I'm sorry, but questioning why all evil people were former Slytherin students or why all bad children end up in Slytherin is valid criticism. It is essentially saying that once the sorting hat arbitrarily decides you're evil enough at the ripe age of 10, you'll be doomed to live a life of crime.
@@poppie267 and he ended up freeing Nagini, noble hearted, etc so the point is that you aren't necessarily sorted by your base wish but what that wish represents, where you're actually needed and will thrive
@@JamesGallagher90 it's ironic bc in the movie the sorting hat verbatim is like "oh, anything but Slytherin, ey? well then it'll have to be Gryffindor" lmao it was so clear that it considered every aspect of a person: who they want to be vs who they are It's sad that people are demonizing every aspect of JK's writing when there were actually good bits
There's a reason it was one of the most popular properties to write fanfiction about (and, for all the bad things she's done since then, JKR's condoning of fanfiction of her work fundamentally changed the way authors interact with fan works from then on. Anne Rice's "nobody's allowed to write fanfiction of my characters" and even Anne McCaffrey's "You can write fanfiction, but only if it would be totally plausible within the canon of the books that I wrote and follows all of the rules of the setting" fanfiction rules seem ridiculous in a post Harry Potter world). Rowling wrote an interesting, evocative world and then fumbled the execution of the actual story, which inspired a ton of other people to take a crack at it, and a lot of teenagers to take up writing as a hobby (just like it inspired them to take up reading as a hobby as children).
@@hypercube8735So, the fan fiction is correcting the bits found wanting or ‘ghost in the machine’ish in Rowling’s work, whereas McCaffrey wrote a fully functioning world in her books. Are you praising the fact that Rowling’s writing is flawed work, or are you saying the flawed work allowed fan fiction to thrive. I’m not criticising your comment, I’m just curious, because you seem to be praising her for accepting fan fiction’s job of filling in the missing bits. I say this as a McCaffrey ‘fan’, and she was proud of the fact that her world never contained the “and with one leap, he was free”, style of writing. I would imagine that was the background to the rejection of fan fiction.
@@TherealLumpendoodle I'm saying that the fact that people could tell that the idea was better than the execution with Harry Potter is part of why it got so much fanfiction. It inspired something in people that wasn't satisfied by the books themselves (and it was also children's literature, which made it an easy topic for young people to make their first foray into writing-for-an-audience, which is one of the main things fanfiction ends up being used for). The other reason is that Rowling wasn't especially protective of her work, and actively encouraged other writers to go nuts with it. And since Harry Potter was so popular, this "anything goes" style of tolerating fanfiction became the new norm, which makes things like Anne Rice seeking legal action against fanfic writers for using her IP without permission seem like an extreme overreaction, even though that was a very real risk before Harry Potter normalized fanfiction to the degree it did. McCaffrey's "You can write whatever fanfiction you want as long as it doesn't contradict the books - no inventing new dragon colours, no making dragons of the wrong gender for their colour, no making a second white dragon because that meant the one in the books wasn't unique anymore - seemed downright gracious. Although it wasn't all great - she apparently disliked people writing fanfiction using her own characters instead of their own original characters in her world so much that she apparently once threatened to sue a twelve-year-old who wrote her an email explaining that she roleplayed as Lessa on a website (an email that included the fact that it was from a twelve-year-old fan), and she would send legal cease-and-desist orders to roleplaying websites that didn't conform exactly to the rules laid out in the books (including "existing characters are totally off-limits"). Given that something like 90+% of Harry Potter fanfiction is about the existing characters from the books (including radically changing them into whatever the author feels like, or expanding on characters that Rowling hadn't fleshed out yet in whatever way the fanfic author felt suited their story - one common example was depicting Blaise Zabini as an Italian girl and shipping her with various male characters when the only fact known about Blaise was which year and which house they were in, when it would eventually turn out in the sixth book that Blaise Zabini was male and Black.) That was still much less extreme than someone like Anne Rice, who would describe feeling personally violated by the idea of anyone else writing about her characters and would regularly sue and harass people over it. McCaffrey's stance on fanfiction softened a hell of a lot after Rowling's sheer size and success changed the norms around fanfiction tolerance (and even Anne Rice eventually revised her position on fanfic to "I can't stop it, so I'm just going to ignore it", which is a lot healthier). Rowling herself didn't start trying to control what other people did with her characters until she'd run out of books to write (at which point her new hobby became inventing and compiling new random facts about the world she'd invented, which meant she suddenly had a problem with things like the Harry Potter Lexicon (a website she'd previously approved of, to the point where she told them she used it as a reference to keep her world straight in her head when she was writing the later books) wanting to publish a print edition of some of the information contained on the website, and sued them to block the publication of the book.
I didn't knew that the Dementors were fired for working with Voldemort. Now I'm imagining a wizard just walking into Azkaban and telling all Dementors that HR wants to see them. Now how will they eat? Imagine a Dementor on the sidewalk with a cardboard sign saying "Will work for happiness"
No, but seriously, what happened to the Dementors after the last book? Did they kill them all? Did they put them in a reservation? Was there any Dementor who didn't chose Voldemort's side?
Come to think of it, how do you fire them? It's not entirely clear if they understand English, or care to in any regard. It seemed like they were only being kept there by a food supply, but the food supply is still there. The books don't mention any way to kill them. Maybe the Aurors stationed at Azkaban had to keep up a constant perimeter of patronuses?
does a bit of both in my opinion, cause to the folks who know they're from a magic family it's ableism because the opinion is "what a shame they couldn't be normal", but to folks that didn't know they got magic using fam and heritage they're just another muggle who for reasons is allowed to participate in the wizarding world
That's always how I read it. Like a genetic mutation or anomaly that shows up every once in a while because it's a recessive gene or something. On that note, I once read a fanfiction (I wish I could remember which one) which framed being a squib as being, basically, magically autistic. Like, the truth is, squibs do have magic, but the way they use it is different from other wizards so they are seen by most as being magicless, like muggles. As I recall, it was a story about a squib girl who basically had all the "normal" hallmarks of being a run of the mill witch -- using her brother's broom, small magical mishaps happening around her as a toddler and child, etc. -- but when it came to her casting spells, they would always go pear shaped. Like Seamus's spells blowing up in his face, but hers would react randomly. Usually in response to her increasingly stressed out mental state. I don't remember what the resolution was, but I do remember the main character befriending Filch and learning that his magic allowed him to speak with animals and occasionally see through their senses. It was actually a cute way of explaining why Filch always knew what students were doing around Mrs. Norris and why Mrs. Norris was so special to him.
Seems like it. A disability of the dyslexia-kind. Meaning that you are left to do manual labour to survive in the world. Why couldn't Filch become a muggle accountant. Its magic he can't do, not math.
The book didn’t really make Cho out to be that way, though. That’s the interpretation of many fans, but when I read Order of the Phoenix it’s clear that both Harry and Cho act incredibly immature. Both experienced terrible trauma and the relationship was doomed from the start. Many fans don’t see this because the book is written from Harry’s perspective so it’s obviously biased.
imo the book portrayed chos and harrys toxic relationship really well, cho was obviously not over cedric and kind of used harry to deal with her grief (which is a real thing that happens), and harry was lowkey stupid getting into this relationship because it was clear that she wasnt ready for that 😭 and thats realistic as well because he was inexperienced and she was his first love
@@anais559 yes and also we need to consider that they were both pretty young, they were like what, 15? I feel like if such a traumatic event happens to 15 year olds, that's how they'd react and I don't think they're being bad people
I would have loved to have seen Harry grow up to be a Defense Against The Dark Arts teacher who works through his PTSD by making sure his students are prepared to fight evil. He's happy as a husband and a father, but that uneasy feeling of danger never quite leaves him, so he never really stops training Dumbledore's Army. A bittersweet ending to a bittersweet story.
YES!!! Thinking back to Order of the Phoenix, this kid was HAPPY teaching Dumbledore's Army. In his spare time, he found himself planning lessons. He was super proud of his classmates when they made leaps and bounds. Why couldn't he have figured out in Book 5 "Hey, the career path I wanted to take was one thing, but I feel really fulfilled doing this other thing that is a different career path"? That's normal for people, especially teenagers! His character would have had a happy ending that way, in my opinion
yeah, i thought it was so obvious that harry was going to be a teacher when he grew up. it would fix that thing with the defense of the dark arts position being cursed too. and harry was in his element teaching dumbledores army in book 5. and after his experiences with snape being such an abusive teacher, it would also make sense for harry to want to be a nice teacher for other kids. also him becoming a wizard cop is SO wrong after everything joanne set up to be wrong with the wizarding world. he shouldn't become an enforcer of the law.
I really thought he'd become the next defence against the dark arts teacher too. He seemed to genuinely enjoy teaching, and he was constantly fighting dark wizards and magical creatures. Considering the running bit of something always being awry with the DAtDA professors, it would've been a pretty fun way to end his arc.
Not to mention him becoming a bad father in the book that shall not be named, I never would believe that Harry the kid who grew up only wanting periential love and affection could neglect giving that to his own children and choosing work over his family when him choosing Auror seemed to come out of left field
Hearing "Harold Potter" low-key messed me up for a bit, ngl. I even vented to a friend about not realizing that his name would indeed be Harold. Being named Harold on top of being an orphan is too much to bear. Fortunately, they let me know that his name is actually Harry and not Harold. It was a wild ride, though.
0:38 my aunt's second husband was named Harold Potter. We always just called him Uncle Harry Potter, back in the '80s when it was just another name. He was a gregarious ol' coot and my friends loved my stories of his antics. Until the late '90s when they started calling "bullsh*t" as soon as I mentioned his name. Even though they'd heard me talking about him for years. Not even remotely relevant, I know. I just wanted to share.
that's so cool! whenever i read books that have characters with kinda unique names i always think that there might be someone in this world with that exact name and maybe even similar looks or life
@@hiyylight I always found it kinda sad. Like if someone had ever wanted to name a kid hermione or write a book with a hermione people would always relate it back to harry potter because it's such a distinct name and it's so unpopular that the only place many people will ever hear it is harry potter. The name is possibly forever tainted.
The time turner complaint is such an easy fix. All Rowling had to do was say "you can't actually change the past when travelling through time." The climax of Prisoner of Azkaban is a textbook closed loop. But NOOOOOOOOO. Instead, we get "whoopsie, we broke time travel forever."
Was that in the book? I didn't re-read the books as often as I re-watched the movies, and the PoA movie made it so that everything that happened in those moments was caused by Hermione and Harry being in the past, like those two stones. It was essentially a closed-loop, unlike BttF1.
Exactly, something like "everything you do in the past has already happened" kind of thing. So if you travel back to "fix" things you're just following the timestream as it is. The end. It's science fiction 101, I guess she didn't read enough of that genre.
@@Daikon_Micucci yes, it's a closed loop in the book too. That's the whole point of the scene where future Harry summons a Patronus and past Harry thinks it was his father summoning it.
As an eastern european, I also disliked the portrayal of foreigners in the book series, especially that of eastern europeans. Krum is the only good eastern european because he prefers the West. Fleur is French, but she's always mocked for her accent and poor English. I could go on.
i'm russian-american, and, even as a kid, i felt really weird when i saw how eastern europeans were primarily portrayed as specifically evil. it honestly felt reminiscent of the bullying i faced when i was in elementary and middle school.
as a fellow slav, yes. not only evil! also poor, unwashed, and crude. never gon' forget krum marveling at their nice plates cuz they eat from, idk, a trough or something.
To be fair to JK, her message of ‘everybody should be accepted and treated equally except for certain types of people’ transfers seamlessly to her real life political views.
@@B0Sajwah She’s friends with bloody Posie Parker, who explicitly wants to take people’s rights away (including saying abortion rights are easy to sacrifice for support against trans people), works with neo-nazis and theocrats, wants to put trans people in reeducation camps, and has said she hopes genital surgery kills people. Even if Rowling doesn’t personally agree with those beliefs, endorsing a person who holds them makes people pretty darn suspicious of her "certain concerns with the LGBT community."
Someone made a joke on twitter saying that if we had a Latin character on harry potter they would be called Andale Arriba and it makes me laugh every time because Joanne absolutely would do that
I’m Native American, so if I was in HP, Rowling would most definitely have me dramatically and mysteriously looking far into the distance as I dispense some kind of vague ‘wisdom’ 😭 And also not use a wand because apparently native american wizards don’t use wands either or something??😬
I think the criticism of the house system (specifically with Slytherin) is valid because it ties into Rowling’s views about good and bad. It also fits into the azkaban section bc I can imagine like… the slytherin to azkaban pipeline being a very prevalent thing you could fall into. Picture this. You’re 11 years old, you’ve either discovered that there’s a secret world of magic, or you grew up in a world of magic eagerly awaiting the day you’d go to cool magic school. You get your letter, get your wand and your pet and all that stuff, and you’re ready for the sorting hat. You consider yourself a little bit of a clever kid, passionate and crafty with what you do. The hat puts you in Slytherin. Suddenly, now 3/4ths of the school now hates your guts. (This anti-slytherin bias is established to keep happening even after HP, as shown in Cursed Child). You’re treated like a menace, maybe you’re with kids who are actual menaces. And not good influences on you. But what can you do? You’re stuck rooming with these people for the next several, very formative, years of your life. You continue to fall in with the bad crowd, and you don’t have an outside opinion because you really don’t get to hear from the kids in other non Slytherin houses (because again, they now immediately hate your guts on sight). One day you get fed up with somebody who maybe spilled their drink on you, and you shrink them and put them in a teapot. Now you’re in prison. There’s no more Dementors, sure, but it’s still prison. Basically what i’m trying to say with that big section is that the treatment of Slytherin is tied to several other problems in the series Still a great video though! I just have a lot of feelings about Slytherin’s portrayal is all, lol.
This! Tho I’d say that Slytherin, more than outside treatment, is largely so bad because of the lack of outside treatment, they are an echochamber of shitty beliefs and they are kept away from outside perspectives and views, like you said during very formative years, they are doomed the second they’re sorted into Slytherin, the fact the sorting system wasn’t abolished at the end of HP is just another symptom of JKR’s neoliberalism it would seem.
@@MayvaAva Could you describe to me what “neoliberalism” is? I have many liberal beliefs myself and I’m not sure of the exact definition that of that term. However, I’ll never not find it funny that the people that defend Rowling these days are the far right. 🤣
when harry asks hagrid about why wizards and witches aren’t open about being magical, hagrid says “they’d(muggles) be asking us to solve all their problems for them.” which is such a demented reason why the witching world would be hidden. i wish hagrid said “unfortunately people aren’t always kind to folks they don’t understand.” or something which makes so much more sense and doesn’t make witches and wizards seem like selfish monsters. although JK Rowling also isn’t too kind to folks she doesn’t understand.
that literally implies that they could fix the problems of the world but chose not to just because. if we're going with the whole wizards being pretty much white supremacist, it's very on brand and realistic that they choose to do nothing about it
Which... Yeah, it would have been nice for wizards to help during the darkest time of our History. The secrecy but doesn't really work unless humans have some way to hurt wizards, which they don't, wizards are overpowered.
Do you know what’s worse about the Castelobruxo name fiasco? Rowling can actually speak Portuguese. She has lived in Portugal, and speaks Portuguese fluently. Yet, she decided to name the Brazilian school something that, as a Brazilian person, I can guarantee would never be named in Portuguese, not like that at least. It’s also worth noting that this school supposedly precedes the Portuguese colonization, and, yet, has a full Portuguese name.
And honestly, EVEN if you were gonna choose one of the European languages, why not Spanish? All my love to Brazil, but most people in South America speak Spanish. By far.
Fairy tales are super unimaginative when it comes to names. Sleeping Beauty. Jack and the Beanstalk. Goldilocks is literally just Goldy Locks. Cinderella is Cinder Ella (in the German it's basically "ashy dirty girl"). Rapunzel is a mangled old word for a salad green. "Watercress, watercress, let down your hair!" Otherwise, words are gibberish word collections. "Rumplestilstskin". Caipora is from Tupi for "forest dweller". Should it maybe have a Tupi name? Sure, but then her Portuguese is useless and she'd just call it something in Google Translate Tupi. In any case, I don't think that something that is basically a footnote needs a name like Castelo Rá-Tim-Bum.
@@babyblue3717 Yeah, Brazil accounts for almost half of the population of the continent. However, Spanish is still the predominant language of the region due to it being the official language of nearly all other South American countries. For what I have seen, Spanish speakers are at around 210 million, while portuguese speakers stand at 206. Sure, using "by far" was hyperbole, but my point still stands. Most latin american cultures identify with Spanish, which is the official language of the vast majority of countries in the region. It would make a lot more sense for the school to have it as its main language. Or make a second school.
I had never even considered the connection between Harry's messianic portrayal and a goblin selling him out to wizard-Hitler. God, it keeps getting worse.
How the fuck did Rowling manage to write this many layers of antisemitic bullshit? I'm almost impressed, holy shit. At least the goblin wasn't paid with thirty pieces of fucking silver.
@@circeowaggles not really. As a child I was completely hooked, seeing a lot of similarities between mine and Harry's upbringing, to the point of expecting a letter at my 11th birthday and being very disappointed and sad because apparently Polish kids don't get to attend Hogwarts (lolz), I read every book the day after it premiered in Poland and was overall a fanatic. However as adults my fiancé and I tried to re-read the series, in Polish and English respectively. The writing is TERRIBLE, the world building is TERRIBLE, JKR's bigotry seeps out of every letter. He had a little better time because Polish version is kickass, the translator did a fantastic job, but I was appalled at Rowling's style of writing and abandoned my efforts before I finished the 1st book. It's a zeitgeist thing, if you never experienced it while it was happening - you really shouldn't get into it now.
@UCwNOfedCZwgKl8ppqXK_bKA It's crazy you can't make your goblins ugly, hook-nosed, greedy, literally in charge of the banks, explicitly second class citizens not trusted by the rest of their society, and now, with the new game coming out, practice fucking blood libel without it being pointed out that you hit every single highlight of anti-Semitic propaganda.
15:30 I once listened to a review which basically said that the Harry Potter universe doesn't have bad and good actions, it has bad and good people. What the reviewer ment with this was that actions seen as bad when done by a bad person would be framed as acceptable when done by a good person :)
One thing that's always bothered me is how Arthur Weasley's interest in muggles being presented as an intense interest is completely ridiculous considering his lack of knowledge. If he was genuinely interested in learning about how muggle things work he could have- at any point- just put on a bit of muggle clothing, however mismatched it was, and gone to a few bookstores in his nearest town. He had muggle money for the Quidditch World Cup (which he struggled with.... Can you really not tell the difference between a 5, 10 and 20 written on a piece of paper? You literal idiot?) so there's obviously a relatively easy way to exchange Wizarding currency to it. He could have had an entire home library and studied spark plugs, electricity, aeronautics, mechanics, engineering, muggle sociology, architecture, science, etc at his leisure. It makes him come across as a complete moron when he's stumbling over things a 5 year old muggle kid would know (again, when he professes that this stuff is meant to be an interest of his) or says that the thing he desires most is "to know how aeroplanes stay up" in book 6. Arthur, mate, READ. A. MUGGLE. BOOK. A kids book about aeroplanes. Just one. It's so annoying lol. It's really idiotic and takes away from him as a character. Especially when you consider that his job in the Ministry is related to muggle objects so this isn't just hobbyist stuff but is potentially career-relevant knowledge as well.
@@lightdarksoul2097 For anyone else, sure. But this is a guy who professes an intense interest in Muggle stuff. Those other folks would find that muggle stuff equally worthless of their time, so why the distinction for him? He likes the stuff but doesn't care about the books? Seems odd.
@@lightdarksoul2097 Depends on the book. I'm sure a few histories of rubber manufacturing textbooks probably drop a line or two. It really depends on what books he goes for - and if he's interested in muggle objects, then the written equivalent of How It's Made would fairly easy to get his hands on, all told.
I love how the Harry potter world has no magic schools in the entirety of central europe, west asia, central asia, south asia, southeast asia, and fucking china. This means that an enormous portion of the world has no magical abilities or great civilizations like China, India, and mesopotamia have never thought to build even one magic school
@@chrisogara770 the same for Latin America, I ask myself how does language work in this schools, because would the Spanish speaking people need to learn Portuguese? Or the classes would be bilingual? Or does only Brazilian people have magic?
@@bluester7177 the brazilian castle is also insensitive in that while, yes, the name is in portuguese, and, yes, it is located in the north region of brazil, it is a literal goddamn *incan temple.* we don't have incan roots, joanne
@@mccperin I know, she probably should have chosen Mexico but there was already a North American school or Peru for the Incan thing but its a small country (compared to Brazil) , so she just decided to put the country with the most people. I do like the fact that there are caiporas protecting the school.
@@bluester7177 oh yes i love that aspect as i love our folklore!!!! however i think she should have chosen peru (since size is not an issue- i mean just look at the uk)
another funny point that Rowling retconned on Pottermore was the fact that wands are just tuning instruments, and those who can accurately use magic without a wand are extremely powerful. and yet the “beast” races who use magic without a wand are lesser than those who have to use a wand of their magic is too volatile.
maybe in the hands of a better writer that could be a commentary on how people in charge devalue skilled yet different people and deny them the ability to hone said skills..
I saw someone who talked about Remus Lupin and Sirius Black's ship and refered to them as Wolf Mcwolf and Dog McEdgy. And nothing ever has been so accurate
For me the dumbledore-harry relationship made me uncomfortable because dumbledore was so clearly making himself the saint in harry's world and grooming him to be a perfect weapon, but i agree there was absolutely nothing sexual or predator in THAT way in the books Also the sexism with fleur and cho was so prominent even i couldn't help noticing as a child. Like fleur was very smart and clever but happened to be beautiful and not very good at english, so girls would mock her and portray her as dumb while making fun of her accent. Also cho just being the stereotypical "dramatic crying girl," even though her boyfriend literally died. i loved your comment about mothers being one of the only acceptable female traits, i haven't noticed it before
Also the movies make Beauxbatons into the “ladylike school for girls” and Durmstrang into the “manly school for boys”, which was a baffingly weird and dumb idea
I didn’t get creepy vibes when I was younger reading it til the later books when it’s much clearer he’s been using Harry the whole time. I didn’t recognize any groomer elements at the time. And looking back now and being aware that the only two confirmed gay characters both manipulated young boys to their own ends…that’s what makes me uncomfortable. If there had been other queer rep to offset it, it wouldn’t be as questionable. But if nothing else I do think it’s notable. Especially since werewolfism is an allegory for aids and the whole greyback thing. I don’t think I’d be able to reread these books today.
I mean he needed Harry to stop Voldemort he was the only one who could so that made sense. Cho was being fair but she did go a bit too far at times, not really sexist though. They are all acceptable though.
@@becauseyes8505 I believe it was later confirmed that she died, according to hp wiki. Buuut depending on your take on JK’s later addups to the hp series, one can definitely say she survived the attack since the book itself doesn’t confirm her death.
YES! Lavender Brown is literally so unappreciated, but she’s often portrayed as the annoying blonde who hurt poor little Hermione with “won-wons”. I hate how fans reduce her to a stupid side piece for Ron
@@LemonBelly-uc1pyI suppose the issue people have is that she only got interested in Ron when he became good at sports, Hermione liked him even when he was a dorky, scruffy little dweeb so in the eyes of the fans, she's shallow and Hermione is...deep?
The embodiment of loving motherhood in the series is also often verbally abusive to her children, even humiliating them with magically amplified verbal abuse in front of all their peers
To be fair, by stealing the flying car, Ron broke the law, almost was expelled and almost made his father lose his job. What he did was WAAAYYY worse tham what Molly did.
To be completely fair: The six-pointed star on the Gringotts floor is a feature of the location used for filming (Australia House). It's also not actually a Star of David, it's (the old version of) the Commonwealth Star of Australia (there's more than one six-pointed star symbol in the world). It doesn't seem to be a deliberate inclusion to play in to anti-semitic tropes. Just an oblivious oversight where nobody considered how it might be interpreted. Which is still not good, and indicative of a massive cultural blind spot or apathy, but somewhat less bad than adding it in consciously.
I dunno if this is a very adequate defense tho honestly, even if they didn't themselves install a star, it's hard to believe no one took two seconds to scratch their chin and go... "bank.... star.... bank.... ssstar..." Combined with the design and characterization of the goblins, there really does come a point where incompetence is only gonna excuse so much
If J.K wanted the House Elves to work, why not have them like the Brownies but make Dobby the only one who's actually a slave because he's in service to Malfoy's family? The other elves live and work at Hogwarts and come and go as they please. They'll pinch and leave a mess for lazy students, but have all their autonomy. Meanwhile, Dobby doesn't have the same autonomy as the others. So Harry and the gang rebel against Malfoy's father and get Dobby to be free I've never read the books, but that's just my suggestion. I feel like the idea could have worked if it was just edited a little
Because it's only a minor subplot. It didn't and doesn't matter much to the larger story, so it wasn't worth delving too deeply into. This book was written in a time before people started aggressively gate-keeping the subject of slavery.
@@YourCreepyUncle.JK rowling had the audacity to say Harry Potter is anti-slavery book while in the universe she thinks normalized slavery of a entire race is normal because its what they like,people didnt complaint more back then because it was a children book but as the books "grewn up" a lot of this childish fantasy remained the same.
@@lordanonimmo7699 Rowling is very clearly anti-slavery, but she chose to depict a world where it is still accepted and normalized, so any victory achieved over the institution of slavery is going to be a relatively small one. This is a perfectly valid artistic choice for a writer to make. Of course, with modern day histrionics set to maximum, everyone is now retroactively acting all offended. Many of you idiots can no longer tell the difference between fiction and reality, nor are you able to separate authors from their work. You can't blame Rowling for your increased sense of melodrama and virtue signaling.
@@YourCreepyUncle. You cannot be anti-slavery, if the only meaningful conclusion you have about slavey is "you should be nice to your slaves or else they might turn on you". Also, they're not living on another planet. She depicted OUR world, except she focused on a secluded club of elitists who hord vast power and set themselves so far above the common law that the public isn't even allowed to know about them, let alone hold them accountable for their doings, which, aside from abovementioned slavery, include regular violation of identity, use of psychological torture on inmates and at least one case of theft on a massive scale. Oh, and they're the good guys.
Not to mention that Seamus, the only Irish character at the school, has an tendency to inadvertently blow things up and create explosives. In the 90's.
In the movies (I forget which one) he said that he's half blood: “Me dad’s a Muggle; Mum’s a witch. Bit of a nasty shock for him when he found out." which, with his Irish background and the weird IRA coding, appears to be a reference to being half Catholic half Protestant. Which is a weird detail to include imo.
The funniest thing about the house elf situation, to me, is that it could have easily been fixed by just…letting the house elves be Brownies. We already know Lucius Malfoy is a dick, and magic is soft enough to do whatever the plot demands of it, so why not just have Lucius cast a curse on Dobby so that even though Dobby was insulted by the Malfoys and tried to leave ages ago, he can’t. And even though the curse is against wizard rules, the kids aren’t old enough openly accuse Lucius and be taken seriously yet (if I remember correctly). You could even keep the “handing Dobby clothes breaks the curse” thing and just chalk it up to Lucius egotistically taunting Dobby by establishing such a simple key. Hell, you could still say the school largely runs on the favors of Brownies because they like the haunted old castle and all the magic therein (maybe even a fun scene where Harry walks in on Dumbledore chatting amicably with one!). Bam. Dobby still exceptionally needs to be saved without creating systemic wizard slavery. Wild how something like that didn’t happen, huh?
Maybe House Elves could be free, wild beings that move into your home and start doing things if they think you're really nice, and the Malfoys had one captured. Dobby could be the one elf that doesn't enjoy his work, specifically because it's compulsory. The rest of them could pity him and want to see him rescued, instead of thinking he's insane. Honestly there are a lot of ways to do it better.
you could make them bound to the house, like you described it with hogwarts (not owned by a family/person) and it would be so fun to have them have really specific odd house rules and get easily pissed and revengeful when you break one of them. Maybe in one house you really have to take off your shoes and wear pink fluffy slippers all the time. Or one where no lights are allowed from 12 to 5 at night, not even magical ones. And if you break the rules or treat them badly, just like in the original tales, their punishments can be really nasty. Like they are the real authority over the house while seemingly being subservient, cleaning, repairing... And every house has one by default, but maybe the one with the Weasleys is kinda chaotic and relaxed too, just like the house and thus not much of a help for Molly. Easy! No big change in plot and story needed, but instantly more fun.
All ideas in these replies are not offencive and also more creative and interesting than the original one, now I'm gonna search for fics that explore different ways the house elves thing could be done
The problem with Harry Potter is that it tries to be something it's not. It's supposed to be a silly book about wizards and magic, but the series became so famous that J.K. Rowling tried to turn the story into something more serious. However, the world-building doesn't have the necessary depth.
Did she? I think she had to continue to make each book successively more “adult” and serious, which was the purpose of the series, and she didn’t have editors trimming her sails. But yes, the premise couldn’t support more “seriousness” or the scrutiny like this comment section. But I dont think she tried to make it something it wasn’t.
E Nesbit has better world-building in *her over-the-top comedy short story* children's fantasies from *100 years earlier*. Read "Melisande" and "The Last of the Dragons" (they're public domain and you can find them on Project Gutenberg or Wikisource). Rowling just was bad at this.
Nah, she just didn't think things out. She got herself in a shit ton of corners that she just ignored or retconned. She ain't a good writer but a competent enough saleswoman.
Nah stop talking about things you don't know. She literally wrote the last chapter of book 7 very early on and the entire series was meticulously planned out. It would take very little research to know this. Pretty embarrassing L take
For me, it's the small things that make worldbuilding bad, like when a student is expelled from Hogwarts and their wand is taken away. I always thought this was stupid. They are still magical and need to practice, or they will cause spontaneous magic to happen. Along those lines, we know that wizards become Obscurials if their magic is suppressed, so it doesn't make much sense to take their wand away. We also know that Muggle-borns are given the chance to go to Hogwarts, but if their parents refuse, the family is Obliviated, and the child doesn’t practice magic. But then we have the problem of spontaneous magic and the risk of them becoming an Obscurial, which creates an immense risk of the wizarding world being exposed. Another aspect is that many wizards learn magic at home, which I personally love-the idea of families having their own magic and passing down certain spells through generations is really cool. But we also know that underage magic is illegal, which conflicts with that idea. Another issue is love potions. They should be illegal, but they aren’t. They’re essentially a more specific version of the Imperius Curse. In Fantastic Beasts, Leta’s mother was controlled with the Imperius Curse and assaulted. When Queenie used a love potion on Jacob and no one batted an eye, it was just stupid because it’s essentially the same thing. We're supposed to view what happened to Leta’s mother as monstrous and evil, while at the same time, love potions are sold openly in shops.
Man that part about Tonks really bothered me, ever since I was young I hated that she became this sweet little wife and mother when before she was this cool, funny tomboy. I don't think she was written specifically to refute trans identity but I think her transformation into a more acceptably feminine character is a reflection of JK's larger ideology on gender and women. I truly hate the narrative that gender nonconformity is something that women have to grow out of to be truly mature and developed, its gross and weird, and it ties into the point about JK's idolization of motherhood. Just because married and had kids doesn't mean that it's a crucial step in the development of all afab people, Joanne.
I guess I always thought of latter-day Tonks as being sidelined rather than "tamed." I never thought of it like this before, thanks for your perspective.
@@LittleMissLounge That's not what was said, what was said is that young kids don't really care about gender and such unless you focus them on it and usually they don't pay too much attention to side characters' traits. Doesn't mean kids couldn't have quality fiction, but it was never said kids are dumb, just that they don't focus on what we would.
You know? Back in the early day, when this book was being debated at the Supreme Court level, its defenders were largely the very marginalized goups the books eventually disparaged. The irony is not lost on me.
@@ethancox9737 Christians at the time believed that the book would cause children to turn to Satanism. So, they were checking out the book from the library and then paying for the "lost" book. Eventually, a librarian actually did this with every copy in her county. It made it to the Supreme Court to determine whether stealing and then paying for the book was unlawful censorship by a government employee. The court ruled that it was.
So combining your analysis of the house elves with Shaun's, she wanted to have a brownie that didn't want to do chores, and when people were disappointed she stopped the house elf slavery story, she just said the slavery was alright. It seems like she could have easily solved the problem by giving all the other house elves the same agency as brownies, and just have Dobby tricked or forced into servitude somehow.
Esp with the clothes angle, I'd love an arc where they get liberated & reparations & they all get incredibly chic + fancy & into high concept fantastic fashion & the story could communicate this over an evolution of fabulous outfits, looks, & materials.
One way to fix them would be keeping the very tetchy natures of house elves and having them just. Like cleaning. Their culture has little use for money and they get antsy when they can't be busy, but rather than a race of natural slaves they just. Move into houses and quietly tidy up at night, making their own clothes out of second hand fabric and helping themselves to small amounts of food. But if the homeowners are unkind, rude, take advantage of their love of work or worse, insult them with gifts of food or clothes, they just. Leave. hit the bricks. Make like a tree and leave. However, one rather nasty curse is used to bind house elves to families as slaves, a curse that is only broken when they're given a gift. Dobby, being an unusually friendly and gregarious elf, was easily caught by the malfoys, desperately wanting to be free but bound by a curse. This would also mean that instead of being someone railing against slavery and being mocked for it, Hermione is rudely declaring she knows best for another culture, as she jumps to the conclusion that ALL house elves are slaves as they aren't paid, rather than people with a very different outlook on the world who would simply leave if someone offered compensation, like the historical brownies. Instead we get literal actual slaves. Joy.
I would have absolutely loved it if one of the sub-plots was that someone stereotyped Slytherins as evil because of Voldemort and Harry and his friends tried to break that stereotype to stop kids from being bullied, ect. It could've been such a good message!
J.R. Once said in an interview that the Slytherins came back in the Battle for Hogwarts and helped...which was never in the Original Series (she either thought about it but never wrote it, thought of it later and miss remembered it in the Original Series, or made it up in the moment...all of which are equally likely in my mind.) But that page (or even a paragraph) of context would have gone along way.
“Vol de mort” is Rowling’s attempt to say “flight from death” in French. While the similarity to the word “violence” probably helped nudge her towards the name, it has nothing to do with the Danish word for it.
And actually, even if I like Harry Potter, I have to say that, as a French guy, the name Voldemort just sounds really bad, it sounds like the name a child would invent.
Theres also the fact that the root word "volde" means "to wreak" and mort meaning "death", so his real name is "lord of wreaking death" but overall even as a kid i thought it sounded as weird and off-theme whimsical as "dumbledore"
To be honest, Ginny did have other interests, she was almost as big of a prankster as Fred and George, and was a very talented Quidditch player... Which makes it worst that she literally puts everything in hold to be Harry's partner. At some point, in one of the many, many retcons of the adult group, Ginny was supposed to be a famous Quidditch player who just let everything to become a mom.
@@lauraslade5308 There isn't, it's just part of an unsettling pattern that runs through the books. Taken in isolation, you're right, there's nothing wrong with it.
@@Wveth I feel like most of these people just jump at shadows, let's be honest. As a Star Wars fan and as a Star Wars prequels fan I've experienced lots of people making up lies about the characters to have an excuse to hate on the characters and George Lucas. Like something as petty as claiming Jar Jar is racist
OK, in the spirit of full disclosure, I will say this, I ship harmony, I have since I was 11 years old, I am currently 34, now, my issue with Ginny is this, you are correct she did have a lot of interest, the problem is, we had to learn about them not through her, not through interactions, but through other people, like why is Hermione, the one telling Harry that Ginny has been sneaking out and picking the Lock on the broom shed so that she could fly at night, they had a really good opportunity to show him finding this out when he arrived at the Weasley's,, in second year, he could've seen her flying, he could've snuck out himself, met her down at the Apple orchard, and they could've started talking, and that could've actually built a friendship, and maybe their relationship wouldn't have seemed completely irrational when it suddenly appeared in half blood, Prince.
I always dreaded Luna appearing. While I loved her insights and basically everything she did (that Quidditch commentary lives rent-free in my head), every other character around her suddenly decided to make it known how odd she is and mocking her. Like she was some sort of circus animal to be tossed at with peanuts. Worst of all? She never did anything against it or showed hurt, so that made it completely okay. Ron was a particularly bad offender and I really couldn't stand him in the later books as he climbed the army ranks of status quo defending characters. At least she wasn't repackaged into something "acceptable" by Rowling's standards like poor Tonks. Though she did get the nuclear family ending shoehorned as well.
I always loved Luna, and I thought the more conventional kids mocking her for being weird were the ones with the problem. I used to think that's what Rowling thought too, but these days, who knows?
I love Luna and she didn’t deserve to be bullied of course, however she does say ridiculous things and is exactly like a conspiracy theorist who would make up these weird scenarios that doesn’t exist and it’s cool and fun and all, but she’s like a flat earther and in real life people would make fun of that. It’s not just normal being herself, she often just genuinely tries to spread conspiracies that does feel exist
@@benoitbrown9400 not really, she’s portrayed the same way in the wizarding world. She says stuff that’s obviously not true and I’m not talking about the beasts. She makes weird stuff up about the world and political figures as well that’s just weird. It’s why people find her ridiculous, that’s why I say she’s more of a flatearther it isn’t about the beasts stuff
Just because a fictional world is fucked does not mean it has to be "resolved" by the end of the series, not every book Is The Hunger Games (thankfully, it would be samey and boring as fuck if every book series was about "the revolution"). However, there is a problem when the author tries to pretend the world is not fucked and it's "all alright" because bad shit is only bad when the bad guys are doing it, and it's otherwise fine.
About Harry and Dumbledore's relationship: Honestly, I don't even think it's that much of an innapropriate relationship. I used to agree with that take. I used to think that it "compromises Dumbledore's impartiality" but I've been working at a school since about half of this year (2022) and It really changed my perspective on this. First of all, simply showing affection to your students isn't necessarilly a bad thing and is important to build the trust At least where I work, teachers and even school employees on higher level disciplinary positions have very affectionate relationships with students (and, no, it's not in a sexual way, and in fact I'd say that having this kind of relationship is important so the students feel like opening to teachers about abuse at home). And, often that affection crosses generations, as older teachers see the children of their former students coming to their classes. And, while Dumbledores does get closer to Harry than most students, it's not as if he's letting Harry do absolutely everything. Harry, Ron and Hermione get into Detention. They get in trouble. Sometimes with the Ministry. Besides, except for the sixth year, when Dumbledore gives harry very much needed private classes, they really don't meet that much more than other students. They usually meet at the end of the year, when Harry needs to learn something about the things that happened the years before or when something happens that requires intervention... Other times he's just there being headmaster... Yes, you could probably say Dumbledore dedicates more time to Harry than to any other student. I don't think that's bad. I've discovered in my short time that teachers and educators in general do have students they spend more time with than other, and often they build better relationships with those students (even if, more often than not, these are the "problem" students)... Because the educators often find out problems the students have at home which might be negatively affecting them, and often they try to intervene and help as they can. And, yes, that compromises impartiality. That's not the ultimate end all be all. And, no, it doesn't mean "bad" kids get better grades than they deserve, I assure you. Most of the time It just means kids who have need for extra care have a chance at getting it. Seriously, what should Dumbledore do? When Harry tried to save people and was confronted with the ghost of the dude who killed his parents, should Dumbledore have scolded him? Should he have scolded the children for trying to save the life of Ron's sister? All the complaints Dumbledore would have against their behaviour was that the children put themselves at risk, and even he has to admit that the school teachers, while trying their best, ultimetly failed at ensuring the kids felt safe (and even that they WERE safe).
I mean if a malnourished, physically underdeveloped orphan that is as good a person as Harry mostly is turned up at my school, you bet your ass I would keep an affectionate eye on them. Just, you know, I would probably keep myself from turning them into a child soldier...
Harry is going through it in these books, he definitely needed an IEP. I don’t think dumbledore deciding he needs to be a little bit more hands on with that particular student was an unreasonable conclusion at all 😂
@@beethovenjunkie one thing to remember about Dumbledore’s plan is that he is operating from the knowledge that he doesn’t get a say in whether Harry fights Voldermort or not. According to the prophecy, it happens whether he keeps Harry safe or not, so he might as well actually prepare him for that inevitability
I feel like Dumbledore didn't pay ENOUGH attention to Harry lol. He's an orphan, he's the chosen one, he's Muggle-raised. They should have had like optional tutoring/clubs for Muggle-raised kids, and counseling or support group for kids like Neville and Harry who are basically being abused. A Slug Club whose point is to help the STUDENTS.
I think the novels peaked at Goblet Of Fire. JK isn't really great at big plotty stuff (as seen from Fantastic Beasts) but hit on something with the format of small adventures, investigations, slice of life with clues crumbled in leading to a boss fight.
I think parallel to that is how the characterisation changes at that point. In the earlier books, written with children in mind, the characters are written like small adults (as is common with children’s books, since it gives the characters more agency than realistic children would have, and that allows the readers to live vicariously). But starting somewhere in the fourth or fifth book, suddenly they’re realistically written like teenagers, and it feels strangely as though they lost maturity when they became adolescent. They’re overall more unpleasant to read about in the later books.
As the series goes on the adventure investigations decrease and the character moments increase. I still enjoy them for the reasons I stated, clues crumbled into a bunch of isolated interesting moments, I just think Goblet is the best example of the format, and Azkaban comes close.
Interesting, I always thought the GOF was where things were starting to go downhill. The concept of wizard olympics was good, but the execution fell flat for me. The first three books were fine, nothing special but good for kids. GOF was the book I realized Harry was a bit of a Gary Stu. They said "no one underage can be part of the contest for safety reasons", but when Harry gets in, it only raises a few questions. I bet if it was anyone else, they would have been kicked out and possibly injured/killed. You have to ask yourself, if Harry wasn't the "boy who lived", what does he have left? You always know going to beat Voldemort within a few pages, so there's little tension. Neither of them had much personality, so it's hard to root for either. It's hard to root for or care about any of the characters really. The SPEW plotline was cringy and uncomfortable. Shaun's video touched on this. It felt wrong how they said to never judge someone for a stereotype (ex. Hagrid being a gentle giant, Hermione being smart muggle born), but they don't question the elves for being slaves. It doesn't pay off as they are still enslaved and the worst part is this plotline is played for laughs. Why do all the jokes in the Harry Potter series have to be being cruel to someone else? (slavery, fatphobia, disabilities, appearance, heritage, race) When Voldemort killed Cedric Diggory, I just didn't care. We haven't seen this guy for most of the books, so why should we care he's dead? He's nice and supportive and that's about it. A stereotypical Hufflepuff. JK should have build a connection between these two and- gods, the set up and pay off in these books is terrible. The only reason I finished the series is because I thought "okay, these have to get good at some point. Why else are they so popular?" Nope, they only got worse. Half-blood Prince was my least favorite because of the slow pace, boring and unmemorable story, and . . . I actually don't remember enough to critic it. (Edit: Grammatical errors) Oof, this is a messy analysis. 4/10, never reading again.
Great video as always! I'd also add that Voldemort is not a very compelling villain. He's incapable of feeling love or empathy which allows him to do such evil acts, and it's like... ok?? Why should we be interested then? The story, like all stories, is about the lead choosing to be a hero, and it just doesn't have the same impact when the villain didn't choose to be a villain. She even draws so many parallels between Harry and Tom Riddle as though they represent two different paths taken, like she's writing the next Anakin/Luke parallel, only the dark side/light side choice doesn't really work if you tell us there wasn't actually a choice.
The biggest parallel between the two of them, imo, is that Harry is equally non-compelling. His centrism is so bland and he has such a weak moral compass
It seems like the fact that these were children's books is lost upon many people today apparently. Though towards the latter half of the series the audience aged into tween to young adult demographic, the characters are still written with a similar simplicity, The creativity of the character development seems to fall pretty well in line with would be appropriate and expected for a story meant for 7-14 yr old readers. But I suppose the fact that there are many people pushing 40 yrs old at this point, who are still part of the 'HP fandom' ... That shouldn't come as a complete surprise
I agree, he wasn't complex, but I don't think he was as simple as having no empathy. That alone would not be a motivation to do anything, why would you. He also has a giant inferiority complex. What I dislike way more is that he was portrayed as basically evil from the get go. Like as a child in an orphanage. How was he treated in that orphanage for that to happen? Sure, there's a debate if psychopaths are born or made, but as I said, no empathy alone is not a driving factor. And he isn't portrayed as "just" curious. Even at that age. Although, if we grant her leeway, I suppose we could say Dumbledore is an unreliable narrator.
@@Romana6794 the target audience being young is not a good excuse for simplistic characters. Children who are old enough to read chapter books are surprisingly capable at handling more challenging themes and nuanced characters. I'm reminded of how often Kamen Rider, an enduring Japanese franchise and touchstone cultural icon that targets a 6-12yo demographic, takes on ambitiously complex stories with nuanced characters, albeit wrapped up in a toyetic candy coating.
Dude, Voldemort is literally the fantasy reincarnation of Hitler. It is voldemort mind that disturbs, cause unfortunately we can find it in many human beings (and politicals) even in real life. Nothing too original, but for children can be very effective!
you forgot to mention that JKR decided hermione was black in like 2016. hermione, the one single character who stood against the slavery, and was mocked ruthlessly for it, was black the whole time. nice one, joanne
But she's compared to a panda after getting a black eye, described with a white face, and has to be explained the significance of an incendiary racial slur that's basically the wizarding N-word. So Hermione is white, no question!
11:12 If anyone's interested, the folklore actually goes that they aren't innately benevolent at all - they stow away in your house overnight and steal your food, but their sense of morality leads them to also do some household chore for the victim out of guilt. This is why the brownie is so offended if they notice that you're inviting their 'theft' or try to actively 'pay' them in some way - once it becomes obvious you're trying to _let_ them "steal" from you in _exchange_ for household chores, knowingly exploiting its guilt when you aren't even actually upset about the food and trespass, they're understandably very upset and will never return to your house again or even wreak mischief against you.
The thing that pisses me off about the house elf slavery is that she could just have written that dobby himself accidentally got himself into a magical contract that he later regretted, but was literally unable to break. The mistreatment from the Malfoys could still exist, Harry helping him get out of it could still exist and the big structural issue to be addressed could be how human wizards take advantage of their systems to hold other magical creatures under submission. Servitude doesn't equate to slavery, Joanne.
Servitude does equate to slavery. Being tricked or forced into a contract giving away your rights is absolutely slavery. Look at the irish people that came to America as "indentured servents". Thats a disgusting way to legalize slavery.
It would still be diferent than sistemic slavery. And it would allow our protagonist to actually solve the problem instead of helping a single person and then ignoring the rest
I always felt naming the elf freedom organisation ‘SPEW’, was Rowling mocking similar organisations. Like no one was going to join spew just on the name. And Hermoine would have known that too!
That and they could've been Brownies. They're basically British creatures who do maintenence around the house but unlike house elves they don't take disrespect. Abuse or tick them off and they'll mess you up.
So i think the "bad faith" arguments are valid. Dumbledoor was fine until you find out hes manipulate harry to die, and he willingly gave harry to an abusive household. He isnt creepy bc hes close to harry hes creepy bc hes litterally the other side of the coin to voldy. And slytherin being evil children isnt just clicks at school, its a systemic issue of creating an echo chamber and shoving it in the basement.
I don't mind Dumbledore's portrayal so much since Rowling seems to recognize at least some of his flaws, he comes under pretty heavy scrutiny in the final book. Slytherin definitely showcases some of her shoddier world-building, though. It may have started as a fun re-imagining of preppy cliques, but as we learn more about the Death Eaters and how they recruit Slytherin students, it's easy to draw parallels to echo chambers and the radicalization of young men. The apparent absence of Muggle-born students in Slytherin also starts to feel quite a bit more ominous. As you say, it doesn't feel like these ideas were ever adequately addressed.
I read the books using my library's e book rental. No encouragement to buy more physical copies, no new digital, and you help keep the public libraries open by using their services.
Adding on to the Dumbledore thought, he did, in a manner of speaking, groom Harry. [Or at least it's a very valid read on the situation] He orchestrated for Harry to grow up in an abusive household so he'd be more loyal and trustworthy to the adults in his life who were kind to him. He oscillated between love bombing and then retracting that love creating a insecurity there. He made Harry feel special by treating him like an adult even though he very much was not. All as a means to an end. Do I think the relationship was sexual? No. Do I think it was grooming? Personally yes.[Though how much of it was intentional and how much of it was J.K taking the mentor trope and not being savvy enough to realize the implication, I don't know.] J.k tends to use shot hand tropes for ease while not really understanding them. Now as for Dumbledore being gay plus the grooming implications... I wouldn't be surprised if that was kinda intentional...at least subconsciously. Jk is homophobic. Plain and simple.And this isn't even the first gay-coded older man who was implied to groom their younger male students. Slughorn is gay coded in a very old timey way. He's described as effeminate, wears lavender pjs, there's particular focus on pictures of him surrounded by his male students [there's mention on him having pictures of all his students but there was a particular focus on the ones surrounded by boys] and he provides his favorite students special treatment with the hope/expectations of receiving favors down the line. Again, do I think Slughorn is literally exchanging preferential treatment for sexual favors? No. But its a short hand. Its painting a picture with the colours of homophobia, and I think Dumbledore is painted in similar strokes. In conclusion, the inner world of HP is a very clear reflection on the person who wrote it. All works of art are to a point but HP wears in very clearly on it's sleeve because I think JKR can't see past herself to write outside her own experience. All said this is my reading of the text, and different readings and takeaways are just as valid as mine. It might not even be 'that deep' but it's still fun to dissect and evaluate these kinds of things.
@@notthegodofwar4 Dumbledore knew Harry would NOT die - but on the contrary actually live - from the death sacrifice. What he didn't know was that Harrys aunt and her family HATED magic and he was actually really pissed when he found out it had been like that throughout Harrys upbringing. Magic is a great part of Harry. So it wasen't what he intended. But it was the safest way, because that was the only family where the mother anicent love-sacrifice blood line lived -in Petunia. The real question is why Dumbledore - or anyone else on his orders - didn t contact Harry earlier on? Just a bit late for his 11th birthday and just before starting school in a whole new world for him, comin in as some famous hero. It was awkward to say the least, he was never prepared for all that.
Mrs. Figg worked for Dumbledore and knew the Dursleys were treating Harry badly, so I'm not sure why Dumbledore didn't intervene sooner.@@midsummernight9431
90% of your slavery discussion is right, but I have to disagree with your last point. Sirius is explicitly criticized for mistreating Kreacher, it’s framed as though his abuse is what caused Kreacher to betray Sirius. Doesn’t change the larger point that Harry treats him better but still keeps him as a slave.
@@helios9025 it doesn’t really say, does it? Rowling had an epilogue, she could have said what happened to elf slaves but didn’t. You can give her the benefit of the doubt if you like.
When I was first reading HP and started seeing how the house elves were happy being enslaved, I assumed Hermione would be vindicated eventually. Of course "solving slavery" wouldn't be simple, and the house elves were instilled with this ideology for centuries. She was always the one in the right! She was the smart one! Besides being smart and supporting Harry's adventures, I thought this was going to be the big thing she accomplished, showing that one ordinary person really can make a difference with compassion and determination. And yet...
Why would you expect that a teenage girl, in the middle of a war, would also succeed in overtrowing the century old oppression that house elves face and that they also have entirely internalised ? A fight like that takes much more time than destroying horcruxes, just like prejudices against muggleborns will not dissapear with Voldemort. It's heavily implied that Hermione continues the fight into adulthood, when she has more political savy and clout. The books series just doesnt continue on.
@deldarma4509 Because without it then the war was for nothing really, nothing changed, the world is still broken and all the bad things that existed with voldemort still exist, the racism and slavery in the magic world existed before voldemort was born, those were the things that enabled him to raise to power really. As how the story ends, it's only a matter of time before ir happens again with someone else
@@raulponce9012 So all the books that depict racism and inequalities should have all of them be magically completely destroyed by the end ? If the heroes dont destroy the inherent prejudices in the heart of everyone and every institution in the world then its a bad book that supports préjudice ? Can you give me an example of one book, movie, ANYTHING where that happens ?
@@deldarma4509 ..because its a children's fantasy series where harry personally defeats wizard hitler? Like, grow up. Unrealistic shit happens all the time in hp. personally destroying the dictator of an uprising isnt exactly something youd expect of a child either, and yet, these kids go out and do the impossible all the time. like seriously, your argument is painfully nonesense.
@deldarma4509 Well, for firsts I say, no, it doesn't have to be that way, but there at least has to be some hope of change or something thst might indicate to us that, yes, things aren't okay still, but now we can start doing better; with that said maybe im biased, having read this booms when I was already an adult, but I feel like the protagonist and "heroes" of the story didn't quite understand at all what are those things that weren't right in the world, and just simplified it to Voldemort being the source of all evil. This isn't necessarily bad, because they are young people (well, most of them), but I felt like the writing already had set my expectations that things needed change outside of just defeating voldemort and that the characters experienced how it wasnt just voldemort that was the problem, but the whole society they were supposed to feel safe in and even the people who werent necesarilly directly associated to Voldemort but had beneficiated from him, so when that didn't happen I felt very disappointed and felt like at the end maybe one villain was defeated, but none of the characters understood that this wasn't the end, or that, the root of that villains evil wasn't destroyed. Another problem, is for me personally, a lot of those characters that were supposed to be the heroes of the story kind of felt like they were part of the problem and quite disliked then to the point of me looking at them more like antagonist and less than heroes. With that said I enjoyed reading the books, I just think that most of them set a lot of expectations that aren't met in a satisfying way at the end
Just had an idea - make the students go under the sorting hat every year - and one year Harry has displeased the hat and ends up in Slitherin - which he hates obviously - Hermione spends a year in Ravenclaw and prefers it - Ron goes to Hufflepuff and it gradually grows on him.
@@lightdarksoul2097 I think Harry would always stay in Gryffindor if the hat always listens to what you prefer, as Harry is so strongly connected to the parents that was taken from him -and that he always longs so much for. As the mirror showed during year one and as was turned into reality by anicent magic in book seven. Harrys connection to those loving parents is always much stronger than just going with wat his friends are going for. Itś more like Ron is following Harry (and his own family) than the other way around.
@@lostcause6100 I think Hermione would probably make much more friends and actually become popular in Rawenclaw. In the books itś briefly mentioned that the Rawenclaw students in DA express how impressed they are by her and questions why she isen't in their house. In Gryffindor, Hermione always stays "the nerdy bookworm girl". Even after she shows the whole school she can actually steal the show/ball and THE most wanted male athlete champion in the entire wizarding WORLD - not just wizarding Brittain - at the tender age of 14! Itś actually mentioned in the book how she gets BULLIED in Gryffindor for showing such guts, after the Yule ball and after being chosen as the one that Krum would miss the most, that he has to find and drag up from the lake in the school tournament. In Rawenclaw, they would probably have been proud of Hermione for showing their significant traits, but not so in Gryffindor! Heremione could probably be presuaded to switch houses to Rawenclaw. Ron would stay a Hufflepuff in the closet, I think. It goes againt all of his pride!
The thing that always put me off the books was that the world was created FOR Harry, and not the other way around. Rules in the world only existed so Harry could break them and be a hero
Grew up in a very conservative christian household. My mom found my friends copy of harry potter in my room before I could finish it and only hid it in the garage because I begged her not to burn it since it wasn't mine. She met with my friends parents that same day and returned the book (politely, very religious and highly convicted but not rude to other people). My dad (parents divorced) heard about it and then we listened to the book on tape every morning on my way to school when I stayed at his place. Good times.
No diss to your mother or any Conservative Christian, I am also Christian but: Harry Potter has as much chance of teaching you about witchcraft as Back to the Future has of teaching you how to time travel.
Tbh the "trial" scene in Book 5 just killed me. If the prime minister serves as chief judge and prosecution in a case about a teenager using magic, it is no wonder fascists took over without any noticing
@@NikoCigoj Yeah? Like, slytherin as a whole is strongly akin to fascism. "Salazar Slytherin" was actually based on Antonio Salazar, Portugal's fascist chief of state.
Something that bugs me on a character writing level is that not only did Harry go from a closet-bound impoverished nobody to being lumped with the "Chosen One" status and celebrity within the Wizarding World, he immediately became incredibly wealthy through inheritance, status and gifts. Ron grew up in a very modest and poor household but within the Wizarding World, and Hermione grew up in a more or less "Middle-Class" environment but only found out about the Wizarding World with her acceptance letter at ten or so years old. I feel there was a lot of missed opportunity to actually delve into the characters with those aspects of them in mind, and especially the opportunity for Harry to bond with them over things they share, there could have been real class solidarity between Harry and Ron over their low-wealth upbringing, a struggle they could've shared. I would've loved to hear Harry and Hermione be equally confused about the way stuff in the Wizarding World works more, or to really drive home the fact that Hermione isn't just interested in learning because she's a nerd, but because she's playing catch up and overcompensating for how new it all is to her, and for Harry and Hermione to maybe bond over some cultural touchstones from their non-magical upbringing. And between all three of them, I would've loved to see more instances of how the sorts of things that seem so obvious they aren't taught in books and such be blind spots for Hermione and Harry that Ron has to fill in, or Ron and Harry need help with the components of non-magical life, like if instead of knowing the spell to make fire Hermione is in a situation without her wand and draws on girl scout knowledge or something that she would've done as an extracurricular activity in the mundane world. But Harry's writing and characterisation feel like excuses for him to not have those opportunities. By having him literally locked in a closet most of the time and not allowed to watch TV or that sort of thing, he doesn't get to engage in nonmagical culture or pop culture in a way that Hermione could. Having him immediately become super rich and super famous as soon as he enters the Wizarding World eliminates the poverty through-line he could have had with Ron, when Ron can't scrape enough cash together for a fresh uniform or to get a new wand we see Harry getting gifted fancy brooms and legendarily powerful magical artefacts or outright buying an entire snack cart on a train.
And that's what fan-fiction is for: fleshing out details or outright fixing flaws in an established set of characters. I view it in a similar way to how I view something like mods for a Bethesda game haha.
Damn, Hermione was middle-class to you? I thought her parents were doctors or dentists (high paying jobs) and as an Englishman myself, she speaks pretty bloody posh. I see what you're saying, and I agree it would have been awesome. I just don't think JKR's generation were taught to interrogate class issues like that. Insofar as economic situation and how this differs between children, I remember being actively told not to pursue thinking about that by both my parents and my teachers as a kid and I'm only 26. JKR being from my mum's generation would not have thought that this theme belongs in "children's entertainment", and I am sure the author viewed this as children's entertainment for quite some time. A focus on the disparity between children leaves a gap that requires explanation - "Ok, we have class-income disparity. But why?" JKR would not have wanted to answer the "why" so she simply never staged it. Perhaps she lacked the skill to answer the "why", perhaps she didn't want to commit to any ideological explanation, since that'd turn off anyone who isn't a tory lmao. Children in the UK were historically schooled with children only of their social class. This of course has been done away with formally, but it still remains for the wealthy. For the story to actively ignore and not address the differing touchstones of social class, from an English upper-class perspective it's almost *raising the Weasleys up to Hermione's level, or at the least, acknowledging they are equals in some way* and I think to JKR this might have been the aim. I do agree that the books would be better with the elements you've mentioned!! Just, from the perspective of a woman approaching 60 writing kid's entertainment in an occasionally class-obsessed society, it comes off differently.
It happens enough in the books, I think. Keep in mind that Harry Potter is meant for pre-teens to teens. Yes, you can challenge kids with these things, but there are far more important narratives to advance in the books. It is in the end not about the wizard society, it is about destiny and what that means to you. (At least how I interpret it)
After thinking about what Tonks and Lupin represent and their development, yikes, you can have two characters be in a relationship and relate to each other without changing who they are to fit the norm for a married couple, I think we're more than ready by this point to see unconventional couples represented in media
Lupin was queer coded, so I’ve heard by many fans. Being a werewolf was a metaphor for HIV and being gay in media for a long time. I think even the actor that played him had some experience playing queer roles before. I’m done with queer bread crumbing also. I only get excited about representation that is explicit and nuanced nowadays.
@@butterflypooo just because there has been some examples of people viewing werewolf's are representation as homosexuality and aids doesn't mean that's the case for lupin
@@soso-mx8nb The director of the Prisoner of Azkaban movie actually saw Sirius/Remus as being gay. Many others who read the books also saw Remus as being queer-coded.
Ginny actually has a personality in the books. But... she is just basically the perfect 'pick me' for Harry. She's smart, but not as smart/ powerful (threatening) as Hermione. Her interests are pretty much the same as Harry's- most notabley quidditch, joke shops, hanging with Harry's friends and getting into trouble. She dates just enough guys to prove she is popular and attractive- but she isn't overly emotional or too boy crazy (Cho, Lavander). She's the perfect girl who is everything Harry could want. But she doesn't have a defining chaactoristic- nothing makes her come to life. Luna is weird, Hermione is smart, Ron is (usually) funny, Harry is brave, Draco is a bully, Neville is sweet and a victim, the twins are pranksters- but Ginny is.....???
@@clover2739 We are TOLD she's fiery. But she rarely gets to show it. Heck, people say the movies water her down, but the scene where she jumps over a wall of fire to go fight alongside harry is the most badass thing we've seen her do as far as I can remember.
@@ruleofoz2207 I don’t think in the books we were ever told she’s fiery, people call her fiery because that’s literally just her personality. Yeah jumping through the literal fire is badass but that’s not what a fiery personality is, when they talk about movie Ginny they more mean her actual personality is bland in comparison
My main annoyance is pretty similar to the Shallow criticism #1, the OSHA thing. But for me, it's not about danger, it's about "Whimsy for whimsy's sake" Since the wizarding world here exists alongside the normie world, the impracticality of whimsical things becomes more glaring. Why the moving staircase? Why the living chocolate frogs? Why do you have to run into a wall to get to the train? Sure, those things are creative and cool for the young boys and girls... But as someone who played a lot of Harry Potter video games, that shifting staircase is a pain in every iteration. Imagine actually using it, even ignoring all the danger. And again, the problem here isn't whimsy, it's that better alternatives exist. I would accept, like, I dunno... A magical elevator? Or, oh, eight elevators, each being moved by one tentacle of a giant sentient squid. That system makes more sense, is easier for the student, and feeding a giant squid sounds easier than providing a power and all the logistics of eight elevators. In things like LOTR, or something like that, whimsy is more defendable. Because there are no alternatives. Why do elves have this weird magical thing? Well, that's simply how things are, there are no alternatives. Oh, Dwarves have a technological alternative? As if distinguished elves would use the loud and steamy technology of those pesky dwarves. There, no problem.
The "whimsy for whimsy's sake" is a holdover from the time when the first three Harry Potter books were meant exclusively for kids aged 8-12. To add to your examples, Hogsmeade is an incredibly crucial location in Book 3 and a big source of angst for Harry feeling alone even while at Hogwarts but after that book it loses all its relevance. A full blown almost ancient wizarding village next to one of the most prestigious schools of magic turns into just a bunch of cute cottages and delightful tea shops for dates, while all the action gets centered on London and Diagon Alley. I always felt like the marketing of the series insisted on calling it "darker" later on while all these elements chugged along in the background, away from our eyes if it got too corny. In later books the characters spend less and less time in Hogwarts and more time in the Burrow/Grimmauld Place or traveling. These places are noticeably less quirky and the only other abode we see which tries to be quirky, the Lovegood's place, gets blown up almost immediately. They tried to push away the ages it was meant to be marketed at in the beginning hoping to catch up with an older audience and their matured needs, but the first four books had pretty morbid imagery at most times. A two faced man and a three headed dog trying to kill our protagonist, a young girl murdered in a bathroom, getting stalked by death portents and dealing with the betrayal of a family friend and finally a murder in front of our eyes and something which resembles a satanic sacrifice/sexual assault scene in a graveyard. And that's just the first four books. The whimsy lost its hold by deliberate choice in the fourth book and to ram it home Rowling tried very hard to keep the focus on Harry's trauma in Book 5. I don't think Rowling meant to change tack from the beginning because that kind of careless whimsy is a feature of a lot of books written by adults for kids, at least in Britain looks like.
regarding the magical staircase, i think it could still work with some minor tweaks. It's a really cool concept and could make sense to save space, but maybe to change it so that the person ON the stairs decides which direction they go rather than it moving at random
"Whimsy for whimsy's sake" is one of the first thoughts that came to my mind once the world of wizards is revealed. I'm 30 years old but I didn't grow up with this franchise, I've never read the books and had never watched the movies until a few days ago. I understand those first few books were clearly aimed at children and I could see why it was the cultural phenomenon it became, the atmosphere was great and at times I felt like a kid again, but the whimsical elements were so overused that it got old real quick, so it could have been handled better. I also watched the LOTR movies for the first time this year (still haven't read the novel) and the experience was drastically better because of what you said: there's no equivalent. I can still appreciate the value in Harry Potter, and I think many people let Rowling's personal beliefs get in the way of critiquing the actual story. I understand that art is an expression of the artist's worldview so it is sometimes hard to separate the art from the artist, however I was hoping for a more technical critique but I guess I'll have to look somewhere else. I'm still at one third into the video though, so maybe the technical stuff is there as well. Sorry if this comment is full of grammar errors, English is not my first language.
I really like the point Shaun made in his video on Harry Potter about Hermione and Lily serving to prove the fantasy racists wrong by being good at magic despite having muggle parents and I think it bears repeating. This doesn't actually address the fantasy racism because it accepts the logic of the fantasy racist but disagrees on the facts. It's saying that Malfoy isn't wrong to be racist against mudbloods because it's wrong to be racist, it's saying that he's wrong to be racist against mudbloods because some of them are good at magic, actually. This is kind of inherent to her politics and way of seeing the world. For example the slavery thing. In her worldview slavery wasn't wrong because it's inherently wrong to engage in the practice of chattel slavery, slavery was wrong because the slaves didn't want to be slaves. If the slavers were actually right when they said that being enslaved was in the best interest of the slaves then slavery would've been A-OK in her book. It doesn't critique the systems of slavery, only that the slavers held inaccurate beliefs.
Can I just say that Nymphadora Tonks nailed the punkrock aesthetic in the movies. Like if I was the actor I would be begging to bring that outfit home with me. Maybe I'm biased to the hair color shifting, but damn, give me that.
Natalia Tena just showed up in her own wardrobe and refused to change clothes. Just take a look at her in John Wick 4, or in the wild, she is always fantastic.
@@sparklesparklesparkle6318 You're hilarious. Of course I've gotta continue erasing women, that's why I also refer to women as mayor, juror, doctor, instead of mayoress, juroress, and doctoress. Making gender neutral names for professions is the one true way to keep women down!
10:15 This one is actually cannon, take it from a former Harry Potter stan, who was shoved off the wagon by transphobes. In the 7th book Hermione is replicating what little food they can forage or steal for the purpose of filling their stomachs, but it reduces its quality and its nutritional value.
That still doesn't account for things like being able to wave your hands to construct housing, tools, instantaneous travel, boost crop growth, etc. By all accounts the wizarding world should be a post-scarcity Low-Tech Trek Utopia... Or Huxleyan Dystopia, it being just "Charles Dickens with magic sticks" is so incredibly unimaginative...
@@NIRDIAN1 I mean, aguamenti by itself would be able to replace firefighting, but then you can just will the fire into a fireplace or something crazier... but a broom is just charmed to sweep? It's lazier than lazy imo
Was that in the movies? Because it doesn't talk about her replicating things in the books, I (unfortunately) have read Deathly Hallows many times and there is never any explanation for why Hermione does NOT replicate their food
I personally feel like the read on Dumbledore’s relationship with Harry being creepy hinges way more on the retcon that Dumbledore was keeping Harry safe all this time but totally knew he’d have to die to maybe defeat Voldemort then like him being gay thing, like he’s constantly putting this kid in danger and is like…congrats Harry you lived
same. I always felt like he was basically raising him as a pig for slaughter but acted as if he actually cared about him and thats what i dislike about him
@@spntageous5249 Retrospectively from a writing perspective it also undercuts a lotta tension to have that be a secret Harry doesn't know until that exact moment. Like can you imagine if got that information in 5th or 6th year and like has to really work through his own feelings to get to that moment of heroism...but nah...it was planned all along
My main worldbuilding gripe has always been the magic system. There's many, but the primary one is the three main curses; why the hell is Avada Kedavra so bad again? There's plenty of spells that obliterate your body, or set you on fire, or freeze you, or transform you into a flaming barrel that can then be thrown at other unsuspecting innocents. I cast Disappear upon the concrete base of this skyscraper and then it instantly begins to crumble down, killing hundreds. Compare that to the spell that's effectively a semi-automatic gun.
This is probably a bit of fan wank that does all the work for Rowling, but I've always thought that what makes it so reviled in universe is its irreversibility. Wizards always have magic and think of it as an extension of self, so in the face of disaster, wizards have other magic to fall back on, either themselves or someone else. Set on fire? It can be put out with magic. Destroy a building? Magic can halt the damage or slow it down enough to save lives. When Harry Sectumsempra'd Draco in HBP, that was a gory and horrific bit of violence, but a healing spell was still able to save his life, etc. But the Killing Curse? There's no hope against that. It's instantaneous and irreversible. Your only hope is to not get hit in the first place, and its that lack of counterspell that makes Wizards fear it above all the other ways you can murder someone with magic.
another thoroughly upsetting & problematic aspect is the queer-coding of werewolves. like, when Lupin is introduced, his lycanthropy making him an outcast is portrayed sympathetically as an allegory for AIDS (a parallel that Rowling confirmed was intended & baked into the character). which would be all fine & good. but then we get the only other named werewolf in the series, Fenrir Greyback, who is a violent predator that deliberately chooses child victims to infect & positions himself nearby to them every full moon to make sure he gets the job done. which, if lycanthropy is still a metaphor for AIDS... yeh, that's deeply fucked up
We gonna ignore the number of people that knowingly go without protection while having STD's? Moreover, you have two characters in this aids allegory. One is good and caring, the other is bad and predatory. Sounds like a pretty good ratio to me.
@@derek96720 except the good character turns into a dangerous fucking monster unable to control himself to potentially infect others or outright murder them, which I hopefully don't need to explain why it's not accurate to how AIDS actually works since I hope we're well out of the age where people with AIDS were all seen as demonic dangers to society due to the rampant misinformation of the 80's. So this plot point works both as an uncomfortable homophobic allegory as well as anti AIDS patients. To be clear, I don't think this was what Rowling intended to get across, I believe she wanted something more like an allegory for bug chasers for the villain without also villainizing the LGBTQ community and AIDS patients, but good intentions mean shit if you can't translate them into writing, that's why you actually think this shit through and don't just willy nilly throw whatever social issue allegory in your story without considering the implications of what you write. Sometimes Rowling is just spiteful, but just as often she just doesn't know what the fuck she's doing, and that unfortunately negatively reflects on her writing.
Even without the bug chaser allegory I'd say it's still problematic, like you can't have your AIDS allegory literally turn people into fucking monsters unable to control themselves like that's not harmful to the demographic you're allegorying for, that's bad AIDS stereotyping not reality, so werewolves in Harry Potter utterly fail at being a respectful allegory. Not to say Rowling had malicious intents but this is what happens when you just apply allegories to a bunch of old folk tale creatures without thinking through the implications of what you're writing, and Rowling is notoriously shit at thinking things through.
Thank you for mentioning Ginny! I swear that was the most horrible character writing I have ever had the privilege of reading and I thought this back in the day as a teenager. To be fair, Rowling tries to give Ginny development in the last two novels, but even then she comes off as unlikeable. It really struck me as a case of youngest child and only girl syndrome. If you have the books already and can go back and re-read, look at how she treats her brothers, Fleur, and even Gabrielle for even daring to have a crush on her dear Harry. All the fans even way back loved to come at me with the only reason people dislike Ginny is b/c of the movies. Nah, it was there in the text too. This is one of the characters that you're supposed to like and as a reader with her being the love of the protagonist's life you want to get invested in her as a character. Sadly, that didn't happen. I ended up being annoyed, like why is she even here?
Thank you! I never liked Ginny! Whenever people said, "Oh, their relationship is so much better in the books; they ruined it in the movies," all I could think was, "how so? How can you ruin what is already bad?"
@@GothMusicLatinAmerica Agreed, I think it would have irritated me less had Rowling taken the time to flesh out the whole they were both possessed by Voldemort thing. It is a plot point she could have built their relationship on, but because Ginny doesn't appear again in any significant way until HBP, it turns into a high school level mean, shallow, popular, jock girl gets with the trust fund kid. Don't get me started on their exchange as Harry goes off to fight Voldemort. "I never gave up on you, not really." Ugh way to show that she never outgrew the hero worship phase.
@@nagini77 I realize that. From what I've gathered in talking to fans of her character in the past, I think on the surface they see sporty, popular, girl who has a crush on the guy who will never notice them and identify with that. Also, I think the Harry/Ginny relationship as a whole for them was wish fulfillment. Harry, Ron and Hermione getting to be apart of the same family is a talking point I've heard a lot too. Rowling's execution of the writing was just poor. For a long time people would just get plain mad if you said J.K. Rowling wrote anything less than perfect. I think the upside of her being a bigot is that people are taking a second look and seeing the writing for what it is.
I am once again asking people to try out the Earthsea series, a beautifully-written series about a boy named Ged given too much power too young and facing the unfortunate consequences of that. The series follows Ged from his early days at wizarding school until he's an old man, and in the time you spend with him, and others, you also learn about the world of Earthsea- the many cultures within it, the awe-inspiring forces both in the living world and the dead one, and the magic system that grants you power over something (or someone) based on knowing a person or thing's True Name. All written with a philosophy based on LeGuin's own Taoist beliefs and knowledge of local Native American communities. Truly the only books about Wizards for me.
Can I also recommend Amari and the Night Brothers? It hits the same notes as Harry Potter for me, but it's about a black girl that's bullied at school because she's poor and black, who then discovers that she's been invited to be a part of a magical world. Then she learns she has super powerful magical abilities that are innate, and she's feared and loathed for them. The entire book is about her discovering a love for herself and for people like her, and that she can teach the world to love her, too. The full series isn't out yet, but I'm looking forward to it.
And I have to recommend Percy Jackson and The Olympians,because of how Rick Riordan avoided big plot holes,actually redeemed the bully,and the status quo is actually challenged. In the aftermath Percy tells the Olympians to change and do better Persassy:"All half-bloods must be claimed. All the minor gods deserve cabins and thrones. Hades deserves a cabin too." Athena:" He is right that so many demigods joined the Titan Lord because they felt alone and unloved." Unlike Harry being passive:" This is fine."
The fact that Hagrid thinks normal people would need wizards to solve their problems jut shows how wizards do not understand their own surrounding. The book takes place at LEAST after World War Two. Wizards need słabe labour to create food while we have industrialization and… modern weapons. If Voldemort overthrew hogwart and attacked the normal world, we have the US nuke stash and predator drones waiting loaded with mass-avada kedavra and flying out of sight and influence of spells (you can’t block a drone with a muggle confusion spell, this is an autonomous hogwart-bombing unit armed with a Gatling cannon creating 30 000 Avada kedavra spells per minute)
47:58 Although it's true that Rowlings portrayal of femininity (in adult characters) boils down to being a good mother, I also noted that her portrayal of masculinity (still in adult characters) boils down to an absolute loyalty to a dead woman. This almost braindead loyalty to a dead woman is the redeeming quality of Snape, Remus, and even Dumbledore with his sister Aryana.
I've finally been reading LeGuin's Earthsea cycle, which clearly was an influence for Rowling that she never acknowledges. It's frustrating given the larger themes in the Earthsea books. I don't love the justification of monarchy, but the sense of responsibility to the world - both the human and nonhuman - seems a good foundation for writing something with a more communist vision than this unselfconscious reflection of the current neoliberal world.
@@d.w.stratton4078 I remember we watched a documentary about her in class and I think there was a part where she reflected on that, it's been a while tho so I'm not sure. Well, we're all a product of the time we grow up in with the ability to learn and grow
Small note about the time turners: The third book already gave us a perfect explanation for why no one thought of using them again. The ending of the third book made it clear that Harry and Hermione's time travel didn't change the past, it created the past that already happened, where the people whose lives they saved were already saved and alive and they just didn't realize it yet due to a trick of perspective. In this series, if you change the past, then the past was already changed, meaning if you want to use a time turner to save someone you actually know is dead, then that only means you already tried to and failed. Weird how Joanne apparently forgot this important part of the conclusion for her own book.
No, it doesn't. That's only in the movie, for the most part and in the book, only Harry's use of the patronus was done that way. In the book, Hermione explains that wizards have met their former selves, fought and got killed (or killed their former self). That can't happen if you can't change the past.
Then the book did portray it once after contradicting it, and the movie decided to take one of the two contradicting explanations for how time turners work and ignore the other one. Either way the books did portray it as working this way once with the aforementioned Patronus and that one time it happened was a major part of the resolution of the book's plot, since without it Sirius and probably Harry would be dead.
No it still is not well thought out because it doesn't explain why you wouldn't take the decision to go back in the first place, destiny for some reason decides for you that you didn't.
I saw was a video essay somewhere that stated JKR has this habit of introducing things for deus ex machina, then forgetting about them in the next book and getting fan mail asking why they didn't use the thing from the last book, and then it either gets used a lot in the next book or they find a way to break it.
@@thewhitefalcon8539I thought it was weird that the sword of griffin door disappeares for multiple books but then suddenly shows up again as also having the power to destroy horcuxes
Rowling seemingly decided to wait until her books were published, the movies were made, a new movie series was started, a freaking theme park was put together, and her merch saturated human civilization, a civilization, it should be pointed out, that was part way through a stressful pandemic that was forcing a lot of people indoors, before publicly joining the League of Disappointing Authors. That timing. (And yes, I did steal the LDA from Tales From a Multiverse.)
@@asarishepard8171 I've very confused. Why do you think "THAT Guy" currently supports her financially in any way. Did you mean that dig for someone else?
@@asarishepard8171 Let me try to rephrase my question. On this video whose title suggests criticism of Harry Potter, and where the end of the video basically says you should not "keep her rich", most people you'll find in the comments section agree with your "don't buy" command. But since you're phrasing things like a gotcha command for "everyone", I assume I'm missing your point. For instance, are you trying to say "it's as simple as 'don't like, don't buy' and therefore any comments or more nuanced discussion as in the video is not worth spending time on"? I'm honestly asking because it's not clear to me what you're trying to convey.
It's curious that nobody ever mentions how Filch is treated in some one the books (though it's left out in the movies) - he's mocked quite ruthlessly for being a squib and it's implied to be the reason for his bitterness towards the kids, even though he didn't choose that.
It's all part of the wizarding world's obsession with magical blood purity. Imo it's the events of the witch hunts and enactment of the Statute of Secrecy that created their social castes and is the direct contribute to the European Wizarding Civil Wars (Grindelwald and Voldemort for sure, probably indirectly causing the goblin wars as well). Like in universe there's enough to explore and start to connect wizard's ideology of magical superiority over those without magic and how it dictates their laws and culture. The text presents it fairly neutral, not willing to endorse any true changes that would threaten the statute.
Easy answer! Because of JK's burning contempt for the disadvantaged, and for those who work "unskilled" essential labour positions such as school custodians
One problem with Rowling's worldbuilding which I think gets overlooked (and which is a lesson for other writers) is that her world is fundamentally static, and I think that comes from a place of stubbornness and insecurity. I believe she built a world which was entirely to her liking, with a bunch of fun and still widely celebrated features, and in her mind those features are unalterable. The wizarding world is a theme park (figuratively, but somehow now literally too), not a living breathing world that evolves over time. It's a fun eternal backdrop for adventure where you can also time out for a snack and a pint of butterbeer and meet some wacky characters. The idea that you can tear down the theme park because it's a bit chattel-slavery-y must have seemed ludicrous to Rowling. You don't got to Disneyland to criticise the institution of monarchy.
You nailed it. It's known she's a neo liberal. Her books show only an individual can be changed within an institution but you can't fundamentally change the system itself. (I.e, Ron makes fun of Hermoine for starting Spew, only Donny can be freed but not all house elves. Harry never questioned the ministry of magic only the person who ran it. It goes on and on)
"A fool and his magic are soon parted, if not his life." Maybe the leaky memory of your imagination lacks any and all object permanence because someone is grooming you. I guess I will have to refute something stupid you said, okay here goes. Put down the pacifism and keep your hands in a non neutrality position, slowly step away from the middle ground of weak character. Your baseless plot has the right to Yolo & FAFO. You would have been right to consult a search engine for advice because we sure as shit do not answer unto you. If you cannot afford to question your input, my boot will be appointed for you to lick thereof as input. If you decide to think now, you may delete your comment.
I noted this in a comment on another video. Notice how everyone gets married to people they knew in high school. Nobody ever branches out of their pre-determined social circle, the world is static, circumstances are unchanging, and all is well. It just shows a fundamentally incurious writer determined to show us that her neoliberal hellscape was always good, and fascism was just an unpleasant interruption to that status quo, rather than the culmination of neoliberalism itself, and a lesson to be learned from. Like what's the point in telling a story if nothing ever changes?
@@Greg_Glassman she's not even a neoliberal, maybe in the 90s she was? By now she's just a basic, dyed in the wool conservative. The idea of advancing social values is an anathema to her.
I remember that my 2nd oldest sister got to go to Barnes & Nobles for a booking signing with J.K (My eldest sister and I were the Harry Potter readers so we were happy for her and slightly jealous) but she lost the copy of Deathly Hollows, the one my eldest sister waited for at the midnight release, the one that she gave to her for J.K to sign. She was so upset and cried her eyes out because it was such an important book for our eldest sister. But J.K saw her crying, learned why and gave her a brand new copy for free, signing it for her even though my sister was all the way at the back of the signing line. I can't reconcile the woman who did such a kind thing for my sister and her cruel actions against the LGBTQ+, a group I am proudly a part of. But I can't support such ideals. Trans rights are human rights! Don't ever forget it!
Regarding Tonks, I always thought Nymphadora was a strange name, but Aja Romano's interpretation made it click into place for me: "dora" in Greek means "gift," and "nymphe" means a young woman, specifically a young bride. Tonks is someone who initially rejects the gift of her assigned-at-birth gender, and the role that comes with it, but grows to accept it as the series goes on.
@@falconeshield Perhaps, but one criticism of Rowling is that she puts way more thought into the names of white characters than she does characters of color. Hoots already mentioned Remus, but there's also McGonagall whose first name comes from the Roman goddess of wisdom, Sirius is known as the Dog Star due to its presence in the constellation Canis Major, etc, so it's possible that it's not a coincidence.
@@damianoakes2592 I don’t necessarily think it’s that she puts more thought into her white characters. I think it’s more that she puts thought into characters she considers relevant to the story… who just happen to be exclusively white because she carries a level of unconscious internalized prejudice.
And then she throw it away, when fans began with the Lupin/Sirius Black shipping, Rowling wanted that Lycantrophy was a metaphor for aids, but is unwilling to make her character gay, so Lupin ended with Tonks.
As an AFAB nonbinary person: that's gross I mean good for any woman who actually went through a similar series of emotions. I'm genuinely happy you've developed a healthier relationship with your gender. But from Joanne "Transphobe" Rowling that's super gross and I hate it
Reading the Hufflepuff students as stoner kids...makes them so much more entertaining and interesting. Cedric just wanted to rip some bingers and chill in a giant bath, let him live man.
I don't get that. Hufflepuffs are like the nicest and hardest workers, and yet are constantly overlooked as "lame and useless" in favor of some arrogant houses that are filled with richies. Isn't that just a reflection of real life...
@@please_im_a_staaar they aint the hardest workers im pretty sure ravenclaw is the one for smart people hufflepuff is just for people who are chill like that
I love how Ravenclaw students are supposed to be smart as fuck. Yet there´s no a single fucking good wizard from that house. The best wizards of all time are Dumbledore, Voldemort and Grindelwald and they were Slytherin, Gryffyndor, and Grindelwald didnt even study at Hogwarts.
the fact that when making fun of the obvious naming habits Jk has, no one ever mentions lavender brown... she literally picked two colors and called it a day
Lets not forget the fact that lavender brown was played by a black girl in the first few movies but was replaced by a white girl as soon as she became a love interest for ron.
Also Viktor Krum (Bulgarian), similarly to Cho Chang, has a name which consists of two Bulgarian FIRST names. But then again we have characters like Albus Severus (also two first names) so it's not really surprising...
I think that a large reason that HP fans moved to Fan Fiction is not just the unquenchable thirst for even more Harry Potter, but also for the fact that people were able to modify the bones of the story, one that garnered such a large community, to fit their various identities better. I have seen so many stories of queer writers writing themselves into the narratives by turning characters into their own queer icons (Sirius Black is still Bi in my head BECAUSE of those very writers). That's why I cannot leave the "fandom" behind. Not because of the half-baked books that I read as a kid, but because of some of the most amazing works of art that were inspired by those books and the community it has. I guess I'm a fan of the community more than I am a fan of the franchise.
The only quality to be found in Harry Potter is in the fandom, everything written by the author is at best mid, and at worst painfully mediocre. Change my mind.
14:40 - so like, I don't THINK JK was being clearly allegorical here but I do think it's flatly INSANE how well House Elves, Centaurs and Goblins in her books map onto the way western racism categorizes Black people, Indigenous people and Jewish people respectively.
@@lindseystein9676 To be fair, I think she used to be centrist or possibly left of centre back in the 90s when she wrote the first book, and then she's been drifting steadily right over the years because her conservative streak is a mile wide and it makes progressive spaces uncomfortable for her. She grew used to thinking of herself as feminist a queer friendly, and it never occurred to her that the bar for feminism and queer friendly could be raised over the years as disenfranchised groups gain rights and equality becomes more attainable. Her brand of feminism in particular is from the 60s. She is very progressive and left wing. For the 60s.
@@R0CKDRIG0TERFs will push a lot of gender essentialist rhetoric that does turn around and harm cis women as well as trans women, and pushes a right wing view of the world. Things being inherently of one defined unchanging category or another and unable to change is a conservative bias, not a progressive one.
Oh man, the part about Tonks.... I felt that. She was honestly one of the coolest characters, and then JK just... removed everything that made her Tonks? What? I remember that being such a disappointment of a character development. A betrayal, even.
I had the same experience!!! She was SO cool and was the reason I begged my mom to get a purple streak at 13, and then lo and behold she becomes a wife, a mother, and then dies all in like half a book. That cannot be forgiven
@@GuardianSpirits13 I dont think it's necessarily a problem that Tonks becomes a wife and a mother and dies in the span of half a book when a war breaks out that kills lots of members on both sides. I think Joanne just wanted Teddy's life to parallel Harry's in that both parents died to protect the future of their child. The real problem with Tonks is that she loses her personality in order to become those things. She could have been a purple haired, cool, shapeshifting mom, even a trans/nb icon who doubles down as a brave parent who would do anything to protect her/their family - spouse and child. If anything, Tonks should have been the one to make Remus reconcile with his wild side, even embrace it. The down side to marrying is that it would change her last name assuming she takes on the Lupin name, but she could hyphenate it and continue as Tonks, or, hell, even change her first name to Tonks.
@@SocialistStrike That is true and it would have been cool to see more gender exploration with her character, but I think the thing that feels icky to me is that both her and Remus are gay-coded, what with the AIDS/werewolf analogy. But we know JK is a coward and a bigot so she could never do that to her precious ocs
@@thing_under_the_stairs well presumably in the Harry Potter AU where JK isn't a terrible person infusing her fiction with that particular brand of politics and Tonks and Remus are *allowed* to be openly queer, then the outcome may have been different. Either way, I personally think that writing queer coded characters just to then have them "grow out of it" and settle into a "traditional" hetero family dynamic is just as bad if not worse than having openly queer characters who happen to die. But idk maybe that's just me
My problem with the houses is students keep getting put in the wrong house. Hermione is an obvious Ravenclaw. Percy seems more ambitious than brave so Slytherin. Idk where Peter Pettigrew belongs but it sure as Hell ain't Gryffindor. JK just wanted all the Weaslys, Marauders and main characters in Gryffindor for some reason. Guess it's her favourite house. I think it would have been cool to have a main character in each house.
Honestly that would have made a good plot and even cemented that message she tried to make near the end of inter-house unity. Sure, keep Harry and Ron in Gryffindor because Ron has to be Harry's wingman to the wizarding world, but make Hermione a Ravenclaw that they happen to make friends with. Make them friends with people from the other houses and it even raises the stakes as they have to brave curfew to meet each other.
I don't agree with that, Hermione is a Gryffindor. Your house is chose by what you value the most, Hermione values courage over wisdom more and that's the reason she is not a stereotypical gryffindor. Sometimes when a person values things almost equally the hat lets they choose the house. Peter was brave enough to do all those sh*t to his own friends, being brave is not necessarily a good thing.
@@Moonylovegood Hermione is defined by creativity arguably even *more* than she is by her bookish smarts, especially in the later books. She doesn't just understand magic, she knows how to apply her understanding to novel situations, over and over. Hell, the first half of the Deathly Hallows is basically one big seminar on "here's all the creative ways Hermione made sure the trio could survive in the wilderness for several months".
8:50 - if anything, it's not about homophobia, but about seeing the relationship as "strange" accounting for Harry's age. He is a minor, after all. So the critique is less about "Ew, Dumbledore is gay" and more about "Ew, Dumbledore is a pedo"
My aunt gave me a copy of the first book as a child. When I didn’t immediately read the book she proceeded to passive aggressively gift me three more copies of the first book over the course of about two years. So being an equally petty child I resolved to never read them just to spite her. Consequently, unlike a lot of my peers I luckily didn’t have to reevaluate my nostalgia for the series when Rowling publicly TERFed all over herself. Thanks, Aunt Marie.
My father didn’t allowed me to read the books because he said “if a lot of people like it and it’s a best seller then it must be garbage” now I get his point, also I’m a trans men 🤭
In my case, I actually read it, I borrowed from a friend but my adhd brain just doesn't remember a lot of it, I think I read the first 6 books in 6 months when I was 14, then the 7th came out and I got bored of it by the first 1/3 of the book. I never came back and I often re-read books that I read in my native language in English just to see what may differ.
For a long while I didn't read the books because a) I was under the impression my parents wouldn't want me to read them because they would think they were satanic and b) I had a thing about not following trends because everyone else was doing them. When I brought that up they proved me wrong and I got to read the series. Younger me was on to something though.
The fact that the Harry Potter books started out as fundie evangelicals’ favorite thing to hate, to the product of an author who loves TERFing up on TERF Island is a plot twist I did NOT see coming at the time. What a ride. Meanwhile, this video is my favorite thing to come out of the Potter franchise. Crushing it as always, Hoots.
It's funny because if the fundie evangelicals had looked into the content, they would've realized a lot of it actually aligned with their beliefs. They really just saw "magic wizards" and freaked out
@@alvinsmith3894 In my case? I was an adult when they came out and I read one book. Are you trolling? I’m pointing out the irony of her career trajectory. Get bent.
This is a year-old video already but just wanted to say: I'm not saying that fanfiction writers are as good as book authors but...... if I had a penny for every fanfiction that has taken the story and added beautiful worldbuilding and politics (that make sense and are interesting!!), took away plots/details that made no sense on the books and even developed the characters in such a way that I felt I understood their motivations and relations with others better I'd have... A LOT of pennies.
I cannot stress how much you all should Read Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. It actually analyzes magic with the scientific method, and either fixes or completely ignores the problems in worldbuilding. (I don't think house elves are mentioned at all.)
Funny, but I always pictured Tonks as a 1980s Punk Rock girl. This was partly due to picturing Natalia Tena, even before she was cast in the role. I’d seen her in About A Boy & thought, “They should cast her - she’s perfect!” That said, I can see the point of meeting Tonks in Order of the Phoenix & not wanting to pin her down in a conventional wife/mommy role. She had untapped potential to go in any direction.
@@richardarriaga6271 how was motherhood the sole purpose of her life? She stood against Voldemort and fought. Just because you're a mother doesn't mean that is all you are. All different types of women can fall in love and start a family. Again, seems like misogny to me... And ps Minerva didn't ever have children did she? And she's still a great female character. So it seems to me she very well COULD imagine a good female character that didn't become a mother.
And remember, it's never too late to pick up Terry Pratchett. If you want an established whimsical magic world that's straight overtly pro lgbtqia+, Rimworld doesn't disappoint
Yes! The Discworld series is my absolute favorite! “The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they’ve found it.” R.I.P. Sir Terry!
I think that’s partly why I managed to avoid the HP universe. I had already discovered better authors by the time HP was beginning to come out(granted I was just about the prime age for the audience too). I’m just now getting into Pratchett as an adult but there has always been better fantasy to read if that’s what one is looking for. The HP series was an entertaining book series for children but I don’t think it holds up to more mature literature at all.
@@MrDirtydaves Yes I managed to avoid reading Harry Potter because I was into the Geronimo Stilton Thea sisters series and reading Harry Potter as a teenager I'm not impressed with what it does at all, when I could see better writing from other people
I m a huge fan of both Terry Pratchett (author and person) and JK's work. Pratchett's world is very, very, very precise, and extremely deliberate. JK s never was neither. But i did fall for some of her characters. She s good at them.
This is a relatively minor point, but I think also we can talk about technical issues in Rowling's prose. It's full of "said bookisms", words that can replace "said". Characters are constantly exclaiming, retorting, querying etc, and when they're not they're always "saying blankishly" but almost never just "say" anything. Said bookisms kinda stand out, and call attention to a feature of english writing that otherwise just blends into the background. When you trust your readers to interpret tone from context and from their understanding of the fully realized characters you've written into your books, all the saids you need to put in around dialogue tend to just vanish. But as soon as you think you need to say "Hermione called Ron a complete idiot, in a tone that indicated she was annoyed at him." you're constantly putting your audience at arms length, and kinda speaking down to them. Rowling also doesn't really understand the value of metaphor in descriptive passages. She constantly compares things to other things, but it always takes the form of a simile, rather than a metaphor, which is a very important distinction. As a lot of people have humorously pointed out her descriptions of things are absolutely riddled with the phrases "what appeared to be" or "what could only be described as". I suspect this is to give the narrative voice it's characteristically arch tone, I think this also distances the audience and kind of reduces the impact of some of her genuinely most imaginative set pieces. Finally a note about length. People always say the books get longer as the audience grows up, but that's not exactly true. The first two books are about the same length, and are pretty short. The third book is, I'd estimate, about one and a half times the length of the first two; longer but still perfectly reasonable. Then suddenly books four and five like, quadruple or quintuple the length of the first two books. Then an editor finally gets a little bit of a handle on the situation and book 6 and 7 are like noticeably shorter than books four and five, but still really quite long for YA novels. Now when I was reading them as a teen the length didn't really bug me, because I kinda flew through them anyway. But if the idea was for increasing length to progressively challenge readers whose skill at reading is presumably growing alongside the books I don't think she succeeded, unless there's some educational theory I've never heard which posits that teenagers rapidly develop massively longer attention spans in the mid teens, and then lose some of that capacity in the later teen years. I mean who knows, but that seems unlikely. All joking aside, managing the length of your writing is a technical writing skill that authors can work on and get better at. And I think we know that that isn't a skill that Rowling has exactly mastered.
I'm sorry that I'm talking off topic, but I was surprised by the thesis about said bookisms. in my country, it is just nessecary to use these, and if your explanation for direct speech does not look like "character a barked and glared angrily at the gloomy character b, who turned his gaze to character a with a sly smile," then you will be considered the most mediocre writer. and no one here thinks that the author looks down on the reader, everyone thinks "wow, what a smart author, since he managed to describe so much about an event that could be described in two words" and "authors that constantly use word "said" suck, cause they have not imagination to use domething else" apparently, it's just because of the difference in cultures.
When I took a publishing course in college, my Editorial professor brought up HP as an example where the author started rejecting the need of an editor by Book 4, hence the obvious jump in length and being perhaps overstuffed with scenes that don't serve the pace well. Obviously, I don't have evidence that JKR was refusing editorial advice, but I *have* worked with authors who do this, so I figure there is likely some truth in there.
Asking why the wizarding world still has capitalism is a bit nonsensical because it's a bit like assuming that we have to _invent_ our way out of capitalism or, if we live in a post-scarcity world, capitalism will automatically disappear. But, here's the thing: in a lot of ways, we already _do_ live in a post-scarcity world, like we produce enough food to feed 14 billion people which, if you'll notice, is more than the current population of Earth. Capitalism exists because powerful people want to be powerful and maintain their power, not because we lack the technology (or magic) to get rid of it. We could get rid of capitalism _right now_ and not only would things be fine, they'd be a billion times _better_ than before.
I always wanted there to be a Slytherin redemption or at least some good in there. They're made out as just the worst possible people and no one ever gives it a reason to even exist. It would have been more interesting if Slytherin had some better reasons for being the way they are, and had some good characters in it.
True Rowlings treatment of Slutherin will always one of the stuppiest things i have ever read in books. And no matter how manny people bring in lame defenses as Slughorn or Regules Black or Harrys POV it will always remain dumb 😁
@@xXxfiewindxXxThe thing about hitler youth is that they didn’t choose that, they’re parents did. You can easily write a redemption arc where a slytherin realizes something is really messed up with how people treat them and they treat everyone else as well, then goes on to challenge the system. Rowling just didn’t do that because that might have been too hard for her because she seems to only view the world in simplistic binaries
@@DevareayWilliams She had an easy way to go about it, too, via Dolores Umbridge. Umbridge should absolutely have been from Gryffindor or at least should have been described as the opposite of Harry (who was naturally closer to Slytherin but picked Gryffindor). Gryffindor is chock full of feelings of moral superiority and concern for "justice," not far away from Slytherin's feelings of scientific superiority and concern for "progress." (Edit: I don't mean redemption for Umbridge, but for Slytherin victims of her).
she tried to do that in cursed child by sending one of harry's kids to slytherin LOL the whole thing is such a weird fanfictiony clusterfuck it gets forgotten but its this whole silly conflict
I don't think the "wizards could solve all the world's problems" complaint should be so easily dismissed. I get that it isn't the focus of this video, but Rowling has put a magnifying glass to the subject with her "Fantastic Beasts" series. So clearly, it's on her mind as well. And the more you try to ignore it the more obvious the problems become. Why are the Weasleys impoverished? Why do magical people have a gold-based economy? Even the muggle world realized that was untenable.
I felt the Weasleys were coded Catholic and impoverished due to red hair, family size (lack of birth control) and other (muggle obsessed) backwards-thinking-common stereotypical “cause of poverty” tropes of UK classism of her time. Under that lens, the entrepreneurial twins seem like a self-insert of her “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” answer to her own poverty. Seems like a “look not to your government (magic) to solve your problems” argument, since it’s at best ineffective and at worst corrupt.
@@ffnendhgrgd unlike in the real world, in the books there is a definite hierarchy of superiority. Now I don't think muggle born and half bloods would be inferior to pure blood wizards, but wizards>>>>>muggle parasites for sure, especially given how muggles are depicted as extremely stupid and ignorant
because rowling's rowling-ing in recent years made them look at the series again under a more critical lens and it allowed them to realize the series was always problematic, and they just gave it a pass because of nostalgia and some unearned goodwill towards rowling
People change I feel. I'm in my late 202s now. My personal experience with hp was that I loved the first four books when I was a kid in the 2000s. I casually grew disinterested in them as the series progressed. I experienced the fandom hype for hp in the 2010s and was very into it for about 6 months. I got away from it because tumblr harry potter fandom treated the books like they were perfect and jk rowling was a godly writer who planned everything in advance. Which is extremely ridiculous. Then Rowling started posting stuff online and I didn't like what I saw. I immediately became disillusioned with the introduction of American wizards and how bad the lore she made for them was. And then the fantastic beasts franchise happened and the cursed child happened which weren't very good. They made me question why I ever liked the original books. And I increasingly got exposed to criticisms of the books. And then finally in 2020 Rowling made her transphobia known and her behaviour has only worsened from there. I know I'm not alone in this experience. The order may have been different for others, but the point is criticism was always there and people have been exposed to it for a long time. People were making fun of Rowling long before she was an open terf. I experienced a slow penguin walk of loving Harry Potter and being passionate in fandom as a 15 year old to the person who dislikes harry potter as a 27 year old. That was a long time. I think Rowling being an openly terrible person simply accelerated a process that was already happening. Its a lot easier to go full gloves off with how bad the books are when the writer is an open bigot than when they were a "beloved" activist. I put that in quotation marks because people have criticized her activism for being bare minimum for decades. The change may seem like its sudden. But anyone who was paying attention would know this didn't happen over night.
As someone who now identifies as non-binary, and was enamoured by Tonks in the fifth book so much so that I adopted the name as my own even prior to discovering I was enby, I'm glad her "taming" was addressed. I honestly read the sixth book in horror as this jubilant character became solely defined by her relationship to Lupin AND her desire to be a mother. It also occurs to me that Harry expresses desire to shapeshift like Tonks - I have the vague recollection it was for nefarious means mostly - but is shut down by the fact it's something you have to be born as... Which kinda sounds like the sort of strawman someone with anti-trans views would construct of non-binary folk.
@@nyxie2877 Oh definitely, before I became aware of trans and non-binary identities (including in myself), I always read Tonks as lesbian, butch, maybe somewhat bi... I honestly expunged from my memory that Tonks married into a heterosexual life and wanted to become a mother. I merely remember Tonks from being amazing in 5 and dead by the end of it... Being reminded that "Tonks" as a character was killed before dying is even more tragic than I could have ever recalled...
One of the most upsetting things about growing up and realizing this series sucks completely is that there are moments of potential for so much joy and acceptance. Tonks was, accidentally, an awesome nonbinary character and all around queer icon. And Harry looking at her and realizing he kinda liked the idea of shape shifting and being like her COULD have been an amazing moment; he lives in a magical world where it's possible to physically change how you want, he could have had so much fun and had a queer mentorship relationship with Tonks, he could have realized his friends were happy for him because why would this be abnormal in a magical world? Just do whatever. And most of all, it could have been a relatively small thing, just part of Harry's character and the world. We could have had a casual nonbinary main character in the 90s. Could have, could have, could have. But imagining all the could haves with other queer people used to be nice on its own, we ignored how badly the books were done and played around in the sandbox together. Until jk made it clear how much she fucking hates us. And we looked again and realized how absolutely hateful the books are. Just awful all around. Devastating, frankly.
As a person who was pretty much raised on Harry Potter i learned a lot from the books, like for example that it's ok to keep slaves as long as they look like little bundles of foreskin and you don't beat them too much.
You’re not actually saying that you think there weren’t any good lessons that could be taken away from the Harry Potter story, are you? Sarcasm in text is always a bit hard to interpret the way it was intended, so I just wanted to check
@@parryxxlivxx i'm not saying there aren't any. I'm saying that there are also a lot of negative ones that are harder to notice because they're already very normalized (like laughing at fat people, looking at the Dursleys being laughed at by the narrator, Harry himself and the Weasleys while Molly Weasley is only ever called "pudgy" in the narration and when Malfoy calls her fat Harry and Ron pull out their wands at him. Like this leaves a bad taste in my mouth). And also that some of them get kinda... Less impactful when you look at the author's views. It feels like "Don't worry if others find you weird, you'll find a group that celebrates your "weird" characteristics! You deserve happines, not bullying! Unless you're that kind of weird"
@@kevinel1398 i'm not sure what's your point here. Like the entire arc was about Hermione doing activism incorrectly by trying to talk over the people she was advocating for. And it was the only form of activism shown in the series i'm pretty sure. It's the fact that only the wrong way of speaking for minorities is portrayed and how the elves themselves are written. I don't think "don't write slavery as it was portrayed by the slave owners into your books and if somehow it was by accident just apologize for it and/or retcon it instead of burying yourself deeper into it" an impossible standard to hold someone to. I'm not saying that's what you meant, idk what exactly you meant, i'm explaining my point
@@kevinel1398 i'm sorry but that's not what was happening. She wanted to free them, but they hated it, there's even a scene where they communicated they'd stop cleaning the gryffindor dorm room if she kept leaving pieces of clothing for them and stuff - they were offended. (Which isn't good because it's just the arguments used irl when slaves wanted freedom - people were saying they wouldn't know what to do eith themselves, that they'd be unhappy, become alcoholics and that they're built for this. Which again, idk if rowling did it on purpose, but her rection to it all is unacceptable - going deeper into this, adding more to justify it instead of back down)
French being my first language, I remember thinking his name sounded very stupid. I even think French fans back when the books and movies were still coming out often joked about his name.
I'm sorry, but questioning why all evil people were former Slytherin students or why all bad children end up in Slytherin is valid criticism. It is essentially saying that once the sorting hat arbitrarily decides you're evil enough at the ripe age of 10, you'll be doomed to live a life of crime.
I’d recommend the video from Quinn Curio about Slytherin and it’s problems, it’s a really entertaining!
@@JamesGallagher90 Neville wanted in hufflepuff and the sorting hat put in in griffindor.
@@poppie267 and he ended up freeing Nagini, noble hearted, etc so the point is that you aren't necessarily sorted by your base wish but what that wish represents, where you're actually needed and will thrive
@@JamesGallagher90 it's ironic bc in the movie the sorting hat verbatim is like "oh, anything but Slytherin, ey? well then it'll have to be Gryffindor" lmao it was so clear that it considered every aspect of a person: who they want to be vs who they are
It's sad that people are demonizing every aspect of JK's writing when there were actually good bits
@@gwengrasso1887 I have never saw the video but i will do it soon. Because Slytherin is one of the WEIRDEST things ever in fictional history.
I feel like a majority of Harry Potter fans like the _idea_ of it more than the actual story.
There's a reason it was one of the most popular properties to write fanfiction about (and, for all the bad things she's done since then, JKR's condoning of fanfiction of her work fundamentally changed the way authors interact with fan works from then on. Anne Rice's "nobody's allowed to write fanfiction of my characters" and even Anne McCaffrey's "You can write fanfiction, but only if it would be totally plausible within the canon of the books that I wrote and follows all of the rules of the setting" fanfiction rules seem ridiculous in a post Harry Potter world). Rowling wrote an interesting, evocative world and then fumbled the execution of the actual story, which inspired a ton of other people to take a crack at it, and a lot of teenagers to take up writing as a hobby (just like it inspired them to take up reading as a hobby as children).
@@hypercube8735So, the fan fiction is correcting the bits found wanting or ‘ghost in the machine’ish in Rowling’s work, whereas McCaffrey wrote a fully functioning world in her books. Are you praising the fact that Rowling’s writing is flawed work, or are you saying the flawed work allowed fan fiction to thrive. I’m not criticising your comment, I’m just curious, because you seem to be praising her for accepting fan fiction’s job of filling in the missing bits.
I say this as a McCaffrey ‘fan’, and she was proud of the fact that her world never contained the “and with one leap, he was free”, style of writing. I would imagine that was the background to the rejection of fan fiction.
@@TherealLumpendoodle I'm saying that the fact that people could tell that the idea was better than the execution with Harry Potter is part of why it got so much fanfiction. It inspired something in people that wasn't satisfied by the books themselves (and it was also children's literature, which made it an easy topic for young people to make their first foray into writing-for-an-audience, which is one of the main things fanfiction ends up being used for). The other reason is that Rowling wasn't especially protective of her work, and actively encouraged other writers to go nuts with it. And since Harry Potter was so popular, this "anything goes" style of tolerating fanfiction became the new norm, which makes things like Anne Rice seeking legal action against fanfic writers for using her IP without permission seem like an extreme overreaction, even though that was a very real risk before Harry Potter normalized fanfiction to the degree it did. McCaffrey's "You can write whatever fanfiction you want as long as it doesn't contradict the books - no inventing new dragon colours, no making dragons of the wrong gender for their colour, no making a second white dragon because that meant the one in the books wasn't unique anymore - seemed downright gracious. Although it wasn't all great - she apparently disliked people writing fanfiction using her own characters instead of their own original characters in her world so much that she apparently once threatened to sue a twelve-year-old who wrote her an email explaining that she roleplayed as Lessa on a website (an email that included the fact that it was from a twelve-year-old fan), and she would send legal cease-and-desist orders to roleplaying websites that didn't conform exactly to the rules laid out in the books (including "existing characters are totally off-limits"). Given that something like 90+% of Harry Potter fanfiction is about the existing characters from the books (including radically changing them into whatever the author feels like, or expanding on characters that Rowling hadn't fleshed out yet in whatever way the fanfic author felt suited their story - one common example was depicting Blaise Zabini as an Italian girl and shipping her with various male characters when the only fact known about Blaise was which year and which house they were in, when it would eventually turn out in the sixth book that Blaise Zabini was male and Black.) That was still much less extreme than someone like Anne Rice, who would describe feeling personally violated by the idea of anyone else writing about her characters and would regularly sue and harass people over it. McCaffrey's stance on fanfiction softened a hell of a lot after Rowling's sheer size and success changed the norms around fanfiction tolerance (and even Anne Rice eventually revised her position on fanfic to "I can't stop it, so I'm just going to ignore it", which is a lot healthier).
Rowling herself didn't start trying to control what other people did with her characters until she'd run out of books to write (at which point her new hobby became inventing and compiling new random facts about the world she'd invented, which meant she suddenly had a problem with things like the Harry Potter Lexicon (a website she'd previously approved of, to the point where she told them she used it as a reference to keep her world straight in her head when she was writing the later books) wanting to publish a print edition of some of the information contained on the website, and sued them to block the publication of the book.
Tbh, I feel like escapism is a big part of it, too. I mean, who wouldn't want to be a chosen one in a hidden world full of wizards?
I really like the story but most the time I like the fanfic more
I didn't knew that the Dementors were fired for working with Voldemort. Now I'm imagining a wizard just walking into Azkaban and telling all Dementors that HR wants to see them. Now how will they eat? Imagine a Dementor on the sidewalk with a cardboard sign saying "Will work for happiness"
"Will suck for happiness"
No, but seriously, what happened to the Dementors after the last book? Did they kill them all? Did they put them in a reservation? Was there any Dementor who didn't chose Voldemort's side?
Why would Croatia want to see them?
"can you spare me some happiness?"
Stereotypical depressed teenager: like i have any
Come to think of it, how do you fire them? It's not entirely clear if they understand English, or care to in any regard. It seemed like they were only being kept there by a food supply, but the food supply is still there. The books don't mention any way to kill them. Maybe the Aurors stationed at Azkaban had to keep up a constant perimeter of patronuses?
Also aren't squibs just... Disabled? Because idk the way they're treated in the wizard society feels less like racism and more like ableism
does a bit of both in my opinion, cause to the folks who know they're from a magic family it's ableism because the opinion is "what a shame they couldn't be normal", but to folks that didn't know they got magic using fam and heritage they're just another muggle who for reasons is allowed to participate in the wizarding world
That's always how I read it. Like a genetic mutation or anomaly that shows up every once in a while because it's a recessive gene or something.
On that note, I once read a fanfiction (I wish I could remember which one) which framed being a squib as being, basically, magically autistic. Like, the truth is, squibs do have magic, but the way they use it is different from other wizards so they are seen by most as being magicless, like muggles. As I recall, it was a story about a squib girl who basically had all the "normal" hallmarks of being a run of the mill witch -- using her brother's broom, small magical mishaps happening around her as a toddler and child, etc. -- but when it came to her casting spells, they would always go pear shaped. Like Seamus's spells blowing up in his face, but hers would react randomly. Usually in response to her increasingly stressed out mental state. I don't remember what the resolution was, but I do remember the main character befriending Filch and learning that his magic allowed him to speak with animals and occasionally see through their senses. It was actually a cute way of explaining why Filch always knew what students were doing around Mrs. Norris and why Mrs. Norris was so special to him.
@@Fairiegurl101 I absolutely adore that. Magical autism is such an interesting idea
@@Fairiegurl101 so a wildmagic sorceress in DnD? That sounds actually interesting lol
Seems like it. A disability of the dyslexia-kind. Meaning that you are left to do manual labour to survive in the world.
Why couldn't Filch become a muggle accountant. Its magic he can't do, not math.
I never liked how the book made Cho out to be a whiny batch for mourning her DEAD BOYFRIEND! How is she supposed to react?
The book didn’t really make Cho out to be that way, though. That’s the interpretation of many fans, but when I read Order of the Phoenix it’s clear that both Harry and Cho act incredibly immature. Both experienced terrible trauma and the relationship was doomed from the start. Many fans don’t see this because the book is written from Harry’s perspective so it’s obviously biased.
imo the book portrayed chos and harrys toxic relationship really well, cho was obviously not over cedric and kind of used harry to deal with her grief (which is a real thing that happens), and harry was lowkey stupid getting into this relationship because it was clear that she wasnt ready for that 😭 and thats realistic as well because he was inexperienced and she was his first love
Like, in universe, everyone has at least one family member who got murdered or tortured to insanity, she's not special in that regard tbh.
@@anais559 yes and also we need to consider that they were both pretty young, they were like what, 15? I feel like if such a traumatic event happens to 15 year olds, that's how they'd react and I don't think they're being bad people
The books is through the eyes of Harry, he is our closest audience. Other than Hermione occasionally, he is the voice of reason. So of course
I would have loved to have seen Harry grow up to be a Defense Against The Dark Arts teacher who works through his PTSD by making sure his students are prepared to fight evil. He's happy as a husband and a father, but that uneasy feeling of danger never quite leaves him, so he never really stops training Dumbledore's Army.
A bittersweet ending to a bittersweet story.
YES!!!
Thinking back to Order of the Phoenix, this kid was HAPPY teaching Dumbledore's Army. In his spare time, he found himself planning lessons. He was super proud of his classmates when they made leaps and bounds. Why couldn't he have figured out in Book 5 "Hey, the career path I wanted to take was one thing, but I feel really fulfilled doing this other thing that is a different career path"? That's normal for people, especially teenagers! His character would have had a happy ending that way, in my opinion
yeah, i thought it was so obvious that harry was going to be a teacher when he grew up. it would fix that thing with the defense of the dark arts position being cursed too. and harry was in his element teaching dumbledores army in book 5. and after his experiences with snape being such an abusive teacher, it would also make sense for harry to want to be a nice teacher for other kids. also him becoming a wizard cop is SO wrong after everything joanne set up to be wrong with the wizarding world. he shouldn't become an enforcer of the law.
I really thought he'd become the next defence against the dark arts teacher too. He seemed to genuinely enjoy teaching, and he was constantly fighting dark wizards and magical creatures. Considering the running bit of something always being awry with the DAtDA professors, it would've been a pretty fun way to end his arc.
He becomes a wizard pig instead
Not to mention him becoming a bad father in the book that shall not be named, I never would believe that Harry the kid who grew up only wanting periential love and affection could neglect giving that to his own children and choosing work over his family when him choosing Auror seemed to come out of left field
Hearing "Harold Potter" low-key messed me up for a bit, ngl. I even vented to a friend about not realizing that his name would indeed be Harold. Being named Harold on top of being an orphan is too much to bear. Fortunately, they let me know that his name is actually Harry and not Harold. It was a wild ride, though.
Ha ha ha yeah that was a bit
Harry is a British nickname for Henry. It never occurred to me that anyone would think he was Harold.
@@fabrisseterbrugghe8567 I assumed it would be Henry, but the idea of him actually being Harold is hilarious to me for some reason
Harold and Henry make much more sense than the "Hadrian" I constantly see in FanFiction lol
I have a cousin named Harold, but we’ve always called him Hal. Harold Potter is indeed cursed tho
0:38 my aunt's second husband was named Harold Potter. We always just called him Uncle Harry Potter, back in the '80s when it was just another name.
He was a gregarious ol' coot and my friends loved my stories of his antics.
Until the late '90s when they started calling "bullsh*t" as soon as I mentioned his name. Even though they'd heard me talking about him for years.
Not even remotely relevant, I know. I just wanted to share.
that's so cool! whenever i read books that have characters with kinda unique names i always think that there might be someone in this world with that exact name and maybe even similar looks or life
@@hiyylight I always found it kinda sad. Like if someone had ever wanted to name a kid hermione or write a book with a hermione people would always relate it back to harry potter because it's such a distinct name and it's so unpopular that the only place many people will ever hear it is harry potter. The name is possibly forever tainted.
@@y-tiplex Not as tainted as the names of the evil characters, though.
It’s like being named Jennifer Lopez or, in Canada, Céline Dion. Totally ordinary names that thousands of people must have.
@@y-tiplex I was supposed to be named Arwen, which is a very common name where I live but because of the LOTR movies my parents changed it
The best criticism of the time turners in book 5 is still "Sorry guys, Neville knocked over time travel"
Ngl that is a funny way of writing out a magical mcguffan
It's just so obvious that the didn't notice how broken that thing was and needed a fix xD
@@oplars6487 honestly, nevermentioning again would have made more sense.
I've listened to Shaun's video on HP so many times, I read it in his voice.
@@Saphia_ I have a whole playlist of videos that's just people deconstructing hp and jk
I never read the books or saw the movies
The time turner complaint is such an easy fix. All Rowling had to do was say "you can't actually change the past when travelling through time." The climax of Prisoner of Azkaban is a textbook closed loop.
But NOOOOOOOOO. Instead, we get "whoopsie, we broke time travel forever."
Was that in the book? I didn't re-read the books as often as I re-watched the movies, and the PoA movie made it so that everything that happened in those moments was caused by Hermione and Harry being in the past, like those two stones. It was essentially a closed-loop, unlike BttF1.
@@Daikon_Micucci ...
Ah crap, now you've got me wondering.
Exactly, something like "everything you do in the past has already happened" kind of thing. So if you travel back to "fix" things you're just following the timestream as it is. The end.
It's science fiction 101, I guess she didn't read enough of that genre.
@@Daikon_Micucci yes, it's a closed loop in the book too. That's the whole point of the scene where future Harry summons a Patronus and past Harry thinks it was his father summoning it.
what's funnier is how the Cursed Child completely misinterpreted how it worked, but that one technically isn't written by Rowling as far as I know.
As an eastern european, I also disliked the portrayal of foreigners in the book series, especially that of eastern europeans. Krum is the only good eastern european because he prefers the West. Fleur is French, but she's always mocked for her accent and poor English. I could go on.
i'm russian-american, and, even as a kid, i felt really weird when i saw how eastern europeans were primarily portrayed as specifically evil. it honestly felt reminiscent of the bullying i faced when i was in elementary and middle school.
as a fellow slav, yes. not only evil! also poor, unwashed, and crude. never gon' forget krum marveling at their nice plates cuz they eat from, idk, a trough or something.
@@somerandomgoblin2583 better not watch James Bond
@@Random51960 i never have and i never will, it's not something that particularly interests me.
I’m also Eastern European, and I agree with you.
To be fair to JK, her message of ‘everybody should be accepted and treated equally except for certain types of people’ transfers seamlessly to her real life political views.
Did you just make up something she never said or showed? We can disagree with how the lgbtq train runs without working their rights away.
@@B0Sajwah Jk is a transphobic pig who funds other pigs like her
@@B0Sajwah something something 'trans women aren't allowed to call themselves women' something something
@@B0Sajwah She’s friends with bloody Posie Parker, who explicitly wants to take people’s rights away (including saying abortion rights are easy to sacrifice for support against trans people), works with neo-nazis and theocrats, wants to put trans people in reeducation camps, and has said she hopes genital surgery kills people. Even if Rowling doesn’t personally agree with those beliefs, endorsing a person who holds them makes people pretty darn suspicious of her "certain concerns with the LGBT community."
@@B0Sajwah as someone who is on the lgbtqia train, yea i think rowling just wants it to derail based on what i saw of her twitter
Someone made a joke on twitter saying that if we had a Latin character on harry potter they would be called Andale Arriba and it makes me laugh every time because Joanne absolutely would do that
I’m Native American, so if I was in HP, Rowling would most definitely have me dramatically and mysteriously looking far into the distance as I dispense some kind of vague ‘wisdom’ 😭
And also not use a wand because apparently native american wizards don’t use wands either or something??😬
J.K. Rowling resisting the urge to name an Italian character "Icooka Dapizza"
@@nathanlabrador7664
Oh my god that’s terrible 💀
“Ándale Arriba” Lmao 💀😭
@@nathanlabrador7664bro what about Blaise zabini, last time I checked he wasn’t named Mario a tortellini 💀💀
It occurred to me that ending each book with a Wizard OSHA agent coming in to berate Dumbledore would have been a hoot.
The OSHA agent is clearly Umbridge
@@nt_partlycloudy21 But OSHA is good.
At least a Little Hoot? :P
@@nt_partlycloudy21 Umbridge is OFSTED
@@nt_partlycloudy21Umbridge is the person who suggested to add standardized testing to the US education system
I think the criticism of the house system (specifically with Slytherin) is valid because it ties into Rowling’s views about good and bad. It also fits into the azkaban section bc I can imagine like… the slytherin to azkaban pipeline being a very prevalent thing you could fall into.
Picture this. You’re 11 years old, you’ve either discovered that there’s a secret world of magic, or you grew up in a world of magic eagerly awaiting the day you’d go to cool magic school. You get your letter, get your wand and your pet and all that stuff, and you’re ready for the sorting hat. You consider yourself a little bit of a clever kid, passionate and crafty with what you do. The hat puts you in Slytherin. Suddenly, now 3/4ths of the school now hates your guts. (This anti-slytherin bias is established to keep happening even after HP, as shown in Cursed Child). You’re treated like a menace, maybe you’re with kids who are actual menaces. And not good influences on you. But what can you do? You’re stuck rooming with these people for the next several, very formative, years of your life. You continue to fall in with the bad crowd, and you don’t have an outside opinion because you really don’t get to hear from the kids in other non Slytherin houses (because again, they now immediately hate your guts on sight). One day you get fed up with somebody who maybe spilled their drink on you, and you shrink them and put them in a teapot. Now you’re in prison. There’s no more Dementors, sure, but it’s still prison.
Basically what i’m trying to say with that big section is that the treatment of Slytherin is tied to several other problems in the series
Still a great video though! I just have a lot of feelings about Slytherin’s portrayal is all, lol.
The book is about the antiwhite narrative. Slytherin is a metaphor for Germany.
what do you mean the anti white narrative? As in JKR is against white people? Because im pretty sure thats not the case.
@@Siegfried5846true
This! Tho I’d say that Slytherin, more than outside treatment, is largely so bad because of the lack of outside treatment, they are an echochamber of shitty beliefs and they are kept away from outside perspectives and views, like you said during very formative years, they are doomed the second they’re sorted into Slytherin, the fact the sorting system wasn’t abolished at the end of HP is just another symptom of JKR’s neoliberalism it would seem.
@@MayvaAva Could you describe to me what “neoliberalism” is? I have many liberal beliefs myself and I’m not sure of the exact definition that of that term.
However, I’ll never not find it funny that the people that defend Rowling these days are the far right. 🤣
when harry asks hagrid about why wizards and witches aren’t open about being magical, hagrid says “they’d(muggles) be asking us to solve all their problems for them.” which is such a demented reason why the witching world would be hidden. i wish hagrid said “unfortunately people aren’t always kind to folks they don’t understand.” or something which makes so much more sense and doesn’t make witches and wizards seem like selfish monsters.
although JK Rowling also isn’t too kind to folks she doesn’t understand.
that literally implies that they could fix the problems of the world but chose not to just because. if we're going with the whole wizards being pretty much white supremacist, it's very on brand and realistic that they choose to do nothing about it
Right like Hagrid could've talked about the Witch Burnings of the 1800's.
Which... Yeah, it would have been nice for wizards to help during the darkest time of our History. The secrecy but doesn't really work unless humans have some way to hurt wizards, which they don't, wizards are overpowered.
someone needs to teach the wizards about the saying "with great power comes great responsibility"
They mentioned that the witches never died they enjoyed the fire and pretended to die for fun@@gabebenson2367
Do you know what’s worse about the Castelobruxo name fiasco? Rowling can actually speak Portuguese. She has lived in Portugal, and speaks Portuguese fluently. Yet, she decided to name the Brazilian school something that, as a Brazilian person, I can guarantee would never be named in Portuguese, not like that at least. It’s also worth noting that this school supposedly precedes the Portuguese colonization, and, yet, has a full Portuguese name.
And honestly, EVEN if you were gonna choose one of the European languages, why not Spanish? All my love to Brazil, but most people in South America speak Spanish. By far.
@@lucasbakeforero426 most people in south America speak Spanish? you realize Brazil is the biggest and most populated country in SA by far?
Fairy tales are super unimaginative when it comes to names. Sleeping Beauty. Jack and the Beanstalk. Goldilocks is literally just Goldy Locks. Cinderella is Cinder Ella (in the German it's basically "ashy dirty girl"). Rapunzel is a mangled old word for a salad green. "Watercress, watercress, let down your hair!" Otherwise, words are gibberish word collections. "Rumplestilstskin". Caipora is from Tupi for "forest dweller". Should it maybe have a Tupi name? Sure, but then her Portuguese is useless and she'd just call it something in Google Translate Tupi.
In any case, I don't think that something that is basically a footnote needs a name like Castelo Rá-Tim-Bum.
@@babyblue3717 Yeah, Brazil accounts for almost half of the population of the continent. However, Spanish is still the predominant language of the region due to it being the official language of nearly all other South American countries. For what I have seen, Spanish speakers are at around 210 million, while portuguese speakers stand at 206. Sure, using "by far" was hyperbole, but my point still stands. Most latin american cultures identify with Spanish, which is the official language of the vast majority of countries in the region. It would make a lot more sense for the school to have it as its main language. Or make a second school.
I guess wizard also did colonization
I had never even considered the connection between Harry's messianic portrayal and a goblin selling him out to wizard-Hitler. God, it keeps getting worse.
I never read Harry Potter, but yea that
Sounds really bad....
@@raydgreenwald7788 as shitty as they are making it out to be you really are missing out. Worts and all
How the fuck did Rowling manage to write this many layers of antisemitic bullshit? I'm almost impressed, holy shit.
At least the goblin wasn't paid with thirty pieces of fucking silver.
@@circeowaggles not really. As a child I was completely hooked, seeing a lot of similarities between mine and Harry's upbringing, to the point of expecting a letter at my 11th birthday and being very disappointed and sad because apparently Polish kids don't get to attend Hogwarts (lolz), I read every book the day after it premiered in Poland and was overall a fanatic. However as adults my fiancé and I tried to re-read the series, in Polish and English respectively. The writing is TERRIBLE, the world building is TERRIBLE, JKR's bigotry seeps out of every letter. He had a little better time because Polish version is kickass, the translator did a fantastic job, but I was appalled at Rowling's style of writing and abandoned my efforts before I finished the 1st book. It's a zeitgeist thing, if you never experienced it while it was happening - you really shouldn't get into it now.
@UCwNOfedCZwgKl8ppqXK_bKA It's crazy you can't make your goblins ugly, hook-nosed, greedy, literally in charge of the banks, explicitly second class citizens not trusted by the rest of their society, and now, with the new game coming out, practice fucking blood libel without it being pointed out that you hit every single highlight of anti-Semitic propaganda.
15:30 I once listened to a review which basically said that the Harry Potter universe doesn't have bad and good actions, it has bad and good people.
What the reviewer ment with this was that actions seen as bad when done by a bad person would be framed as acceptable when done by a good person :)
@@ThatFreakingGinger yep. and case in point: all the unforgivables cast by the Golden Trio in the last book.
Like in life you mean?
I've seen this one I swear
@@Daniel-rp7nbbad things are bad no matter who does it
I’m pretty sure the reviewee was Shaun! I love his work!
One thing that's always bothered me is how Arthur Weasley's interest in muggles being presented as an intense interest is completely ridiculous considering his lack of knowledge.
If he was genuinely interested in learning about how muggle things work he could have- at any point- just put on a bit of muggle clothing, however mismatched it was, and gone to a few bookstores in his nearest town. He had muggle money for the Quidditch World Cup (which he struggled with.... Can you really not tell the difference between a 5, 10 and 20 written on a piece of paper? You literal idiot?) so there's obviously a relatively easy way to exchange Wizarding currency to it.
He could have had an entire home library and studied spark plugs, electricity, aeronautics, mechanics, engineering, muggle sociology, architecture, science, etc at his leisure. It makes him come across as a complete moron when he's stumbling over things a 5 year old muggle kid would know (again, when he professes that this stuff is meant to be an interest of his) or says that the thing he desires most is "to know how aeroplanes stay up" in book 6. Arthur, mate, READ. A. MUGGLE. BOOK. A kids book about aeroplanes. Just one. It's so annoying lol.
It's really idiotic and takes away from him as a character. Especially when you consider that his job in the Ministry is related to muggle objects so this isn't just hobbyist stuff but is potentially career-relevant knowledge as well.
I think it's just why would they bother with muggle books it's not worth their time
Also…. It’s a kids book - this part is supposed to be a bit silly and a source of humour….
@@lightdarksoul2097 For anyone else, sure. But this is a guy who professes an intense interest in Muggle stuff. Those other folks would find that muggle stuff equally worthless of their time, so why the distinction for him? He likes the stuff but doesn't care about the books? Seems odd.
@@hypotheticalaxolotl It's weird but also I doubt many books mention mundane things like rubber ducks.
@@lightdarksoul2097 Depends on the book. I'm sure a few histories of rubber manufacturing textbooks probably drop a line or two. It really depends on what books he goes for - and if he's interested in muggle objects, then the written equivalent of How It's Made would fairly easy to get his hands on, all told.
I love how the Harry potter world has no magic schools in the entirety of central europe, west asia, central asia, south asia, southeast asia, and fucking china. This means that an enormous portion of the world has no magical abilities or great civilizations like China, India, and mesopotamia have never thought to build even one magic school
Also the fact that there's *one school* for the whole of Africa is ridiculous.
@@chrisogara770 the same for Latin America, I ask myself how does language work in this schools, because would the Spanish speaking people need to learn Portuguese? Or the classes would be bilingual? Or does only Brazilian people have magic?
@@bluester7177 the brazilian castle is also insensitive in that while, yes, the name is in portuguese, and, yes, it is located in the north region of brazil, it is a literal goddamn *incan temple.* we don't have incan roots, joanne
@@mccperin I know, she probably should have chosen Mexico but there was already a North American school or Peru for the Incan thing but its a small country (compared to Brazil) , so she just decided to put the country with the most people.
I do like the fact that there are caiporas protecting the school.
@@bluester7177 oh yes i love that aspect as i love our folklore!!!! however i think she should have chosen peru (since size is not an issue- i mean just look at the uk)
another funny point that Rowling retconned on Pottermore was the fact that wands are just tuning instruments, and those who can accurately use magic without a wand are extremely powerful. and yet the “beast” races who use magic without a wand are lesser than those who have to use a wand of their magic is too volatile.
maybe in the hands of a better writer that could be a commentary on how people in charge devalue skilled yet different people and deny them the ability to hone said skills..
Im pretty sure they state house elves are jacked as fuck so that just inaccurate
Also makes it extra strange that according to Rowling, all African wizards and witches cast spells without a wand..
Humans can use magic without wands just fine (see: African mages)
@@Emma-Mazewait what, where's that mentioned
I saw someone who talked about Remus Lupin and Sirius Black's ship and refered to them as Wolf Mcwolf and Dog McEdgy. And nothing ever has been so accurate
Didn't Sirius think Lupin was a traitor and trusted Peter more
@@lightdarksoul2097 yeah aaaand the whole almost killing snape / outing remus’ condition to him as a prank…
@@sempervirenss yeah Sirius wasn't the smartest and in the movies he got a better rep as that part was never told
I like Potter. I just would prefer it if McGonagall raised Harry and gave him a biscuit for killing Voldemort.
For me the dumbledore-harry relationship made me uncomfortable because dumbledore was so clearly making himself the saint in harry's world and grooming him to be a perfect weapon, but i agree there was absolutely nothing sexual or predator in THAT way in the books
Also the sexism with fleur and cho was so prominent even i couldn't help noticing as a child. Like fleur was very smart and clever but happened to be beautiful and not very good at english, so girls would mock her and portray her as dumb while making fun of her accent. Also cho just being the stereotypical "dramatic crying girl," even though her boyfriend literally died. i loved your comment about mothers being one of the only acceptable female traits, i haven't noticed it before
Also the movies make Beauxbatons into the “ladylike school for girls” and Durmstrang into the “manly school for boys”, which was a baffingly weird and dumb idea
I didn’t get creepy vibes when I was younger reading it til the later books when it’s much clearer he’s been using Harry the whole time. I didn’t recognize any groomer elements at the time. And looking back now and being aware that the only two confirmed gay characters both manipulated young boys to their own ends…that’s what makes me uncomfortable. If there had been other queer rep to offset it, it wouldn’t be as questionable. But if nothing else I do think it’s notable. Especially since werewolfism is an allegory for aids and the whole greyback thing. I don’t think I’d be able to reread these books today.
I mean he needed Harry to stop Voldemort he was the only one who could so that made sense.
Cho was being fair but she did go a bit too far at times, not really sexist though. They are all acceptable though.
@@kiramekiagreed
Literally! Him and Yoda are the same to me! Dumbledore is secretly the Actual Worst!!!!!
The Lavender Brown part hits hard. She died in the war, she gave more than any of the main three did, and yet she is belittled and made fun of.
Mauled by a werewolf. Werewolves have always been linked to male sexual predators.
Surprisingly similar to Umbridge and the centaurs.
In the books, she doesn’t die. Hermoine actually saves her
@@becauseyes8505 I believe it was later confirmed that she died, according to hp wiki. Buuut depending on your take on JK’s later addups to the hp series, one can definitely say she survived the attack since the book itself doesn’t confirm her death.
YES! Lavender Brown is literally so unappreciated, but she’s often portrayed as the annoying blonde who hurt poor little Hermione with “won-wons”. I hate how fans reduce her to a stupid side piece for Ron
@@LemonBelly-uc1pyI suppose the issue people have is that she only got interested in Ron when he became good at sports, Hermione liked him even when he was a dorky, scruffy little dweeb so in the eyes of the fans, she's shallow and Hermione is...deep?
The embodiment of loving motherhood in the series is also often verbally abusive to her children, even humiliating them with magically amplified verbal abuse in front of all their peers
not to mention canonically physically abusive...
To be fair, by stealing the flying car, Ron broke the law, almost was expelled and almost made his father lose his job. What he did was WAAAYYY worse tham what Molly did.
Asian parents fr fr
Wouldn't that be Lily instead of Molly? Molly to me is the image of exhausted motherhood
Can you imagine being a mother to Fred, George and Ron. You'd occasionally get pissed off too 😅
To be completely fair: The six-pointed star on the Gringotts floor is a feature of the location used for filming (Australia House). It's also not actually a Star of David, it's (the old version of) the Commonwealth Star of Australia (there's more than one six-pointed star symbol in the world).
It doesn't seem to be a deliberate inclusion to play in to anti-semitic tropes. Just an oblivious oversight where nobody considered how it might be interpreted.
Which is still not good, and indicative of a massive cultural blind spot or apathy, but somewhat less bad than adding it in consciously.
I dunno if this is a very adequate defense tho honestly, even if they didn't themselves install a star, it's hard to believe no one took two seconds to scratch their chin and go... "bank.... star.... bank.... ssstar..."
Combined with the design and characterization of the goblins, there really does come a point where incompetence is only gonna excuse so much
If J.K wanted the House Elves to work, why not have them like the Brownies but make Dobby the only one who's actually a slave because he's in service to Malfoy's family?
The other elves live and work at Hogwarts and come and go as they please. They'll pinch and leave a mess for lazy students, but have all their autonomy.
Meanwhile, Dobby doesn't have the same autonomy as the others. So Harry and the gang rebel against Malfoy's father and get Dobby to be free
I've never read the books, but that's just my suggestion. I feel like the idea could have worked if it was just edited a little
Because it's only a minor subplot. It didn't and doesn't matter much to the larger story, so it wasn't worth delving too deeply into. This book was written in a time before people started aggressively gate-keeping the subject of slavery.
@@YourCreepyUncle.JK rowling had the audacity to say Harry Potter is anti-slavery book while in the universe she thinks normalized slavery of a entire race is normal because its what they like,people didnt complaint more back then because it was a children book but as the books "grewn up" a lot of this childish fantasy remained the same.
@@YourCreepyUncle. "Aggressively gate-keeping the subject of slavery" lmao wtaf
@@lordanonimmo7699 Rowling is very clearly anti-slavery, but she chose to depict a world where it is still accepted and normalized, so any victory achieved over the institution of slavery is going to be a relatively small one.
This is a perfectly valid artistic choice for a writer to make. Of course, with modern day histrionics set to maximum, everyone is now retroactively acting all offended. Many of you idiots can no longer tell the difference between fiction and reality, nor are you able to separate authors from their work.
You can't blame Rowling for your increased sense of melodrama and virtue signaling.
@@YourCreepyUncle. You cannot be anti-slavery, if the only meaningful conclusion you have about slavey is "you should be nice to your slaves or else they might turn on you". Also, they're not living on another planet. She depicted OUR world, except she focused on a secluded club of elitists who hord vast power and set themselves so far above the common law that the public isn't even allowed to know about them, let alone hold them accountable for their doings, which, aside from abovementioned slavery, include regular violation of identity, use of psychological torture on inmates and at least one case of theft on a massive scale.
Oh, and they're the good guys.
Not to mention that Seamus, the only Irish character at the school, has an tendency to inadvertently blow things up and create explosives. In the 90's.
Wasn't that movie only ?
@@TheFiresloth
He was secretly an IRA mole
It was only the movie thing. There's nothing like that in the books if I remember correctly.
In the movies (I forget which one) he said that he's half blood: “Me dad’s a Muggle; Mum’s a witch. Bit of a nasty shock for him when he found out." which, with his Irish background and the weird IRA coding, appears to be a reference to being half Catholic half Protestant. Which is a weird detail to include imo.
@@MircallaDuNord Oh my god, that's such a good pick-up!
The funniest thing about the house elf situation, to me, is that it could have easily been fixed by just…letting the house elves be Brownies.
We already know Lucius Malfoy is a dick, and magic is soft enough to do whatever the plot demands of it, so why not just have Lucius cast a curse on Dobby so that even though Dobby was insulted by the Malfoys and tried to leave ages ago, he can’t. And even though the curse is against wizard rules, the kids aren’t old enough openly accuse Lucius and be taken seriously yet (if I remember correctly). You could even keep the “handing Dobby clothes breaks the curse” thing and just chalk it up to Lucius egotistically taunting Dobby by establishing such a simple key. Hell, you could still say the school largely runs on the favors of Brownies because they like the haunted old castle and all the magic therein (maybe even a fun scene where Harry walks in on Dumbledore chatting amicably with one!). Bam. Dobby still exceptionally needs to be saved without creating systemic wizard slavery. Wild how something like that didn’t happen, huh?
Maybe House Elves could be free, wild beings that move into your home and start doing things if they think you're really nice, and the Malfoys had one captured. Dobby could be the one elf that doesn't enjoy his work, specifically because it's compulsory. The rest of them could pity him and want to see him rescued, instead of thinking he's insane. Honestly there are a lot of ways to do it better.
you could make them bound to the house, like you described it with hogwarts (not owned by a family/person) and it would be so fun to have them have really specific odd house rules and get easily pissed and revengeful when you break one of them. Maybe in one house you really have to take off your shoes and wear pink fluffy slippers all the time. Or one where no lights are allowed from 12 to 5 at night, not even magical ones. And if you break the rules or treat them badly, just like in the original tales, their punishments can be really nasty. Like they are the real authority over the house while seemingly being subservient, cleaning, repairing... And every house has one by default, but maybe the one with the Weasleys is kinda chaotic and relaxed too, just like the house and thus not much of a help for Molly. Easy! No big change in plot and story needed, but instantly more fun.
All ideas in these replies are not offencive and also more creative and interesting than the original one, now I'm gonna search for fics that explore different ways the house elves thing could be done
I desperately want to see this in a fanfic now
I think this comment just turned me from someone who never saw the point in fanfiction into an avid supporter of it.
The problem with Harry Potter is that it tries to be something it's not. It's supposed to be a silly book about wizards and magic, but the series became so famous that J.K. Rowling tried to turn the story into something more serious. However, the world-building doesn't have the necessary depth.
Did she? I think she had to continue to make each book successively more “adult” and serious, which was the purpose of the series, and she didn’t have editors trimming her sails. But yes, the premise couldn’t support more “seriousness” or the scrutiny like this comment section. But I dont think she tried to make it something it wasn’t.
E Nesbit has better world-building in *her over-the-top comedy short story* children's fantasies from *100 years earlier*. Read "Melisande" and "The Last of the Dragons" (they're public domain and you can find them on Project Gutenberg or Wikisource).
Rowling just was bad at this.
Nah, she just didn't think things out. She got herself in a shit ton of corners that she just ignored or retconned. She ain't a good writer but a competent enough saleswoman.
Nah stop talking about things you don't know. She literally wrote the last chapter of book 7 very early on and the entire series was meticulously planned out. It would take very little research to know this. Pretty embarrassing L take
For me, it's the small things that make worldbuilding bad, like when a student is expelled from Hogwarts and their wand is taken away. I always thought this was stupid. They are still magical and need to practice, or they will cause spontaneous magic to happen. Along those lines, we know that wizards become Obscurials if their magic is suppressed, so it doesn't make much sense to take their wand away.
We also know that Muggle-borns are given the chance to go to Hogwarts, but if their parents refuse, the family is Obliviated, and the child doesn’t practice magic. But then we have the problem of spontaneous magic and the risk of them becoming an Obscurial, which creates an immense risk of the wizarding world being exposed.
Another aspect is that many wizards learn magic at home, which I personally love-the idea of families having their own magic and passing down certain spells through generations is really cool. But we also know that underage magic is illegal, which conflicts with that idea.
Another issue is love potions. They should be illegal, but they aren’t. They’re essentially a more specific version of the Imperius Curse. In Fantastic Beasts, Leta’s mother was controlled with the Imperius Curse and assaulted. When Queenie used a love potion on Jacob and no one batted an eye, it was just stupid because it’s essentially the same thing. We're supposed to view what happened to Leta’s mother as monstrous and evil, while at the same time, love potions are sold openly in shops.
Man that part about Tonks really bothered me, ever since I was young I hated that she became this sweet little wife and mother when before she was this cool, funny tomboy. I don't think she was written specifically to refute trans identity but I think her transformation into a more acceptably feminine character is a reflection of JK's larger ideology on gender and women. I truly hate the narrative that gender nonconformity is something that women have to grow out of to be truly mature and developed, its gross and weird, and it ties into the point about JK's idolization of motherhood. Just because married and had kids doesn't mean that it's a crucial step in the development of all afab people, Joanne.
i think you people look too much into it. it’s a children’s book, it’s not that serious. children don’t care about that stuff
I guess I always thought of latter-day Tonks as being sidelined rather than "tamed." I never thought of it like this before, thanks for your perspective.
@@nagini77 Man, people call me a kid hater for being childfree, but at least I don't think kids are stupid and undeserving of quality media.
@@LittleMissLounge That's not what was said, what was said is that young kids don't really care about gender and such unless you focus them on it and usually they don't pay too much attention to side characters' traits.
Doesn't mean kids couldn't have quality fiction, but it was never said kids are dumb, just that they don't focus on what we would.
@@Cyclobomber kids have sense of gender and can understand what a trans person is, genius
You know? Back in the early day, when this book was being debated at the Supreme Court level, its defenders were largely the very marginalized goups the books eventually disparaged. The irony is not lost on me.
Well. I'd still defend it not as a good book but rather from an anti censorship except you know , literal Nazi propaganda , viewpoint.
Why was it being debated at the Supreme Court?
@@ethancox9737 Christians at the time believed that the book would cause children to turn to Satanism.
So, they were checking out the book from the library and then paying for the "lost" book. Eventually, a librarian actually did this with every copy in her county. It made it to the Supreme Court to determine whether stealing and then paying for the book was unlawful censorship by a government employee.
The court ruled that it was.
So combining your analysis of the house elves with Shaun's, she wanted to have a brownie that didn't want to do chores, and when people were disappointed she stopped the house elf slavery story, she just said the slavery was alright. It seems like she could have easily solved the problem by giving all the other house elves the same agency as brownies, and just have Dobby tricked or forced into servitude somehow.
yeah!
Esp with the clothes angle, I'd love an arc where they get liberated & reparations & they all get incredibly chic + fancy & into high concept fantastic fashion & the story could communicate this over an evolution of fabulous outfits, looks, & materials.
One way to fix them would be keeping the very tetchy natures of house elves and having them just. Like cleaning. Their culture has little use for money and they get antsy when they can't be busy, but rather than a race of natural slaves they just. Move into houses and quietly tidy up at night, making their own clothes out of second hand fabric and helping themselves to small amounts of food. But if the homeowners are unkind, rude, take advantage of their love of work or worse, insult them with gifts of food or clothes, they just. Leave. hit the bricks. Make like a tree and leave. However, one rather nasty curse is used to bind house elves to families as slaves, a curse that is only broken when they're given a gift. Dobby, being an unusually friendly and gregarious elf, was easily caught by the malfoys, desperately wanting to be free but bound by a curse. This would also mean that instead of being someone railing against slavery and being mocked for it, Hermione is rudely declaring she knows best for another culture, as she jumps to the conclusion that ALL house elves are slaves as they aren't paid, rather than people with a very different outlook on the world who would simply leave if someone offered compensation, like the historical brownies.
Instead we get literal actual slaves. Joy.
@@KiwiLombax15 I like this! This would have solved it so easily. This is now my new headcanon. Thank you!
@@KiwiLombax15 THIS! This is now my headcanon!
all jk had to do was write that lots of slytherins WERENT evil and DIDNT have them all side w voldermort
I would have absolutely loved it if one of the sub-plots was that someone stereotyped Slytherins as evil because of Voldemort and Harry and his friends tried to break that stereotype to stop kids from being bullied, ect. It could've been such a good message!
J.R. Once said in an interview that the Slytherins came back in the Battle for Hogwarts and helped...which was never in the Original Series (she either thought about it but never wrote it, thought of it later and miss remembered it in the Original Series, or made it up in the moment...all of which are equally likely in my mind.) But that page (or even a paragraph) of context would have gone along way.
@@mistertea603 Isn't Slughorn coming back to fight in the battle of Hogwarts and bringing other Slytherins as reinforcements in the book?
@@brucetucker4847 Now I'm not sure...my appologies, I'll check
@@brucetucker4847 he comes back to help, but there's no mention of other Slytherins
“Vol de mort” is Rowling’s attempt to say “flight from death” in French. While the similarity to the word “violence” probably helped nudge her towards the name, it has nothing to do with the Danish word for it.
And actually, even if I like Harry Potter, I have to say that, as a French guy, the name Voldemort just sounds really bad, it sounds like the name a child would invent.
Theres also the fact that the root word "volde" means "to wreak" and mort meaning "death", so his real name is "lord of wreaking death" but overall even as a kid i thought it sounded as weird and off-theme whimsical as "dumbledore"
@@Actinopterygiiguy i think Dumbledore is an adorable name personally
@@gabogabo6372 he was a child when he invented it tbf, I think he was 12
Tom Riddle I mean lol
To be honest, Ginny did have other interests, she was almost as big of a prankster as Fred and George, and was a very talented Quidditch player... Which makes it worst that she literally puts everything in hold to be Harry's partner. At some point, in one of the many, many retcons of the adult group, Ginny was supposed to be a famous Quidditch player who just let everything to become a mom.
She also liked mocking feminine girls who dared to marry her brother. Very well rounded.
I don't think there's anything wrong with retiring your job to become a mother.
@@lauraslade5308 There isn't, it's just part of an unsettling pattern that runs through the books. Taken in isolation, you're right, there's nothing wrong with it.
@@Wveth I feel like most of these people just jump at shadows, let's be honest. As a Star Wars fan and as a Star Wars prequels fan I've experienced lots of people making up lies about the characters to have an excuse to hate on the characters and George Lucas. Like something as petty as claiming Jar Jar is racist
OK, in the spirit of full disclosure, I will say this, I ship harmony, I have since I was 11 years old, I am currently 34, now, my issue with Ginny is this, you are correct she did have a lot of interest, the problem is, we had to learn about them not through her, not through interactions, but through other people, like why is Hermione, the one telling Harry that Ginny has been sneaking out and picking the Lock on the broom shed so that she could fly at night, they had a really good opportunity to show him finding this out when he arrived at the Weasley's,, in second year, he could've seen her flying, he could've snuck out himself, met her down at the Apple orchard, and they could've started talking, and that could've actually built a friendship, and maybe their relationship wouldn't have seemed completely irrational when it suddenly appeared in half blood, Prince.
I always dreaded Luna appearing. While I loved her insights and basically everything she did (that Quidditch commentary lives rent-free in my head), every other character around her suddenly decided to make it known how odd she is and mocking her. Like she was some sort of circus animal to be tossed at with peanuts. Worst of all? She never did anything against it or showed hurt, so that made it completely okay. Ron was a particularly bad offender and I really couldn't stand him in the later books as he climbed the army ranks of status quo defending characters.
At least she wasn't repackaged into something "acceptable" by Rowling's standards like poor Tonks. Though she did get the nuclear family ending shoehorned as well.
I always loved Luna, and I thought the more conventional kids mocking her for being weird were the ones with the problem. I used to think that's what Rowling thought too, but these days, who knows?
I love Luna and she didn’t deserve to be bullied of course, however she does say ridiculous things and is exactly like a conspiracy theorist who would make up these weird scenarios that doesn’t exist and it’s cool and fun and all, but she’s like a flat earther and in real life people would make fun of that. It’s not just normal being herself, she often just genuinely tries to spread conspiracies that does feel exist
@@benoitbrown9400 not really, she’s portrayed the same way in the wizarding world. She says stuff that’s obviously not true and I’m not talking about the beasts. She makes weird stuff up about the world and political figures as well that’s just weird. It’s why people find her ridiculous, that’s why I say she’s more of a flatearther it isn’t about the beasts stuff
@@benoitbrown9400 but in this world she IS considered a crazy conspiracy theorist and her theories are all wrong so?
@@benoitbrown9400 but Hermione is still proven right in these things, and we know what Luna says about a lot of the people isn’t true
Just because a fictional world is fucked does not mean it has to be "resolved" by the end of the series, not every book Is The Hunger Games (thankfully, it would be samey and boring as fuck if every book series was about "the revolution"). However, there is a problem when the author tries to pretend the world is not fucked and it's "all alright" because bad shit is only bad when the bad guys are doing it, and it's otherwise fine.
About Harry and Dumbledore's relationship: Honestly, I don't even think it's that much of an innapropriate relationship. I used to agree with that take. I used to think that it "compromises Dumbledore's impartiality" but I've been working at a school since about half of this year (2022) and It really changed my perspective on this.
First of all, simply showing affection to your students isn't necessarilly a bad thing and is important to build the trust At least where I work, teachers and even school employees on higher level disciplinary positions have very affectionate relationships with students (and, no, it's not in a sexual way, and in fact I'd say that having this kind of relationship is important so the students feel like opening to teachers about abuse at home). And, often that affection crosses generations, as older teachers see the children of their former students coming to their classes.
And, while Dumbledores does get closer to Harry than most students, it's not as if he's letting Harry do absolutely everything. Harry, Ron and Hermione get into Detention. They get in trouble. Sometimes with the Ministry. Besides, except for the sixth year, when Dumbledore gives harry very much needed private classes, they really don't meet that much more than other students. They usually meet at the end of the year, when Harry needs to learn something about the things that happened the years before or when something happens that requires intervention... Other times he's just there being headmaster...
Yes, you could probably say Dumbledore dedicates more time to Harry than to any other student. I don't think that's bad. I've discovered in my short time that teachers and educators in general do have students they spend more time with than other, and often they build better relationships with those students (even if, more often than not, these are the "problem" students)... Because the educators often find out problems the students have at home which might be negatively affecting them, and often they try to intervene and help as they can.
And, yes, that compromises impartiality. That's not the ultimate end all be all. And, no, it doesn't mean "bad" kids get better grades than they deserve, I assure you. Most of the time It just means kids who have need for extra care have a chance at getting it.
Seriously, what should Dumbledore do? When Harry tried to save people and was confronted with the ghost of the dude who killed his parents, should Dumbledore have scolded him? Should he have scolded the children for trying to save the life of Ron's sister? All the complaints Dumbledore would have against their behaviour was that the children put themselves at risk, and even he has to admit that the school teachers, while trying their best, ultimetly failed at ensuring the kids felt safe (and even that they WERE safe).
I mean if a malnourished, physically underdeveloped orphan that is as good a person as Harry mostly is turned up at my school, you bet your ass I would keep an affectionate eye on them. Just, you know, I would probably keep myself from turning them into a child soldier...
@@beethovenjunkie ok, but that's not what most people mean when they talk about Dumbledore's relationship with Harry.
Harry is going through it in these books, he definitely needed an IEP. I don’t think dumbledore deciding he needs to be a little bit more hands on with that particular student was an unreasonable conclusion at all 😂
@@beethovenjunkie one thing to remember about Dumbledore’s plan is that he is operating from the knowledge that he doesn’t get a say in whether Harry fights Voldermort or not. According to the prophecy, it happens whether he keeps Harry safe or not, so he might as well actually prepare him for that inevitability
I feel like Dumbledore didn't pay ENOUGH attention to Harry lol. He's an orphan, he's the chosen one, he's Muggle-raised. They should have had like optional tutoring/clubs for Muggle-raised kids, and counseling or support group for kids like Neville and Harry who are basically being abused. A Slug Club whose point is to help the STUDENTS.
I think the novels peaked at Goblet Of Fire. JK isn't really great at big plotty stuff (as seen from Fantastic Beasts) but hit on something with the format of small adventures, investigations, slice of life with clues crumbled in leading to a boss fight.
She's a mystery writer first and foremost, I reckon, and that's mainly what kept me turning pages as a kid.
I think parallel to that is how the characterisation changes at that point. In the earlier books, written with children in mind, the characters are written like small adults (as is common with children’s books, since it gives the characters more agency than realistic children would have, and that allows the readers to live vicariously). But starting somewhere in the fourth or fifth book, suddenly they’re realistically written like teenagers, and it feels strangely as though they lost maturity when they became adolescent. They’re overall more unpleasant to read about in the later books.
True. I loved all 4 books before Order of the Phoenix. I can barely remember Halfblood Prince, and I dunno if I even finished Deathly Hallows.
As the series goes on the adventure investigations decrease and the character moments increase. I still enjoy them for the reasons I stated, clues crumbled into a bunch of isolated interesting moments, I just think Goblet is the best example of the format, and Azkaban comes close.
Interesting, I always thought the GOF was where things were starting to go downhill. The concept of wizard olympics was good, but the execution fell flat for me. The first three books were fine, nothing special but good for kids.
GOF was the book I realized Harry was a bit of a Gary Stu. They said "no one underage can be part of the contest for safety reasons", but when Harry gets in, it only raises a few questions. I bet if it was anyone else, they would have been kicked out and possibly injured/killed. You have to ask yourself, if Harry wasn't the "boy who lived", what does he have left? You always know going to beat Voldemort within a few pages, so there's little tension. Neither of them had much personality, so it's hard to root for either. It's hard to root for or care about any of the characters really.
The SPEW plotline was cringy and uncomfortable. Shaun's video touched on this. It felt wrong how they said to never judge someone for a stereotype (ex. Hagrid being a gentle giant, Hermione being smart muggle born), but they don't question the elves for being slaves. It doesn't pay off as they are still enslaved and the worst part is this plotline is played for laughs. Why do all the jokes in the Harry Potter series have to be being cruel to someone else? (slavery, fatphobia, disabilities, appearance, heritage, race)
When Voldemort killed Cedric Diggory, I just didn't care. We haven't seen this guy for most of the books, so why should we care he's dead? He's nice and supportive and that's about it. A stereotypical Hufflepuff. JK should have build a connection between these two and- gods, the set up and pay off in these books is terrible.
The only reason I finished the series is because I thought "okay, these have to get good at some point. Why else are they so popular?" Nope, they only got worse. Half-blood Prince was my least favorite because of the slow pace, boring and unmemorable story, and . . . I actually don't remember enough to critic it.
(Edit: Grammatical errors)
Oof, this is a messy analysis. 4/10, never reading again.
Great video as always! I'd also add that Voldemort is not a very compelling villain. He's incapable of feeling love or empathy which allows him to do such evil acts, and it's like... ok?? Why should we be interested then? The story, like all stories, is about the lead choosing to be a hero, and it just doesn't have the same impact when the villain didn't choose to be a villain.
She even draws so many parallels between Harry and Tom Riddle as though they represent two different paths taken, like she's writing the next Anakin/Luke parallel, only the dark side/light side choice doesn't really work if you tell us there wasn't actually a choice.
The biggest parallel between the two of them, imo, is that Harry is equally non-compelling. His centrism is so bland and he has such a weak moral compass
It seems like the fact that these were children's books is lost upon many people today apparently. Though towards the latter half of the series the audience aged into tween to young adult demographic, the characters are still written with a similar simplicity,
The creativity of the character development seems to fall pretty well in line with would be appropriate and expected for a story meant for 7-14 yr old readers.
But I suppose the fact that there are many people pushing 40 yrs old at this point, who are still part of the 'HP fandom' ... That shouldn't come as a complete surprise
I agree, he wasn't complex, but I don't think he was as simple as having no empathy. That alone would not be a motivation to do anything, why would you. He also has a giant inferiority complex. What I dislike way more is that he was portrayed as basically evil from the get go. Like as a child in an orphanage. How was he treated in that orphanage for that to happen? Sure, there's a debate if psychopaths are born or made, but as I said, no empathy alone is not a driving factor. And he isn't portrayed as "just" curious. Even at that age. Although, if we grant her leeway, I suppose we could say Dumbledore is an unreliable narrator.
@@Romana6794 the target audience being young is not a good excuse for simplistic characters. Children who are old enough to read chapter books are surprisingly capable at handling more challenging themes and nuanced characters. I'm reminded of how often Kamen Rider, an enduring Japanese franchise and touchstone cultural icon that targets a 6-12yo demographic, takes on ambitiously complex stories with nuanced characters, albeit wrapped up in a toyetic candy coating.
Dude, Voldemort is literally the fantasy reincarnation of Hitler. It is voldemort mind that disturbs, cause unfortunately we can find it in many human beings (and politicals) even in real life.
Nothing too original, but for children can be very effective!
you forgot to mention that JKR decided hermione was black in like 2016. hermione, the one single character who stood against the slavery, and was mocked ruthlessly for it, was black the whole time. nice one, joanne
But she's compared to a panda after getting a black eye, described with a white face, and has to be explained the significance of an incendiary racial slur that's basically the wizarding N-word. So Hermione is white, no question!
I've never bought that Hermione was black, if she was, Draco Malfoy would've absolutely called her the n word
@@christophersmith8848 Also because she's LITERALLY CLEARLY DESCRIBED AS WHITE IN THE ACTUAL BOOKS!
If she was actually black, Malfoy would instantly become hated by everyone because he only throws muggle slurs to her
@@costelinha1867 You'd think Hermione with a black eye getting compared to a panda would be irrefutable evidence...
11:12 If anyone's interested, the folklore actually goes that they aren't innately benevolent at all - they stow away in your house overnight and steal your food, but their sense of morality leads them to also do some household chore for the victim out of guilt.
This is why the brownie is so offended if they notice that you're inviting their 'theft' or try to actively 'pay' them in some way - once it becomes obvious you're trying to _let_ them "steal" from you in _exchange_ for household chores, knowingly exploiting its guilt when you aren't even actually upset about the food and trespass, they're understandably very upset and will never return to your house again or even wreak mischief against you.
that’s so interesting. i’d love to read a fanfic that incorporates that lore into house elves somehow
So theyre dicks. But righteous dicks.
That's way more interesting bro
excellent take, I love it
The thing that pisses me off about the house elf slavery is that she could just have written that dobby himself accidentally got himself into a magical contract that he later regretted, but was literally unable to break. The mistreatment from the Malfoys could still exist, Harry helping him get out of it could still exist and the big structural issue to be addressed could be how human wizards take advantage of their systems to hold other magical creatures under submission. Servitude doesn't equate to slavery, Joanne.
Servitude does equate to slavery. Being tricked or forced into a contract giving away your rights is absolutely slavery. Look at the irish people that came to America as "indentured servents". Thats a disgusting way to legalize slavery.
It would still be diferent than sistemic slavery. And it would allow our protagonist to actually solve the problem instead of helping a single person and then ignoring the rest
@@lollollolskeet yeah wtf. . .this is just wrong Katherine.
I always felt naming the elf freedom organisation ‘SPEW’, was Rowling mocking similar organisations. Like no one was going to join spew just on the name. And Hermoine would have known that too!
That and they could've been Brownies. They're basically British creatures who do maintenence around the house but unlike house elves they don't take disrespect. Abuse or tick them off and they'll mess you up.
So i think the "bad faith" arguments are valid. Dumbledoor was fine until you find out hes manipulate harry to die, and he willingly gave harry to an abusive household. He isnt creepy bc hes close to harry hes creepy bc hes litterally the other side of the coin to voldy. And slytherin being evil children isnt just clicks at school, its a systemic issue of creating an echo chamber and shoving it in the basement.
I don't mind Dumbledore's portrayal so much since Rowling seems to recognize at least some of his flaws, he comes under pretty heavy scrutiny in the final book. Slytherin definitely showcases some of her shoddier world-building, though. It may have started as a fun re-imagining of preppy cliques, but as we learn more about the Death Eaters and how they recruit Slytherin students, it's easy to draw parallels to echo chambers and the radicalization of young men. The apparent absence of Muggle-born students in Slytherin also starts to feel quite a bit more ominous. As you say, it doesn't feel like these ideas were ever adequately addressed.
I read the books using my library's e book rental. No encouragement to buy more physical copies, no new digital, and you help keep the public libraries open by using their services.
Adding on to the Dumbledore thought, he did, in a manner of speaking, groom Harry. [Or at least it's a very valid read on the situation] He orchestrated for Harry to grow up in an abusive household so he'd be more loyal and trustworthy to the adults in his life who were kind to him. He oscillated between love bombing and then retracting that love creating a insecurity there. He made Harry feel special by treating him like an adult even though he very much was not. All as a means to an end. Do I think the relationship was sexual? No. Do I think it was grooming? Personally yes.[Though how much of it was intentional and how much of it was J.K taking the mentor trope and not being savvy enough to realize the implication, I don't know.] J.k tends to use shot hand tropes for ease while not really understanding them. Now as for Dumbledore being gay plus the grooming implications... I wouldn't be surprised if that was kinda intentional...at least subconsciously. Jk is homophobic. Plain and simple.And this isn't even the first gay-coded older man who was implied to groom their younger male students. Slughorn is gay coded in a very old timey way. He's described as effeminate, wears lavender pjs, there's particular focus on pictures of him surrounded by his male students [there's mention on him having pictures of all his students but there was a particular focus on the ones surrounded by boys] and he provides his favorite students special treatment with the hope/expectations of receiving favors down the line. Again, do I think Slughorn is literally exchanging preferential treatment for sexual favors? No. But its a short hand. Its painting a picture with the colours of homophobia, and I think Dumbledore is painted in similar strokes. In conclusion, the inner world of HP is a very clear reflection on the person who wrote it. All works of art are to a point but HP wears in very clearly on it's sleeve because I think JKR can't see past herself to write outside her own experience. All said this is my reading of the text, and different readings and takeaways are just as valid as mine. It might not even be 'that deep' but it's still fun to dissect and evaluate these kinds of things.
@@notthegodofwar4 Dumbledore knew Harry would NOT die - but on the contrary actually live - from the death sacrifice. What he didn't know was that Harrys aunt and her family HATED magic and he was actually really pissed when he found out it had been like that throughout Harrys upbringing. Magic is a great part of Harry. So it wasen't what he intended. But it was the safest way, because that was the only family where the mother anicent love-sacrifice blood line lived -in Petunia. The real question is why Dumbledore - or anyone else on his orders - didn t contact Harry earlier on? Just a bit late for his 11th birthday and just before starting school in a whole new world for him, comin in as some famous hero. It was awkward to say the least, he was never prepared for all that.
Mrs. Figg worked for Dumbledore and knew the Dursleys were treating Harry badly, so I'm not sure why Dumbledore didn't intervene sooner.@@midsummernight9431
"You are allowed to protect the things that are meaningful to you. Even if now you see them in a different light."
thank you
90% of your slavery discussion is right, but I have to disagree with your last point. Sirius is explicitly criticized for mistreating Kreacher, it’s framed as though his abuse is what caused Kreacher to betray Sirius. Doesn’t change the larger point that Harry treats him better but still keeps him as a slave.
That’s true
harry kept him as a slave because he was in the hq of the order of phoenix and it secrets if free would have gone to the two evil black sisters told
@@brucenadeau2172 I'm not sure you can justify being a slavemaster, but either way, he could have freed Kreacher after the war was over.
@@Jurgan6 And you know he did not do that how?
@@helios9025 it doesn’t really say, does it? Rowling had an epilogue, she could have said what happened to elf slaves but didn’t. You can give her the benefit of the doubt if you like.
When I was first reading HP and started seeing how the house elves were happy being enslaved, I assumed Hermione would be vindicated eventually. Of course "solving slavery" wouldn't be simple, and the house elves were instilled with this ideology for centuries. She was always the one in the right! She was the smart one! Besides being smart and supporting Harry's adventures, I thought this was going to be the big thing she accomplished, showing that one ordinary person really can make a difference with compassion and determination.
And yet...
Why would you expect that a teenage girl, in the middle of a war, would also succeed in overtrowing the century old oppression that house elves face and that they also have entirely internalised ? A fight like that takes much more time than destroying horcruxes, just like prejudices against muggleborns will not dissapear with Voldemort. It's heavily implied that Hermione continues the fight into adulthood, when she has more political savy and clout. The books series just doesnt continue on.
@deldarma4509 Because without it then the war was for nothing really, nothing changed, the world is still broken and all the bad things that existed with voldemort still exist, the racism and slavery in the magic world existed before voldemort was born, those were the things that enabled him to raise to power really. As how the story ends, it's only a matter of time before ir happens again with someone else
@@raulponce9012 So all the books that depict racism and inequalities should have all of them be magically completely destroyed by the end ? If the heroes dont destroy the inherent prejudices in the heart of everyone and every institution in the world then its a bad book that supports préjudice ? Can you give me an example of one book, movie, ANYTHING where that happens ?
@@deldarma4509 ..because its a children's fantasy series where harry personally defeats wizard hitler? Like, grow up. Unrealistic shit happens all the time in hp. personally destroying the dictator of an uprising isnt exactly something youd expect of a child either, and yet, these kids go out and do the impossible all the time. like seriously, your argument is painfully nonesense.
@deldarma4509 Well, for firsts I say, no, it doesn't have to be that way, but there at least has to be some hope of change or something thst might indicate to us that, yes, things aren't okay still, but now we can start doing better; with that said maybe im biased, having read this booms when I was already an adult, but I feel like the protagonist and "heroes" of the story didn't quite understand at all what are those things that weren't right in the world, and just simplified it to Voldemort being the source of all evil. This isn't necessarily bad, because they are young people (well, most of them), but I felt like the writing already had set my expectations that things needed change outside of just defeating voldemort and that the characters experienced how it wasnt just voldemort that was the problem, but the whole society they were supposed to feel safe in and even the people who werent necesarilly directly associated to Voldemort but had beneficiated from him, so when that didn't happen I felt very disappointed and felt like at the end maybe one villain was defeated, but none of the characters understood that this wasn't the end, or that, the root of that villains evil wasn't destroyed. Another problem, is for me personally, a lot of those characters that were supposed to be the heroes of the story kind of felt like they were part of the problem and quite disliked then to the point of me looking at them more like antagonist and less than heroes. With that said I enjoyed reading the books, I just think that most of them set a lot of expectations that aren't met in a satisfying way at the end
Dumbledore: You know Severus, sometimes I think we sort too early.
Snape: Then shouldn't we change how this school is run?
Dumbledore: nope lol
I doubt the school governors would like that
Just had an idea - make the students go under the sorting hat every year - and one year Harry has displeased the hat and ends up in Slitherin - which he hates obviously - Hermione spends a year in Ravenclaw and prefers it - Ron goes to Hufflepuff and it gradually grows on him.
@@lostcause6100 I think the hat does listen to what you prefer so I think he'd just follow Ron
@@lightdarksoul2097 I think Harry would always stay in Gryffindor if the hat always listens to what you prefer, as Harry is so strongly connected to the parents that was taken from him -and that he always longs so much for. As the mirror showed during year one and as was turned into reality by anicent magic in book seven. Harrys connection to those loving parents is always much stronger than just going with wat his friends are going for. Itś more like Ron is following Harry (and his own family) than the other way around.
@@lostcause6100 I think Hermione would probably make much more friends and actually become popular in Rawenclaw. In the books itś briefly mentioned that the Rawenclaw students in DA express how impressed they are by her and questions why she isen't in their house. In Gryffindor, Hermione always stays "the nerdy bookworm girl". Even after she shows the whole school she can actually steal the show/ball and THE most wanted male athlete champion in the entire wizarding WORLD - not just wizarding Brittain - at the tender age of 14! Itś actually mentioned in the book how she gets BULLIED in Gryffindor for showing such guts, after the Yule ball and after being chosen as the one that Krum would miss the most, that he has to find and drag up from the lake in the school tournament. In Rawenclaw, they would probably have been proud of Hermione for showing their significant traits, but not so in Gryffindor!
Heremione could probably be presuaded to switch houses to Rawenclaw. Ron would stay a Hufflepuff in the closet, I think. It goes againt all of his pride!
The thing that always put me off the books was that the world was created FOR Harry, and not the other way around. Rules in the world only existed so Harry could break them and be a hero
Grew up in a very conservative christian household. My mom found my friends copy of harry potter in my room before I could finish it and only hid it in the garage because I begged her not to burn it since it wasn't mine. She met with my friends parents that same day and returned the book (politely, very religious and highly convicted but not rude to other people). My dad (parents divorced) heard about it and then we listened to the book on tape every morning on my way to school when I stayed at his place. Good times.
Your mom would most likely adore JK Rowling now after her anti-trans tantrums.
No diss to your mother or any Conservative Christian, I am also Christian but:
Harry Potter has as much chance of teaching you about witchcraft as Back to the Future has of teaching you how to time travel.
My favorite part of that story (aside from your awesome dad) is that THOSE are the type of people Rowling panders to these days 🤣
Based mom
@@blastermaster5039 Based on irrationality! She has yet to learn of the awesomeness of the legend that is Baibars!
Tbh the "trial" scene in Book 5 just killed me. If the prime minister serves as chief judge and prosecution in a case about a teenager using magic, it is no wonder fascists took over without any noticing
voldemorts fascist?
@@NikoCigoj Yes.
@@NikoCigoj Yeah? Like, slytherin as a whole is strongly akin to fascism. "Salazar Slytherin" was actually based on Antonio Salazar, Portugal's fascist chief of state.
@@The_Vanni thats interesting, but i didnt know that slytherin is now a fascist state too. kinda ruins the escapism of the books.
Wasn't that part of the point though? There could be some actual political insight there, whether it's deliberate or just accidental from bad writing.
Something that bugs me on a character writing level is that not only did Harry go from a closet-bound impoverished nobody to being lumped with the "Chosen One" status and celebrity within the Wizarding World, he immediately became incredibly wealthy through inheritance, status and gifts.
Ron grew up in a very modest and poor household but within the Wizarding World, and Hermione grew up in a more or less "Middle-Class" environment but only found out about the Wizarding World with her acceptance letter at ten or so years old.
I feel there was a lot of missed opportunity to actually delve into the characters with those aspects of them in mind, and especially the opportunity for Harry to bond with them over things they share, there could have been real class solidarity between Harry and Ron over their low-wealth upbringing, a struggle they could've shared.
I would've loved to hear Harry and Hermione be equally confused about the way stuff in the Wizarding World works more, or to really drive home the fact that Hermione isn't just interested in learning because she's a nerd, but because she's playing catch up and overcompensating for how new it all is to her, and for Harry and Hermione to maybe bond over some cultural touchstones from their non-magical upbringing.
And between all three of them, I would've loved to see more instances of how the sorts of things that seem so obvious they aren't taught in books and such be blind spots for Hermione and Harry that Ron has to fill in, or Ron and Harry need help with the components of non-magical life, like if instead of knowing the spell to make fire Hermione is in a situation without her wand and draws on girl scout knowledge or something that she would've done as an extracurricular activity in the mundane world.
But Harry's writing and characterisation feel like excuses for him to not have those opportunities.
By having him literally locked in a closet most of the time and not allowed to watch TV or that sort of thing, he doesn't get to engage in nonmagical culture or pop culture in a way that Hermione could.
Having him immediately become super rich and super famous as soon as he enters the Wizarding World eliminates the poverty through-line he could have had with Ron, when Ron can't scrape enough cash together for a fresh uniform or to get a new wand we see Harry getting gifted fancy brooms and legendarily powerful magical artefacts or outright buying an entire snack cart on a train.
And that's what fan-fiction is for: fleshing out details or outright fixing flaws in an established set of characters. I view it in a similar way to how I view something like mods for a Bethesda game haha.
@@OsirisLord 1000% hit the nail on the head.
Damn, Hermione was middle-class to you? I thought her parents were doctors or dentists (high paying jobs) and as an Englishman myself, she speaks pretty bloody posh. I see what you're saying, and I agree it would have been awesome. I just don't think JKR's generation were taught to interrogate class issues like that.
Insofar as economic situation and how this differs between children, I remember being actively told not to pursue thinking about that by both my parents and my teachers as a kid and I'm only 26.
JKR being from my mum's generation would not have thought that this theme belongs in "children's entertainment", and I am sure the author viewed this as children's entertainment for quite some time. A focus on the disparity between children leaves a gap that requires explanation - "Ok, we have class-income disparity. But why?" JKR would not have wanted to answer the "why" so she simply never staged it. Perhaps she lacked the skill to answer the "why", perhaps she didn't want to commit to any ideological explanation, since that'd turn off anyone who isn't a tory lmao.
Children in the UK were historically schooled with children only of their social class. This of course has been done away with formally, but it still remains for the wealthy. For the story to actively ignore and not address the differing touchstones of social class, from an English upper-class perspective it's almost *raising the Weasleys up to Hermione's level, or at the least, acknowledging they are equals in some way* and I think to JKR this might have been the aim.
I do agree that the books would be better with the elements you've mentioned!! Just, from the perspective of a woman approaching 60 writing kid's entertainment in an occasionally class-obsessed society, it comes off differently.
SO basically changin the three of them...
It happens enough in the books, I think. Keep in mind that Harry Potter is meant for pre-teens to teens. Yes, you can challenge kids with these things, but there are far more important narratives to advance in the books. It is in the end not about the wizard society, it is about destiny and what that means to you. (At least how I interpret it)
JKKKR the type of person to name a lesbian character Carpetta Munch
After thinking about what Tonks and Lupin represent and their development, yikes, you can have two characters be in a relationship and relate to each other without changing who they are to fit the norm for a married couple, I think we're more than ready by this point to see unconventional couples represented in media
Lupin was queer coded, so I’ve heard by many fans. Being a werewolf was a metaphor for HIV and being gay in media for a long time. I think even the actor that played him had some experience playing queer roles before.
I’m done with queer bread crumbing also. I only get excited about representation that is explicit and nuanced nowadays.
@@butterflypooo just because there has been some examples of people viewing werewolf's are representation as homosexuality and aids doesn't mean that's the case for lupin
@@soso-mx8nb multiple ppl think so though, and I think JK herself said this at some point.
Also wasn’t Tonks like 10 years younger than him or something
@@soso-mx8nb The director of the Prisoner of Azkaban movie actually saw Sirius/Remus as being gay. Many others who read the books also saw Remus as being queer-coded.
Ginny actually has a personality in the books. But... she is just basically the perfect 'pick me' for Harry.
She's smart, but not as smart/ powerful (threatening) as Hermione. Her interests are pretty much the same as Harry's- most notabley quidditch, joke shops, hanging with Harry's friends and getting into trouble.
She dates just enough guys to prove she is popular and attractive- but she isn't overly emotional or too boy crazy (Cho, Lavander).
She's the perfect girl who is everything Harry could want. But she doesn't have a defining chaactoristic- nothing makes her come to life.
Luna is weird, Hermione is smart, Ron is (usually) funny, Harry is brave, Draco is a bully, Neville is sweet and a victim, the twins are pranksters- but Ginny is.....???
I see a lot of people call Ginny fiery a lot so it seems like she does have a defining characteristic
@@clover2739 We are TOLD she's fiery.
But she rarely gets to show it.
Heck, people say the movies water her down, but the scene where she jumps over a wall of fire to go fight alongside harry is the most badass thing we've seen her do as far as I can remember.
@@ruleofoz2207 I don’t think in the books we were ever told she’s fiery, people call her fiery because that’s literally just her personality. Yeah jumping through the literal fire is badass but that’s not what a fiery personality is, when they talk about movie Ginny they more mean her actual personality is bland in comparison
Ginny is umm... Well this is kinda hard..
Y'know what imma just call her the goddamn antichrist and be done with it
Maybe she was just bearable.
My main annoyance is pretty similar to the Shallow criticism #1, the OSHA thing.
But for me, it's not about danger, it's about "Whimsy for whimsy's sake"
Since the wizarding world here exists alongside the normie world, the impracticality of whimsical things becomes more glaring. Why the moving staircase? Why the living chocolate frogs? Why do you have to run into a wall to get to the train?
Sure, those things are creative and cool for the young boys and girls... But as someone who played a lot of Harry Potter video games, that shifting staircase is a pain in every iteration. Imagine actually using it, even ignoring all the danger. And again, the problem here isn't whimsy, it's that better alternatives exist. I would accept, like, I dunno... A magical elevator? Or, oh, eight elevators, each being moved by one tentacle of a giant sentient squid. That system makes more sense, is easier for the student, and feeding a giant squid sounds easier than providing a power and all the logistics of eight elevators.
In things like LOTR, or something like that, whimsy is more defendable. Because there are no alternatives. Why do elves have this weird magical thing? Well, that's simply how things are, there are no alternatives. Oh, Dwarves have a technological alternative? As if distinguished elves would use the loud and steamy technology of those pesky dwarves.
There, no problem.
The "whimsy for whimsy's sake" is a holdover from the time when the first three Harry Potter books were meant exclusively for kids aged 8-12.
To add to your examples, Hogsmeade is an incredibly crucial location in Book 3 and a big source of angst for Harry feeling alone even while at Hogwarts but after that book it loses all its relevance. A full blown almost ancient wizarding village next to one of the most prestigious schools of magic turns into just a bunch of cute cottages and delightful tea shops for dates, while all the action gets centered on London and Diagon Alley.
I always felt like the marketing of the series insisted on calling it "darker" later on while all these elements chugged along in the background, away from our eyes if it got too corny. In later books the characters spend less and less time in Hogwarts and more time in the Burrow/Grimmauld Place or traveling. These places are noticeably less quirky and the only other abode we see which tries to be quirky, the Lovegood's place, gets blown up almost immediately.
They tried to push away the ages it was meant to be marketed at in the beginning hoping to catch up with an older audience and their matured needs, but the first four books had pretty morbid imagery at most times. A two faced man and a three headed dog trying to kill our protagonist, a young girl murdered in a bathroom, getting stalked by death portents and dealing with the betrayal of a family friend and finally a murder in front of our eyes and something which resembles a satanic sacrifice/sexual assault scene in a graveyard. And that's just the first four books.
The whimsy lost its hold by deliberate choice in the fourth book and to ram it home Rowling tried very hard to keep the focus on Harry's trauma in Book 5. I don't think Rowling meant to change tack from the beginning because that kind of careless whimsy is a feature of a lot of books written by adults for kids, at least in Britain looks like.
regarding the magical staircase, i think it could still work with some minor tweaks.
It's a really cool concept and could make sense to save space, but maybe to change it so that the person ON the stairs decides which direction they go rather than it moving at random
"Whimsy for whimsy's sake" is one of the first thoughts that came to my mind once the world of wizards is revealed. I'm 30 years old but I didn't grow up with this franchise, I've never read the books and had never watched the movies until a few days ago. I understand those first few books were clearly aimed at children and I could see why it was the cultural phenomenon it became, the atmosphere was great and at times I felt like a kid again, but the whimsical elements were so overused that it got old real quick, so it could have been handled better.
I also watched the LOTR movies for the first time this year (still haven't read the novel) and the experience was drastically better because of what you said: there's no equivalent. I can still appreciate the value in Harry Potter, and I think many people let Rowling's personal beliefs get in the way of critiquing the actual story. I understand that art is an expression of the artist's worldview so it is sometimes hard to separate the art from the artist, however I was hoping for a more technical critique but I guess I'll have to look somewhere else. I'm still at one third into the video though, so maybe the technical stuff is there as well. Sorry if this comment is full of grammar errors, English is not my first language.
I really like the point Shaun made in his video on Harry Potter about Hermione and Lily serving to prove the fantasy racists wrong by being good at magic despite having muggle parents and I think it bears repeating. This doesn't actually address the fantasy racism because it accepts the logic of the fantasy racist but disagrees on the facts. It's saying that Malfoy isn't wrong to be racist against mudbloods because it's wrong to be racist, it's saying that he's wrong to be racist against mudbloods because some of them are good at magic, actually.
This is kind of inherent to her politics and way of seeing the world. For example the slavery thing. In her worldview slavery wasn't wrong because it's inherently wrong to engage in the practice of chattel slavery, slavery was wrong because the slaves didn't want to be slaves. If the slavers were actually right when they said that being enslaved was in the best interest of the slaves then slavery would've been A-OK in her book. It doesn't critique the systems of slavery, only that the slavers held inaccurate beliefs.
Can I just say that Nymphadora Tonks nailed the punkrock aesthetic in the movies. Like if I was the actor I would be begging to bring that outfit home with me. Maybe I'm biased to the hair color shifting, but damn, give me that.
Natalia Tena just showed up in her own wardrobe and refused to change clothes. Just take a look at her in John Wick 4, or in the wild, she is always fantastic.
@@oz_jones No, actor is gender neutral.
*Actress
@@MacheteSquad actress*. stop trying to erase the existence of women.
@@sparklesparklesparkle6318 You're hilarious. Of course I've gotta continue erasing women, that's why I also refer to women as mayor, juror, doctor, instead of mayoress, juroress, and doctoress. Making gender neutral names for professions is the one true way to keep women down!
10:15 This one is actually cannon, take it from a former Harry Potter stan, who was shoved off the wagon by transphobes. In the 7th book Hermione is replicating what little food they can forage or steal for the purpose of filling their stomachs, but it reduces its quality and its nutritional value.
I wanted to say something about this but I wasn't sure if it was fanon 😅
That still doesn't account for things like being able to wave your hands to construct housing, tools, instantaneous travel, boost crop growth, etc. By all accounts the wizarding world should be a post-scarcity Low-Tech Trek Utopia... Or Huxleyan Dystopia, it being just "Charles Dickens with magic sticks" is so incredibly unimaginative...
@@NIRDIAN1 I mean, aguamenti by itself would be able to replace firefighting, but then you can just will the fire into a fireplace or something crazier... but a broom is just charmed to sweep?
It's lazier than lazy imo
Was that in the movies? Because it doesn't talk about her replicating things in the books, I (unfortunately) have read Deathly Hallows many times and there is never any explanation for why Hermione does NOT replicate their food
@@alewiina No, read the book again. It was definitely there.
I personally feel like the read on Dumbledore’s relationship with Harry being creepy hinges way more on the retcon that Dumbledore was keeping Harry safe all this time but totally knew he’d have to die to maybe defeat Voldemort then like him being gay thing, like he’s constantly putting this kid in danger and is like…congrats Harry you lived
Yes! I was coming to the comments to say this too. The phrase “groomed to die” is often used to describe what Dumbledore did to Harry.
@@VirtuallyViktoriyan Yeah it's real hog to the slaughter behaviour which makes every interaction in retrospect feel unnaturally cold-blooded 🥶
same. I always felt like he was basically raising him as a pig for slaughter but acted as if he actually cared about him and thats what i dislike about him
@@spntageous5249 Retrospectively from a writing perspective it also undercuts a lotta tension to have that be a secret Harry doesn't know until that exact moment. Like can you imagine if got that information in 5th or 6th year and like has to really work through his own feelings to get to that moment of heroism...but nah...it was planned all along
Yeah and given how JKR made Dumbledore gay after the book/movie were made meaning it is just window dressing.
My main worldbuilding gripe has always been the magic system. There's many, but the primary one is the three main curses; why the hell is Avada Kedavra so bad again? There's plenty of spells that obliterate your body, or set you on fire, or freeze you, or transform you into a flaming barrel that can then be thrown at other unsuspecting innocents. I cast Disappear upon the concrete base of this skyscraper and then it instantly begins to crumble down, killing hundreds. Compare that to the spell that's effectively a semi-automatic gun.
This is probably a bit of fan wank that does all the work for Rowling, but I've always thought that what makes it so reviled in universe is its irreversibility. Wizards always have magic and think of it as an extension of self, so in the face of disaster, wizards have other magic to fall back on, either themselves or someone else. Set on fire? It can be put out with magic. Destroy a building? Magic can halt the damage or slow it down enough to save lives. When Harry Sectumsempra'd Draco in HBP, that was a gory and horrific bit of violence, but a healing spell was still able to save his life, etc.
But the Killing Curse? There's no hope against that. It's instantaneous and irreversible. Your only hope is to not get hit in the first place, and its that lack of counterspell that makes Wizards fear it above all the other ways you can murder someone with magic.
another thoroughly upsetting & problematic aspect is the queer-coding of werewolves. like, when Lupin is introduced, his lycanthropy making him an outcast is portrayed sympathetically as an allegory for AIDS (a parallel that Rowling confirmed was intended & baked into the character). which would be all fine & good. but then we get the only other named werewolf in the series, Fenrir Greyback, who is a violent predator that deliberately chooses child victims to infect & positions himself nearby to them every full moon to make sure he gets the job done. which, if lycanthropy is still a metaphor for AIDS... yeh, that's deeply fucked up
That's so true
We gonna ignore the number of people that knowingly go without protection while having STD's? Moreover, you have two characters in this aids allegory. One is good and caring, the other is bad and predatory. Sounds like a pretty good ratio to me.
@derek96720 it doesn't change the fact that JKR depicted a queer character, who is essentially a survivor of AIDS, as a literal monster.
@@derek96720 except the good character turns into a dangerous fucking monster unable to control himself to potentially infect others or outright murder them, which I hopefully don't need to explain why it's not accurate to how AIDS actually works since I hope we're well out of the age where people with AIDS were all seen as demonic dangers to society due to the rampant misinformation of the 80's.
So this plot point works both as an uncomfortable homophobic allegory as well as anti AIDS patients.
To be clear, I don't think this was what Rowling intended to get across, I believe she wanted something more like an allegory for bug chasers for the villain without also villainizing the LGBTQ community and AIDS patients, but good intentions mean shit if you can't translate them into writing, that's why you actually think this shit through and don't just willy nilly throw whatever social issue allegory in your story without considering the implications of what you write.
Sometimes Rowling is just spiteful, but just as often she just doesn't know what the fuck she's doing, and that unfortunately negatively reflects on her writing.
Even without the bug chaser allegory I'd say it's still problematic, like you can't have your AIDS allegory literally turn people into fucking monsters unable to control themselves like that's not harmful to the demographic you're allegorying for, that's bad AIDS stereotyping not reality, so werewolves in Harry Potter utterly fail at being a respectful allegory.
Not to say Rowling had malicious intents but this is what happens when you just apply allegories to a bunch of old folk tale creatures without thinking through the implications of what you're writing, and Rowling is notoriously shit at thinking things through.
Thank you for mentioning Ginny! I swear that was the most horrible character writing I have ever had the privilege of reading and I thought this back in the day as a teenager. To be fair, Rowling tries to give Ginny development in the last two novels, but even then she comes off as unlikeable. It really struck me as a case of youngest child and only girl syndrome. If you have the books already and can go back and re-read, look at how she treats her brothers, Fleur, and even Gabrielle for even daring to have a crush on her dear Harry. All the fans even way back loved to come at me with the only reason people dislike Ginny is b/c of the movies. Nah, it was there in the text too. This is one of the characters that you're supposed to like and as a reader with her being the love of the protagonist's life you want to get invested in her as a character. Sadly, that didn't happen. I ended up being annoyed, like why is she even here?
Thank you! I never liked Ginny! Whenever people said, "Oh, their relationship is so much better in the books; they ruined it in the movies," all I could think was, "how so? How can you ruin what is already bad?"
@@GothMusicLatinAmerica Agreed, I think it would have irritated me less had Rowling taken the time to flesh out the whole they were both possessed by Voldemort thing. It is a plot point she could have built their relationship on, but because Ginny doesn't appear again in any significant way until HBP, it turns into a high school level mean, shallow, popular, jock girl gets with the trust fund kid. Don't get me started on their exchange as Harry goes off to fight Voldemort. "I never gave up on you, not really." Ugh way to show that she never outgrew the hero worship phase.
there are A LOT of people who like Ginny in the books tho
@@nagini77 I realize that. From what I've gathered in talking to fans of her character in the past, I think on the surface they see sporty, popular, girl who has a crush on the guy who will never notice them and identify with that. Also, I think the Harry/Ginny relationship as a whole for them was wish fulfillment. Harry, Ron and Hermione getting to be apart of the same family is a talking point I've heard a lot too. Rowling's execution of the writing was just poor. For a long time people would just get plain mad if you said J.K. Rowling wrote anything less than perfect. I think the upside of her being a bigot is that people are taking a second look and seeing the writing for what it is.
@@nagini77 and some people like getting spit on and eat pasta with ketchup.
I am once again asking people to try out the Earthsea series, a beautifully-written series about a boy named Ged given too much power too young and facing the unfortunate consequences of that. The series follows Ged from his early days at wizarding school until he's an old man, and in the time you spend with him, and others, you also learn about the world of Earthsea- the many cultures within it, the awe-inspiring forces both in the living world and the dead one, and the magic system that grants you power over something (or someone) based on knowing a person or thing's True Name. All written with a philosophy based on LeGuin's own Taoist beliefs and knowledge of local Native American communities.
Truly the only books about Wizards for me.
Can I also recommend Amari and the Night Brothers? It hits the same notes as Harry Potter for me, but it's about a black girl that's bullied at school because she's poor and black, who then discovers that she's been invited to be a part of a magical world. Then she learns she has super powerful magical abilities that are innate, and she's feared and loathed for them. The entire book is about her discovering a love for herself and for people like her, and that she can teach the world to love her, too. The full series isn't out yet, but I'm looking forward to it.
And I have to recommend Percy Jackson and The Olympians,because of how Rick Riordan avoided big plot holes,actually redeemed the bully,and the status quo is actually challenged. In the aftermath Percy tells the Olympians to change and do better
Persassy:"All half-bloods must be claimed. All the minor gods deserve cabins and thrones. Hades deserves a cabin too."
Athena:" He is right that so many demigods joined the Titan Lord because they felt alone and unloved."
Unlike Harry being passive:" This is fine."
Earthsea is just amazing! I like how it's all about a man growing up to discover that magic is shady as fuck.
@@louc.6735absolutely goated series, can’t wait for the third book
So we'll said! 🫤💯
The fact that Hagrid thinks normal people would need wizards to solve their problems jut shows how wizards do not understand their own surrounding. The book takes place at LEAST after World War Two. Wizards need słabe labour to create food while we have industrialization and… modern weapons. If Voldemort overthrew hogwart and attacked the normal world, we have the US nuke stash and predator drones waiting loaded with mass-avada kedavra and flying out of sight and influence of spells (you can’t block a drone with a muggle confusion spell, this is an autonomous hogwart-bombing unit armed with a Gatling cannon creating 30 000 Avada kedavra spells per minute)
47:58 Although it's true that Rowlings portrayal of femininity (in adult characters) boils down to being a good mother, I also noted that her portrayal of masculinity (still in adult characters) boils down to an absolute loyalty to a dead woman. This almost braindead loyalty to a dead woman is the redeeming quality of Snape, Remus, and even Dumbledore with his sister Aryana.
Creepy
I've finally been reading LeGuin's Earthsea cycle, which clearly was an influence for Rowling that she never acknowledges. It's frustrating given the larger themes in the Earthsea books. I don't love the justification of monarchy, but the sense of responsibility to the world - both the human and nonhuman - seems a good foundation for writing something with a more communist vision than this unselfconscious reflection of the current neoliberal world.
I gotta read these at some point, my old English teacher recommended her books at some point and he had a great taste in literature
@@lilaboxx They are excellent and worth the read. A bit misogynistic which surprised me given that LeGuin seemed progressive.
@@d.w.stratton4078 I remember we watched a documentary about her in class and I think there was a part where she reflected on that, it's been a while tho so I'm not sure. Well, we're all a product of the time we grow up in with the ability to learn and grow
@@d.w.stratton4078 I agree on all points.
@@lilaboxx I read the Earthsea trilogy in the 80's. It's worth the time.
Small note about the time turners: The third book already gave us a perfect explanation for why no one thought of using them again. The ending of the third book made it clear that Harry and Hermione's time travel didn't change the past, it created the past that already happened, where the people whose lives they saved were already saved and alive and they just didn't realize it yet due to a trick of perspective. In this series, if you change the past, then the past was already changed, meaning if you want to use a time turner to save someone you actually know is dead, then that only means you already tried to and failed. Weird how Joanne apparently forgot this important part of the conclusion for her own book.
No, it doesn't. That's only in the movie, for the most part and in the book, only Harry's use of the patronus was done that way. In the book, Hermione explains that wizards have met their former selves, fought and got killed (or killed their former self). That can't happen if you can't change the past.
Then the book did portray it once after contradicting it, and the movie decided to take one of the two contradicting explanations for how time turners work and ignore the other one. Either way the books did portray it as working this way once with the aforementioned Patronus and that one time it happened was a major part of the resolution of the book's plot, since without it Sirius and probably Harry would be dead.
No it still is not well thought out because it doesn't explain why you wouldn't take the decision to go back in the first place, destiny for some reason decides for you that you didn't.
I saw was a video essay somewhere that stated JKR has this habit of introducing things for deus ex machina, then forgetting about them in the next book and getting fan mail asking why they didn't use the thing from the last book, and then it either gets used a lot in the next book or they find a way to break it.
@@thewhitefalcon8539I thought it was weird that the sword of griffin door disappeares for multiple books but then suddenly shows up again as also having the power to destroy horcuxes
I think Voldemort seems nice. If you remove the first and last letter, you get the Norwegian word for great mother 😊
Imagine everyone's golden boy Harry Potter fighting a war against "Great Mother". Truly would've been a different series, and one I would watch.
@@spongecakes1986 I am a death eater 😂
oldemor
@@callmeaprilroseorisha404 Yea, great mother 😂
Rowling seemingly decided to wait until her books were published, the movies were made, a new movie series was started, a freaking theme park was put together, and her merch saturated human civilization, a civilization, it should be pointed out, that was part way through a stressful pandemic that was forcing a lot of people indoors, before publicly joining the League of Disappointing Authors. That timing.
(And yes, I did steal the LDA from Tales From a Multiverse.)
Well if you all hate her don't buy her merch. You're keeping her rich ya know.
@@asarishepard8171 I've very confused. Why do you think "THAT Guy" currently supports her financially in any way. Did you mean that dig for someone else?
@@diribigal probably for everyone. Hate the thing, dont buy the merch.
@@asarishepard8171 Let me try to rephrase my question. On this video whose title suggests criticism of Harry Potter, and where the end of the video basically says you should not "keep her rich", most people you'll find in the comments section agree with your "don't buy" command. But since you're phrasing things like a gotcha command for "everyone", I assume I'm missing your point. For instance, are you trying to say "it's as simple as 'don't like, don't buy' and therefore any comments or more nuanced discussion as in the video is not worth spending time on"? I'm honestly asking because it's not clear to me what you're trying to convey.
Eeh, Rowling was quite vocal for a long while before. Ppl just don't listen to those who call out dog whistles and recognize assholery
It's curious that nobody ever mentions how Filch is treated in some one the books (though it's left out in the movies) - he's mocked quite ruthlessly for being a squib and it's implied to be the reason for his bitterness towards the kids, even though he didn't choose that.
It's all part of the wizarding world's obsession with magical blood purity. Imo it's the events of the witch hunts and enactment of the Statute of Secrecy that created their social castes and is the direct contribute to the European Wizarding Civil Wars (Grindelwald and Voldemort for sure, probably indirectly causing the goblin wars as well).
Like in universe there's enough to explore and start to connect wizard's ideology of magical superiority over those without magic and how it dictates their laws and culture. The text presents it fairly neutral, not willing to endorse any true changes that would threaten the statute.
I never really got why he worked there ngl
@@toryslapper69 Because he was short on money and Dumbledore was generous.
Easy answer! Because of JK's burning contempt for the disadvantaged, and for those who work "unskilled" essential labour positions such as school custodians
One problem with Rowling's worldbuilding which I think gets overlooked (and which is a lesson for other writers) is that her world is fundamentally static, and I think that comes from a place of stubbornness and insecurity. I believe she built a world which was entirely to her liking, with a bunch of fun and still widely celebrated features, and in her mind those features are unalterable. The wizarding world is a theme park (figuratively, but somehow now literally too), not a living breathing world that evolves over time. It's a fun eternal backdrop for adventure where you can also time out for a snack and a pint of butterbeer and meet some wacky characters. The idea that you can tear down the theme park because it's a bit chattel-slavery-y must have seemed ludicrous to Rowling. You don't got to Disneyland to criticise the institution of monarchy.
You nailed it. It's known she's a neo liberal. Her books show only an individual can be changed within an institution but you can't fundamentally change the system itself. (I.e, Ron makes fun of Hermoine for starting Spew, only Donny can be freed but not all house elves. Harry never questioned the ministry of magic only the person who ran it. It goes on and on)
"A fool and his magic are soon parted, if not his life." Maybe the leaky memory of your imagination lacks any and all object permanence because someone is grooming you. I guess I will have to refute something stupid you said, okay here goes.
Put down the pacifism and keep your hands in a non neutrality position, slowly step away from the middle ground of weak character. Your baseless plot has the right to Yolo & FAFO. You would have been right to consult a search engine for advice because we sure as shit do not answer unto you. If you cannot afford to question your input, my boot will be appointed for you to lick thereof as input. If you decide to think now, you may delete your comment.
I noted this in a comment on another video. Notice how everyone gets married to people they knew in high school. Nobody ever branches out of their pre-determined social circle, the world is static, circumstances are unchanging, and all is well. It just shows a fundamentally incurious writer determined to show us that her neoliberal hellscape was always good, and fascism was just an unpleasant interruption to that status quo, rather than the culmination of neoliberalism itself, and a lesson to be learned from. Like what's the point in telling a story if nothing ever changes?
@@Greg_Glassman she's not even a neoliberal, maybe in the 90s she was? By now she's just a basic, dyed in the wool conservative. The idea of advancing social values is an anathema to her.
@@pax6833- *THIS* ‼️🫤💯
I remember that my 2nd oldest sister got to go to Barnes & Nobles for a booking signing with J.K (My eldest sister and I were the Harry Potter readers so we were happy for her and slightly jealous) but she lost the copy of Deathly Hollows, the one my eldest sister waited for at the midnight release, the one that she gave to her for J.K to sign. She was so upset and cried her eyes out because it was such an important book for our eldest sister. But J.K saw her crying, learned why and gave her a brand new copy for free, signing it for her even though my sister was all the way at the back of the signing line.
I can't reconcile the woman who did such a kind thing for my sister and her cruel actions against the LGBTQ+, a group I am proudly a part of. But I can't support such ideals.
Trans rights are human rights! Don't ever forget it!
Regarding Tonks, I always thought Nymphadora was a strange name, but Aja Romano's interpretation made it click into place for me: "dora" in Greek means "gift," and "nymphe" means a young woman, specifically a young bride. Tonks is someone who initially rejects the gift of her assigned-at-birth gender, and the role that comes with it, but grows to accept it as the series goes on.
Coming from the same person who published Cho Chang unironically, lucky coincidence.
@@falconeshield Perhaps, but one criticism of Rowling is that she puts way more thought into the names of white characters than she does characters of color. Hoots already mentioned Remus, but there's also McGonagall whose first name comes from the Roman goddess of wisdom, Sirius is known as the Dog Star due to its presence in the constellation Canis Major, etc, so it's possible that it's not a coincidence.
@@damianoakes2592 I don’t necessarily think it’s that she puts more thought into her white characters. I think it’s more that she puts thought into characters she considers relevant to the story… who just happen to be exclusively white because she carries a level of unconscious internalized prejudice.
And then she throw it away, when fans began with the Lupin/Sirius Black shipping, Rowling wanted that Lycantrophy was a metaphor for aids, but is unwilling to make her character gay, so Lupin ended with Tonks.
As an AFAB nonbinary person: that's gross
I mean good for any woman who actually went through a similar series of emotions. I'm genuinely happy you've developed a healthier relationship with your gender. But from Joanne "Transphobe" Rowling that's super gross and I hate it
Reading the Hufflepuff students as stoner kids...makes them so much more entertaining and interesting. Cedric just wanted to rip some bingers and chill in a giant bath, let him live man.
They live right next to the kitchens specifically for late night munchies.
I don't get that. Hufflepuffs are like the nicest and hardest workers, and yet are constantly overlooked as "lame and useless" in favor of some arrogant houses that are filled with richies. Isn't that just a reflection of real life...
@@please_im_a_staaarYou got sorted in Hufflepuff didn't you
@@please_im_a_staaar they aint the hardest workers im pretty sure ravenclaw is the one for smart people hufflepuff is just for people who are chill like that
I love how Ravenclaw students are supposed to be smart as fuck. Yet there´s no a single fucking good wizard from that house. The best wizards of all time are Dumbledore, Voldemort and Grindelwald and they were Slytherin, Gryffyndor, and Grindelwald didnt even study at Hogwarts.
the fact that when making fun of the obvious naming habits Jk has, no one ever mentions lavender brown... she literally picked two colors and called it a day
HaHa😊
She only took Lavender because it's also a flower.
@@turtleanton6539
How about "King" Arthur having a Daughter named Ginevra/Guinevere??? and a son named Percival?
Lets not forget the fact that lavender brown was played by a black girl in the first few movies but was replaced by a white girl as soon as she became a love interest for ron.
Also Viktor Krum (Bulgarian), similarly to Cho Chang, has a name which consists of two Bulgarian FIRST names. But then again we have characters like Albus Severus (also two first names) so it's not really surprising...
I think that a large reason that HP fans moved to Fan Fiction is not just the unquenchable thirst for even more Harry Potter, but also for the fact that people were able to modify the bones of the story, one that garnered such a large community, to fit their various identities better. I have seen so many stories of queer writers writing themselves into the narratives by turning characters into their own queer icons (Sirius Black is still Bi in my head BECAUSE of those very writers). That's why I cannot leave the "fandom" behind. Not because of the half-baked books that I read as a kid, but because of some of the most amazing works of art that were inspired by those books and the community it has. I guess I'm a fan of the community more than I am a fan of the franchise.
The only quality to be found in Harry Potter is in the fandom, everything written by the author is at best mid, and at worst painfully mediocre. Change my mind.
14:40 - so like, I don't THINK JK was being clearly allegorical here but I do think it's flatly INSANE how well House Elves, Centaurs and Goblins in her books map onto the way western racism categorizes Black people, Indigenous people and Jewish people respectively.
She's a centrist, self-reflection and systematic analysis are not her strengths.
Terf/gender critical/anti trans types are not centrists. Those beliefs are inherently right wing…
@@lindseystein9676 To be fair, I think she used to be centrist or possibly left of centre back in the 90s when she wrote the first book, and then she's been drifting steadily right over the years because her conservative streak is a mile wide and it makes progressive spaces uncomfortable for her. She grew used to thinking of herself as feminist a queer friendly, and it never occurred to her that the bar for feminism and queer friendly could be raised over the years as disenfranchised groups gain rights and equality becomes more attainable. Her brand of feminism in particular is from the 60s. She is very progressive and left wing. For the 60s.
@@lindseystein9676 TERFs are not right-wing lmao, what part of Radical Feminism screams right-wing to you?
@@R0CKDRIG0TERFs will push a lot of gender essentialist rhetoric that does turn around and harm cis women as well as trans women, and pushes a right wing view of the world. Things being inherently of one defined unchanging category or another and unable to change is a conservative bias, not a progressive one.
Oh man, the part about Tonks.... I felt that. She was honestly one of the coolest characters, and then JK just... removed everything that made her Tonks? What?
I remember that being such a disappointment of a character development. A betrayal, even.
I had the same experience!!! She was SO cool and was the reason I begged my mom to get a purple streak at 13, and then lo and behold she becomes a wife, a mother, and then dies all in like half a book. That cannot be forgiven
@@GuardianSpirits13 I dont think it's necessarily a problem that Tonks becomes a wife and a mother and dies in the span of half a book when a war breaks out that kills lots of members on both sides. I think Joanne just wanted Teddy's life to parallel Harry's in that both parents died to protect the future of their child. The real problem with Tonks is that she loses her personality in order to become those things. She could have been a purple haired, cool, shapeshifting mom, even a trans/nb icon who doubles down as a brave parent who would do anything to protect her/their family - spouse and child.
If anything, Tonks should have been the one to make Remus reconcile with his wild side, even embrace it. The down side to marrying is that it would change her last name assuming she takes on the Lupin name, but she could hyphenate it and continue as Tonks, or, hell, even change her first name to Tonks.
@@SocialistStrike That is true and it would have been cool to see more gender exploration with her character, but I think the thing that feels icky to me is that both her and Remus are gay-coded, what with the AIDS/werewolf analogy. But we know JK is a coward and a bigot so she could never do that to her precious ocs
@@GuardianSpirits13 Good old "bury your gays" trope. Sorry, but that was already tired and stale when they did it on Buffy.
@@thing_under_the_stairs well presumably in the Harry Potter AU where JK isn't a terrible person infusing her fiction with that particular brand of politics and Tonks and Remus are *allowed* to be openly queer, then the outcome may have been different. Either way, I personally think that writing queer coded characters just to then have them "grow out of it" and settle into a "traditional" hetero family dynamic is just as bad if not worse than having openly queer characters who happen to die. But idk maybe that's just me
My problem with the houses is students keep getting put in the wrong house. Hermione is an obvious Ravenclaw. Percy seems more ambitious than brave so Slytherin. Idk where Peter Pettigrew belongs but it sure as Hell ain't Gryffindor. JK just wanted all the Weaslys, Marauders and main characters in Gryffindor for some reason. Guess it's her favourite house. I think it would have been cool to have a main character in each house.
Honestly that would have made a good plot and even cemented that message she tried to make near the end of inter-house unity. Sure, keep Harry and Ron in Gryffindor because Ron has to be Harry's wingman to the wizarding world, but make Hermione a Ravenclaw that they happen to make friends with. Make them friends with people from the other houses and it even raises the stakes as they have to brave curfew to meet each other.
I don't agree with that, Hermione is a Gryffindor. Your house is chose by what you value the most, Hermione values courage over wisdom more and that's the reason she is not a stereotypical gryffindor. Sometimes when a person values things almost equally the hat lets they choose the house. Peter was brave enough to do all those sh*t to his own friends, being brave is not necessarily a good thing.
Ravenclaw isn't just about doing good in school, it's also about creativity and open mindedness which Hermione doesn't seem to have
@@Moonylovegood excellent point
@@Moonylovegood
Hermione is defined by creativity arguably even *more* than she is by her bookish smarts, especially in the later books. She doesn't just understand magic, she knows how to apply her understanding to novel situations, over and over. Hell, the first half of the Deathly Hallows is basically one big seminar on "here's all the creative ways Hermione made sure the trio could survive in the wilderness for several months".
8:50 - if anything, it's not about homophobia, but about seeing the relationship as "strange" accounting for Harry's age. He is a minor, after all. So the critique is less about "Ew, Dumbledore is gay" and more about "Ew, Dumbledore is a pedo"
My aunt gave me a copy of the first book as a child. When I didn’t immediately read the book she proceeded to passive aggressively gift me three more copies of the first book over the course of about two years. So being an equally petty child I resolved to never read them just to spite her.
Consequently, unlike a lot of my peers I luckily didn’t have to reevaluate my nostalgia for the series when Rowling publicly TERFed all over herself. Thanks, Aunt Marie.
Hey I too was saved from reading this trash by being petty to a family member! Is nice to see to some degree we ended up being right
My father didn’t allowed me to read the books because he said “if a lot of people like it and it’s a best seller then it must be garbage” now I get his point, also I’m a trans men 🤭
In my case, I actually read it, I borrowed from a friend but my adhd brain just doesn't remember a lot of it, I think I read the first 6 books in 6 months when I was 14, then the 7th came out and I got bored of it by the first 1/3 of the book.
I never came back and I often re-read books that I read in my native language in English just to see what may differ.
For a long while I didn't read the books because a) I was under the impression my parents wouldn't want me to read them because they would think they were satanic and b) I had a thing about not following trends because everyone else was doing them. When I brought that up they proved me wrong and I got to read the series. Younger me was on to something though.
I stan Lil' Linsey so much.
The fact that the Harry Potter books started out as fundie evangelicals’ favorite thing to hate, to the product of an author who loves TERFing up on TERF Island is a plot twist I did NOT see coming at the time. What a ride. Meanwhile, this video is my favorite thing to come out of the Potter franchise. Crushing it as always, Hoots.
It's funny because if the fundie evangelicals had looked into the content, they would've realized a lot of it actually aligned with their beliefs. They really just saw "magic wizards" and freaked out
@@Tink00they are too stupid to do that though
She never changed. People on the left just refuse to acknowledge how sexist and homophobic it's become. As seen in your case.
@@alvinsmith3894 In my case? I was an adult when they came out and I read one book. Are you trolling? I’m pointing out the irony of her career trajectory. Get bent.
@@Tink00 Bingo. That’s why this whole thing intrigues me so much.
This is a year-old video already but just wanted to say:
I'm not saying that fanfiction writers are as good as book authors but...... if I had a penny for every fanfiction that has taken the story and added beautiful worldbuilding and politics (that make sense and are interesting!!), took away plots/details that made no sense on the books and even developed the characters in such a way that I felt I understood their motivations and relations with others better I'd have... A LOT of pennies.
Found the American 😂
What are some of your favorite fanfics?
omg give us some recommendations (all the pennies)
I cannot stress how much you all should Read Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. It actually analyzes magic with the scientific method, and either fixes or completely ignores the problems in worldbuilding. (I don't think house elves are mentioned at all.)
@@NottSaying, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality is a good FanFiction story! It doesn’t mention House Elves at all!
Is Harry Potter bad? Yes.
Do I still love it? Also, yes.
Is J.K. Rowling being consumed by the black mold on her walls? Probably.
Moldemort
Funny, but I always pictured Tonks as a 1980s Punk Rock girl. This was partly due to picturing Natalia Tena, even before she was cast in the role. I’d seen her in About A Boy & thought, “They should cast her - she’s perfect!” That said, I can see the point of meeting Tonks in Order of the Phoenix & not wanting to pin her down in a conventional wife/mommy role. She had untapped potential to go in any direction.
This person implying she can't still be the cool girl she was and a wife and mother is just internalized misogyny speaking
@@richardarriaga6271 how was motherhood the sole purpose of her life? She stood against Voldemort and fought. Just because you're a mother doesn't mean that is all you are. All different types of women can fall in love and start a family. Again, seems like misogny to me... And ps Minerva didn't ever have children did she? And she's still a great female character. So it seems to me she very well COULD imagine a good female character that didn't become a mother.
And remember, it's never too late to pick up Terry Pratchett. If you want an established whimsical magic world that's straight overtly pro lgbtqia+, Rimworld doesn't disappoint
Yes! The Discworld series is my absolute favorite! “The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they’ve found it.” R.I.P. Sir Terry!
Also Terry Pratchett was shading JK before it was cool.
I think that’s partly why I managed to avoid the HP universe. I had already discovered better authors by the time HP was beginning to come out(granted I was just about the prime age for the audience too). I’m just now getting into Pratchett as an adult but there has always been better fantasy to read if that’s what one is looking for. The HP series was an entertaining book series for children but I don’t think it holds up to more mature literature at all.
@@MrDirtydaves Yes I managed to avoid reading Harry Potter because I was into the Geronimo Stilton Thea sisters series and reading Harry Potter as a teenager I'm not impressed with what it does at all, when I could see better writing from other people
I m a huge fan of both Terry Pratchett (author and person) and JK's work. Pratchett's world is very, very, very precise, and extremely deliberate. JK s never was neither. But i did fall for some of her characters. She s good at them.
This is a relatively minor point, but I think also we can talk about technical issues in Rowling's prose. It's full of "said bookisms", words that can replace "said". Characters are constantly exclaiming, retorting, querying etc, and when they're not they're always "saying blankishly" but almost never just "say" anything. Said bookisms kinda stand out, and call attention to a feature of english writing that otherwise just blends into the background. When you trust your readers to interpret tone from context and from their understanding of the fully realized characters you've written into your books, all the saids you need to put in around dialogue tend to just vanish. But as soon as you think you need to say "Hermione called Ron a complete idiot, in a tone that indicated she was annoyed at him." you're constantly putting your audience at arms length, and kinda speaking down to them.
Rowling also doesn't really understand the value of metaphor in descriptive passages. She constantly compares things to other things, but it always takes the form of a simile, rather than a metaphor, which is a very important distinction. As a lot of people have humorously pointed out her descriptions of things are absolutely riddled with the phrases "what appeared to be" or "what could only be described as". I suspect this is to give the narrative voice it's characteristically arch tone, I think this also distances the audience and kind of reduces the impact of some of her genuinely most imaginative set pieces.
Finally a note about length. People always say the books get longer as the audience grows up, but that's not exactly true. The first two books are about the same length, and are pretty short. The third book is, I'd estimate, about one and a half times the length of the first two; longer but still perfectly reasonable. Then suddenly books four and five like, quadruple or quintuple the length of the first two books. Then an editor finally gets a little bit of a handle on the situation and book 6 and 7 are like noticeably shorter than books four and five, but still really quite long for YA novels. Now when I was reading them as a teen the length didn't really bug me, because I kinda flew through them anyway. But if the idea was for increasing length to progressively challenge readers whose skill at reading is presumably growing alongside the books I don't think she succeeded, unless there's some educational theory I've never heard which posits that teenagers rapidly develop massively longer attention spans in the mid teens, and then lose some of that capacity in the later teen years. I mean who knows, but that seems unlikely. All joking aside, managing the length of your writing is a technical writing skill that authors can work on and get better at. And I think we know that that isn't a skill that Rowling has exactly mastered.
the fact that "snape ejaculated" is a real thing in those books is proof enough of that
1a1😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
1a1😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
I'm sorry that I'm talking off topic, but I was surprised by the thesis about said bookisms.
in my country, it is just nessecary to use these, and if your explanation for direct speech does not look like "character a barked and glared angrily at the gloomy character b, who turned his gaze to character a with a sly smile," then you will be considered the most mediocre writer.
and no one here thinks that the author looks down on the reader, everyone thinks "wow, what a smart author, since he managed to describe so much about an event that could be described in two words" and "authors that constantly use word "said" suck, cause they have not imagination to use domething else"
apparently, it's just because of the difference in cultures.
When I took a publishing course in college, my Editorial professor brought up HP as an example where the author started rejecting the need of an editor by Book 4, hence the obvious jump in length and being perhaps overstuffed with scenes that don't serve the pace well. Obviously, I don't have evidence that JKR was refusing editorial advice, but I *have* worked with authors who do this, so I figure there is likely some truth in there.
Asking why the wizarding world still has capitalism is a bit nonsensical because it's a bit like assuming that we have to _invent_ our way out of capitalism or, if we live in a post-scarcity world, capitalism will automatically disappear. But, here's the thing: in a lot of ways, we already _do_ live in a post-scarcity world, like we produce enough food to feed 14 billion people which, if you'll notice, is more than the current population of Earth. Capitalism exists because powerful people want to be powerful and maintain their power, not because we lack the technology (or magic) to get rid of it. We could get rid of capitalism _right now_ and not only would things be fine, they'd be a billion times _better_ than before.
Exactly.
Yes, the capitalist realism... They have MAGIC yet can't get rid of capitalism 😅 JKRowling is a very shallow mind.
I always wanted there to be a Slytherin redemption or at least some good in there. They're made out as just the worst possible people and no one ever gives it a reason to even exist. It would have been more interesting if Slytherin had some better reasons for being the way they are, and had some good characters in it.
True Rowlings treatment of Slutherin will always one of the stuppiest things i have ever read in books.
And no matter how manny people bring in lame defenses as Slughorn or Regules Black or Harrys POV it will always remain dumb 😁
sorry but hitler youth redemption arc would have felt weird
@@xXxfiewindxXxThe thing about hitler youth is that they didn’t choose that, they’re parents did.
You can easily write a redemption arc where a slytherin realizes something is really messed up with how people treat them and they treat everyone else as well, then goes on to challenge the system.
Rowling just didn’t do that because that might have been too hard for her because she seems to only view the world in simplistic binaries
@@DevareayWilliams She had an easy way to go about it, too, via Dolores Umbridge. Umbridge should absolutely have been from Gryffindor or at least should have been described as the opposite of Harry (who was naturally closer to Slytherin but picked Gryffindor). Gryffindor is chock full of feelings of moral superiority and concern for "justice," not far away from Slytherin's feelings of scientific superiority and concern for "progress."
(Edit: I don't mean redemption for Umbridge, but for Slytherin victims of her).
she tried to do that in cursed child by sending one of harry's kids to slytherin LOL the whole thing is such a weird fanfictiony clusterfuck it gets forgotten but its this whole silly conflict
Did you use an unforgivable curse on this video? Because you killed it. It's always a good day when a Hoots video drops.
I don't think the "wizards could solve all the world's problems" complaint should be so easily dismissed. I get that it isn't the focus of this video, but Rowling has put a magnifying glass to the subject with her "Fantastic Beasts" series. So clearly, it's on her mind as well. And the more you try to ignore it the more obvious the problems become. Why are the Weasleys impoverished? Why do magical people have a gold-based economy? Even the muggle world realized that was untenable.
I felt the Weasleys were coded Catholic and impoverished due to red hair, family size (lack of birth control) and other (muggle obsessed) backwards-thinking-common stereotypical “cause of poverty” tropes of UK classism of her time. Under that lens, the entrepreneurial twins seem like a self-insert of her “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” answer to her own poverty. Seems like a “look not to your government (magic) to solve your problems” argument, since it’s at best ineffective and at worst corrupt.
Cope, if wizards existed they would have no reason to solve muggle problems and every right to govern over inferior muggles
@@albusnightspring8057 thanks voldemort
@@ffnendhgrgd unlike in the real world, in the books there is a definite hierarchy of superiority. Now I don't think muggle born and half bloods would be inferior to pure blood wizards, but wizards>>>>>muggle parasites for sure, especially given how muggles are depicted as extremely stupid and ignorant
@@albusnightspring8057 calm down voldemort
its so funny seeing all the tumblr crowd going from i love harry potter to harry potter was never good
Yeah. I never liked HP; it's hacky writing. But at least now I like miss Rowling.
Because they made it political and politics changed it's a kids book not that deep.
because rowling's rowling-ing in recent years made them look at the series again under a more critical lens and it allowed them to realize the series was always problematic, and they just gave it a pass because of nostalgia and some unearned goodwill towards rowling
@@ultravioletcatastrophe And it became popular to hate on rowling so content creators pump up those critisisms.
People change I feel. I'm in my late 202s now. My personal experience with hp was that I loved the first four books when I was a kid in the 2000s. I casually grew disinterested in them as the series progressed. I experienced the fandom hype for hp in the 2010s and was very into it for about 6 months. I got away from it because tumblr harry potter fandom treated the books like they were perfect and jk rowling was a godly writer who planned everything in advance. Which is extremely ridiculous. Then Rowling started posting stuff online and I didn't like what I saw. I immediately became disillusioned with the introduction of American wizards and how bad the lore she made for them was. And then the fantastic beasts franchise happened and the cursed child happened which weren't very good. They made me question why I ever liked the original books. And I increasingly got exposed to criticisms of the books. And then finally in 2020 Rowling made her transphobia known and her behaviour has only worsened from there.
I know I'm not alone in this experience. The order may have been different for others, but the point is criticism was always there and people have been exposed to it for a long time. People were making fun of Rowling long before she was an open terf. I experienced a slow penguin walk of loving Harry Potter and being passionate in fandom as a 15 year old to the person who dislikes harry potter as a 27 year old. That was a long time. I think Rowling being an openly terrible person simply accelerated a process that was already happening. Its a lot easier to go full gloves off with how bad the books are when the writer is an open bigot than when they were a "beloved" activist. I put that in quotation marks because people have criticized her activism for being bare minimum for decades. The change may seem like its sudden. But anyone who was paying attention would know this didn't happen over night.
As someone who now identifies as non-binary, and was enamoured by Tonks in the fifth book so much so that I adopted the name as my own even prior to discovering I was enby, I'm glad her "taming" was addressed. I honestly read the sixth book in horror as this jubilant character became solely defined by her relationship to Lupin AND her desire to be a mother.
It also occurs to me that Harry expresses desire to shapeshift like Tonks - I have the vague recollection it was for nefarious means mostly - but is shut down by the fact it's something you have to be born as... Which kinda sounds like the sort of strawman someone with anti-trans views would construct of non-binary folk.
As a fellow NB, Jesus Christ! As of I didn't have enough reason to hate this woman and her works!
As a lesbian, I had a crush on Tonks long before I knew anything about my sexuality. Her relationship with Lupin almost made me disgusted, lol
@@nyxie2877 Oh definitely, before I became aware of trans and non-binary identities (including in myself), I always read Tonks as lesbian, butch, maybe somewhat bi... I honestly expunged from my memory that Tonks married into a heterosexual life and wanted to become a mother. I merely remember Tonks from being amazing in 5 and dead by the end of it... Being reminded that "Tonks" as a character was killed before dying is even more tragic than I could have ever recalled...
One of the most upsetting things about growing up and realizing this series sucks completely is that there are moments of potential for so much joy and acceptance. Tonks was, accidentally, an awesome nonbinary character and all around queer icon. And Harry looking at her and realizing he kinda liked the idea of shape shifting and being like her COULD have been an amazing moment; he lives in a magical world where it's possible to physically change how you want, he could have had so much fun and had a queer mentorship relationship with Tonks, he could have realized his friends were happy for him because why would this be abnormal in a magical world? Just do whatever. And most of all, it could have been a relatively small thing, just part of Harry's character and the world. We could have had a casual nonbinary main character in the 90s. Could have, could have, could have. But imagining all the could haves with other queer people used to be nice on its own, we ignored how badly the books were done and played around in the sandbox together. Until jk made it clear how much she fucking hates us. And we looked again and realized how absolutely hateful the books are. Just awful all around. Devastating, frankly.
I never liked what she did to Tonks. It came absolutely out of nowhere and didn't feel justified at all
As a person who was pretty much raised on Harry Potter i learned a lot from the books, like for example that it's ok to keep slaves as long as they look like little bundles of foreskin and you don't beat them too much.
"Little bundles of foreskin" 😂😂😂😂😂😂
You’re not actually saying that you think there weren’t any good lessons that could be taken away from the Harry Potter story, are you? Sarcasm in text is always a bit hard to interpret the way it was intended, so I just wanted to check
@@parryxxlivxx i'm not saying there aren't any. I'm saying that there are also a lot of negative ones that are harder to notice because they're already very normalized (like laughing at fat people, looking at the Dursleys being laughed at by the narrator, Harry himself and the Weasleys while Molly Weasley is only ever called "pudgy" in the narration and when Malfoy calls her fat Harry and Ron pull out their wands at him. Like this leaves a bad taste in my mouth). And also that some of them get kinda... Less impactful when you look at the author's views. It feels like "Don't worry if others find you weird, you'll find a group that celebrates your "weird" characteristics! You deserve happines, not bullying! Unless you're that kind of weird"
@@kevinel1398 i'm not sure what's your point here. Like the entire arc was about Hermione doing activism incorrectly by trying to talk over the people she was advocating for. And it was the only form of activism shown in the series i'm pretty sure. It's the fact that only the wrong way of speaking for minorities is portrayed and how the elves themselves are written.
I don't think "don't write slavery as it was portrayed by the slave owners into your books and if somehow it was by accident just apologize for it and/or retcon it instead of burying yourself deeper into it" an impossible standard to hold someone to. I'm not saying that's what you meant, idk what exactly you meant, i'm explaining my point
@@kevinel1398 i'm sorry but that's not what was happening. She wanted to free them, but they hated it, there's even a scene where they communicated they'd stop cleaning the gryffindor dorm room if she kept leaving pieces of clothing for them and stuff - they were offended. (Which isn't good because it's just the arguments used irl when slaves wanted freedom - people were saying they wouldn't know what to do eith themselves, that they'd be unhappy, become alcoholics and that they're built for this. Which again, idk if rowling did it on purpose, but her rection to it all is unacceptable - going deeper into this, adding more to justify it instead of back down)
Voldemort is actually all French (Vol de mort) and means flight from death, literally he is running away or fleeing from death.
French being my first language, I remember thinking his name sounded very stupid. I even think French fans back when the books and movies were still coming out often joked about his name.
"Joanne always seemed to have some feelings towards women who seem too mannish for her" And that aged like milk.