Board 8 > Hogwarts Legacy: IGN 9/10

(+) Yeah! (+)

I really think people are retrofitting their view of JK back to try to find prejudice in the book.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

WazzupGenius00 posted...

The British feminist movement has hated trans women for longer than Twitter has existed. Twitter is just where people truly noticed who she was, based on the people she followed and the things she would like on there.

Sure, but she wasn't donating to the cause back then.

KamikazePotato posted...

Aside from Diablo 3 sucking, did the Blizzard controversy end up hurting their numbers or not?

Not much.

KamikazePotato posted...

Contemporary/commercial art also gets remembered over 'high art' all the time. I don't really buy that argument.

The argument is that it easily COULD be forgotten. Of course it could also be immortalized and there are examples of that too. But there's no way to know which it will be when we're right in the middle of it. 20 years is a lot for us, but it's a rounding error when talking about Shakespeare or Homer.

The argument is also that what happens in our lifetime is irrelevant for the longevity of HP. It's all about how the next 3-10 generations treat it that will define how it's remembered in history.

masterplum posted...

I really think people are retrofitting their view of JK back to try to find prejudice in the book.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

It's more like how when someone point out where Waldo is on the page then you can't unsee it

masterplum posted...

I really think people are retrofitting their view of JK back to try to find prejudice in the book.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

People have been pointing out the racism that's prevalent in the books for decades, this is not new, you're just wrong

conspiracy is such a weird word to use for just old problematic writing

like Ace Ventura's ending isn't some mystical conspiracy, the public was just a lot more openly disgusted about the concept of trans people

Like the reason we're 'retroactively' finding fault with these things is because we were kids or teenagers at the time

On Diablo 4, the notion that people hated Diablo 3 is nearly a decade out of date. They fixed that game pretty quickly and it had a huge turnaround in opinion. Barely anybody remembers the early controversy around that game. It also sold 30 million copies in three years despite being PC only for a lot of that time.

As for the British feminists were always transphobic thing, this is wrong. There has been a big change. Also, its nothing to do with feminists. Sure, you can find a small minority who opposed trans rights (the mist famous being UK-based Germaine Greer, who is Australian), but it was never a huge thing until recently. And I think I am likely the only person in this thread to know a decent amount if British feminists (spoilers: none of them are transphobic, because transphobia in the UK is largely driven by older men). The reality is up until 2018 the UK was consistently topping indexes of the best places for trans people and the public polled near the top on trans-friendly views. At this point there was very little media coverage of transgender people especially from right wing sources. Then they announced the review into reforming the gender recognition process to make it easier and extremist groups pounced on that, funded by religious extremists out of the US like the heritage foundation. Then in 2020 the Conservative government which had been trans-friendly announcing these pro-trans reforms suddenly starts to go into all these culture war issues most notably transphobia. The reason for THAT is none other than brexit.

The Tories ran out of things to divide people with after brexit happened (and a large majority of people saw how stupid it was) and did an investigation into which issues they could use to split people for electoral advantage. So at the same time, you suddenly start getting a huge number of anti-trans articles in right wing papers (which two billionaire control and make up 70% of UK newspaper circulation). What all this does is to have an effect on attitudes in the UK. Trans-friendly views became less common over the next few tears according to polls, the UK started to drop in LGBT rankings and while it still fares better on trans rights and overall the country got worse. It was not always like this, actually it used to be pretty good. This is a recent thing manufactured by the government and a few influential right wing groups who would then give us Trussonomics. It is a top-down issue not a bottom up one.

All throughout this one thing has been very clear from the data: men are more transphobic than women. Women routinely poll as more trans-friendly in the UK and are overall supportive of trans rights. This is extra notable because usually the gender divide on sociopolitical views in the UK is quite small. There is also a major age component to it. The reality is, transphobia in the UK is not driven by feminists it is driven by older men who use a minority of feminists as a shield because womens rights makes for a good excuse. Rowling of course is the biggest example of this. It makes sense as theres nothing especially feminist about attacking vulnerable women.

So on Rowling, while we can never know without reading her mind, I am personally a believer in her being radicalised late. There has been a major shift in the UK over the last four years as I outline, transphobic views used to be very niche. Rowling also used to be a major supporter of the Labour party in the 2000s, while they were implementing many, many pro-trans reforms. So the reality is that most of the pro-trans rights and protections the UK has were helped by Rowlings money! Bet she wouldnt want you to know that. She didnt tweet any transphobic material as far as I am aware until 2018. Along with the UK population as whole sadly getting more transphobic, I believe this all makes it seem that she was radicalised around 2018. The central idea of this post is that people and population can change and sometimes they change for the worse. Also like a lot of situations this is right wing pressure groups and brexit taking off their hood to reveal that it was them all along.

masterplum posted...

I really think people are retrofitting their view of JK back to try to find prejudice in the book.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

Rita Skeeter may be a bit of a stretch, but plenty of things in the books do fit the current narratives around JK
In generally she's just very judgmental.

The names always struck me as 'writer in her mid 20s sucking at naming things' tbh rather than anything truly problematic.

but not much point defending her on minor things when so much of her legacy is yikes

Based on the global wizard schools names*, Im not sure you can blame her character names from the books on her just being young or inexperienced.

*the foreign schools names are all like magic school or something similarly unimaginative in the relevant language. Specifically the Japanese one is named Mahoutokoro (Place of Magic), and the Brazilian is Castleobruxo which means something like witch castle. compare that to Hogwarts, which is evocative without being literal. Seems like she really phoned in the others.

I mean with Cho Chang sure, she wasnt successful yet and maybe didnt have resources to like run the name by an actual Chinese person (?), but at this point youd think she could outsource the foreign naming to someone who actually knows the cultures if shes not interested in doing any research.

i get the impression shes just incurious about stuff outside her British bubble

Paratroopa1 posted...

People have been pointing out the racism that's prevalent in the books for decades, this is not new, you're just wrong

I literally heard zero criticism before her Terfdom other than her names were bad. Not in an offensive bad way but weird bad.

Sure maybe some of it could be unearthing bias that now makes more sense in context, but most of it seems like absolute reaches designed solely to cross the gap from artist to art.

Like the entire antisemitism thing with goblins that people bring up seems like nonsense as goblins being greedy has been a trait since what? Tolkien?

look, JK Rowling is an awful writer, I don't think that's ever been in question. Her story however and the world she created is better than that though.

I think the story and world worked best in the earlier books when it was still all whimsical and childlike wonder.
The more the characters aged, the more... grey it all became in a way.
I mean thats what she was going for clearly, what with the politics and deaths and all.
But it also seemed like she was becoming less creative (especially in book 7)

I think it didnt help that she seemed to write the books more and more with the movie setpieces in mind.

I dont know when it became obvious to everyone, but yes at first most criticism was thrown at her writing moreso than her politics.

masterplum posted...

I literally heard zero criticism before her Terfdom other than her names were bad. Not in an offensive bad way but weird bad.

Sure maybe some of it could be unearthing bias that now makes more sense in context, but most of it seems like absolute reaches designed solely to cross the gap from artist to art.

Like the entire antisemitism thing with goblins that people bring up seems like nonsense as goblins being greedy has been a trait since what? Tolkien?

i think people maybe bring the goblins up more aggressively(?) now that shes all TERFd up, but it was definitely something people noticed years ago (in the movies at least, I dunno if theyre less bad in the books the movie goblins basically look like antisemitic caricatures and their only purpose is to control the financial system. Its not great)

maybe Im retconning reality here, but I feel like they used to be a funny hmm theres something familar about these guys thing to point out like Watto in Phantom Menace

There was definitely criticism of her racism, as well as the setting being derivative of writers like Ursula K. Le Guin while not crediting inspirations. As far as I can remember there is nothing on the level of the IT Crowd episode where half the plot is just transphobia, that one really gave away Graham Linehan before he publicly revealed himself to be horrendous. Again this to me suggests that Rowling was radicalised rather than always being like this.

Incidentally Linehan is a good example of the power of a twitter ban. He got banned from twitter for being transphobic and was basically gone. His show got cancelled and he lost his mouthpiece for hate. He went from being the #1 public-facing transphobe before Rowling to nothing almost overnight. Had Rowling been banned from twitter the world would be a better place. Of course now hes back on twitter anyway thanks to Elon Musk!

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/4/2/AADkxlAAEKqS.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/4/1/AADkxlAAEKqR.jpg

lol its worse than I remembered

yeah I've just been checking in on this topic every once in awhile for fun but never wanted to post

but to imply that her version of goblins is not incredibly anti-semitic is lol

foolm0r0n posted...

The argument is also that what happens in our lifetime is irrelevant for the longevity of HP. It's all about how the next 3-10 generations treat it that will define how it's remembered in history.

I think you're taking some phrases too far, or missing the structure of main idea and support. I did not hang a whole argument on this. It was an example, one I believe will be true barring some crazy societal cataclysm, but not central to anything.

I said there's a lens for viewing things without context. One very relevant example would be a book that outlives it's contemporary environment, but another could just be a child without Twitter just reading Harry Potter now, or back then! In that moment for that observer it's the same thing. But it could also just be a philosophical exercise anyone can do.

Not saying it's a superior lens, the writer is very real, but the work as a standalone source of potential value is also real. I'm not debating about what's more important.

pjbasis posted...

I said there's a lens for viewing things without context

Sure. It's giving it way too much credit to call it the "artistic" lens.

I personally think it's a pretty useless thing to think about too. Even in the child example, it's the parents who bought the book, so their context is relevant. Also if the child likes the book, why is that? Half of the first book is about real world England and a kid being bullied, so they obviously connect it to their real life experiences somehow.

Aecioo posted...

but to imply that her version of goblins is not incredibly anti-semitic is lol

Sure, but that's more on society than on Rowling tbh. It's not like she thought "Hmm what characteristics do jewish people have, let's connect them to the goblins." It's more like these things were already attached to goblins in pop culture and she borrowed from that. Which is an entirely different discussion.

her goblins definitely are way higher on the antisemitism scale than like any other goblin Ive seen in media, so its gotta be at least a little bit her fault

like theres a thousand MtG cards depicting goblins and somehow I never see anyone liken them to Jews

Goblins were not historically represented as bankers controlling the world's finances.

That's all on JK.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Goblins were not historically represented as bankers controlling the world's finances.

That's all on JK.

Which mythical creature would you use instead?

Why would you need a single species to control the world's finances?

I think it makes more sense for financial systems to be the domain of human wizards. Or even just the muggles.

foolm0r0n posted...

Half of the first book is about real world England and a kid being bullied, so they obviously connect it to their real life experiences somehow.

This is where my wife came from with regards to Harry Potter. She has a rare genetic disorder and kids were vicious to her because of that when she was growing up. Her aunt got her the first two books for Christmas when she was 14, and she fell in love with the characters, the world and how it allowed her to get away from her real life for a while. She hates who JK Rowling is and what she stands for and doesn't agree with any of it, but this has been such a huge part of her life for 23+ years now that she can't throw that all away, even though people are telling her she's the devil for not cutting something out of her life that meant so much to her.

I realize I'm probably going to have people here piling on my wife now since she won't renounce her love of Harry Potter because Rowling is an awful person, but that's the reality of where her, and I'm sure a lot of others that still enjoy Harry Potter are coming from. They fully realize she's a piece of shit, but this is something they've loved for decades now, and Rowling being a horrible isn't going change that to everybody.

foolm0r0n posted...

Sure. It's giving it way too much credit to call it the "artistic" lens.

Sure, did I do that?
foolm0r0n posted...

I personally think it's a pretty useless thing to think about too. Even in the child example, it's the parents who bought the book, so their context is relevant. Also if the child likes the book, why is that? Half of the first book is about real world England and a kid being bullied, so they obviously connect it to their real life experiences somehow.

Nothing about this sounds useless unless you think the child's pov has no value. Stories about bullied kids are valuable. The parents bought their kid a nice book. Regardless I already gave other reasons why it's a useful lens. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

FoolFantastic posted...

Why would you need a single species to control the world's finances?

Why wouldn't you? Goblins being greedy is a fantasy trope.

I would have definitely not had the big noses in the film version but I'm entirely unconvinced it's problematic in text

Goblins kidnapping kids, trying to overthrow the superior race, and being the only friends of the token trans character is not a fantasy trope

also for whatever it's worth, I've seen a fairly consistent Jewish response to the "what about other goblins" defense with "yeah those suck too"

masterplum posted...

I literally heard zero criticism before her Terfdom other than her names were bad. Not in an offensive bad way but weird bad.

A) we were kids
B) by the time we weren't kids, HP was not as dominant a cultural force, it might not have disappeared but I remember a preeeeetty big lull between the end of the movies and new stuff coming out, where nobody was really talking about it beyond the weird Dumbledore reveal
C) most of the stuff went over my head, but you telling me you didn't feel weird about the whole "no they LIKE being slaves, only weirdos would try to free them" subplot?
D) I for one heard about the goblin thing a few years ago, I think before she decided to go bonkers
E) Shacklebolt and Cho Chang are arguably into "offensive bad" territory

Wasnt Hermione the hero of that subplot though?

The other points are meh. Yeah in the year 2023 I think some of that would be edited but there were way more offensive things than the name Cho chang that were completely acceptable at the time

RaidenGarai posted...

This is where my wife came from with regards to Harry Potter. She has a rare genetic disorder and kids were vicious to her because of that when she was growing up. Her aunt got her the first two books for Christmas when she was 14, and she fell in love with the characters, the world and how it allowed her to get away from her real life for a while. She hates who JK Rowling is and what she stands for and doesn't agree with any of it, but this has been such a huge part of her life for 23+ years now that she can't throw that all away, even though people are telling her she's the devil for not cutting something out of her life that meant so much to her.

I realize I'm probably going to have people here piling on my wife now since she won't renounce her love of Harry Potter because Rowling is an awful person, but that's the reality of where her, and I'm sure a lot of others that still enjoy Harry Potter are coming from. They fully realize she's a piece of shit, but this is something they've loved for decades now, and Rowling being a horrible isn't going change that to everybody.

Its fine to interact with a work by a problematic person. Im fairly big on death of the author in terms of interpretations of text. I dont think anybody here is saying it is always immoral to interact with works by bad people in any way.

The issue I think is more of financial support, to which I say: if somebody absolutely must play this game just buy it used or pirate it. It is totally okay to pirate this game. If your wife did buy it new, then Id recommend doing what a friend of mine does in situations like this and donate an equal or greater amount to a trans charity, especially a UK-based one.

This topic really is going to 500, isn't it?

LightningStrikes posted...

The issue I think is more of financial support, to which I say: if somebody absolutely must play this game just buy it used or pirate it. It is totally okay to pirate this game. If your wife did buy it new, then Id recommend doing what a friend of mine does in situations like this and donate an equal or greater amount to a trans charity, especially a UK-based one.

I dont think its fair to make people feel like they HAVE to do something like that in order to enjoy something they look forward to.

RaidenGarai posted...

They fully realize she's a piece of shit, but this is something they've loved for decades now, and Rowling being a horrible isn't going change that to everybody.

Eventually it will, most likely. Your wife will see a whole new generation or two of kids who learn to accept themselves without HP, and of trans and immigrant kids hurt by JKR's increasingly loud voice. At some point it will tip and the nice memories won't be worth the continuous damage. It's ok to give people like your wife time to get there. But they don't need to fund it financially in the mean time.

masterplum posted...

Wasnt Hermione the hero of that subplot though?

You are misremembering the book's framing.

I didnt say that anybody had to. Its just a suggestion. I do think its a moral good though yeah. I also think vegetarianism is a moral good and would recommend it to everybody in this thread, but Im not going to make it the law.

Hey what are some good fantasy series that are better than Harry Potter and deserve more recognition?

Earthsea.

Hermione is treated like she's a fucking idiot for her stance on House Elves.

They are straight up disgusted with her.

LightningStrikes posted...

Earthsea.

you know its surprising that my only real experience is the ghibli film albeit I know thats completely different

LiquidOshawott posted...

Hey what are some good fantasy series that are better than Harry Potter and deserve more recognition?

The Twelve Kingdoms

OK I'm a fraud I only watched the show.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Hermione is treated like she's a fucking idiot for her stance in HP2.

And bear in mind, it's not just the other characters saying that, which could simply be a reflection of their shitty views. But I said 'the book's framing' for a reason, because the narration also treats Hermione like she's an idiot. She is, by word of god, in the wrong, and I always thought this was super weird as a kid. I sort of just accepted it because I was a kid and I thought I must not know better, but now that I'm older I look back on it like, wow, fuck that book.

LiquidOshawott posted...

you know its surprising that my only real experience is the ghibli film albeit I know thats completely different

People give that movie shit, but those people haven't seen the show.

Obellisk posted...

I dont think its fair to make people feel like they HAVE to do something like that in order to enjoy something they look forward to.

When you buy a new toy you're responsible for throwing the box in the appropriate trash and not littering it on the street. Is that an outrageous expectation?

Why is media so different? Why is it the one thing in life that must be totally free of responsibility? You can enjoy whatever you want, just make sure to take out your trash. What's so wrong about that?

(This is mostly rhetorical - I know that these people value the escapism of media more than anything, certainly more than the art itself, so bringing them down to earth with dirty realities like this is seen as a hostile robbery of the main thing they hold dear)

LiquidOshawott posted...

Hey what are some good fantasy series that are better than Harry Potter and deserve more recognition?

Cosmere!

Hey you know what everybody loves?

YouTube video essays!

But seriously, if anyone is interested in a breakdown of a lot of general HP fuckoffery and a pretty big section for the house elves, this is a pretty good watch (or just listen really, it's technically a video but there's not any actual reason to actually watch it).

https://youtu.be/-1iaJWSwUZs

I hate when these conversations turn toward people attacking the series itself, which I feel is missing the point. Yes, the books are flawed, but they also mean a lot to a lot of people. And the point of the boycott should be to support transgender people; the people most effected by Rowling's words are the transgender fans who grew up with her stories. Having the one-two punch of one of your favorite childhood authors spouting hate speech directed toward you and then supposed allies attacking you for caring about the series in the first place really doesn't help.

foolm0r0n posted...

When you buy a new toy you're responsible for throwing the box in the appropriate trash and not littering it on the street. Is that an outrageous expectation?

Why is media so different? Why is it the one thing in life that must be totally free of responsibility? You can enjoy whatever you want, just make sure to take out your trash. What's so wrong about that?

(This is mostly rhetorical - I know that these people value the escapism of media more than anything, certainly more than the art itself, so bringing them down to earth with dirty realities like this is seen as a hostile robbery of the main thing they hold dear)

When i buy a $60 toy I throw the box away in the appropriate manner, this does not cost me anything. I'm not told in order to throw it away I have to spend an additional $60.

A lot of posts here but nobody is talking about how JK Rowling has said that before toilets, wizards used to shit their pants and magic their waste away. And I think that's just the perfect indication of her intelligence level and writing skills.