196

Pretty sure most community involved gamers are racist.

It might've been fun at first, but at this point the damage has been too extensive for that light hearted trolling

Careful, those main characters are awfully young, and HP fans will tolerate it.

No, just... no.

Some artistic works age badly and I think it’s okay. It becomes a problem if artist themselves is aging badly and doubling down on things that could definitely be better about their works.

The older I get, the more I realize I think I can pick up on things about a writer’s worldview, even if the work isn’t trying to make a point of the worldview details I might pick up on.

I’m pretty sure Ari Aster is ableist, Christopher Nolan and S Craig Zahler are republicans, and Todd Field did something heinous, but diligently oversees his own Wikipedia article and Google Alerts to a degree that ensures it’s hard to find/I’ve been too lazy to really dig into it.

I think she still thinks she's fighting against bigotry, she's just lost the plot (if she ever had it in the first place). There's lots of absolutely heinous people who fully believe that they're the good guys.

Everyone's pointing out the "slaves like being slaves, actually" messaging of the books, which...fair. But there's so much more to it than that.

Extremely intelligent magical creatures like goblins and centaurs are treated pretty explicitly as second-class citizens. The Wizarding World is an apartheid state, and this is only barely given mention in the series.

There's fatphobia and some very essentialist language, describing characters like Dudley as piggy.

There's the much-discussed antisemitic tropes inherent in the way the greedy banker goblins are portrayed.

It has an insanely strong attribution bias. The exact same behaviour or physical attribute can be endearing or evil depending on how much Rowling herself likes the character. It's why the incredibly creepy incel behaviour of Snape is ultimately portrayed as a positive because he did it in the name of the one-sided obsession that he (and Rowling) called love. It's why Dudley's fatness makes him a pig but Molly's is warm and loving. Some degree of this is, in fairness, to be expected in a children's series. But it doesn't lessen as the books age up with their audience, and I think it's harder to excuse with the behaviours than it is with the physical descriptions (which are, to be fair, from Harry's PoV).

There's one of like two black characters being named "Shacklebolt", the one east Asian character being "Cho Chang", and the Irish one being the one with a penchant for blowing things up.

Despite one of the strongest themes many of the books most ardent readers got out of the series being about self-acceptance for who you are, we get a fair few examples where people are made fun of for who they are, or are forced to change to fit in by the end of the story. Filch is a stand-in for squibs as a whole in this regard, and is not viewed with much respect. Tonks had strong queer/trans parallels, until at the end she decides to lean fully into her cishet femininity in order to win over a man.

But perhaps most importantly, our protagonist, and through him the narrative as a whole, only ever views things through an extremely liberal lens. The problem is the big bad evil wizard, and the single lazy incompetent Minister than enables him. It's not a system of oppression and compliance, that starts from when children are sorted into "smart, brave, evil, or the leftovers" at age 11. It frames things as a world where leadership by the Good People like himself or Dumbledore must be a good thing, but if the Bad People are in charge, like the Malfoys or Voldemort, they are the problem. In the end, despite having been screwed over numerous times by the institutions of the magical world, Harry himself becomes a literal magic-world police officer.

And that's without even getting in to the extended universe. Stuff like the entire continent of Africa having just one school despite the enormous range of languages and cultures. Or one in the Americas having a Latin name despite ostensibly having been founded before European contact. Just generally signs that Rowling really doesn't care enough about cultural sensitivity to think through her worldbuilding.

I feel like, if you think about what the book does, the gap isn't as big as you'd think.

"Hermione, don't let being muggleborn get you down. You're a powerful witch, and therefore have value. ...Let's just ignore how we treat Filch and act like his bitter attitude is his own fault, alright?"

"It is choices that matter, not circumstances. Like how the sorting hat chose for these people to be Slytherins, so they're all evil and probably ugly."

"Look at how heroic Harry is for freeing a slave. Now, we're going to give him a slave and not think too hard about that. In fact, Hermione wanting to free other slaves is annoying and we should laugh at her because of it."

TBF, the red flags are there.

Hermione gets moked for protesting. slavery is normalised but it's ok, because one elf becomes free, no one cares about the rest...

A video essay I watched once made an interesting point, which was that JK named Hermione Hermione because she didn't want any real young girls to her bullied because of the books. Basically, she thought Hermione was the worst, and made the boys only barely tolerate her because she was useful to them.

But then a bunch of Hermione-coded girls started absolutely loving the books because they saw themselves in it, and the movies cast a pretty girl instead of an "ugly" one, and suddenly JK's "oh shit, uh, yeah... hero..." 😛

Even not giving her money is still supporting her. Piracy has a less oppositional relationship with promoting media than you might think. The best thing is to always just move on to less evil stuff

I remember seeing someone post recently that pirating Harry Potter is like stealing a confederate flag. It's good you didn't give them money, but you're still showing your allegiance by having it at all.

So you are not able to get over it.