Seriously.
The original books were great, but her insistence on shoving diversity in as an afterthought is bullshit. That's not how diversity in media works.
Seriously.
Seriously.
The original books were great, but her insistence on shoving diversity in as an afterthought is bullshit. That's not how diversity in media works.
Correct
Correct if it's poorly done and the creator also happens to be a POS on twitter and whatnot
Correct
Correct if it's poorly done and the creator also happens to be a POS on twitter and whatnot
This is so true. She always looks (or looked) like a pretty liberal person when she posts on Twitter and then weird stuff like this happens. Really not sure if I would call her a full fledged racist, but all of this stuff begins to pile up.I always feel Rowling says more than does when it comes to these issues tbh (not too familiar with other claims about her, as I haven't followed her that much recently, but they're very dissapointing). Like, there's a lack of commitment to proceed for the most part.
Also, why do poor people even exist in Harry Potter at all? Wouldn't a completely magical society in which people can conjure just about anything out of thin air be the perfect fictional example of a socialist utopia? Are the Weasleys actually poor to begin with? They don't seem to have trouble putting food on the table, Molly is a stay-at-home mom even though all of her kids are away at boarding school nine months of the year, Arthur owns a fancy flying car, they own a home and a large amount of property, their kids are all healthy and the only real example of their poverty is that they sometimes have trouble affording school supplies and wear hand-me-down clothes.
Seriously.
The original books were great, but her insistence on shoving diversity in as an afterthought is bullshit. That's not how diversity in media works.
Why is it OK now to tell creative people what they should and should not be creating with regards to social issues? As a creative person I am sad that so many people seem to think they have a right to dictate what other people should be creating. It's like creation by mass committee, which always ends with shit. Now obviously this excludes racist propaganda etc, but c'mon let's have some common sense about free speech and the creative process here guys.
I mean, I agree that her decision doesn't do any favours for Korean representation, but it's her goddamn story.
Not how it works? There are no rules to this! It's her story, she can do what she wants. Everyone else is free to write their own diverse stories and get them published.
I remember a few notions of that the Weaslys cant afford new capes and school books. Heck, Ron has to deal with a broken magic wand for a whole school year which could have killed him and he could not buy a new one. And I think Harry thinks about exactly this when he read the daily prophet article about them winning the journey to eagypt.And I never got the sense that J.K wanted us to think the Weaslys were ever actually poor just middle class.We've seen how actual poor wizards live when we visited the Gaunts. Arthur has a pretty good ministry job they just have 7 kids so the budget is pretty tight. You have to remember that most of the "Weaslys are poor" comments come from the Malfoys who are jerks and Ron who is the most insecure person in the series.
Plus, I know "Harry should give the Weaslys some of his gold" is a running joke but seriously no adult would take that money from a kid.
The in universe reason is Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration. The 5 things you can't create out of nothing are
- Food
- Money
- Knowledge- You cannot magically learn something or obtain information without effort, otherwise there would be little point in having a school in the first place.
- Love-As the story said, you can create infatuation, but not true love.
- Soul-You can create life (like spells that conjure birds), but you cannot transmute a soul to revive someone.
It's not like they haven't done this before with a white dude...This isn't "disappointing". Disappointing is not seeing certain creatures from these books. I don't think it was intentionally harmful because I don't think there was ever any actual thought in this decision. But the fact remains that we have an Asian woman becoming a faithful pet just screams awful stereotypes at best. I can't see why people are that determined to go to bat for this decision. It's awful in almost every way.
but no people who have an issue with jkr are just babies and this is all outrage culture
- hooknosed banking goblins
- bullshit white saviour narrative with the american wizard school
- all the other non-white wizarding schools have some nonsense about them like go read pottermore it's terribad
- 0 lgbt rep in the entire series but dumbledore was totally gay except we're not gonna show it bc jkr wants to have her cake and eat it too
- werewolves are an allegory for gay men with aids. newt scamander created the werewolf registry. let's make a movie where he's the hero. genius
- naga are creatures from hindu myth ergo an indian woman would have made most sense but jkr thinks it's actually from chinese-indonesian myth so let's cast a korean woman??????
- also let's have an asian woman cursed to turn into a snake and become wizard hitler's pet don't u love this representation
- "there was at least one jewish student at hogwarts"
- all slytherins are nazis except they're not except they totally are because demonising children is fun
- snape apologism out the wazoo aka jkr thinks it's totally cool and reasonable for a dude to become a wizard nazi because his friend rejected him after he called her a fucking racial slur
- defending domestic abuser johnny depp and liking tweets that call his victim a liar
- liking transphobic TERFy tweets that literally explicitly call transwomen men
Why is it OK now to tell creative people what they should and should not be creating with regards to social issues? As a creative person I am sad that so many people seem to think they have a right to dictate what other people should be creating. It's like creation by mass committee, which always ends with shit. Now obviously this excludes racist propaganda etc, but c'mon let's have some common sense about free speech and the creative process here guys.
Wizards use precious metals not paper money. Its the same rules that govern alchemy. I'm sure a wizard could counterfeit all the human money they wanted to or better yet just take what they want but the Ministry is supposed to stop that.Why would money, which is representative of value, be limited? Cash is essentially pieces of paper that humans give meaning to. How could that possibly be restricted in any way?
Man Harry Potter is so flimsy.
I'd assume that, like in the real world, cash is marked so that you can't bullshit people with fakes.Why would money, which is representative of value, be limited? Cash is essentially pieces of paper that humans give meaning to. How could that possibly be restricted in any way?
Man Harry Potter is so flimsy.
Yep. It saddens me because of that precisely. The retroactivity in her "progressiveness" ("Hermione could have been black all along!! ;)", "Dumbledore was actually gay") doesn't help either. They're cool, sure, because it's about representing the unvoiced/silenced, so it's about the way of going about it.This is so true. She always looks (or looked) like a pretty liberal person when she posts on Twitter and then weird stuff like this happens. Really not sure if I would call her a full fledged racist, but all of this stuff begins to pile up.
It's not like they haven't done this before with a white dude...
Looks to me like internet outage culture and not a real issue.
If you need to use another race to get your point across, you've already lost.
Is she an innocent person? I didn't watch the first Fantastic Beasts.Are you being deliberately disingenuous or do you actually not understand the difference between a criminal disguising himself as a pet to avoid prosecution versus an innocent person being transformed into a pet against their will?
She's a new character in this one and didn't appear in the first FB.Is she an innocent person? I didn't watch the first Fantastic Beasts.
Is she an innocent person? I didn't watch the first Fantastic Beasts.
Sooooo... How do we know she's completely innocent? Is this a Bowsette situation where there is fan art, and fan fiction created before we see the final product?She's a new character in this one and didn't appear in the first FB.
I've only watched the trailer, read the wiki entry and this thread. Has Nagini's character arc from the movie been leaked? I assume she's going to be a villain of some sort? What makes Neville killing her any different than Molly killing Bellatrix? Or are the implications of the curse that Nagini's human soul is in the sunken place crying for help while her head gets cut off?People keep saying it changes nothing but it fundamentally alters Neville's big heroic moment
I've only watched the trailer, read the wiki entry and this thread. Has Nagini's character arc from the movie been leaked? I assume she's going to be a villain of some sort? What makes Neville killing her any different than Molly killing Bellatrix? Or are the implications of the curse that Nagini's human soul is in the sunken place crying for help while her head gets cut off?
It will be so interesting to see another side of Nagini," Kim tells EW. "You've only seen her as a Horcrux. In this, she's a wonderful and vulnerable woman who wants to live. She wants to stay a human being and I think that's a wonderful contrast to the character."
The actress reveals that when Crimestakes place in 1927, Nagini can transform from human to snake at will, yet due to her mysterious blood curse she knows that eventually, she'll become a snake permanently. "She does feel sometimes it's not controllable," Kim says. "She is bound to [permanently] transform at some point to a beast so she feels this pressure that the clock is ticking."
The cursed child is way more atrocious to be part of the canon than this.
I'm a HP fan and i think the debate is interesting. I agree with the criticism against Rowling, it's obvious she was way too scared of having backlash from the putrefact side of society so she used to, for example, put 2 lines implying Dumbledore's sexual orientation and then confirms it after the whole saga is done. And that's like the only LGBT character in all the books. So i don't think she's that sincere with her decisions regarding race or other kinds of character diversity in her world.
Isn't there a degree of cultural appropriation here? You're taking stuff from disparate peoples and mixing them.
Still waiting for a movie to tell me more about how that big snake ended up in the death star trash canI hate this. I hate what Lucas did in the Prequels, I hate what Disney is doing with shit like Solo.
Answering questions nobody was asking.
Still waiting for a movie to tell me more about how that big snake ended up in the death star trash can
Or maybe are sick of Asians being portrayed as one note villains or background fluff
I mean don't black folks get tired of seeing themselves as slaves & servants in movies? Same thing
J.K. Rowling defends Nagini's casting, stating that the Naga come from "Indonesian mythology," and Indonesia is where Chinese people live. Except that the Naga didn't originate in Indonesia, but in stories from Hindu scripture, and Korean people — like Claudia Kim — are not Chinese.
Not to mention it also adds some potential nonsense white savior interpretations to Neville
Exhibit A:
Then you add the issues with portrayals of Asian women in media and social culture. Incels, you know those who desire to litteraly own women, for example fetishize Asian women as the ideal type because of the racist belief that Asian women are pliable and submissive...