Rowling Derangement Syndrome - "TERF/Woke Author Bad!!1"

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
behindyourightnow said:
In what world is 55 people "good going"?
Click to expand...
In the world of the Edinburgh Fringe festival, where thousands of shows jockey for attention over nearly a month. (That doesn't even account for the OTHER arts festivals happening during the same period....)

For many shows, such as ones held in the back room of a pub or even in a smaller space of one of the conglomerates (i.e. Assembly, Underbelly, Pleasance, C Venues), 55 people would be a sellout. And I've been at more than one show where there were maybe 2-3 people in the audience.

If you're not from Edinburgh or near enough to come in for the day, you couldn't just pop in to see a performance. If you did travel to see it, which will cost you £££ for accommodation, you'd want to wait until later in the run when things hit their stride - as I said in an earlier post, the first few days are effectively dress rehearsals. The actress playing JKR lives is London; no idea about the others.

A more interesting figure would be how many tickets the show sells now that the initial flurry of interest is over, after it failed to garner any strong reviews from top tier review sites. If it has 55 audience members on its final Saturday performance, that would be far less impressive.
 
Gorillion others said:
I will give the film universe some credit due to Alan Rickman. His interpretation of Snape was more of a troubled man than a spiteful bully. But yes, Watson or Wattson, whatever and however the fuck you spell her blasted name, became terrible as the movies progressed. In fact, the Prisoner of Azkaban was where it was more evident that she could not act to save her life. Part 1 and 2 were, and always will be, a stellar introduction into the books, because a lot of us still have some tender memories to look back on.

Pity the magic system is actually terrible once you try to make sense of it.
Click to expand...
Alan Rickman was the MVP of those movies, no question.

Apparently, it was revealed that he dunked on Emma Watson's acting skills (or lack thereof) in his "career journal/diary." Accurate and hilarious.

Around the time the Harry Potter movies came out, that was during the time where the LOTR Trilogy and the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies came out. I was much more invested in LOTR and Spider-Man back then that Harry Potter was more of an afterthought for me. During the hype of those movies, I was like "Okay, I'll check them out if my friends want to go see it or something, but I'm not in any rush to seek them out myself," whereas I needed to see all the Spider-Man and LOTR movies at the midnight screenings and then see them again in theaters over and over. Teenage me was outright spoiled on the high quality of media that came out back in the day, lemmetellya.

Because my "focus" on HP when the movies came out wasn't all that enthusiastic due to how obsessed I was with LOTR and Spidey, I think I overlooked a lot of stuff such as Emma Watson's terrible acting. When HP was done and I saw her in more movies, I was like, "Well, she's not a good actress at all ... Maybe she was just born to play Hermoine and no other role."

After rewatching the HP movies after so many years though, I was taken aback by how terrible Watson was even as Hermoine. "Born to play Hermoine"? No. She sucked as Hermoine, too. Every line she uttered was overacted. So cringey!

Also, Hermoine was so much cooler and more fun in the books, and was often the instigator of the trouble the trio got themselves into, lol. Emma Watson made Hermoine a buzzkill.
 
Wonderland foster child said:
f you're not from Edinburgh or near enough to come in for the day, you couldn't just pop in to see a performance
Click to expand...

I mean, sure, but can't you just walk there from elsewhere in the island? London to Edinburgh is what, 30 minutes on foot? Assuming you don't fall into a bog or get stabbed along the way?

Here's the weird part. At least one TERF was among those 55 in the audience and she... actually kind of liked the play?

1.png

2.png

 
Yet Another Wanker said:
Can we please stop with this balance malarkey. It's right up there with "Safety is our Number 1 Priority" in the list of bullshit we all believe because we're all retarded.

Step 1 of forming an opinion and taking a side is being unbalanced including that which you like and excluding everything opposed to it.
Click to expand...
It's so balanced and fair, the title is a slur.
 
Trying to make sense of it is your mistake. Fantasy is not there to be made sense of.

Gondolindrim said:
Apparently Imane Khalif is pursuing legal action against all the slander. Personally, if I was JKR and my name came up I would just say "go to hell"
Click to expand...
95% of people that announce they are pursuing legal action do not in fact take any legal action. It's your PR 101 move: vaguely announce legal action to see if it calms people.

If you look at the articles on Reduxx that started the boxing controversy, they are written very carefully. These women know what they are doing.
 
behindyourightnow said:
I mean, sure, but can't you just walk there from elsewhere in the island? London to Edinburgh is what, 30 minutes on foot? Assuming you don't fall into a bog or get stabbed along the way?
Click to expand...
Personally, I summon my footman and travel by post chaise, stopping at an inn en route to enjoy a refreshing glass of negus.

Ace review from a mate of Julie Bindel:
 
StarkRavingMad said:
I'm gonna be frank: The only movies I truly enjoyed upon the rewatch were the first two. The rest of them did not hold up whatsoever. And holy shit, Emma Watson is a terrible actress. I never thought she was particularly good, but the bad acting really stands out upon seeing the movies again after such a long time. She was a cute kid in the first two movies, so that worked for her ... But she got so much worse as she got older and the films progressed.
Click to expand...

Both Watson and Dan Radcliffe were pretty wretched to start with, though Dan's improved a fair bit. Grint was actually a really solid child actor.

Gorillion others said:
I will give the film universe some credit due to Alan Rickman. His interpretation of Snape was more of a troubled man than a spiteful bully.
Click to expand...

Even Rowling said as she wrote the later books a lot of Rickman seeped into her version. It probably helps that he apparently knew the Lily endgame stuff from the start and worked that into his performance. I always thought that was something Rowling or Rickman made up, but no, apparently he mentions it in his diaries early on.

Gorillion others said:
Pity the magic system is actually terrible once you try to make sense of it.
Click to expand...

I will defend Harry Potter's place in the modern's children's canon to the hilt, and I don't think every fantasy story needs a super fiddly Brandon Sanderson esque magic system... but yeah, Rowling's worldbuilding is ropey as shit. Like, the Weasleys' poverty. Ron having to do with a second hand wand? Sure, wand-making is clearly a specialised trade, so I believe his parents can't just whip one up for him themselves. Kind of weird Hogwarts didn't set him up when we know they have poverty assitance (Tom didn't have to make do with a second hand wand, and he was an orphan) but whatever, budget cuts. But why is he wearing hand-me-down clothes? You telling me Molly couldn't buy some fabric and weave some clothes with magic?

As a worldbuilder, Rowling's main skill was an eye for good imagery, but her strength was really in characters. If anything, the most realistic part about Rowling's world is that Harry keeps learning about various problems and inequalities, but the series doesn't end with him fixing them all. And we all know how that makes the Twits reee.

"Harry didn't single-handedly abolish centuries of magically enforced slavery! That means Rowling thinks it's okay!"
 
Wonderland foster child said:
Ace review from a mate of Julie Bindel
Click to expand...
Wish we could see a clip of this bit:
The anonymous actor playing X is by far the biggest, tallest person on stage, he has enormous bare feet and his purple hair shows unmistakable signs of male-pattern baldness. He is dressed in what appears to be a thin white nightgown with one, broken, angel wing and a silver mask, looking for all the world as if he raided his daughter’s nativity dressing-up box. Most of the time, he has tape over his mouth (presumably to signify the imaginary lack of trans voices) but when he does speak, it is in a thin, reedy voice, so it’s fortunate those back and middle rows were not occupied. He lurks, voyeur-like, with head tilted, listening to the others. It’s clear that we are supposed to see this man as vulnerable: he overacts panic and fear, but bad acting is all it is. In fact, it’s all deeply creepy and unsettling. On one occasion he lies on the floor, stretching an arm out to Jo - no doubt to signify that this is a vulnerable person needing protection from a woman Kaplan seems to see as a mummy figure gone bad. But it looks threatening. It’s brilliant and revealing, but not, I imagine, in the way intended.
Click to expand...

The rest sounds much like what I expected -
  • the young female character being a bE KiNd brainless libfem
  • the two faux-feminist men being unable to cope with being white males, angry at a woman doing something they don't like
  • the JKR woman being a cold-hearted Cruella de Vil type character who thinks every little girl should be forced to dress head-to-toe in pink
  • pretend to sympathise with her domestic abuse but show how it's made her bitter and paranoid
  • TIM character is quiet and docile, just wants to be loved and accepted uwu
Also the bit about the male writer "reclaiming" the word cunt made me laugh out loud. That.... doesn't work that way. Don't be a pussy, Kaplan, just say you hate her and wanted to call her a cunt, without being cancelled for it.
 
You'd think that the playwright would have understood the 'large man in degraded childhood costume / faded whimsy' is a solid staple of horror movies at this point. Like pennywise the clown.

troon.png
This would be a completely plausible slasher for the right sort of horror movie. He's also got 'run, trip, fall' written on his hand.
 
Tragon Dirtle said:
You'd think that the playwright would have understood the 'large man in degraded childhood costume / faded whimsy' is a solid staple of horror movies at this point. Like pennywise the clown.

View attachment 6295504
This would be a completely plausible slasher for the right sort of horror movie. He's also got 'run, trip, fall' written on his hand.
Click to expand...
Looks like some sort of 1980s pro-wrestler gimmick.
 
I know I’m very late to this but I’ve been listening to Megan Phelps-Roper’s podcast with Rowling (“The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling”) and it’s reminding me of how these people do not listen to what she’s actually been saying. They‘re all saying the same thing “I don’t understand“ and “why?” They haven’t attempted to understand whatsoever. It’s one thing to disagree with somebody but they don’t even comprehend her criticisms and concerns of the trans movement. Its crazy to me.
 
Last edited:
Bloo said:
I know I’m very late to this but I’ve been listening to Megan Phelps-Roper’s podcast with Rowling (“The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling”) and it’s reminding me of how these people do not listen to what she’s actually been saying. They‘re all saying the same thing “I don’t understand“ and “why?” They haven’t attempted to understand whatsoever. It’s one thing to disagree with somebody but they don’t even comprehend her criticisms and concerns of the trans movement. Its crazy to me.
Click to expand...
Yes they do this to everyone. At the centre of their worldview is the belief that they are pure innocent victims of the world's cruelty and anyone who opposes them simply must be also racist, misogynistic, homophobic etc... etc... It can never be for the reasons they say.
 
Candidate No 7 said:
Yes they do this to everyone. At the centre of their worldview is the belief that they are pure innocent victims of the world's cruelty and anyone who opposes them simply must be also racist, misogynistic, homophobic etc... etc... It can never be for the reasons they say.
Click to expand...
It’s a complete lack of intellectual curiosity. Even if I heavily disagree with someone about something I at least try to make an effort to understand what they’re saying, even when it’s nonsense. It’s more out of a curiosity of why people think the things they do.

I do quite like this podcast. Megan is very articulate and is at least engaging with the actual arguments.
 
Bloo said:
It’s a complete lack of intellectual curiosity. Even if I heavily disagree with someone about something I at least try to make an effort to understand what they’re saying, even when it’s nonsense. It’s more out of a curiosity of why people think the things they do.

I do quite like this podcast. Megan is very articulate and is at least engaging with the actual arguments.
Click to expand...

When you finish it, there were two follow-up episodes last month on another podcast created by the same producers. Megan joins them.

Reflector - You Can't Say That (Part 1)
A year after 'The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling', where do things stand?

Reflector - You Can't Say That (Part 2)
Three of Rowling’s critics on the state of public debates and their evolving views of the author
 
Online Fossil said:
WHYYYY would you do this. Tattoo cover-ups are a thing. Laser removal is a thing. The only reason to do this is if you want an excuse to bitch to anyone who asks about how you had to black out all your Harry Potter tattoos because of le evil TERF.
Click to expand...
I can think of another reason: having a full sleve of childrens book charachters won't give you much cred in artsy circles or the biker bar for that matter, a full black sleve is edgy and artsy, at least in some circles. I'm guessing the author being a terf is just a convenient excuse to change her identity to something less cringe. She graduated college and got a new group of friends or something.
 
White-Kettle Shufflepunk said:
Like, the Weasleys' poverty. Ron having to do with a second hand wand? Sure, wand-making is clearly a specialised trade, so I believe his parents can't just whip one up for him themselves. Kind of weird Hogwarts didn't set him up when we know they have poverty assitance (Tom didn't have to make do with a second hand wand, and he was an orphan) but whatever, budget cuts. But why is he wearing hand-me-down clothes? You telling me Molly couldn't buy some fabric and weave some clothes with magic?
Click to expand...
Ron is, I think, the most sensitive of his siblings to his family’s poverty. None of his other siblings seem embarrassed by being poor. It doesn’t help that Ron has a wealthy best friend. But the Weasleys refuse to accept charity because they are proud. They actually have some family money, but they live frugally and intend to provide for all their children, even if their kids have used wands or their clothes are a bit threadbare. (Ron is also not the only child to have a used wand; Neville uses his father’s old wand until he breaks it and gets his own.) At many points in the book, Harry offers them money, and Bill even has access to Harry’s vault at Gringotts, but they never take a dime from him. I think that’s actually pretty admirable. It shows that their relationship with Harry was genuine, not transactional, and that a family doesn’t need a bunch of material goods to be loving and happy. It’s clearly meant to contrast with the Dursleys, who were all transactional and obsessed with appearances and materialism.
 
Mayhem said:
Ron is, I think, the most sensitive of his siblings to his family’s poverty. None of his other siblings seem embarrassed by being poor
Click to expand...
Percy is, that's (part of) why he becomes a careerist.

Anyway, looks like Imane Khelif's (French) lawyer Nabil Boudi who is the crusader type (no it's OK to use this word about a Moslem, don't start this shit with me 😋 ) has indeed filed a complaint for cyber-harassment with the Paris prosecutor's relevant unit. So I was wrong about that. This means the complaint doesn't name anyone - he intends for the unit to investigate and expose what he imagines is a coordinated attack. He seems to be mostly focused on the idea this was racially motivated as that's his beat. Everyone seems to see what they want to see in this business.
 
Mayhem said:
(Ron is also not the only child to have a used wand; Neville uses his father’s old wand until he breaks it and gets his own.) At many points in the book, Harry offers them money, and Bill even has access to Harry’s vault at Gringotts, but they never take a dime from him. I think that’s actually pretty admirable. It shows that their relationship with Harry was genuine, not transactional, and that a family doesn’t need a bunch of material goods to be loving and happy. It’s clearly meant to contrast with the Dursleys, who were all transactional and obsessed with appearances and materialism.
Click to expand...
Honestly still signaling though, even if "just" internally. After the run-in with the large chess pieces at the end of the first book they should have realized death wasn't a far-off abstraction, but could happen to them. No point in saving a relatively small amount of money for later if there's a good chance you're going to be dead later. The three main characters would have been better served by the best gear harry could buy along with around-the-clock guards.
And QRF teams standing by for when the guards invariably get overwhelmed.
Magic apparently sucks for both authenticity and non-repudiation, so regular check-ins using passwords from regularly rotated codebooks would be required as well.
I don't know why pretty much no one comments on the chess pieces, maybe there's some sort of weird teleological blind spot thing going on there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom