trying on a metaphor
Kiana Khansmith
祝日 / Permanent Vacation
#extradirty
No title available
Jules of Nature
⁂
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
ellievsbear
almost home
dirt enthusiast
$LAYYYTER
Three Goblin Art
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Discoholic 🪩
Misplaced Lens Cap
Mike Driver
No title available
ojovivo
KIROKAZE
seen from United States
seen from South Korea
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Chile
seen from Paraguay
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Venezuela
seen from Italy
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@justapatronus
I've essentially "orphaned" a few of my inactive blogs. I created another blog and added it as an admin member. Then, I left it from my main.
They will remain there, inactive indefinitely, but be available to see previous posts. If you followed one of them, you will still be following it and be able to look at it whenever you want.
every day british actors wake up and think to themselves fuckkkkk i HAVE to help the incredibly bigoted woman make more money so she can funnel it into killing trans people i have to do it bro if i don't do it i will die
In case y'all needed proof that continuing to engage with HP and fucking over trans folks is in fact a CHOICE, Daniel Radcliffe has refused to even have a cameo, despite being repeatedly asked.
For those that don't speak British, this is about as close as he can get to officially, publicly saying, "for FUCK'S sake, get that thing away from me and stop associating me with it, I do not want my name attached to that bigotry."
Daniel consistently redirects the topic away from Jo and toward the Trevor Project, an organization he has been heavily involved with for almost 20 years. He puts his money where his mouth is and uses his platform and his reach to amplify queer voices and queer struggles. He explicitly supports trans people, and is choosing to walk away from a very large and very easy paycheck, because he values trans lives over anything he could get from HP.
Emma and Rupert also won't go near this reboot. Jo has stated the reason she's doing it is BECAUSE the three of them refuse to support her vile hatred.
Every actor who puts their name on this, on any level, deserves to own the choice they're making with their whole chest. If they decide the paycheck is worth being ten toes down on transphobia? They're adults. They chose. And they deserve to be treated accordingly. Actions speak louder than words.
And if you give it a moment of attention or a single penny, you deserve to face the consequences of that choice too.
With the drop of the new Fantastic Beasts trailer, let's take a moment to remember that JKR:
1. is unequivocally a TERF + openly supports and allies herself with other TERFs
2. uses her massive wealth and platform to fight against trans rights, such that an anti-trans republican senator has cited her controversial essay to block voting on the Equality Act , and
3. has retained so much control over the HP franchise that giving her money (through movie tickets, book sales, official merch, etc) actively enables and contributes to the platform she uses to target vulnerable people
Also, everyone please stop promoting the brand with fan merch, discussion videos, anything that brings attention to the brand in a way that algorithms and other tracking services can report as engagement and interest. Let this entire franchise wither and die. You can reclaim the setting for nostalgia when that hateful woman is dead and gone.
Thanks for this addition. The uncomfortable reality is that while JKR's alive and in control of the franchise, there is no completely clean way to positively interact with her work. Supporting her is fundamentally different from supporting other "problematic" authors from the past. Firstly and most obviously, JKR is a living writer. Dead authors do not derive more power and platform from book/ticket sales and discourse; JKR does. She can and will use that continued power to continually push anti-trans rhetoric.
Secondly, JKR is the Harry Potter franchise. Even among living authors, the amount of creative control she exercises is exceptional. Because she retains all publishing rights and rights to the characters, she has the final say with the series, whether that's through writing new books, updating information and lore, or even determining when/how her franchise is represented in film. There is no divorcing JKR from the HP franchise.
Even if you pirate the new films to avoid supporting her financially, contributing to the hype through fan merch, videos, etc. perpetuates the demand for content and, therefore, JKR herself. As long as she has a fan base, she has appeal. And based on her current trajectory, as long as she has that appeal she's most likely going to continue endangering trans people.
If you have an emotional connection to Harry Potter, I obviously can't take that away from you; I'd be a hypocrite if I tried. But I implore you to withhold your support not just financially but socially if you can.
For more information about JKR's transphobia and the danger she poses to the trans community, I'd recommend Jessie Gender. She has several excellent videos that break down both examples of Rowling's transphobia and their consequences - including the very real way they've already harmed trans people and especially trans women. Kat Blaque and Samantha Lux have also covered the issue, although I'm less familiar with the rest of their topic.
I’ve linked, in order:
One of Kat Blaque’s Videos on jkr
The first video that came up when I searched “samantha lux jkr”
Jesse Gender’s most recent video on jkr
Contrapoint’s video on jkr
Jammidoger’s video on jkr
Here’s some info to help you choose if you don’t want to watch all of them.
Kat is the only trans poc in this list and her video is ~10 mins.
I’ve never seen samantha lux’s videos so i have no comment sorry. her video is ~30 mins
Jesse has a LOT of videos on jkr, and the video i’ve linked is ~25 mins.
Contrapoints is very theatrical. She’s a well known left tuber, if occasionally controversial. her video is ~ 1 hr 30 mins
Jamie is the only trans man in this list, the video is ~50 mins.
TWENTY YEARS OF HARRY POTTER FILMS - 11.16.2001
Help will always be given at Hogwarts, Harry, to those who ask for it. I’ve always prized myself on my ability to turn a phrase. Words are, in my not so humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it. But I would, in this case, amend my original statement to this: “Help would always be given at Hogwarts, to those who deserve it.” Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living. And above all, those who live without love.
I tried to find something about this to reblog and share, but I didn't see anything so I wanted to put this out there. More than 1000 authors have all signed a petition to stand in solidarity with trans rights and essentially condemning J.K. Rowling's TERF views.
This includes Stephen King (which coincides with his Twitter drama with Rowling from before), Margaret Atwood, Neil Gaiman, and more big names in the industry.
Look at those beautiful trans supportive authors!
The Google doc with the letter and a list of the authors who signed it can be found here:
This is a letter of support for the trans and non-binary community from publishing professionals of the United States and Canada. It is a co
Here is a link to an LA Times article:
Between 1,500 and 2,000 members of the North American literary world signed an open letter offering support to trans and nonbinary communiti
And here is a link to the Guardian article:
With more than 1,200 signatories the US and Canada including Neil Gaiman and NK Jemisin, message follows row over comments by JK Rowling
I thought, given all the sincere disappointment I've heard from people who loved her books, at least this gives you an alternative source.
Trans rights are human rights!
this is not an onion headline
Don’t forget this man is also directly responsible for driving a transfem comedian to suicide
Hey, so they’re making a Netflix Harry Potter.
With that in mind, we’re all gonna remember that JKR is a terf who has literally been cited by legislators engaged in legislation that actively harms trans people, and we’re not gonna give her any more money.
That means not streaming the new show on Netflix, because regardless of how much influence she has on the production, she gets paid for it.
We’re gonna make the show flop. We’re gonna show Warner Brothers that we don’t forget (of course, how would we forget, it isn’t as if she’s stopped), and that their business association with terfs is no longer profitable.
It is NOT like Lovecraft, because Lovecraft is very dead and his works are in the public domain. By consuming Lovecraft media, you are not giving any money to old Howard.
reblogging this again to say some googling led to the tentative conclusion that the new remake will be on HBO max, which is owned by WarnerMedia. Netflix hasn’t hosted anything Harry Potter since early 2020, presumably because Warner is trying to direct the hp audience to their own streaming service.
Remember she also takes any support of her work as agreeing with her bigotry
And to those who say, but second hand books and read them, what about the one who buys a second hand book, reads it, thinks wow how awesome
^ link to the post/full thread of where I got this tweet
She actively funds anti-trans causes and is basically the spokesperson for UK terfism and quite honestly her influence probably was related to the recent UK anti-trans laws. Part of the reason she’s so powerful is because she has money. Cut off her money supply. Please boycott her.
Main media: This character is one of the kindest characters out there. They love their family and friends and they're loyal to them. They are compassionate towards everyone, and they never abandon someone in need. They are a beacon of hope.
Spinoff or Sequel media: This character is an incompetent or neglectful parent and you should have seen it coming :/
who would win: ginny and her tacky 90s clothes or luna and her tacky wizard robes? the answer is why would they fight, they’re in love
harry potter is so funny they really just categorized 11-yr-olds as either jocks, nerds, betas, or ethnonationalists
𝐇𝐎𝐆𝐖𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐒 𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐀𝐂𝐘 | OFFICIAL REVEAL TRAILER
HARRY POTTER AND PHILOSOPHER’S STONE (2001) + letterboxd reviews
other hp movies: [2nd] ; [3rd]
need to start carrying a megaphone around so I can say "j k Rowling, *megaphone screeches* THE FIGUREHEAD OF A HATE MOVEMENT,"
she's not generically "icky" or "sucks" or "has bad opinions" she is the enthusiastic leader of a present day hate movement that wants the extermination of a minority. she's not Orson Scott Card or H P Lovecraft or any vaguely bigoted author you can name--she's exponentially worse because of the reach and scope of her power and ambition, and anyone who can't acknowledge that first and foremost when talking about h*rry p*tter is no ally of mine no matter how much she can "eat your shorts".
The Polyjuice potion 🐱
I think it’s time we as a species realize that harry potter was never good. it was just marketable and gave impressionable kids a lot to project onto.
the reason Joanne got rejected by so many publishers isn’t because they couldn’t see her genius, it’s because the one that picked it up was the first one to realize they could market the shit out of houses, wands, magical pets, etc, the setting was a gold mine for getting kids to project themselves into. it didn’t matter that the plot and characters and writing were all terrible. they even kept adding more elements for this later on with things like patronuses. harry potter was never literature, it was always just a marketing scheme.
I think this revisionism of “HP was terrible all along” misses the point.
Yes, there were some shitty, problematic elements from the start (like the goblins), and yes they were marketable as hell, but I’d say the first few books successfully captured some elements of whimsy, and the humor in them hit the right notes for kids. The first few are not great books but they’re also not terrible. (The later ones were bloated and awful tho, imo).
And of course certain books are published because they’re marketable but that doesn’t mean they’re automatically bad books or lack any entertainment value.
The thing is she doesn’t have to have had bad books to be a bad person. Someone that wrote some decent books that kids liked can still be a shitty person and we need to learn and accept that shitty people can and do make good art or at least quality entertainment.
The reason we need to recognize bad people make good art rather than create a revisionist history that every single thing the person has done was terrible, is because we have to be comfortable with criticizing and condemning (and sometimes boycotting) creators even when things they made were beloved to us at some point, even when there was some good or some entertainment value in the things they created.
I think it’s good to look back at her work with a more critical eye but the first few books were actually decent (regardless of yes, a few shitty flaws like the goblins, and regardless of being super merchandisable). That doesn’t change that she’s still a bigoted dickhole. And we don’t have to pretend everything she created was awful to treat her like a bigoted dickhole.
And accepting the dichotomy of “shitty people can make good things but they’re still shitty” makes it easier to prevent ourselves from getting in a mindset of stanning the things we like when a creator is an awful person.
Recent Harry Potter discourse has reeked of the implicit assumption that there is some kind of moral dimension to having liked her books, with people feeling pride that they, as children, “never liked” Harry Potter or “always knew” it was bad.
It’s argued as if the people who “realized” that Harry Potter was Bad All Along were picking up on some…single big quality that includes both the bigotry of the author and the quality of the story, worldbuilding, et cetera. It’s absolutely bizarre.
But, all of that aside. Holy shit, no, no, no, Harry Potter was not a toy marketing scheme, what on earth, that’s the weirdest thing I’ve heard all day.
The category of children’s lit was on death’s door in the late 90’s. YA was straight up not a thing in the way it is today. Book series still don’t get toy lines by themselves, and the fact that the book-to-movie adaptation of Harry Potter was successful is still kind of a weird fluke. Nobody is publishing a book counting on a film adaptation that can be turned into a toy line, and they sure as hell weren’t in 1997. If that worked James Patterson or whoever the hell that guy is would be doing it.
There are a LOT of series that fit the “capitalist marketing scheme” idea a lot better than Harry Potter (read: Lorien legacies, the unwanteds, wolves of the beyond, fablehaven, wings of fire, that series a while back that was about like animal shapeshifters or something? With a different big name YA author behind every book?) and they haven’t successfully marketed anything except themselves.
Please, not every piece of media that has problems has to have a capitalist conspiracy theory at its core
If you want to dial it back to “Harry Potter was published because the publisher thought they could make money,” all books are published because the publisher thinks they will make money. Publishing is a business. This is how capitalism works.
It was only published because they could make toys is the stupidest nonsense I’ve ever read. Look up who first published the book, and where they were in terms of having any ability to market toys in the 90s.
Oh my god, kids…
Seriously. There was no merchandise at the beginning. Book 1 was very much a surprise hit. The marketability didn’t really begin until several books in, and then it was pretty much just postcards/bookmarks and publishing parties (preferrably taking place in the middle ground between platform 9 and 10 at suitable train stations, who probably got more money out of it than the actual publisher) when a new instalment appeared. You couldn’t get “Harry Potter” style wands. There were no “Harry Potter” style wands. You couldn’t get designated Hogwarts robes. If you wanted to bring Hedwig, you had to get a generic snow owl plush toy; there was no dedicated Harry Potter toy series yet.
The real marketability began with the movies, and of course when WB bought the rights they doubtlessly had merchandise in mind - on top of best-selling family movies - from the start. But the first book was very much a risk for the publisher to take (one that the publisher was hoping would pay off, certainly, that’s the idea behind the business, but nonetheless a risk). And there was value in them beyond “giving impressionable kids something to project onto” - not that there’s anything wrong with that per se. Escapism is a value. Entertainment is a value, or we wouldn’t have so much of it. Selling a fantasy world with magic and dragons to people who otherwise wouldn’t touch fantasy with a ten-foot pole is definitely a value, and that is what happened. There are other series which have, perhaps, made more and better of the School For Magicians scenario! But Harry Potter managed to combine elements of magical realism, urban high fantasy and the long-standing genre of the Boarding School Novel. And that’s probably the true secret of its success: it managed to speak to kids and adults, internationally, well beyond the genre borders of fantasy.
And then it got a film (series) deal and all the corresponding merchandise.
The idea that something must always have been bad (and that the wise and woke could always see that) because the author turns out to be a shit person is ludicrous. Bad people can write good books. Great people can write shit books. People of all sorts can write mediocre but immensely entertaining fiction. The quality of a work of fiction doesn’t reveal, and isn’t determined by, the politics of its creator. Nor is it necessarily fixed. It can change in time, especially for individual readers (“I used to love this but the hype makes me feel kinda meh”; ”I now see that by XYZ you meant ABC; therefore I no longer agree”). It can also remain unchanged - because some readers are in fact able to divorce fiction from reality, and to be aware of the problematic aspects and still enjoy the things they always enjoyed about it.
