I feel a rant coming on.
Jul. 28th, 2007 04:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lierdumoaETA 5/10/10: I've locked comments in this post, because seriously? This post is three years old. I just don't give a fuck about your opinions regarding a fandom I left three years ago. And I'm sure neither do most of the people who published comments when this journal entry was originally posted.
I read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows when a friend managed to procure me a bootlegged version of it.
Never have I been so glad I did not spend money on something. This was one of the most offensive works of fiction I have ever read in my life.
First I will address the subject of queerness as it is, frankly, the least of what is wrong with this book and I prefer to start small.
It's not so much that she refused to include any offhand references to homosexuality in any way shape or form. It's that, as![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
goluxexmachina pointed out to me, she saw fit to include an offhand reference to goatfucking with regards to Aberforth, and then on top of that, refused to include any offhand references to homosexuality in any way shape or form. "Oh, you want alternative sexuality? Have some bestiality. It's all the same to me, and now you freaks can't say you didn't get represented in my book."
Thanks, J. K. Rowling. Thanks ever so.
Of course, it's not just the homosexuals who are written out of the book. They were merely written out more quietly than any other minority group. Tonks and Remus die. Fred dies, and the freakishness of being one half of a pair of twins dies with him. Snape, the recluse dies. Dumbledore, the genius. Creepy Creevy, the artsy kid. Dobby, the unhappy slave. In fact, the only freaks alive at the end of the books are Loony Luna and slow, bumbling Hagrid—aspermetaform pointed out, the relatively helpless freaks. Aren't they endearing? Why no one could kill such adorable puppies. Look at those eyes!
Now, the epilogue.
Of course it is clear that the epilogue was a pile of publisher pleasing heteronormative cat piddle. Again, that is the least of what I think was wrong with it. What truly disappointed me about the epilogue was the fact that twenty years later, all the main characters were, essentially, still in high school.
Everyone married their high school sweethearts. Ron was congratulating himself for getting away with cheating on tests. Nobody's careers were mentioned, as apparently everyone made careers out of repopulating the wizarding world with red haired children. Slytherin house was still full of shady buggers, and all the old rivalries remained in place.
Didn't Hermione want to change the world? She started a political movement when she was twelve, and then it fizzled. Ron, the master strategist, defeated the genius Dumbledore's chess set at the age of eleven. The most notable thing he ever used this talent for was ... playing chess. At the age of eleven. All of these children had amazing potential, and Rowling actually wrote it into the canon that none of this potential was ever realized, that these children never grew up. Two decades later all they're doing is congratulating themselves on the good old days.
I'm sure you can guess my opinion of thirty-six year olds who think their years spent in high school were the best years of their life and continue to behave like petty teenagers even when they have children to raise. Suffice it to say, my opinion of them is not high.
Of course, Rowling is nothing if not consistent. She's contended since book one that ambition is a dirty word, a characteristic of a lot of Western literature, and one which I've always found fault with. The only people in the book who attempt to better themselves are either evil or going through an evil phase. Dumbledore's ambition led to terrible consequences and he spent most of his life trying to clean up his mess. Snape was a broken, friendless child, and he died a broken, friendless adult. The only reason Harry survived emotionally is because friends fell into his lap on his first day of school, without him having to go looking for them.
Rowling puts forth a very consistent message that people can only be bettered by fortunate circumstances, that freaks who are too traumatized to make friends during childhood will remain freakish and friendless thereafter, that the only way they can contribute to society is by sacrificing themselves for the good of the normals.
I grew up in a very dysfunctional home. I was unusually intelligent, the kind of intelligence that meant I could be as lazy as I wanted to be and still pull A's and score in the 99th percentile in most standardized tests. I was friendless in the seven grade. I made friends in high school. I did not accidentally trip on friends. I made friends. I left high school. I did the same all over again in college, and then with fandom. I'm working to be a professional artist. If I had been a character in this book, I would have died a martyr, because according to this book, that's the only thing a broken freak like me is good for.
Of course, I was written out of this book, along with the rest of the queers.
I'm somewhat horrified that Rowling actually thinks Ron and Hermione would be good parents. I mean, seriously? It's as if Lisa Simpson married Homer Simpson. That is, if Lisa Simpson were a completely insane control freak who wiped her parents brains and packaged them off to another country, supposedly for their own good.
Really, Hermione? Their own good?
Clearly Ron and Hermione's children are going to develop eating disorders and/or go into therapy by the age of twelve.
But I digress.
Another point of contention is the plight of Petunia. She hated the wizarding world out of jealousy. Asgoluxexmachina pointed out to me, if Rowling had taken it upon herself to make Petunia a real person, instead of a cardboard cutout, Petunia could have had a perfectly valid reason for hating the wizarding world.
After all, the wizarding world secreted her sister away at the age of eleven, got her pregnant before the age of twenty, and then killed her before the age of twenty five. I don't see how she could not hate the scary cult that killed her baby sister.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all was how Rowling treated the subject of slavery. I, and I know many other fans assumed that the purpose of the house elves in the books was to make a commentary on the flaws inherent in a society dependent on slavery and illustrate how it leads to said society's stagnation and how the system is ultimately self-defeating. But no. Apparently Rowling thinks slavery is great, so long as the slaves are predisposed to enjoying their servitude. The last chapter before the epilogue ends with Harry wondering to himself "whether Kreacher might bring him a sandwich." After all, he's "had enough trouble for a lifetime."
Rowling finds nothing at all wrong with Harry having Kreacher's sandwich. And eating it too, I'm sure.
Dobby's last words, mere seconds before his death are, "Dobby is free." Yes, Dobby is free to die. For wizards. He is even honored with a shallow grave and a pile of rocks. And some tears too, of course. Here liesFido Dobby. He was a good dog elf. No one could fetch like old Dobby.
I pointed this all out topermetaform who then pointed out to me that, clearly, when Hermione created S.P.E.W., Rowling really did mean spew. She was essentially equating Hermione with a PETA fanatic.
No, I do not dislike this book as a fan, because my fic got Jossed. I do not dislike this book because I think it is a bad story. I dislike this book because I think J. K. Rowling is a bad person. Because she wrote out people like me in this book. Because she killed off people like me in this book—
—so that Harry Potter could enjoy his sandwich in peace.
I read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows when a friend managed to procure me a bootlegged version of it.
Never have I been so glad I did not spend money on something. This was one of the most offensive works of fiction I have ever read in my life.
First I will address the subject of queerness as it is, frankly, the least of what is wrong with this book and I prefer to start small.
It's not so much that she refused to include any offhand references to homosexuality in any way shape or form. It's that, as
goluxexmachina pointed out to me, she saw fit to include an offhand reference to goatfucking with regards to Aberforth, and then on top of that, refused to include any offhand references to homosexuality in any way shape or form. "Oh, you want alternative sexuality? Have some bestiality. It's all the same to me, and now you freaks can't say you didn't get represented in my book."Thanks, J. K. Rowling. Thanks ever so.
Of course, it's not just the homosexuals who are written out of the book. They were merely written out more quietly than any other minority group. Tonks and Remus die. Fred dies, and the freakishness of being one half of a pair of twins dies with him. Snape, the recluse dies. Dumbledore, the genius. Creepy Creevy, the artsy kid. Dobby, the unhappy slave. In fact, the only freaks alive at the end of the books are Loony Luna and slow, bumbling Hagrid—as
permetaform pointed out, the relatively helpless freaks. Aren't they endearing? Why no one could kill such adorable puppies. Look at those eyes!Now, the epilogue.
Of course it is clear that the epilogue was a pile of publisher pleasing heteronormative cat piddle. Again, that is the least of what I think was wrong with it. What truly disappointed me about the epilogue was the fact that twenty years later, all the main characters were, essentially, still in high school.
Everyone married their high school sweethearts. Ron was congratulating himself for getting away with cheating on tests. Nobody's careers were mentioned, as apparently everyone made careers out of repopulating the wizarding world with red haired children. Slytherin house was still full of shady buggers, and all the old rivalries remained in place.
Didn't Hermione want to change the world? She started a political movement when she was twelve, and then it fizzled. Ron, the master strategist, defeated the genius Dumbledore's chess set at the age of eleven. The most notable thing he ever used this talent for was ... playing chess. At the age of eleven. All of these children had amazing potential, and Rowling actually wrote it into the canon that none of this potential was ever realized, that these children never grew up. Two decades later all they're doing is congratulating themselves on the good old days.
I'm sure you can guess my opinion of thirty-six year olds who think their years spent in high school were the best years of their life and continue to behave like petty teenagers even when they have children to raise. Suffice it to say, my opinion of them is not high.
Of course, Rowling is nothing if not consistent. She's contended since book one that ambition is a dirty word, a characteristic of a lot of Western literature, and one which I've always found fault with. The only people in the book who attempt to better themselves are either evil or going through an evil phase. Dumbledore's ambition led to terrible consequences and he spent most of his life trying to clean up his mess. Snape was a broken, friendless child, and he died a broken, friendless adult. The only reason Harry survived emotionally is because friends fell into his lap on his first day of school, without him having to go looking for them.
Rowling puts forth a very consistent message that people can only be bettered by fortunate circumstances, that freaks who are too traumatized to make friends during childhood will remain freakish and friendless thereafter, that the only way they can contribute to society is by sacrificing themselves for the good of the normals.
I grew up in a very dysfunctional home. I was unusually intelligent, the kind of intelligence that meant I could be as lazy as I wanted to be and still pull A's and score in the 99th percentile in most standardized tests. I was friendless in the seven grade. I made friends in high school. I did not accidentally trip on friends. I made friends. I left high school. I did the same all over again in college, and then with fandom. I'm working to be a professional artist. If I had been a character in this book, I would have died a martyr, because according to this book, that's the only thing a broken freak like me is good for.
Of course, I was written out of this book, along with the rest of the queers.
I'm somewhat horrified that Rowling actually thinks Ron and Hermione would be good parents. I mean, seriously? It's as if Lisa Simpson married Homer Simpson. That is, if Lisa Simpson were a completely insane control freak who wiped her parents brains and packaged them off to another country, supposedly for their own good.
Really, Hermione? Their own good?
Clearly Ron and Hermione's children are going to develop eating disorders and/or go into therapy by the age of twelve.
But I digress.
Another point of contention is the plight of Petunia. She hated the wizarding world out of jealousy. As
goluxexmachina pointed out to me, if Rowling had taken it upon herself to make Petunia a real person, instead of a cardboard cutout, Petunia could have had a perfectly valid reason for hating the wizarding world.After all, the wizarding world secreted her sister away at the age of eleven, got her pregnant before the age of twenty, and then killed her before the age of twenty five. I don't see how she could not hate the scary cult that killed her baby sister.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all was how Rowling treated the subject of slavery. I, and I know many other fans assumed that the purpose of the house elves in the books was to make a commentary on the flaws inherent in a society dependent on slavery and illustrate how it leads to said society's stagnation and how the system is ultimately self-defeating. But no. Apparently Rowling thinks slavery is great, so long as the slaves are predisposed to enjoying their servitude. The last chapter before the epilogue ends with Harry wondering to himself "whether Kreacher might bring him a sandwich." After all, he's "had enough trouble for a lifetime."
Rowling finds nothing at all wrong with Harry having Kreacher's sandwich. And eating it too, I'm sure.
Dobby's last words, mere seconds before his death are, "Dobby is free." Yes, Dobby is free to die. For wizards. He is even honored with a shallow grave and a pile of rocks. And some tears too, of course. Here lies
I pointed this all out to
permetaform who then pointed out to me that, clearly, when Hermione created S.P.E.W., Rowling really did mean spew. She was essentially equating Hermione with a PETA fanatic.No, I do not dislike this book as a fan, because my fic got Jossed. I do not dislike this book because I think it is a bad story. I dislike this book because I think J. K. Rowling is a bad person. Because she wrote out people like me in this book. Because she killed off people like me in this book—
—so that Harry Potter could enjoy his sandwich in peace.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-30 08:28 pm (UTC)--> watched the show religiously as a child.
The point I was attempting to make, though, was not with regards to Ron's talents, but his personality, his laziness in non life-threatening situations, his general immaturity, his irrationality, his short temper, etc. When it comes to marriage and fatherhood, maturity carries a great deal more weight than brilliance. Ron certainly wasn't behaving as a master strategist when he was congratulating himself for cheating on a driving test and getting away with it.
As for Hermione, her boggart is failure, and in fact it's the one test she completely fails to pass in defence class, which would very strongly imply that self-improvement is not her main motivation for studying, but fear of failure. The one time she does something with all her studying where the end goal isn't either helping The Cause or getting A's, JKR equates her with a PETA fanatic, so. Make of that what you will.
I think Fred and George are the freaks of the Weasley family. They are the only ones not to finish school. They are the entrepreneurs. They are a single entity. FredandGeorge. They're also assholes, but that's besides the point. I think killing one half of them is in a sense killing everything that made FredandGeorge a force to be reckoned with at their tender ages.
I'm sure I could have worded that section of my post better, but well, I wasn't exactly trying to convince anyone of anything, just get some things off my chest.
And you are of course free to tell me I am full of crap. I'm not trying to tell you I'm not full of crap, as I may very well be, merely that I have thought this through further than this single ranty post might imply.
If I had intended a professional quality criticism, this post would have been about three to four thousands words longer. I'd like to think if I'd written such a post, it would have been better argued, but maybe it would just have been even more full of crap.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-30 09:03 pm (UTC)I'm in the camp that enjoyed the books, thought they were fun reads, even creative in handling the Boy Wonder and the Dark Lord plots, and not bothered by whether everyone's minority was duly represented. The "one of the most offensive works" camp, which you're hardly alone in, just strikes me as alien, and out to read the worst into everything.
Like, as I said, the epilogue was kind of meh. But that scene wasn't a time for showing off master strategy, but for familial joking around and reassurance. Self-congratulation fit.
A (gay) friend pointed out that there are a lot of characters with unspecified sexuality in the books, but snarks that they're not hot. And of course there's Dumbledore, who's never mentioned as having known the touch of woman and had an interestingly intense relationship in his youth. "Gandalf is gay!" Heck, Voldemort seems non-hetero (asexual?) as well, not that anyone wants to claim him.
"We're not represented!" just seems weird to me, especially when it goes past griping into taking major offense. Though I developed a bit more sympathy when I realized these aren't just any novel, but a huge popular pillar of pop culture to be included in. OTOH, the author may still feel at gut that they're just her novels, not something she has to perform a public service with. If none of her characters felt gay to her, then she wouldn't force them to be gay. Lots of authors talk about their characters taking on a life of their own, in the author's head. You might grumble about the kind of society that doesn't inspire the author to imagine gay wizards in high school, but blaming the author seems... off.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 02:26 am (UTC)You're judging somebody based completely off how they were in middle school and high school? Honestly, I'd think the books were even worse had all the characters been written with great maturity, rationality, work ethic, etc. Thankfully, people aren't condemned to forever remain like they were as kids.
"When it comes to marriage and fatherhood, maturity carries a great deal more weight than brilliance. Ron certainly wasn't behaving as a master strategist when he was congratulating himself for cheating on a driving test and getting away with it."
The wizarding world as a whole doesn't have all that much regard for muggles, and given the examples provided by Arthur Weasley I'm really not surprised that Ron wouldn't think much of fudging his score a little bit. You seem to long for a perfect world where nobody breaks rules or acts out of line, but thankfully Rowling's a bit more realistic than that.
As for the original post:
"Rowling puts forth a very consistent message that people can only be bettered by fortunate circumstances, that freaks who are too traumatized to make friends during childhood will remain freakish and friendless thereafter, that the only way they can contribute to society is by sacrificing themselves for the good of the normals."
What about Neville? He was a huge loser throughout the first few books, and ends up being the sole remaining leader of Dumbledore's Army, doing a lot of good.
I didn't like the book very much, but I'm not self-absorbed or paranoid enough to see it as an attack on me or mine. The human brain is remarkable in its ability to make connections and pick out patterns, even when none exist. If you're looking to be offended, you can make it happen pretty easily.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 06:10 pm (UTC)