Harry Potter and the Fantastic Beasts 2: Grindelwald Boogaloo

puffing.cinema

You said werewolves are mainly villains most of the story and this is just not true. The only actual werewolf example we have for 6/7 books is Lupin, and until the 7th book they are almost always treated sympathetically. Even the ones who align with Voldemort end up looking more sympathetic than just about everyone else given the discrimination they receive from those in positions of power (Umbridge) and the general public.

I'm sorry, there's literally a werewolf army under Voldemort control. As a group, they are siding with the bad guys in the book's last conflict. Therefore, they were villains in the story climatic conflict, there's no discussion to it. Like most topics from previous books, Rowling just didn't give 'em much focus. I don't see the point you are trying to make with "we only have one ACTUAL werewolf", yeah, I've read the books and there are only 3 named werewolves, only 2 of them get any kind of focus and 1 is The Bad One and the other one is On Our Side…so what? as group, they are on the villain side. That was my point.

@andre:

She's not saying AIDS=werewolves, she's using werewolves (as werewolves, so with all of the baggage) to examine the stigma around our own diseases. It's obviously not a perfect metaphor, but she's also not saying that she's equating werewolves with those with transmittable diseases in our own world. There's a huge difference between the two.

Yeah, and she did a great job there snorts

Andre, look, please go back a bit and reread my first post: there's an interview in which she links lycanthropy to transmitable diseases, namely HIV. Your quote is literally that. I did not said that it was a metaphor (good or bad one) or anything like that. That notion comes from your own corner, your own mental gymnastic to reach an argument I'm not sure I'm grasping. All in all, she did a poor job doing that social commentary - seems like a topic she forgot to develop or to give a satisfactory conclusion.

pariston_hill

Am I listening to a 2h video on an IP that I dislike only for have more arguments to slam it and it's author even harder? Yes.

Green_vs_Red

@Robby:

So we all know and accept Rowling has.. problems… at this point when it comes to misogny

Curious about this. Too lazy to watch videos.

@Robby:

and being anti LGBT and trying to retcon her characters being more diverse than they actually were.

And this too.

andre

@puffing.cinema:

I'm sorry, there's literally a werewolf army under Voldemort control. As a group, they are siding with the bad guys in the book's last conflict.

Which I pointed out. I also pointed out (and you ignored) that she made them the most sympathetic people in Voldemort's army. Not all of them, but them as a whole. It's a huge point of the last couple of books that they are discriminated against by every day people and by the legal system with anti-werewolf legislation. There's some sympathy there that isn't present with Voldemort himself.

Therefore, they were villains in the story climatic conflict, there's no discussion to it.

Why do you, or does anyone, do this? If you don't want to discuss, then don't discuss. It's easy enough to not respond.

Like most topics from previous books, Rowling just didn't give 'em much focus.

True, but the focus she does give them is rather sympathetic, as I have said, even in light of them joining Voldemort at the end.

I don't see the point you are trying to make with "we only have one ACTUAL werewolf", yeah, I've read the books and there are only 3 named werewolves, only 2 of them get any kind of focus and 1 is The Bad One and the other one is On Our Side…so what? as group, they are on the villain side. That was my point.

My point is that for the majority of the series, our example for werewolves is a good one. There's a mention of Fenrir, but other mentions of werewolves are always putting them in a sympathetic light and highlighting how badly society treats them. The one book that truly introduces villainous vampires is the final one, and outside of Fenrir and the stealther, it still sympathizes with them as a group.

My personal opinion is that another named werewolf or two on the sympathetic side would alleviate any pressure about them, as a group, being "bad", but that the narrative obviously isn't saying that if you pay attention. They are an infringed upon group rebelling against the in-control power structures. They are doing their best to make their lives better in a world that has largely abandoned them, even if it means signing a deal with the devil.

Andre, look, please go back a bit and reread my first post: there's an interview in which she links lycanthropy to transmitable diseases, namely HIV. Your quote is literally that.

Once again, she's not saying that lycanthropy is like having a transmittable disease. She's saying that she used the stigma around having lycanthropy to examine the stigmas we have around transmittable diseases.

I did not said that it was a metaphor (good or bad one) or anything like that. That notion comes from your own corner, your own mental gymnastic to reach an argument I'm not sure I'm grasping.

She mentioned that it was a metaphor, I wasn't talking about you. She said "Lupin’s condition of lycanthropy was a metaphor for those illnesses that carry a stigma, like HIV and AIDS… the character of Lupin gave me a chance to examine those attitudes." Which is to say that the point isn't that lycanthropy=AIDS, but that she used lycanthropy as a tool to examine the sorts of stigmas that surround people when they have either. I basically already said all of this, so take it or leave it. I don't think she did anything, in this instance, that is particularly tasteless. Also I think the character of Lupin is basically the lynchpin of what she was trying to do, not through redeeming him in the eyes of the wizarding community, but by redeeming the wizarding community through his treatment.

puffing.cinema

Let's agree to disagree, then. I fail to see that sympathetic light you are telling me about. Are there some examples besides Lupin? In the way I see it, Rowling talks about werewolves in books 3, 6 and 7. In book 3 we are presented to Remus' drama, in what I suppose is the sympathetic light you are talking about. Through books 6 and 7 we learn that the guy that infected Lupin did so on purpouse and that it's a practice to try force a better social place by enhancing the number of people with the same disease. And that's all, after that they are adversaries at the Hogwarts Battle. I fail to see that sympathetic light when they choose to side with the main villain and all, the main cast has people that are shoved aside in a number of ways by socieaty and that's not an excuse to make an alliance with the fascist dictator.

It's not a huge point because nothing about werewolves is big enough in the novel scope. And I disagree, Lupin himself shows a "better" way to deal with society's views. Siding with the fascist just ins't a valid answer - or a sympathetic one.

And let's agree to disagree in the second part too. Lycantrophy is a curse that can be spread like a disease, when the author is literally quoting sitgma-heavy diseases as reference is obvious that there are clashing themes. And she did a bad job going anywhere with this because…she just didn't. she left the theme slide and gave no resolution in this thing as well.

andre

If JKR had invented lycanthropy for the novels then I could see a point about it being a bad 1-1 metaphor for other diseases, but she didn't. Werewolves in the books are the same basic werewolves we know in every other piece of fiction. She used our own world's stigmas to inform how she wrote them. To me the basic tenor of what she was doing is saying, "ya know, I could use our real world's stigmas to inform how I write this fantasy stuff." The point of comparison, thus, is how people are treated, and not the disease itself.

As for siding with Voldemort, I will never advocate for siding with fascists, but I can definitely understand why a trampled on minority might find themselves in that situation. The history of werewolves in the series is a history of discrimination and fear. I agree with you that she could and should have done more to utilize werewolves, the stigma surrounding them, and the often debilitating nature of their affliction towards more sympathetic actual characters (since Greyback is essentially the worst possible werewolf), but I disagree in that I do think she laid the basic framework that showed there are deep-rooted systematic prejudices against them that are unjust.

Robby

So apparently the new Potter game went all in on the "goblins are greedy Jews" thing, complete with using Jewish iconography and very specific dates that carry meanings. That wasn't accidental -ism, that was researched and done intentionally. Ick.

So, with that said...

https://itch.io/b/1712/trans-witches-are-witches

There is also a 10$ version with almost all the same stuff.
https://itch.io/b/1713/trans-witches-are-witches-apprentice-edition?fbclid=IwAR06wlcQOib--U5-IhL6hFUC0IHoIY6Q08YQ4ysd475_s-sJWopQ6jYkeJc

None of it looks up my alley personally and I'll never play any of it but I supported the 10$ bundle.

Shiebs

I thought this was funny

https://www.tiktok.com/@tonystatovci/video/7307405636063481131?_t=8hoIf51BGQw&_r=1

pariston_hill

Just in case people are on the fence about her recent "controversial statements", she's now engaging in holocaust denial

So I kindly ask to let this mediocre IP die, like it deserves.

Time Control Magician

I was under the belief that Fantastic Beasts was dead after three underperforming not well liked movies.

Robby

For the last two days X, formerly known as Twitter, has been trending the tag

"JK ROWLING IS A HOLOCAUST"

That is because people are actually saying

"JK ROWLING IS A HOLOCAUST DENIER." but the tags are only allowed to be so long.

People are saying this because JK Rowling, formerly known as Robert Galbraith, has in fact, denied parts of the holocaust, specifically that the Nazis targeted trans and gays. It wasn't just the Jews they persecuted! And then, because someone called her out on that, she threatened legal action, and the person was forced to publicly apologize, in a forced statement sort of way.

So folks have taken upon themselves to demand free speech be heard, and posting from countries where she can't sue someone for telling the abject truth, have been reposting "JK Rowling is a Holocaust Denier" and including screenshot proof.

After two days and 80k posts, X finally edited down to just JK Rowling as trending.

I wonder why they would do that, considering JK Rowling is a Holocaust

pariston_hill

@Robby said in Harry Potter and the Fantastic Beasts 2: Grindelwald Boogaloo:

I wonder why they would do that, considering JK Rowling is a Holocaust

Elno got into it and since it's not a "white" holocaust he got pissy they trying to silence a fellow anglo eugenicist

EDIT: Bonus INFO
The issue only resurfaced from my post on March 13th because she sued a JEWISH reporter that corrected her into silence.

Kitsune Inferno

Apparently, J. K. Rowling never realized the Nazi parallels in her own writing, and according to one amusing Twitter response, appeared to believe that she "invented eugenics".

It is so hilariously full-circle watching this franchise burn.

Time Control Magician

@Robby said in Harry Potter and the Fantastic Beasts 2: Grindelwald Boogaloo:

People are saying this because JK Rowling, formerly known as Robert Galbraith, has in fact, denied parts of the holocaust, specifically that the Nazis targeted trans and gays. It wasn't just the Jews they persecuted! And then, because someone called her out on that, she threatened legal action, and the person was forced to publicly apologize, in a forced statement sort of way.

And mind you this same woman went on Twitter and intentionally deadnamed a number of trans women to test the limits of a recently passed Scottish law that was meant to hold people accountable for offensive or deliberately hateful acts.

This is how atrocious of a human being she is.

Satsuki

JK, you've broken my heart enough already, will you just shut the fuck up?

Time Control Magician

Nah let her give herself enough rope to hang herself with.

Time Control Magician

@Time-Control-Magician said in Harry Potter and the Fantastic Beasts 2: Grindelwald Boogaloo:

Nah let her give herself enough rope to hang herself with. Let her say the wrong thing and fuck her brand and reputation beyond redemption.

Robby

It's just... such a betrayal? Person wrote these beloved kids books full of hope and optimism and then....

It's Orson Scott Card all over again. How can the man that wrote Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, books explicitly about tolerance and loving everyone, no matter how strange or alien, and that every religion is personal and special... turn out to be such a raging homophobe that he contributes regularly to hate groups?

aku-chan

@Time-Control-Magician said in Harry Potter and the Fantastic Beasts 2: Grindelwald Boogaloo:

@Time-Control-Magician said in Harry Potter and the Fantastic Beasts 2: Grindelwald Boogaloo:

Nah let her give herself enough rope to hang herself with. Let her say the wrong thing and fuck her brand and reputation beyond redemption.

Never going to happen, there's way too many people out there willing to ignore or excuse what she posts because she wrote some books they loved as a kid.

Satsuki

@Robby said in Harry Potter and the Fantastic Beasts 2: Grindelwald Boogaloo:

It's just... such a betrayal? Person wrote these beloved kids books full of hope and optimism and then....

It's Orson Scott Card all over again. How can the man that wrote Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, books explicitly about tolerance and loving everyone, no matter how strange or alien, and that every religion is personal and special... turn out to be such a raging homophobe that he contributes regularly to hate groups?

It's like . . . are they writing about everything OPPOSITE of their beliefs because they know it sells better?

Nothing to do now other than cling to Ursula K. LeGuin's books all the harder. Oh, and read Naomi Novik's Scholomance trilogy if you want something to fill Harry Potter's empty place.

Robby

@aku-chan said in Harry Potter and the Fantastic Beasts 2: Grindelwald Boogaloo:

Never going to happen, there's way too many people out there willing to ignore or excuse what she posts because she wrote some books they loved as a kid.

Not even that. The vast majority of people aren't terminally online and just have no idea at all that she's being horrible in the first place.

Internet drama doesn't reach the real world for the most part

Robby

@Satsuki said in Harry Potter and the Fantastic Beasts 2: Grindelwald Boogaloo:

Nothing to do now other than cling to Ursula K. LeGuin's books all the harder. Oh, and read Naomi Novik's Scholomance trilogy if you want something to fill Harry Potter's empty place.

I'll second this. Earthsea and Scholomance are both great "kids in a magic school" series that don't have horrific authors.

Robby

Satsuki

Sometimes people are awful. But sometimes, people are great.