r/EnoughJKRowling

The TV is constantly blaring in the background with, like, Steven Universe or something. It's a racially diverse, queer- and fat-positive show by a Jewish creator. The TV would piss off Dahl in particular on top of everything else.

Rowling would be trying to get Fleming and Dahl to respect her as One Of The Lads. Fleming would see her as, like, on the same level as some of the more educated Bond girls, but still fundamentally think of her as A Girl (and a not too bad looking one, especially if we go with the Return of the Jedi Special Edition rule that the afterlife de-ages you) and treat her accordingly. Fleming and Dahl were both womanizers themselves, not to mention spy buddies during World War II, so they'd probably end up fighting over Rowling.

They'd also get into an argument about

1. Israel (Dahl is anti Israel and uses that as an excuse to bash Jews, Rowling is pro Israel and also hates Jews)

2. who can come up with the most offensive character name

As we are already aware, Rowling has an abysmal track record concerning the representation and cultural accuracy of people and histories that are not English.

But I want to bring up two specific examples of how she seems to spend way more time and research on white English characters than characters with any other background or slight variation from what the culture she knows best.

Specifically, how the names of Newt Scamander and Cho Chang show how bad she is at researching and accurately portraying ethnicities different from her own.

First, Newt.

I have no idea how she managed to write such a good and kind character and would never put up with her transphobic BS, but with luck and good acting on Redmayne‘s part (he added a lot of depth and quirks to a character who Rowling simply described as ‘awkward’) it somehow worked out.

But anyway, his name has a really interesting history that makes it one of my favorite names of all time, very unlike Cho Chang.

For one thing, it’s obviously a pun and fits in with other names we know from the wizarding world. A name that sounds a lot like Newt Salamander is a good choice for someone who studies animals.

Newton also became accepted as a first name instead of just a surname around the decade Newt was born in (1880s-1890s), so it dates him a bit, too.

Scamander is actually a corruption of Skamandros, the name of a river in Greek mythology and the deity that lived there. The reason this suits him so well is because in addition to Skamandros having a rivalry with Achilles (the name Rowling chose for a man Newt's love interest supposedly had a fling with but was never seen in the movies), some attempts at translating the ancient name have resulted in meanings like 'awkward man' and 'left-handed man.'

While Newt switches his wand hand and suitcase hand all the time and isn't expressly left-handed, many of the posters and official pictures of him have his wand in his left hand. And of course he's a pretty awkward guy.

And on top of all that, his two middle names have great meanings too.

Artemis, the Greek goddess of the moon, the wild, animals, and childbirth suits Newt really well. He even helps a creatures deliver a baby in the third movie. It's unlikely Rowling would give a male character such a 'feminine' name now, but I love the choice.

Fido means 'loyal one' in Latin, and Newt's House (Hufflepuff!) are known for their fierce loyalty. It also became a popular dog name.

Newton Artemis Fido Scamander is a perfect name for the character, the time period, and the fantasy setting.

And now to Cho Chang.

Cho isn't even a Chinese first name. Cho or Chou are first names in Japan and Korea, but not China, and Rowling either didn't bother to check or to add a simple 'she's Japanese/Korean-Chinese' to fix the mistake.

Chang is a last name in China, though other spellings are more common.

Rowling just whipped together two Chinese-sounding names, put them together, and called it good.

I think this shows just how little she cares or how bad she is at researching other cultures. It's so easy to find good information, or ask actual Chinese people for name ideas, but Cho Chang was good enough and that was that.

I saw a comment on a post about how the world’s most famous transphobe mightn’t have been as transphobic when she cast the brilliant Eddie Redmayne to play Newt Scamander and it got me thinking …

Could Joanne have been negatively influenced by Ezra Miller? I know it’s ridiculous and blatantly childish to brush an entire demographic on involvement with one individual, and it doesn’t excuse anything, but Ezra is a very strange individual who I think most of us here would agree is a little terrifying (from keeping babies locked up with guns to punching fans in the face).

Again it does not by any means excuse Joanne’s obsession with TERF rhetoric and, as a writer especially, she should know better than to believe that one deeply flawed individual represents an entire demographic. Just something interesting to think about

Hi all

I've been thinking, and I've come to the difficult decision that it's time for me to stop contributing to this sub. I've found it very therapeutic to be here and an important part of my emotional development over the last few years.

When I discovered this sub, I was what I'd term a 'recovering Harry Potter fan'. I still had a lot of warmth in my heart towards the stories (like many fans, I had a difficult childhood and Harry Potter definitely got me through some tough times) but I was utterly dismayed by JK Rowling's horrible behaviour towards transgender people. It just seemed to come out of nowhere, I always thought she seemed so nice and accepting of different kinds of people.

As an artist, I've never believed you can 'separate the artist from the art', as the art is always a reflection of how the artist saw the world. But to begin with, I tried to do the opposite - to try to appreciate JK Rowling as a human being and a creative in spite of greatly objecting to some of her opinions and behaviour. I thought to myself, 'Yes, she's clearly got some views that I really find quite dodgy... but to be fair, probably so do most people if you dig deep enough. There must be something to her if she was able to write such beautiful books, right? She must ultimately still be a good person, even if she's horrifically misinformed?' Being part of this sub helped me escape that mindset. It's made me aware of how much worse Rowling was than I realised. It's made me see that her books were always filled with red flags, from Stonewall High (the school the Dursleys plan to send Harry to that shares its name with the UK's largest LGBTQ+ rights charity and has a reputation for children being attacked in toilets) to Fred and George's love potions (read date rape potions), and all the misogynistic, racist stereotypes in between. She did an absolutely grand job of pretending to be open and progressive for a very long time, and it took me in completely when I was a kid and for a good portion of my twenties as well - but it doesn't anymore.

As a recovering fan, this was something I really needed. I needed to look back through the stories and recognise that the beauty I thought they contained simply wasn't there - the only thing that was beautiful was my own interpretation of the stories. In some ways, even though I haven't enjoyed Harry Potter for a few years now, there's been a way in which I've enjoyed it more - it's been fun reinterpreting the stories and the characters, writing essays about the misrepresented female characters, establishing what certain aspects of the story say about JK Rowling... I think it's significantly improved my linguistic skills, and made me more capable of spotting red flags when I see them. (The other week I posted a (probably quite controversial) essay about Russell T Davies, because I've seen similar red flags in his work - things I wouldn't have noticed if I hadn't become attuned to doing it with JK Rowling.) It's also reaffirmed to me how utterly anti-celebrity I am. She is able to do what she does because we've given her a platform, money and influence - I don't think we should ever gift a celebrity with that kind of influence again. If there's an author we like, our appreciation for them should only ever extend as far as their books, it doesn't mean we need to give any more credence to their political opinions than we should any random person off the street. Giving celebrities that much influence is actually an act of self-disrespect - it gives the impression that we're less intelligent and less worthy of an opinion than they are, and that's not true.

So why am I leaving the sub? A few reasons. Firstly, I no longer think I've got anything interesting to say. I've been happy with what I've contributed and the essays I've written, but I think I've got to the natural end of what I can contribute. Secondly, JK Rowling is not worth my time or energy anymore, not even to criticise. I've spent far too much of my life thinking about this woman already - now I want to forget she exists at all. And thirdly, the most important reason: I'm no longer a recovering fan. I'm a former fan. Aside from a bit of childhood nostalgia, I hold no warmth in my heart towards JK Rowling's books anymore. The sub's purpose has been served - I've got over the confusion I had between the author I thought I liked and respected and the awful way she was behaving, and come to the easy conclusion that I was just mistaken in who I thought she was. Psychologically, my issues have been dealt with, and there's no further benefit to me from re-analysing the texts or writing any more about it.

I was going to just quietly disappear, but I don't think that would be fitting actually. This sub's been a big part of my life for the last couple of years, and I'd like to thank all the contributors for making it so special. It's probably the most comprehensive archive of this very problematic author's work anywhere on the Internet, and I think we should all be really proud of that. It's been greatly informative not just of how bad she is, but also given me the chance to examine my own idiosyncrasies and flaws, work out how I was so taken in by this awful person and think about how to avoid making such mistakes in the future.

So thank you, all of you, sincerely. I will miss you!

It’s a quick joke but I’m glad it’s there, at the very least it shows that he knows that she’s problematic.

This was based on a previous post.

He’s supposed to be the Big Good, mentor, leader of the light side and headmaster of the school for The first 6 books.

During Half Blood Prince, Dumbledore and Draco had a very interesting conversation.

Draco mentioned that he wanted Glory, and expressed his jealousy of Snape, which Dumbledore mildly replies that its very gratifying and everyone wants appreciation for their work. Draco also mentions his failed attempts to harm Dumbledore, which also caused Dumbledore to reply mildly.

Normally Dumbledore speaks calmly, he generally only tends to speak mildly or become mild When he is reflecting, and in deep Thought:

Previously once being mildly impressed in Prisoner of Azkaban when Harry mentions Trelawneys recent prophecy.

Once being mildly curious in Goblet of Fire when Harry mentions Crouch’s condition.

Once in Order of Phoenix When speaking to Fudge after Fudge snapped at him.

Finally twice in Half Blood Prince, both to Draco.

later in Deathly Hallows, we find out Why. Its because despite being Harry’s mentor, Past Dumbledore used to be more like Draco: Aberforth describes how Dumbledore only cared about status and achievements, them had plans for changing the world. Though to be fair, He is biased.

But later Dumbledore himself would clarify that Aberforths criticisms werent untrue. He did indeed seek Glory, and was planning on helping Grindelwald terrorize non wizards and didn’t listen to his brother. Then his sister died, causing him to question things and his connection to Grindelwald was severed.

There’s also another similarity, Harry compares both to Dudley, Dumbledore‘s nose was described as being broken twice and Draco was punched twice, Dracos lines copy Jame’s and Harry’s reaction to Dumbledores past is the exact same as his reaction to his father’s past. (which I do suspect is intentional since while vague and not part of the books, it is possible that in the movies, Himself is who Dumbledore was referring to When speaking to Draco.)

But Heres the thing.

On the hes meant to be lgbt thing, This looks an awful like Rowlings trying to say “Being lgbt makes a person evil” thing since he was bad because he might have liked Grindelwald and redeemed himself by cutting ties, and he never got a new partner. Then in the present, he refused to be minister in case he got tempted to give into the power again, and Harry straight up compares him to Fudge and Scrimgeur.

So Hes only Good as long as he isn’t ambitious and doesn’t enter relationships.

Now, lets discuss what he did what he did as a headmaster.

1. He is often reckless.[Allowing multiple antagonists into the school.]
2. He is more or less preparing Harry to fight Voldemort.
3. A lot of his notable workers tend to be outcasts. Which can make A parallel to Voldemort as it looks like he takes advantages of people’s problems. (Though hopefully unintentional) He also often keeps people on a need to know basis. (not telling anyone except Harry about the Horcruxes, not telling about Quirrel/Lockhart/Draco.)
4. He tends to play favorites, which caused him to isolate and humiliate 1/4 of his school in front of everyone else. (But of course Its okay when the main is The one Who is getting favored.)
5. He left Harry in an abusive home, and it wasn’t until Order of Phoenix that the order threatens the Dursleys into behaving. Even then, it’s implied Snape’s the one who sent them.
6. When Dumbledore makes plans, while he does do what he thinks is best at the time, Dumbledore tends to ignore others or treat them as expendable In terms of a ”Greater Good”. (Honestly if it weren’t for Harry and Ron, Lockhart would have erased memories, and Draco would have got multiple people killed since Dumbledore ignored him, though I suppose Dumbledore forgot that Draco isn’t him. )
7. Dumbledore did know Harry had to be sacrificed though starting with GoF, he knew Harry had a chance of surviving. (But of course it’s bad when Pansy does it.)
8. Dumbledore also got interested in the Horcruxes again, when he saw The cloak and The ring which caused him to get cursed. (Similar to how Draco started buying and using The items that his father previously disapproved of, and in the same store he was previously scolded In.)
9. Theres another double standard. Snape is held accountable for not getting over his trauma + wanting to investigate the marauders. Meanwhile its never The Gryffindors responsibility to forgive and forget.
10. Following on that, Notice something? Dumbledore and James, get to move on with their bad past being forgiven and forgotten by almost everyone, with only Aberforth and Snape as exceptions. (though I suppose its more because they died, as Snape also received similar treatment after he died.)

It's like the way they go after movies—even today, you'll see a video from a YouTuber bashing the films.

This article is the most laughably ridiculous evidence of a PR plant imaginable, desperately trying to recuperate her image in time for the HBO show.

Even if she had done nothing wrong, this whole article would still be a ridiculous farce. But factoring in that she is well the mould-infested bigot that she is, it gets even more ridiculous. Like some really bad parody or something!

It's a widely known and criticized fact that Rowling intended her werewolves to be an allegory for sufferers of HIV/AIDS. In this context, the character of Fenrir Greyback takes on a disturbing metatextual context. Fenrir is a deeply predatory man who intentionally spreads his disease to children, often stalking them in advance. He also leads a faction radical anti-assimilationist werewolves who seek the overthrow of the neoliberal establishment of the magical world (an establishment which openly persecutes werewolves, specifically depriving them of employment opportunities). It's difficult not to see Greyback and his faction as a fearful demonization of the radical queer liberationist groups that rose during the height of the AIDS crisis--organizations who we now know Rowling despises and dreads. This is, these days, a pretty widely known and criticized element of Rowling's writings. But fans of Rowling will point out that she also writes the heroic werewolf Remus Lupin, and that if she really hated the queer community, she wouldn't have such a positive figure. But Lupin, in my opinion, is an even more disgusting and revealing look at her view of the LGBTQ+ community.

Lupin is a werewolf who has consistently been denied a career in education because he's seen as a contagion risk to students (echoing ongoing conservative opposition to queer and trans people in teaching roles). Dumbledore, an avatar of centrist-liberal controlled opposition to the establishment, takes a risk by hiring Lupin, rationalizing that his condition is managed by medication. Lupin becomes a beloved teacher for his competence and care. But eventually, despite his medical assistance, his disease rears its head, and becomes an immediate and deadly risk to his students, one only avoided by violently chasing Lupin away. The next day, Lupin resigns to dave Dumbledore from embarrassment, saying this:

"This time tomorrow, the owls will start arriving from parents. They will not want a werewolf teaching their children. And after last night, I see their point. I could have bitten any of you. That must never happen again."

Later, Lupin risks his life to (unsuccessfully) try and sway members of Greyback's radical anti-assimilationist faction back to supporting an establishment which despises them, an establishment which Lupin believed is right to despise them. He eventually dies defending that establishment.

If lycanthropy is a metaphor for AIDS, and for queerness more broadly, this, then is Rowling's "Good Queer." A highly competent and caring individual who believes he owes his whole existence to the few mainstream people who have treated him with basic human dignity. A man perpetually victimized by an establishment which denies him the opportunity to teach because it believes that his presence will contaminate and corrupt young students. A man who gracefully relinquishes his rights and his place in society because he realizes, wisely, that the establishment is right--that he is indeed a contagion risk to children. A man who willingly gives up the rights he was so kindly granted by mainstream liberals, so they're not forced to take away those rights themselves. A man who risks and eventually sacrifices his life to protect the establishment which rightly persecuted him from his anti-assimilationist counterparts who are unwilling to recognize how just and necessary their oppression is. A man who is uplifted not by systemic changes to a society which oppresses him, but by the personal kindness of individual mainstream people, and who is wise enough to know that to push back against that societal oppression would be to place children in danger.

Rowling has, on occasion, mentioned an unnamed trans woman friend who agrees with all of her (Rowling's) transphobic points, stays in her lane, and never tries to push for societal change. Whether or not this woman is imaginary (I personally suspect she's a highly embellished and idealized version of an acquaintance Rowling once may have had), she must clearly be someone like Lupin. In Lupin, we see the blueprint for acceptable queerness in Rowling's eyes. To be a Good Queer, or a Good Trans, we must willingly accept our place as second-class citizens so as to mitigate the risk of our monstrous and corruptive natures, which no medication can ever change.

I think Lupin makes me more sick than Greyback does, in the context of this analogy.

https://preview.redd.it/jted4w66thah1.png?width=711&format=png&auto=webp&s=5ca601e7d985db14b88c6e030c7a3867e4ad052a

J. K. Rowling would have stiff competition in the form of Rudyard Kipling

But on the other hand my impression is that Kipling, even as an active colonizer in a bloodsoaked empire, bore a lot less obsessive personal malice toward Asian and African colonial subjects than Rowling bears toward trans people (and has the added benefit of having been dead for 90 orientalist, orientalist years)

If you asked Kipling his opinions on trans people in particular, I get the feeling he'd find the whole concept delightfully quaint and write some twee poem exoticizing Eastern "ladyboys" and "eunuchs" or hailing the heroic exploits of "women who dressed up as men"