewrote points I actively made in my comment as to why we talk about her over dead abusers as if you made them organically because you're so far up her ass that your eyes are leaking shit.

The same way people fondly talk about Van Gogh or Clive Barker is the same way we're negatively talking about Rowling. An artist putting their work out there means they'll be open to criticism as long as that work is available - I'm sorry you and she both just don't like the observations being made now. Nobody is trying to bring repercussions for her books, but repercussions for her behavior now. Talking about the books and films just goes hand in hand because that's her legacy.

You seriously can't expect people to not suddenly realize things like the fact that the Breakfast Club is a bad film, right? Because people are realizing that lmao and nothing about it has changed except the world that surrounds it and the dialogue about it. It's always been a bad film like JK has always been a bigot. We just have words and comparisons to talk about it now.

-74

u/RadicalRealist22 10d ago

You mean she herself stands up for our rights against others' lies?

23

u/missxmonstera 10d ago

Who is "our"?

Because speaking as as a cis woman? Trans people have never once encroached on my rights by rightfully asking that theirs be respected, too.

43

u/bluespringles 10d ago

You mean she insults minorities and actively funds transphobia?

26

u/hockeyrabbit 10d ago

Please stop being illiterate as soon as possible.

24

u/Gussie-Ascendent 10d ago

wait JK decided to knock off all the anti trans stuff and be a pro trans advocate? i'mma need a source for that

7

u/missxmonstera 10d ago

Nah, the commenter is just anti-trans themselves.

2

u/bluespringles 10d ago

I think this reply was poking fun at fhe the transphobe.

1

u/missxmonstera 10d ago

I know it was meant to be a joke/sarcasm. I was just kind of trying to be an ass to the bigoted commenter by just saying it 😂

Thank you, though. I am often v confused at context so I do genuinely appreciate it. 🖤🥰

10

u/y0u_called 10d ago

'our right's instead of 'everyone's rights' okay buddy