“Rather than argue with someone about whether or not transwomen should be allowed in women's shelters, why not donate to a cause that supports housing for battered, cisgendered women exclusively? And, since such places are quite literally banned legally in many places, why not contribute to causes or organizations that seek to repeal such laws? Or speak on their behalf at events and fundraisers, speaking to people who can actually, y'know, maybe do something to make some change .”
A pretty glaring oversight to not include that, but I went back and amended this. I want to give credit where it's due and, seeming as she actually did exactly what I said... well, I'd be a hypocrite not to say otherwise. Thank you for pointing it out.
I only ever saw the first "Fantastic Beasts." Despite having sympathy for the motivations of Redmayne's character (Bartlemus Flurmb or whatever, who even fucking cares), I associate the movie with a sort of low-level lingering depression. I can't tell if that's due to the movie or where I was in my life. And I'm not interested in going back and finding out.
Also, Bowie in that picture looks rather... Trump-like.
If you were depressed when you saw that movie, I can't imagine it helped any. The dark, grimy color palette and rather dismal atmosphere and dour thematic material, on top of being very mediocre, made for a rather somber movie, I think. After the fourth movie all the Harry Potter movies got very... gray and dark, which always seemed like a weird choice considering how colorful the setting was in the first few books.
Also, the real question is, does Bowie look like Trump? Or does Trump look like Bowie?
Harry Potter's a very interesting phenomenon to me, since it's one of the few bits of intrinsically Millennial culture that didn't end up overflowing into zoomer culture like the wash from a backed-up sewage pipe. Now, I did read through the series when I was fledgling chick and I remember finding them notably better than the usual slop that passes for children's writing, but I can't say that they had a tremendously large impact on me (apart from the brief, mandatory period of imagining yourself in Hogwarts with the characters (Slytherin and Luna Lovegood for me)) or most of my peers. A few crypto-millenials got caught up in the last bits of the craze, but for most of us there were other things to obsess over by the time we were able to form obsessions.
That's a colorful metaphor, but an apt one. I think Warner Brothers made the same mistake that Disney's made with Star Wars, and, instead of focusing on bringing in newer, younger fans, they focused too hard on milking the cash out of the adult Millennial crowd and churning out content exclusively for them, which left nothing to hook in new fans. You could even make the argument that Star Wars did at least try, albeit with varying degrees of success, but Harry Potter never even bothered. All of the spin-off material has been strictly for older audiences, which would explain why it never made that trans-generational gap, and it's now seen as a cringe Millennial thing. And rightly so. It's not really a good recipe for long term success, but that's kind of to be expected from these entertainment companies which prioritize short-term gain over long-term prosperity.
Also, the more I think about it... were there really any female Hogwarts students that really played a role of any real importance besides Luna Lovegood and Hermione Granger? I don't count Ron's sister or the token Asian love interest that Harry had for, like, a book, since they didn't do much aside from stand there. At least, not so far as I remember. Point is, those two were really the only ones you had to pick from, I guess. Aside from an Original the Character, which... no. I won't get into it now.
The Marauders had plenty of fangirls - in fact, Sirius was my first fictional crush. (Not in an actionable way, even in my daydreams. There's the age gap, and there's the fact that I only developed the crush after book five, which is concerning but also a pattern.)
I get it. There's a romance to doomed heroes, right? Or something like that. Also, I always thought Gary Oldman as Sirius was cool as hell in the movies.
I also completely forgot about her. I don't really recall what all she does except for show up in Book 5 and kind of do some stuff until, if I remember correctly, her and Lupin die in the last book. I suppose you could also count Bellatrix LeStrange, to a lesser degree. I'm sure some people out there really dug her character.
I'm a grown up lady, so I didn't read her kid's books, but the Strike novels are really good. Really, really good. Intricate plotting, characters with depth, and a charming will-they-or-won't-they subplot.
The will-they-or-won't-they was charming for the first two books, but at this point (book six - haven't read book seven yet) I just want to smash their fool heads together. The fact that they absolutely understand each other, and the world around them, on every other level, makes all the Unfortunate Misunderstandings that stand in the way of their romance unbelievably forced and frustrating. Worst of all, the will-they-or-won't-they (and only that!) has the side effect of making them look like two people who can't comfortably exist in the same room, never mind spend the rest of their lives together.
But otherwise, Cormoran and Robin are wonderful characters, and so are the cases they embark on and the people and themes in them. I am particularly taken with the way you don't get to hear from the person with the greatest emotional stake in the case until about the four-fifths mark. It is a powerful way of driving the whole matter home.
You've got a great point! But as someone who was happily married to my best friend, I completely understand dithering about taking friendship to another level and maybe losing it. Book seven is lots of fun, but I wanted to yell, "Don't go in the basement!", like in a horror movie. Robin just keeps "going in the basement".
I think a definition of "neo-liberal" and "neo-conservative" is called for at this point.
When I read "neo-liberal", it's as a position of economic globalization where Number Go Up is the only thing that matters. In the context of this blog, I was reading it as "progressive," but now it appears they are two separate positions. And my understanding of a "neo-conservative" is having a passion for getting into foreign entanglements, which seems outside the scope.
As to "cancel-pigs," I dearly hope the coiner of that phrase had Animal Farm on the brain. If Rowling isn't the nearest thing to Snowball since Trotsky himself... (Though Squealer is plainly pinch-hitting for Napoleon. If there were an Anomie in the Potter fandom, Potterites would have a better excuse for these contortions.)
As I see it, mostly drawn on my own experiences with people who define themselves as such, neo-liberals are much closer to the center than they are to progressives, who are further out towards the left-most extreme of the political spectrum. They usually put aside their differences and work together, especially in the government, but both sides harbor a deep distrust for one another. Neo-liberal is quite literally an insult in progressive circles, because it means one is not leftist enough in their ideology. For instance, I think the average Democrat voter could be described as a neo-liberal. The average Antifa sympathizer is a progressive. As the Overton Window continues to slide to the left and away from the center, the neo-liberals look more right-leaning compared to the "new normal" of Progressive Liberalism, which is now centered in the Overton Window, but this is an illusion, in a way. It's why so many neo-cons - which I'd describe as your average boomer Republican voter, Fox News viewer, those kind of guys, who are basically just neo-liberals but, as you correctly surmised, with a taste for military adventures, and don't really have much patience for "social justice" issues - mistook Rowling for "one of them" when she first got into hot water with the trans issue.
I guess to put it as simply as I can, a progressive would describe themselves as a socialist, if not a communist. A neo-liberal wouldn't describe themselves as either, but they would have more socialist leanings and believe in a strong, central state with strong public institutions - champagne socialist is a good word for some of them, since it's used to describe wealthy people who call themselves socialists but don't really follow through on their hifalutin talk. It's a word I saw ascribed to Rowling while doing research, but when you look at how much she donates to charitable causes and the fact she actually bears her tax burden to a notable degree rather than shirk it or find some loophole... I'm not really sure if that's true or not. It's all a little fuzzy since everyone's definitions of these terms will vary slightly. One day, I should write about it more.
Suffice to say, Rowling has humorously described herself as a "filthy bourgeois neo-liberal centrist", Tony Blair's government is often characterized as neo-liberal, and progressives do not hesitate to call Rowling a neo-liberal, so, that's the terminology I used.
Okay so I’ve just started this article -- I’ve only gotten as far as you introducing the Mitford sisters -- but I JUST finished reading a book about them called “The Six.” Their story is so interesting; a microcosm of mid-twentieth-century history. I’m just excited by this serendipity. Now I shall carry on reading.
BTW, the eldest, Nancy, was also very much not a fascist. Out of the six girls, one was a Nazi, two were married to fascists, Jessica was a Communist who renounced her family and moved to the United States, and the youngest was as far as I can tell apolitical.
“Rather than argue with someone about whether or not transwomen should be allowed in women's shelters, why not donate to a cause that supports housing for battered, cisgendered women exclusively? And, since such places are quite literally banned legally in many places, why not contribute to causes or organizations that seek to repeal such laws? Or speak on their behalf at events and fundraisers, speaking to people who can actually, y'know, maybe do something to make some change .”
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jk-rowling-funds-new-women-28711154
A pretty glaring oversight to not include that, but I went back and amended this. I want to give credit where it's due and, seeming as she actually did exactly what I said... well, I'd be a hypocrite not to say otherwise. Thank you for pointing it out.
I only ever saw the first "Fantastic Beasts." Despite having sympathy for the motivations of Redmayne's character (Bartlemus Flurmb or whatever, who even fucking cares), I associate the movie with a sort of low-level lingering depression. I can't tell if that's due to the movie or where I was in my life. And I'm not interested in going back and finding out.
Also, Bowie in that picture looks rather... Trump-like.
If you were depressed when you saw that movie, I can't imagine it helped any. The dark, grimy color palette and rather dismal atmosphere and dour thematic material, on top of being very mediocre, made for a rather somber movie, I think. After the fourth movie all the Harry Potter movies got very... gray and dark, which always seemed like a weird choice considering how colorful the setting was in the first few books.
Also, the real question is, does Bowie look like Trump? Or does Trump look like Bowie?
Harry Potter's a very interesting phenomenon to me, since it's one of the few bits of intrinsically Millennial culture that didn't end up overflowing into zoomer culture like the wash from a backed-up sewage pipe. Now, I did read through the series when I was fledgling chick and I remember finding them notably better than the usual slop that passes for children's writing, but I can't say that they had a tremendously large impact on me (apart from the brief, mandatory period of imagining yourself in Hogwarts with the characters (Slytherin and Luna Lovegood for me)) or most of my peers. A few crypto-millenials got caught up in the last bits of the craze, but for most of us there were other things to obsess over by the time we were able to form obsessions.
That's a colorful metaphor, but an apt one. I think Warner Brothers made the same mistake that Disney's made with Star Wars, and, instead of focusing on bringing in newer, younger fans, they focused too hard on milking the cash out of the adult Millennial crowd and churning out content exclusively for them, which left nothing to hook in new fans. You could even make the argument that Star Wars did at least try, albeit with varying degrees of success, but Harry Potter never even bothered. All of the spin-off material has been strictly for older audiences, which would explain why it never made that trans-generational gap, and it's now seen as a cringe Millennial thing. And rightly so. It's not really a good recipe for long term success, but that's kind of to be expected from these entertainment companies which prioritize short-term gain over long-term prosperity.
Also, the more I think about it... were there really any female Hogwarts students that really played a role of any real importance besides Luna Lovegood and Hermione Granger? I don't count Ron's sister or the token Asian love interest that Harry had for, like, a book, since they didn't do much aside from stand there. At least, not so far as I remember. Point is, those two were really the only ones you had to pick from, I guess. Aside from an Original the Character, which... no. I won't get into it now.
The Marauders had plenty of fangirls - in fact, Sirius was my first fictional crush. (Not in an actionable way, even in my daydreams. There's the age gap, and there's the fact that I only developed the crush after book five, which is concerning but also a pattern.)
So, Tonks is an option.
I get it. There's a romance to doomed heroes, right? Or something like that. Also, I always thought Gary Oldman as Sirius was cool as hell in the movies.
I also completely forgot about her. I don't really recall what all she does except for show up in Book 5 and kind of do some stuff until, if I remember correctly, her and Lupin die in the last book. I suppose you could also count Bellatrix LeStrange, to a lesser degree. I'm sure some people out there really dug her character.
I'm a grown up lady, so I didn't read her kid's books, but the Strike novels are really good. Really, really good. Intricate plotting, characters with depth, and a charming will-they-or-won't-they subplot.
The will-they-or-won't-they was charming for the first two books, but at this point (book six - haven't read book seven yet) I just want to smash their fool heads together. The fact that they absolutely understand each other, and the world around them, on every other level, makes all the Unfortunate Misunderstandings that stand in the way of their romance unbelievably forced and frustrating. Worst of all, the will-they-or-won't-they (and only that!) has the side effect of making them look like two people who can't comfortably exist in the same room, never mind spend the rest of their lives together.
But otherwise, Cormoran and Robin are wonderful characters, and so are the cases they embark on and the people and themes in them. I am particularly taken with the way you don't get to hear from the person with the greatest emotional stake in the case until about the four-fifths mark. It is a powerful way of driving the whole matter home.
You've got a great point! But as someone who was happily married to my best friend, I completely understand dithering about taking friendship to another level and maybe losing it. Book seven is lots of fun, but I wanted to yell, "Don't go in the basement!", like in a horror movie. Robin just keeps "going in the basement".
I think a definition of "neo-liberal" and "neo-conservative" is called for at this point.
When I read "neo-liberal", it's as a position of economic globalization where Number Go Up is the only thing that matters. In the context of this blog, I was reading it as "progressive," but now it appears they are two separate positions. And my understanding of a "neo-conservative" is having a passion for getting into foreign entanglements, which seems outside the scope.
As to "cancel-pigs," I dearly hope the coiner of that phrase had Animal Farm on the brain. If Rowling isn't the nearest thing to Snowball since Trotsky himself... (Though Squealer is plainly pinch-hitting for Napoleon. If there were an Anomie in the Potter fandom, Potterites would have a better excuse for these contortions.)
As I see it, mostly drawn on my own experiences with people who define themselves as such, neo-liberals are much closer to the center than they are to progressives, who are further out towards the left-most extreme of the political spectrum. They usually put aside their differences and work together, especially in the government, but both sides harbor a deep distrust for one another. Neo-liberal is quite literally an insult in progressive circles, because it means one is not leftist enough in their ideology. For instance, I think the average Democrat voter could be described as a neo-liberal. The average Antifa sympathizer is a progressive. As the Overton Window continues to slide to the left and away from the center, the neo-liberals look more right-leaning compared to the "new normal" of Progressive Liberalism, which is now centered in the Overton Window, but this is an illusion, in a way. It's why so many neo-cons - which I'd describe as your average boomer Republican voter, Fox News viewer, those kind of guys, who are basically just neo-liberals but, as you correctly surmised, with a taste for military adventures, and don't really have much patience for "social justice" issues - mistook Rowling for "one of them" when she first got into hot water with the trans issue.
I guess to put it as simply as I can, a progressive would describe themselves as a socialist, if not a communist. A neo-liberal wouldn't describe themselves as either, but they would have more socialist leanings and believe in a strong, central state with strong public institutions - champagne socialist is a good word for some of them, since it's used to describe wealthy people who call themselves socialists but don't really follow through on their hifalutin talk. It's a word I saw ascribed to Rowling while doing research, but when you look at how much she donates to charitable causes and the fact she actually bears her tax burden to a notable degree rather than shirk it or find some loophole... I'm not really sure if that's true or not. It's all a little fuzzy since everyone's definitions of these terms will vary slightly. One day, I should write about it more.
Suffice to say, Rowling has humorously described herself as a "filthy bourgeois neo-liberal centrist", Tony Blair's government is often characterized as neo-liberal, and progressives do not hesitate to call Rowling a neo-liberal, so, that's the terminology I used.
Okay so I’ve just started this article -- I’ve only gotten as far as you introducing the Mitford sisters -- but I JUST finished reading a book about them called “The Six.” Their story is so interesting; a microcosm of mid-twentieth-century history. I’m just excited by this serendipity. Now I shall carry on reading.
BTW, the eldest, Nancy, was also very much not a fascist. Out of the six girls, one was a Nazi, two were married to fascists, Jessica was a Communist who renounced her family and moved to the United States, and the youngest was as far as I can tell apolitical.
I'd never even heard of the Mitford sisters before this, but they seem like a rabbit hole unto themselves.