As someone who devoured the books as a kid, I’ve been very disappointed in finding out JK Rowlings is a a TERF.
Your post sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole and I’ve read up on some of the issues that people pointed out in the books. To me, some are valid, some seem to be a bit far-fetched…?
For example, I’m not sure why she is labeled pro-slavery? Just because she writes that people in her fantasy world don’t seem to have a problem with it?
Not defending Rowling btw, just trying to understand some of the points better.
She’s the one that chose to make the fantasy world she made up the way it is. And she chose to make it one where a literal slave class of people enjoy being slaves and thinks slavery is great, so long as their slave masters treat them well. And the one person trying to free them is treated as a hyperbolic hippie type for even making such an attempt.
From this argument you could derive that every author, who builds a world with anything negative in it which is not opposed by the inhabitors of said world, automatically supports this in real life.
As a bit of a crude example, in Warhammer 40k, criminal humans are lobotomized and are used as “Servitors”. Almost no other human in this fantasy universe bats an eye at this. Nobody is accusing the authors of supporting slavery?
I can see where people take issue with the topic and how Rowling chose to write about it. But to accuse her of being pro-slavery because of that…?
Because the theme and overall storyline of 40k is meant to showcase how evil that is. In a way, the evilness is parody in how over the top it is, particularly with the use of Nazi-esque imagery.
Where in the setting of Harry Potter does it present house elves and their enslavement as a parody, joke, or otherwise not meant to be a serious take on the subject?
For me, it is not relevant for the argument if it is presented as a parody or not.
Believe me, I get the gist of your point and I understand that even if you look at it in good faith, problems arise with her writing of the house elves slavery.
However, I have a problem with the statement that just because an author implements something in their world building and does not immediately make it very obvious, in whatever way, that this is a bad bad thing, makes them a supporter of said thing. Of course we never know the true intentions of the author but just assuming they wrote it so they support it is a bit of a stretch.
What do you suggest is the way to determine if an author is using a specific setting or plot device in a serious and purposeful manner then? How do you tell if they’re actually just a terrible person supporting terrible ideas?
If the answer is going to be their other statements and actions, then Rowling has made her terrible person status pretty clear.
I think the biggest issue is that Rowling depicts the wizarding world and the proragonists as more or less unambiguously good, while brushing off a lot of the actually problematic things with it. They’re literally the saviours of the universe and are never seriously questioned in-universe to the point of being labeled as a Mary Sue by many critics, so from that perspective it does tend to give the impression that she endorses all the aspects of it based on the fact that she frames all of it in an extremely positive light, whether or not she actually thinks that to be the case. She even explicitly wrote a passage in to shut down notions of elf slavery being bad in the story itself, which suggests intent in her depictions. In universes like 40k, the factions being depicted are quite a bit more morally grey, and the story actively goes into and confronts the problematic parts. She could have taken a more balanced approach and depicted the wizarding world as still having a lot of problems, and actually delved into the ethical and social implications of the various aspects of her worldbuilding, but she didn’t. Even just depicting a small part of the wizarding world being against elf slaves instead of the one person speaking out for them and getting ostracised would have at least been a lot better from story and worldbuilding perspective IMO.
Because it’s brushed off by the good guys and the narrative. I wouldn’t say she’s pro slavery, but what I will say is that the way she wrote house elves does ring some bells to shit that people who support the American confederacy say about black people.
As someone who devoured the books as a kid, I’ve been very disappointed in finding out JK Rowlings is a a TERF. Your post sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole and I’ve read up on some of the issues that people pointed out in the books. To me, some are valid, some seem to be a bit far-fetched…? For example, I’m not sure why she is labeled pro-slavery? Just because she writes that people in her fantasy world don’t seem to have a problem with it?
Not defending Rowling btw, just trying to understand some of the points better.
She’s the one that chose to make the fantasy world she made up the way it is. And she chose to make it one where a literal slave class of people enjoy being slaves and thinks slavery is great, so long as their slave masters treat them well. And the one person trying to free them is treated as a hyperbolic hippie type for even making such an attempt.
That is the made up world Rowling chose to make.
From this argument you could derive that every author, who builds a world with anything negative in it which is not opposed by the inhabitors of said world, automatically supports this in real life. As a bit of a crude example, in Warhammer 40k, criminal humans are lobotomized and are used as “Servitors”. Almost no other human in this fantasy universe bats an eye at this. Nobody is accusing the authors of supporting slavery?
I can see where people take issue with the topic and how Rowling chose to write about it. But to accuse her of being pro-slavery because of that…?
Because the theme and overall storyline of 40k is meant to showcase how evil that is. In a way, the evilness is parody in how over the top it is, particularly with the use of Nazi-esque imagery.
Where in the setting of Harry Potter does it present house elves and their enslavement as a parody, joke, or otherwise not meant to be a serious take on the subject?
For me, it is not relevant for the argument if it is presented as a parody or not.
Believe me, I get the gist of your point and I understand that even if you look at it in good faith, problems arise with her writing of the house elves slavery.
However, I have a problem with the statement that just because an author implements something in their world building and does not immediately make it very obvious, in whatever way, that this is a bad bad thing, makes them a supporter of said thing. Of course we never know the true intentions of the author but just assuming they wrote it so they support it is a bit of a stretch.
What do you suggest is the way to determine if an author is using a specific setting or plot device in a serious and purposeful manner then? How do you tell if they’re actually just a terrible person supporting terrible ideas?
If the answer is going to be their other statements and actions, then Rowling has made her terrible person status pretty clear.
I think the biggest issue is that Rowling depicts the wizarding world and the proragonists as more or less unambiguously good, while brushing off a lot of the actually problematic things with it. They’re literally the saviours of the universe and are never seriously questioned in-universe to the point of being labeled as a Mary Sue by many critics, so from that perspective it does tend to give the impression that she endorses all the aspects of it based on the fact that she frames all of it in an extremely positive light, whether or not she actually thinks that to be the case. She even explicitly wrote a passage in to shut down notions of elf slavery being bad in the story itself, which suggests intent in her depictions. In universes like 40k, the factions being depicted are quite a bit more morally grey, and the story actively goes into and confronts the problematic parts. She could have taken a more balanced approach and depicted the wizarding world as still having a lot of problems, and actually delved into the ethical and social implications of the various aspects of her worldbuilding, but she didn’t. Even just depicting a small part of the wizarding world being against elf slaves instead of the one person speaking out for them and getting ostracised would have at least been a lot better from story and worldbuilding perspective IMO.
Wait until you hear about X-Men.
Because it’s brushed off by the good guys and the narrative. I wouldn’t say she’s pro slavery, but what I will say is that the way she wrote house elves does ring some bells to shit that people who support the American confederacy say about black people.