author_by_night | So really... why the feelings against Rowling?

So really... why the feelings against Rowling?

Satanist. Racist. Hates her fans. Can't write worth sh_t. Full of herself. Writes heavy people are evil and stupid. Sexist. Anti-Slytherin. Sold Out.

Some of these words have been used to describe JK Rowling, and I've decided to try and figure out why.

I think the reason is simple - Great Expectations.

No, I do not mean JK Rowling was unkind to a boy named Pip. What I mean is that people have, over time, expected things of JK Rowling that never really were.

Let's look at the Christian symbolism. Are there several traits in the books, particularly the first two, that could be perceived as Christian inspired, and/or filled with lessons for Christian children? Absolutely.

However, they can also be counted as lessons towards Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Atheist Children.

The books are not like the Narnia series, which certainly have unmistakeable Christian symbolism in them. (Aslan literally dies for Edmund's wrongdoings, and returns from the dead).

That's great, don't get me wrong! But why do the Harry Potter books have to represent every Christian aspect known to mankind? I believe they hold meaning for children as a whole, and that children don't need religious tales to be happy.

The other issue is possibly our day in age. We are a day of stories having Significant Moral Messages Per Passage (SMMPP). Before you roll your eyes, think about it.
There is a good reason the book Wicked was ever written, and that many people (secretly) like Seventh Heaven and Lifetime. Not to mention plays like RENT and
Angels in America.

Yes, JK Rowling has significant morals in her stories, but not the ones people want to read about. Because Hermione does not own a sword she does Karate with,
and Remus and Sirius were not homosexual lovers, she has failed people. People don't want to just read good versus evil - they want moral ambiguity. They also want social structure messages embedded in the story.

Here's the thing - JKR has no intention of doing so. She does make social messages, sure - Remus is certainly symbolic of people with illnesses and disorders who
are discriminated against. The Weasleys are picked on for being poor. But she's not going to make a big deal out of it.

(As for moral ambiguity... I have a feeling that was Sirius. And possibly Snape. But that's another topic).

Another problem? Unfortunately, fandom. There is this lack of ability to seperate wonderful fanfics and theories from canon. People have been convinced that the real
Draco is an abused, misunderstood young man when really... he meant every word he said against Muggles. No, he wasn't capable of killing, but that doesn't mean
he's not a prejiduced person. Fanon says he can be with Harry or Hermione; canon says otherwise.

Before OoTP, we had a three year gap. Before HBP, two years. Five years is a LOT of time to form new theories and ideas. And hey, that's fine, but some of them
pretty much flopped in HBP. And I'm speaking for myself - there were things that became canon that I'd really not wanted to be. (Sirius being the Heir of the House of
Black, for instance - I think there's huge holes in that one, but I'm not going to call JK Rowling an idiot for it. It's okay to not agree with an author.)

Which is my final point - there is a fine line between not agreeing, and actual wank. I don't really care when people say they have issues with some things in the
books - I do too, as I do with nearly every book I've read. Everyone is going to, at some point, go "oh, I wish that hadn't happened." I love the book To Kill A Mockingbird,
yet I really don't like that Atticus Finch, who is supposed to be pro-civil rights, has his housekeeper sleep in the kitchen when she babysits the kids overnight. But the
rest of it is good (and pro-civil rights) enough that I can say, "okay, I very much disagree there, but I really agree here and there."

The problem is that not all Potter fans are willing to do that. Instead, they say very hurtful things about JK Rowling; I'm sorry, saying she is racist and sexist especially
bugs me - "racism" and "sexism" just are not words you throw around, nor are other words used to villify Jo.

I am going to end this by going back to my first point. As I said earlier, people want a SMMPP; while JK Rowling does not have that, she does have some significant
moral messages in the books. One of the most important? Love.

If that doesn't tie up everything else, I don't know what does.

Instead of hating JK Rowling for not pinpointing every social and religious issue out there, enjoy her books for the wonderful messages that are part of the plot, and
then find books that take care of the rest. Or write your own.

Just don't tell me you hate her because she's not writing the book you want to read.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Out of interest, why do you not like Sirius being the Heir of the Blacks? Very thoughtful, serious meme. Thanks for writing it.

Well, I meant Grimmauld Place really... the literal house, hehe. It just doesn't make much sense that he was the last Heir, but then he died so it (almost) went to Bellatrix, because wasn't he already dead to Mrs. Black? And you'd think Azkaban would seal it. But even then, there's probably reasoning I just don't get.

Well, Sirius was the last inheritor of the direct line; then it went to the next eldest in the family, which happened to be Bellatrix. And maybe Mrs. Black thought burning him off the tree meant he couldn't inherit any more, but it didn't. She was crazy enough.

True, I suppose.

No, I do not mean JK Rowling was unkind to a boy named Pip.

Stupid, annoying Pip. As far as I'm concerned he brought it on himself. lol. (I really hated Great Expectations - Pip was such a big whiner.)

But yeah. WORD to everything in your post.

Although, personally, I think there are tons of social issues and some commentary touched on in the books...but I think "touched on" is what needs to be emphasized. Because as you say, she didn't set out to write a moral story, she set out to write a good story. She presents and raises issues in the books enough so that it gets people thinking and talking about them, but I doubt she'll be able to resolve them completely, or deal with them to every single reader's satisfaction.

I didn't like Great Expectations either. To be honest, I didn't even pay attention to Pip. The whole book bored me, so I read enough that I understood it, but I didn't really get into it the way I get into most books. It was just so boring, and Pip was annoying.

And exactly to your second point. Yes, there's messages, but not every message about every issue, and that's okay, you know?

Very well said. I totally agree.

Do you think that Draco should be the heir of the House of Black?

Well, at this rate he and Tonks pretty much are, but Draco would be the only recognized Heir.

Here via the Snitch.

I think you are misunderstanding how inheritance works. Sirius was the eldest son of the House of Black, and therefore the heir. Second in line was Regulus, who died before Sirius and therefore can't inherit. After them come Sirius' aunts and uncles, but they are all dead as well, so Bellatrix, as the eldest child of Sirius' uncle Cygnus, is next in line. (We don't know if inheritance in the wizarding world is patrilineal or not, but since Bellatrix has no brothers it doesn't matter.) As Bellatrix has no children, Andromeda is next in line after her, followed by her daughter, Tonks (Unless Tonks was preventing from inheriting because she is half-blood). Assuming Tonks has no siblings, if she dies without having children, Narcissa is next in line, followed by Draco.

However, Sirius was able to circumvent the rules of inheritance by writing a will, making Harry his heir. This is clearly not the normal way of doing things, hence Dumbledore being slightly surprised that Harry has inherited 12 GP. (He says 'it seems that Sirius knew what he was doing after all.') Sirius had to interfere with the order of inheritance to make Harry his heir, presumably magically. This is probably difficult, but then Sirius was exceptionally talented, so he could pull it off.

Clearly blasting Sirius off the tree wasn't enough to disinherit him, which makes sense as the tapestry is merely a record of who is in the family, and Sirius doesn't cease to exist just because his name is removed, any more than a Muggle child stops existing if a parent burns their birth cetificate or takes their photos out of the family album. (Walburga may also have been prevented from disinheriting Sirius as both of his grandfathers were alive at the time of her death.)

Whew, that was lengthy. Hope it all makes sense! :D

Hi! I really like this essay, Amy- IMHO, you should expand on it, polish it up a bit, and submit it to Scribbulous- Its a topic that needs to be discussed!

Aw, thanks Julie! I may just do that. :)

Just don't tell me you hate her because she's not writing the book you want to read.

Yes, exactly! I don't mind it that much when people hate the Harry Potter books because they think they're Satanic, or just a copy of The Lord Of The Rings, or whatever. But Harry Potter fans hating J. K. Rowling because she wrote something different from what they had expected -- that's just painful to watch. :(

Yeah, it is annoying. It's like - then what made you like the books in the first place?

Good essay. I think that while JKR may not have big blatant moral messages, such shouting from the rooftops that Sirius and Remus are in love and should be allowed to marry and adopt, she has set up a world where significant discrimination occurs. Such as societal discrimination towards Remus and social discrimination against Hermione. And while we don’t have werewolves and muggle-borns in the real world, it acts a metaphor for real world discrimination such as racism, xenophobia, religious discrimination and homophobia. It’s the people missing the metaphors or think that readers are to stupid to pick analogies to the real world from JKR's world that seem to be the biggest complainers.

Too true. However, people don't want metaphor, they want exact instances.

I mean, sure, I wouldn't mind mentions of cases that are more real to us, but I don't fault JKR for not having them.

I grew up Catholic, but I don't look for moral messages in my books. They may be there, but, how I assimilate the information is open to interpretation, chocolate intake, and mood.

No, seriously, a work of fiction will have things in it which will make me connect ideas together, but, I don't look for fiction become my moral compass. I just like reading.

here through

daily_snitch

It sounds like you are lumping together analyses of the moral and social content of these books with ad hominem attacks on Rowling. I don't think that's fair.

I think there are a lot of people who count themselves as Rowling's fans, who like her personally, who also enjoy analyzing the style and content of her books. She's an admirable person who has donated a considerable amount of the money and time she's gained from her celebrity in writing these books to the public good. The more I learn about the work she does in the world, the more I like her.

I still want to talk about the moral and social messages of the books! They are the most popular novels in the world, pretty much, and I would like to know what they are saying to the children and adults who read them.

Analyzing doesn't mean "finding fault with" and it certainly doesn't mean "attacking the author." Does it? On that theory, there are a lot of Shakespeare scholars who must really hate Shakespeare and wish that he had written differently. Go suggest that to one of them, but be prepared to help them up from the floor after they've finished laughing.

Yes, but the Scholars aren't saying JKR is a stupid racist, sexist, cow who hates her fans.

I do think there's moral messages, but that people want more. People want every issue possible explored in the books, and get mad that she doesn't do it.

I'm not talking about people who fairly critique her. I mean people who really do attack her, and I'm not lumping them together.

Hope that helps. :)

Yes, it does help. I haven't encountered anyone in fandom to date who has anything nasty to say about JKR as a person. I've definitely seen people complain when she denies the plausibility of gay relationships between her characters. But I think everyone realizes that she is the author, they are her characters, and she both has to and gets to decide what they do.

You're lucky, then, to not run into people who say negative things about JKR - they're everywhere that I've seen. If the plot doesn't go the way they like it, they claim that she isn't being true to the characters - but hello, she wrote the characters. How can she not be true to them? She's had the story planned out since before she started writing. And unfortunately, this example is only one. People have called her horrid things because the stories don't go the way they expected them to - she even addresses the issue on her website. Therefore, they must be out there, and in numbers, if she takes the time to straighten the issue out.

Hmm, interesting. I have to say, I've become less and less impressed with Rowling over the last few years, but not exactly for the reasons you list. I definitely agree with you that expectations play a factor, but not expectations for a specific outcome or message -- I had expectations of quality and consistency. While I very much liked OotP, and really liked parts of HBP, they didn't live up to the first four in some ways. For instance, based on the first four, I had thought of Rowling as being great at characterization, while the content of five and six really seemed to contradict that; taking those two into account, it seems more like her characters do whatever the plot requires them to. I think this a genuine complaint, though you're right that I probably wouldn't hold it against her so much if I hadn't thought so highly of that particular attribute in the first four.

Also, I've discovered that I disagree with her on the moral messages that *are* there (whether or not they're supposed to be). For instance, one of the stronger "messages" I think can be legitimately read into the books is that violence, revenge, and "dirty" fighting are perfectly acceptable, as long as they're done by people who are generally on the right side of a moral-based conflict or believe the right things. Alternately, it's okay if the violent actions began in defense of self or others, even if those violent actions drastically exceed what would seem to be necessary for that defense. That happens to be a message that I vehemently disagree with, and events supporting this pop up again and again, with only occasional suggestions of disapproval (from the author or anyone else). You mentioned "love" as a moral in the books -- while that moral is stated again and again, there's only a couple moments where it seems to win or even to drive major events. So far, hatred seems to win out, as practiced both by the bad guys and the good guys.

All this has to do with JKR as a *writer*, not as a person; obviously, I've never met her. However, with each interview or website post, it seems less and less likely that I would like her in person. Generally I try not to hold that against her books, but it's honestly rather difficult (and I know I'm not alone in this).

Despite my complaints, I love these books, and I'll keep reading them for all the great parts in and through them. I've never hated JKR. I still think she's a very good writer, in fact, but I don't think she's nearly as good as I used to think.

Thank you! Those are exactly my thoughts too, though you can actually put them into words better than I can :)

"...I think can be legitimately read into the books is that violence, revenge, and "dirty" fighting are perfectly acceptable, as long as they're done by people who are generally on the right side of a moral-based conflict or believe the right things."

One of the many reasons why HBP really irked me to no possible ends, I'm afraid. I've never been a great fan of the Slytherins, but it struck me how godawful some of the Gryffindors are in their behaviour that if they were in Slytherin they'd be ZOMG!TehEvol!1!! Yet it's perfectly okay if Gryffindors are out hexing people for little to no reason and it's credited as "they asked for it/they had it coming/good riddance kthnxbai".

I used to love the books, devoured them even but HBP really changed that, perhaps even as early as OotP. Like you I feel that these are a writer's faults, not the person. And even then, I don't get JKR at all and now I feel that I must avoid her comments as of late because it just makes me angry and I still need to read Book 7 before I ignore her altogether :P

You mentioned "love" as a moral in the books -- while that moral is stated again and again, there's only a couple moments where it seems to win or even to drive major events. So far, hatred seems to win out, as practiced both by the bad guys and the good guys.

Unfortunately, that can happen. I was really hoping Fred and George's near-killing of Montague would be explored. But I think Harry is going to do a lot of questioning about how he acted in HBP, and hopefully will realize that nearly killing Draco did merit detention. (In fairness, he does say he deserves it, but he's still bitter about Quidditch.) Yet somehow, I hve a feeling that, and Hermione and Ron's actions, will be explored.

But I do think her books otherwise have good messages... I just disagree that the bad guys apparently "deserve it."

For instance, based on the first four, I had thought of Rowling as being great at characterization, while the content of five and six really seemed to contradict that; taking those two into account, it seems more like her characters do whatever the plot requires them to...

I still think she's a very good writer, in fact, but I don't think she's nearly as good as I used to think.

Another thank you from over here for both of those points. The characters introduced since OotP aren't as rich and complex as those we saw in the first four books - and it's not because we've known Remus, Sirius etc. longer, it's because they're just not. Add to that the fact that the plots of OotP and HBP deviated from the must-read mystery formula she'd used in the previous four books, and I think we've got a right to say we're just not as happy with the series as we used to be.

*applauds Amy*

Here from the Snitch. I think your point about expectations is a good one. It seems that some people wanted a prescriptive tale of good and evil but what JKR has dished out is something rather more chaotic. The disappointment tends to get taken out on JKR and Dumbledore!

What gets me most about the HP books is … how much more there is to them than is at first apparent. JKR is actually trying to pull off something quite complicated. HP is a school story, a mystery thriller, a fantasy, a comedy with a strong element of satire, and an alchemical work, to name just five. There is tragedy and horror there too. HP’s roots are in myth and it’s reach extends to existentialism. In comparison a lot of the criticism made in fandom seems merely narrow, blinkered - and so bloody po-faced! If HP has a message then it seems to me it’s about what it is to be human. There’s no hope of understanding good and evil – or love for that matter - if there isn’t first an understanding (and acceptance) of humanity in all its messiness, from self-sacrifice to practical jokes via lying and brawling and snogging.

jsut curious... iagree there's lots of generes i nthisseries andalso lots of favourite keystones liek the boarding school-enviromnent and the mystery threads now and then but..existentialism/ I"m not sayign I think it isn't there, i'm jsut curiosu nwo and hope yo ucan give me soem examples.

Certainly. Try this fab essay - http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/86380.html.
(It's probably the only one, but it convinced me!)

aha. I'll check that-one out. In the past I've somtiems felt though, like yo ucoudl find anytign inthe hp series and expand on it.

Fair point! I adore the existentialism connection, but the only thing I'm really certain of in HP is the alchemy.

o hthat's anotherone.
I said i nthe original post already It's getting a bit hard for me to reda just forreading. I'm a bit reluctantto analsye stuff by now but there's his autopilot that can't seem to stop pickign up ltitle snippets or tries to answer questions.
its' just...wel iguess if ijoine dessay communities I'd see writings onliterally anything that coudl be linked to Harry.

Honest, alchemy is central to HP, as Book 1 - er, 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' - proposed, and Book 7 will confirm. If you don't believe me, just ask Sirius Black, Albus Dumbledore and Rubeus Hagrid!

Woops. that last bit didn't refer at all to recognizign the alchemy thing. in factiIt's naother of those things I harldy know mroe aboutthan the philosopher's stone so i don't knw the significance ofread white and black here. i recognizedit because ithoguth yo ureferred to those two or three essaysabout haryr's alchemica ltransformation (transision?) buti's al lstuffi decided notto dig into because the subject mater itself is new to me. and i"ve had experience with a piece offiction that had important clues hiden in a grek myth i knew next to nothing about adn so i lost track of the plot and could onl ythink 'what IS this?" and panicked.

If HP has a message then it seems to me it’s about what it is to be human.

Wow, well said! I think you've captured the heart of the series ... or at least the way I interpret it. ;-D

or just enjoy the story itself for the story poru sang (sp?) which is what I usedto do and am still trying to do but after seeing so much overanalysing, nitpickign every little thing and throwing big fits over the stuff you mentioned it'a bit tough for menotto feel shallow and ignorant. liek I"m not digging deep enough the way I should. bah .adn ther's another thing tha started after the exposion of hurtful stuff after hbp adn then the rant on her site that got so much yammering .I ema nat some poitn it hoguth she cant' say adam nthign any more without someone tracking dow na negative way to read t and yammering about it.

I don't hate her, I just am so disappointed in that last book that I want to scream. I did have expectations, I expected the main characters to be people I could like, and I don't like arrogant twats who happily hex anyone they don't like and are praised for it by the author. I expected a little depth in the evil characters, rather than a cop-out in making Voldemort a sociopath and thus negating the choice vs destiny theme in the books. I expected Sirius to be mention, and for Harry to mourn his passing. I expected to be /shown/ the romance, not told about how great it was. I expected to feel fear now that that Voldemort was now attacking, not feel like I'd been plunged into a high-school romance with only a few throw away comments about 'Who's died today?' I expected realistic characters, not the glorified Mary-sue that because Harry's romantic interest. All in all, I expected a better book.

I was then gutted that no one had the guts to tell Rowling that she'd made mistakes which /I/ could pick out (and this is not a matter of personal preference, 'show, not tell' is something that's been drilled into me in every Creative Writing class I've been to). I have nothing against Rowling, but she desperately needs better editors, and her female characters leave a lot to be desired.

That is why I have a low opinion of Rowling's writing, and for the record, I don't ship.

Skull Bearer.

Oh, and of course not all people who had problems ship. Actually, from my experience a lot of the people who do ship think the "JKR is mean and I hate her because she sunk my ship" wank is stupid. That's who I'm talking about.

I think Harry did mourn Sirius, just not openly. He has to move on. And there were many darker moments.

I'll agree that the romance was a bit excessive, of course, although I think it's mainly the fact that they are "that age." I draw the line at Filch/Pince, however... did we really need that? Filch is a creepy guy who misses the days where he could abuse the students! (I feel a bit sorry for him, but not sorry enough to forgive his hatred of innocent kids).

Interesting feedback. :) I do like seeing other sides to opinions of HBP, just not JKR being accused of things you don't nonchalantly accuse someone of.

I lived through 'that age' not that long ago (4 years to be exact) and I don't remember going mad with hormones, nor remember seeing that with my friends. More than that, the romance was just /not well written!/ Nothing against JKR, my favourite author, Micheal Moorcock, can't write romance either, but someone ought to tell JKR (as someone no doubt told Moorcock) not to write it for half the book!

part of me felt liek that and part ofme was inhysterics because it soudned so much liek acrackship of doom for one of those fests or what have you. although yeah. Hey, but didnt' yo unoticeh ow Pincei s like a matron of death when it comesto protecting her books/ yay. jkr hates librarians too.
I onl ynow remember finishign poa and thinkign' this tign about one dada teacher per year is getting abit old'. but perhaps I was mostl ybiassed as well...

This is a really interesting discussion you've started. Your points about expectation and fanon are quite insightful. It is difficult to keep canon and fanon separate for many people, especially since most of probably spend much more time reading fanfic than we do reading the actual series. And since so much of fanon revolves around romance, sex, and relationships, there are many readers who are bound to be upset when their vision of Potterverse collides with Rowling's latest book. I love the fandom, but I'm always a little amazed by the fact that we tend to obsess over the details that often don't really matter to the story Rowling wants to tell. One of the people who commented here in this thread complained that Rowling doesn't develop her characters, particularly her villains. I don't actually think that's the story she's interested in. Voldemort is more of a plot device than a character. It's Harry, his friends, and a few of the adults that she cares most about. She's not interested in how evil develops. She's interested in how essentially decent people deal with evil. She develops the characters who can address this issue, and she uses the other characters as vehicles for plot and setting. And personally, I'm glad she doesn't develop the other characters because that gives us more room to play in fanfiction! ;-D Thanks again for the discussion.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So really... why the feelings against Rowling?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Scribblous worthy...

Re: Scribblous worthy...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

From the Snitch

Re: From the Snitch

Re: From the Snitch

Re: From the Snitch

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Here via daily snitch