author_by_night (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
author_by_night) wrote2006-05-11 09:01 am
author_by_night) wrote2006-05-11 09:01 am
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.
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.
no subject
no subject
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