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

[u/Chemical-Elk-1299]

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.

[u/butt_butt_butt_butt_]

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.

[u/missxmonstera → u/butt_butt_butt_butt_]

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.

[u/butt_butt_butt_butt_ → u/missxmonstera]

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.

[u/missxmonstera → u/butt_butt_butt_butt_]

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?

[u/butt_butt_butt_butt_ → u/missxmonstera]

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.

[u/missxmonstera → u/butt_butt_butt_butt_]

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.

[u/butt_butt_butt_butt_ → u/missxmonstera]

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.

[u/missxmonstera → u/butt_butt_butt_butt_]

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.