There should be a special word for these trolls/bots that are happy to be banned after about ten comments
They are like a mixture of Tamil suicide bombers and one of those castes of social insects that commit suicide defending the nest
They know they are going to be mown down, but on they go. They start off with one or two sensible posts, then they get quite spicy, then by comment 9 it’s full on Kyiv-is-full-of-pedos, like they all have the same self-destruct programming
I wonder if they are actually computer bots, as in; there is no human involvement at all. It would explain the constant/rigid repetition of the suicidal behaviour. And they would take no time and very little money to create
But the spelling mistakes and the lack of caps wouldn’t have been made by a language model, which knows these rules. It must be a human, who does actually have a reasonable amount of knowledge about UK politics.
Why they do it though, is a question best directed at next Saturday morning’s new user. If they ever understand the need to avoid getting onto Russian talking points within a couple of hours and a couple of dozen posts.
Surely it would be cheaper, easier and better to programme ChatGPT to just create these bots and send them out there. As you say, they’d probably make FEWER mistakes in some ways. I’ve only ever had one identity on here but I understand from others (I shall spare their blushes) that it isn’t exactly hard to create a Vanilla persona. An email addy is all you need, then a couple of personal details, verify the email, off you go.
Then you could bot away for hours, and you would programme the bot to only get slowly Putinist, or to do it fast for more impact, or whatever
I find it genuinely hard to believe the Kremlin is paying hard roubles to human trolls and bots to be this consistently terrible: so bad they always get banned within twenty minutes
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
There should be a special word for these trolls/bots that are happy to be banned after about ten comments
They are like a mixture of Tamil suicide bombers and one of those castes of social insects that commit suicide defending the nest
They know they are going to be mown down, but on they go. They start off with one or two sensible posts, then they get quite spicy, then by comment 9 it’s full on Kyiv-is-full-of-pedos, like they all have the same self-destruct programming
I wonder if they are actually computer bots, as in; there is no human involvement at all. It would explain the constant/rigid repetition of the suicidal behaviour. And they would take no time and very little money to create
But the spelling mistakes and the lack of caps wouldn’t have been made by a language model, which knows these rules. It must be a human, who does actually have a reasonable amount of knowledge about UK politics.
Why they do it though, is a question best directed at next Saturday morning’s new user. If they ever understand the need to avoid getting onto Russian talking points within a couple of hours and a couple of dozen posts.
Surely it would be cheaper, easier and better to programme ChatGPT to just create these bots and send them out there. As you say, they’d probably make FEWER mistakes in some ways. I’ve only ever had one identity on here but I understand from others (I shall spare their blushes) that it isn’t exactly hard to create a Vanilla persona. An email addy is all you need, then a couple of personal details, verify the email, off you go.
Then you could bot away for hours, and you would programme the bot to only get slowly Putinist, or to do it fast for more impact, or whatever
I find it genuinely hard to believe the Kremlin is paying hard roubles to human trolls and bots to be this consistently terrible: so bad they always get banned within twenty minutes
It’s probably just staffers at the Russian Embassy in London who draw the short straw to be on a Saturday work shift so get given a cheat sheet of crap to churn out to pass the time. They clearly don’t enjoy what they are doing as there is clearly a lack of heart and love in the posts.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Plenty of people a few years younger than me, more in time for when the books were written, still seem fully on board with the universe. The first two Fantastic Beasts films made plenty of money, and new games etc about it seem to do very well, so there seems to be a good audience remaining for new Potter stuff which they can enjoy more as adults. A quick google suggests people are still buying the books too.
So whether people stick with JK the person, particularly if she gets even more into public disputes, remains to be seen, but normal people don't seem to have a problem enjoying her work regardless.
I find it genuinely hard to believe the Kremlin is paying hard roubles to human trolls and bots to be this consistently terrible: so bad they always get banned within twenty minutes
I have to say you're giving yourself away there by suggesting there's any such thing as a "hard rouble".
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I can go longer watch friends, due to the fact that (unlike Seinfeld), the comedy simply hasn't dated very well.
I feel like I’ve missed this. What have people decided to find offensive about Friends? I love it, but in many ways out of nostalgia for the past when I watched it. It’s gentle and friendly and I can’t imagine what’s offensive. If anything, one of the artistic criticisms I understand it that it’s just… nothing.
Even the creator of Friends has basically disowned it and apologised I believe. It's very white (no way would all 6 characters be white if made today, and even guest stars were thin on the ground), and they make jokes about Chandler being seen as gay, and don't get started on the treatment of his dad.
Stuff like Ross raising a child with his ex-wife who was a lesbian, and who comforted and supported when her parents wouldn't come to her marriage to her partner, seem not to count in the opposite direction I guess.
Hang on, they wouldn’t all be white today but is that actually a valid criticism? Aren’t a lot of real life friendship groups single race because… that’s just how life is? And isn’t Chandler’s response to his dad actually pretty true to life? All sounds like fringe criticisms to me. It’s not exactly Love Thy Neighbour.
It is fringe criticism, but for some reason, the producer took it to heart.
The producers of Friends have actually made financial reparations. No joke
What??!!! Who to?
Set up bursaries for black actors. Given money to black charities etc
Those are just good things to do aren’t they? Framing as a sort of penance actually makes it less so - it’s making it about yourself.
You begin to understand Wokeness. It has to be a public seeking of forgiveness
“‘Friends’ lack of diversity ‘embarrassed’ its co-creator. So she made a $4-million decision“
The series’ failure to be more inclusive, Kauffman says, was a symptom of her internalization of the systemic racism that plagues our society, which she came to see more clearly in the aftermath of the 2020 murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police and the worldwide protest movement that erupted around it.
That reckoning was the catalyst for her decision to pledge $4 million to her alma mater, the Boston area’s Brandeis University, to establish an endowed professorship in the school’s African and African American studies department.“
Then she got the LA Times to write about it so everyone knows
Since when did a TV comedy show exist in order to serve an ideology? Totally bizarre.
I think the creator of Friends is engaging in performative handwringing, but some TV shows, movies, books, etc, were indeed intended to serve ideologies, at least from time to time. Very Special Episodes were intended to impart moral messages, or just have a general theme which is, to some people, ideological. So I don't think it is entirely off piste for some art to service an ideology to some degree. I just think if that is your primary intention it will probably end up being crap.
Take Brooklyn Nine Nine, one of my favourite comedies. When it was cancelled there was a BBC write up which leaned heavily on it being diverse, to a degree that to me made the show sound terrible - the cast certainly was ethnically diverse, they had an occasional episode tackling 'serious' subjects around racism in the police, and there were plenty of jokes along the way which were liberal in nature of course. But I never saw it as a preachy show, it's strength was its characters, its writing, the interplay. It was just a funny show, well done. If that happened to serve an ideology then whatever, who cares, they at least focused on being good first.
Community is a great example of a sitcom that managed to be warm, funny, kind, deliberately diverse to the point of absurdity - gay. black, racist, autistic, trans, kinky, Jewish, mad Chinaman - everyone was in there and yet they did it in passing, or they made it part of the humour, and it was absolutely brilliant
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
Jesus F Christ. Why not have a go, retired golfer accountant? You’re not exactly busy
I don’t get the number of people sucked in by Raab’s counter narrative.
Everyone has known for a long time that he is a bullying, incompetent shit.
Complaints about him go back to the late noughties. There’s a clip of him calling Keir Starmer a wanker in the House of Commons; Gina Miller says he called her a silly bitch.
Not to mention the alleged superinjunction.
A deeply unpleasant individual, who added nothing. We are well rid.
If he had opinions in line with most civil servants, would the same complaints have been made against him?
You are making a presumption that the particular civil servants who complained did not have opinions in line with him. Is that set out somewhere, that they were politically opposed to him, or is that just his assumption? Who is to say the ones who complained have opinions in line with most civil servants?
The whole point of the civil service, is that they don’t have political opinions, and exist to implement the policies of the government of the day.
One gets the impression that, since 2016, that has not necessarily been the case in many departments, and that ministers have come up against active pushback to the actual policy positions, rather than simply raising issues of implementation.
I don’t get the number of people sucked in by Raab’s counter narrative.
Everyone has known for a long time that he is a bullying, incompetent shit.
Complaints about him go back to the late noughties. There’s a clip of him calling Keir Starmer a wanker in the House of Commons; Gina Miller says he called her a silly bitch.
Not to mention the alleged superinjunction.
A deeply unpleasant individual, who added nothing. We are well rid.
If he had opinions in line with most civil servants, would the same complaints have been made against him?
And yet we don't hear the same complaints made about Gove, Sunak etc. Just as Brexitty, but not gits with it.
Isn't the simplest explanation for all the talk of Raab being an awful boss that he was an awful boss?
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I can go longer watch friends, due to the fact that (unlike Seinfeld), the comedy simply hasn't dated very well.
I feel like I’ve missed this. What have people decided to find offensive about Friends? I love it, but in many ways out of nostalgia for the past when I watched it. It’s gentle and friendly and I can’t imagine what’s offensive. If anything, one of the artistic criticisms I understand it that it’s just… nothing.
Even the creator of Friends has basically disowned it and apologised I believe. It's very white (no way would all 6 characters be white if made today, and even guest stars were thin on the ground), and they make jokes about Chandler being seen as gay, and don't get started on the treatment of his dad.
Stuff like Ross raising a child with his ex-wife who was a lesbian, and who comforted and supported when her parents wouldn't come to her marriage to her partner, seem not to count in the opposite direction I guess.
Hang on, they wouldn’t all be white today but is that actually a valid criticism? Aren’t a lot of real life friendship groups single race because… that’s just how life is? And isn’t Chandler’s response to his dad actually pretty true to life? All sounds like fringe criticisms to me. It’s not exactly Love Thy Neighbour.
It is fringe criticism, but for some reason, the producer took it to heart.
The producers of Friends have actually made financial reparations. No joke
What??!!! Who to?
Set up bursaries for black actors. Given money to black charities etc
Those are just good things to do aren’t they? Framing as a sort of penance actually makes it less so - it’s making it about yourself.
It is all about performance. It’s the modern equivalent of the just Pharisee parable.
I don’t get the number of people sucked in by Raab’s counter narrative.
Everyone has known for a long time that he is a bullying, incompetent shit.
Complaints about him go back to the late noughties. There’s a clip of him calling Keir Starmer a wanker in the House of Commons; Gina Miller says he called her a silly bitch.
Not to mention the alleged superinjunction.
A deeply unpleasant individual, who added nothing. We are well rid.
If he had opinions in line with most civil servants, would the same complaints have been made against him?
You are making a presumption that the particular civil servants who complained did not have opinions in line with him. Is that set out somewhere, that they were politically opposed to him, or is that just his assumption? Who is to say the ones who complained have opinions in line with most civil servants?
The whole point of the civil service, is that they don’t have political opinions, and exist to implement the policies of the government of the day.
One gets the impression that, since 2016, that has not necessarily been the case in many departments, and that ministers have come up against active pushback to the actual policy positions, rather than simply raising issues of implementation.
One doesn't get that impression, it is just the apologists for inefficient politicians who get that impression.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
Strangely, if you draw a line, people start lining up on each side of it.
Not necessarily united by much more than the line.
You can find it all in Herodotus - nothing new here.
What was Herodotus' take on the Harry Potter franchise?
He may have confused it and wizards with local magi, who he describes as pretty bloodthirsty. Admirable live and let live attitude though.
The Magi are a very peculiar race, different entirely from the Egyptian priests, and indeed from all other men whatsoever. The Egyptian priests make it a point of religion not to kill any live animals except those which they offer in sacrifice. The Magi, on the contrary, kill animals of all kinds with their own hands, excepting dogs and men. They even seem to take a delight in the employment, and kill, as readily as they do other animals, ants and snakes, and such like flying or creeping things. However, since this has always been their custom, let them keep to it.
And we let these guys bring presents to the baby Jesus???
There were shepherds, some angels, and his mum and stepdad present, he was fine. Not sure about the animals in the barn.
Then again Pope Benedict apparently said there were no animals present at the nativity - the possibility they were plausibly in a barn even if not mentioned specifically I guess didn't pass muster.
In the biblical narrative, there are in Bethlehem shepherds, angels, mum, putative dad, wise men/magi - all this is clear. The other clear presence is the manger - which is a sign to the shepherds of the baby being the right one.
There is no direct mention of barn or stable, or of course animals (donkey, sheep, cows). This is presumed from the words "Because there was no room for them in the inn".
I think the author (Luke - a genius by the way) intended to mean there was no birthing room, so a manger did service for a cot/crib/incubator/Moses basket.
But please don't tell the Infant School, the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury. Or the Daily Mail. And don't tell them that the likely historicity of all this is approximately Zero.
I don’t get the number of people sucked in by Raab’s counter narrative.
Everyone has known for a long time that he is a bullying, incompetent shit.
Complaints about him go back to the late noughties. There’s a clip of him calling Keir Starmer a wanker in the House of Commons; Gina Miller says he called her a silly bitch.
Not to mention the alleged superinjunction.
A deeply unpleasant individual, who added nothing. We are well rid.
If he had opinions in line with most civil servants, would the same complaints have been made against him?
You are making a presumption that the particular civil servants who complained did not have opinions in line with him. Is that set out somewhere, that they were politically opposed to him, or is that just his assumption? Who is to say the ones who complained have opinions in line with most civil servants?
The whole point of the civil service, is that they don’t have political opinions, and exist to implement the policies of the government of the day.
One gets the impression that, since 2016, that has not necessarily been the case in many departments, and that ministers have come up against active pushback to the actual policy positions, rather than simply raising issues of implementation.
Correction - they can have political opinions, it just should not affect their enactment of government policy.
And I don't think it is absurd to suggest there may have been some level of pushback. But if you go in with the view that everyone is an enemy, as some in government do, you end up with a self fulfilling prophecy about pushback and resistance.
But how big an issue is it, really? I'd take pride in being able to do a good job even if the policy idea was not one I thought was a good idea. There are a lot of Ministers and a lot of civil servants, and politicians are not shy about blaming civil service obstruction - it is not ony this government that has used the line before - and yet I'm to believe this particular area is particulaly activist?
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Plenty of people a few years younger than me, more in time for when the books were written, still seem fully on board with the universe. The first two Fantastic Beasts films made plenty of money, and new games etc about it seem to do very well, so there seems to be a good audience remaining for new Potter stuff which they can enjoy more as adults. A quick google suggests people are still buying the books too.
So whether people stick with JK the person, particularly if she gets even more into public disputes, remains to be seen, but normal people don't seem to have a problem enjoying her work regardless.
Oh yes the franchise is massive. Very very popular and not just with kids. But how many young people (adults or children) who would have been reading Potter for the 1st time (right about now) are not doing so because of JKR's anti-Trans reputation? This is the specific question I'm posing - and tbf not at all expecting anybody even here on PB to know the answer to.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Plenty of people a few years younger than me, more in time for when the books were written, still seem fully on board with the universe. The first two Fantastic Beasts films made plenty of money, and new games etc about it seem to do very well, so there seems to be a good audience remaining for new Potter stuff which they can enjoy more as adults. A quick google suggests people are still buying the books too.
So whether people stick with JK the person, particularly if she gets even more into public disputes, remains to be seen, but normal people don't seem to have a problem enjoying her work regardless.
The amount of fan fiction, fan art, online forums suggests it remains a very popular franchise.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Plenty of people a few years younger than me, more in time for when the books were written, still seem fully on board with the universe. The first two Fantastic Beasts films made plenty of money, and new games etc about it seem to do very well, so there seems to be a good audience remaining for new Potter stuff which they can enjoy more as adults. A quick google suggests people are still buying the books too.
So whether people stick with JK the person, particularly if she gets even more into public disputes, remains to be seen, but normal people don't seem to have a problem enjoying her work regardless.
Oh yes the franchise is massive. Very very popular and not just with kids. But how many young people (adults or children) who would have been reading Potter for the 1st time (right about now) are not doing so because of JKR's anti-Trans reputation? This is the specific question I'm posing - and tbf not at all expecting anybody even here on PB to know the answer to.
The most vocal Rowling critics it seems to me are people who enjoyed her works as a child and are horrified to see what they view as her hanging out with bigots on social media. I doubt this is cutting through to many 9 year olds getting the reading bug.
I don’t get the number of people sucked in by Raab’s counter narrative.
Everyone has known for a long time that he is a bullying, incompetent shit.
Complaints about him go back to the late noughties. There’s a clip of him calling Keir Starmer a wanker in the House of Commons; Gina Miller says he called her a silly bitch.
Not to mention the alleged superinjunction.
A deeply unpleasant individual, who added nothing. We are well rid.
If he had opinions in line with most civil servants, would the same complaints have been made against him?
You are making a presumption that the particular civil servants who complained did not have opinions in line with him. Is that set out somewhere, that they were politically opposed to him, or is that just his assumption? Who is to say the ones who complained have opinions in line with most civil servants?
The whole point of the civil service, is that they don’t have political opinions, and exist to implement the policies of the government of the day.
One gets the impression that, since 2016, that has not necessarily been the case in many departments, and that ministers have come up against active pushback to the actual policy positions, rather than simply raising issues of implementation.
Correction - they can have political opinions, it just should not affect their enactment of government policy.
And I don't think it is absurd to suggest there may have been some level of pushback. But if you go in with the view that everyone is an enemy, as some in government do, you end up with a self fulfilling prophecy about pushback and resistance.
But how big an issue is it, really? I'd take pride in being able to do a good job even if the policy idea was not one I thought was a good idea. There are a lot of Ministers and a lot of civil servants, and politicians are not shy about blaming civil service obstruction - it is not ony this government that has used the line before - and yet I'm to believe this particular area is particulaly activist?
I think there’s a general problem with younger employees being activist in nature. It’s happening in a whole load of other industries, not just the civil service.
Just look at the whole pile of sh!t that Budweiser has got itself into in the US at the moment, when a young lady marketing manager decided that alienating their core customer demographic was a good idea. She’s now ‘taking a leave of absence’, as their sales are reportedly down 20% this month.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Plenty of people a few years younger than me, more in time for when the books were written, still seem fully on board with the universe. The first two Fantastic Beasts films made plenty of money, and new games etc about it seem to do very well, so there seems to be a good audience remaining for new Potter stuff which they can enjoy more as adults. A quick google suggests people are still buying the books too.
So whether people stick with JK the person, particularly if she gets even more into public disputes, remains to be seen, but normal people don't seem to have a problem enjoying her work regardless.
On the whole the new ones start with JKR (thankfully) a year or two before the whole gender fluid thing hits them - at least out here in the rustic throwback belt of Cumberland.
While older ones like me, who think the books are pretty thin and lengthy think JKR is great because she has sense and courage and is normal, and is a proper old fashioned liberal feminist even if volumes four to seven are several hundred pages too long. (I have daughters and grandchildren so reading this stuff - and the films - is/was pretty much compulsory. Agony by the end.)
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
Mate, you've got no clue what you're talking about. The average millennial puts their Harry Potter house in their dating profile.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Plenty of people a few years younger than me, more in time for when the books were written, still seem fully on board with the universe. The first two Fantastic Beasts films made plenty of money, and new games etc about it seem to do very well, so there seems to be a good audience remaining for new Potter stuff which they can enjoy more as adults. A quick google suggests people are still buying the books too.
So whether people stick with JK the person, particularly if she gets even more into public disputes, remains to be seen, but normal people don't seem to have a problem enjoying her work regardless.
Oh yes the franchise is massive. Very very popular and not just with kids. But how many young people (adults or children) who would have been reading Potter for the 1st time (right about now) are not doing so because of JKR's anti-Trans reputation? This is the specific question I'm posing - and tbf not at all expecting anybody even here on PB to know the answer to.
It's an interesting one, because if various new young people are cast then they will be part of a generation which is seemingly particularly exercised by these issues, and JK is on the non trendy side of that issue for that generation. Several of the original cast seem on message enough to one day advise people to boycott the books at least. So would young actors for instance pass up the chance to be in a massive hit because they and their peers dislike JK, probably not, but would they then face the awkwardness of needing to performatively justify their involvement for example? It still seems to sell well enough that I think it probably is just a vocal minority, and so very few are not reading it becaue of JK.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Plenty of people a few years younger than me, more in time for when the books were written, still seem fully on board with the universe. The first two Fantastic Beasts films made plenty of money, and new games etc about it seem to do very well, so there seems to be a good audience remaining for new Potter stuff which they can enjoy more as adults. A quick google suggests people are still buying the books too.
So whether people stick with JK the person, particularly if she gets even more into public disputes, remains to be seen, but normal people don't seem to have a problem enjoying her work regardless.
Oh yes the franchise is massive. Very very popular and not just with kids. But how many young people (adults or children) who would have been reading Potter for the 1st time (right about now) are not doing so because of JKR's anti-Trans reputation? This is the specific question I'm posing - and tbf not at all expecting anybody even here on PB to know the answer to.
This post is delusional Kin. I'd suggest you actually get off the internet and into the real world, kids love Harry Potter. Hogwarts Legacy is going to sell 30m+ copies this year and generate over $1.5bn in revenue. It's an absolutely gigantic franchise and it brings in millions of new fans per year. The first book is always in the top 5 kids book sellers per year.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
Ordinarily I am very suspicious of reboots and remakes - why not create something new? In this case though, its a good thing.
Two reasons - the franchise remains hugely popular. The films are quite old now, so relaunching it for a new generation has some merit.
More fundamentally, the films were stymied at the start by Chris fucking Columbus making some stupid decisions which hampered the rest of the films. Making Ron an idiot, making it all saccharine and small child friendly, hiding the darkness that clearly was hanging over everything.
A remake that has some umph from the start would be fun.
I wonder if Rowling realises quite how dystopian is the world that she created.
Soul-consumption by the dementors is a form of punishment that is much nastier than even the worst forms of execution. I think even Stalin's executioners might have baulked at it.
Being sent to Azkaban is among the worst forms of torture.
Even sympathetic wizards view non-wizards at best, with patronising contempt. Most of them view them as cattle. That's not just the view of the Death Eaters, it's almost universal. Even Hermione, who is often on the receiving end of some vicious prejudice, has partially internalised those values.
It was never made entirely clear what, exactly, Fenrir Greyback wanted to do to Hermione, but it was horribly suggestive.
Nor was it ever made entirely clear what the centaurs did to Dolores Umbridge, when they carried her off, but Rowling (and her alter ego, Hermione) are familiar with classical literature, and there is one thing that centaurs are very well known for, in classical literature.
So, yes, I'd like the TV series to ramp the horror.
That is a common trend now, to take things relatively innocuous and make them a bit darker. If the underlying work had understated darkness in it to begin with, then all the better - and as you say despite some relatively serious stuff in it Harry Potter was a bit more f*cked up than it seemed to recognise.
Speaking of f*cked up, for some reason the cinema was doing a rescreening of Wall-E of all things today. Utter brilliance that movie. Pixar have made plenty of great movies, but for all the creativity some are more obviously to a formula than others. Wall-E is about as emotionally hard hitting as any film I've seen in my life, and told for a kids film in an unconventional way. I practically had tears at some points.
It should have won Best Picture that year - were Slumdog Millionaire, Benjamin Button, Milk, Frost/Nixon, and The Reader better?
Yes theres dark sruff floating around. On social media there are rumours Russia is fighting this war so hard because ukraine is a global centre of child trafficking with children then being sold to the elite as sex slaves. There is apparently a network of tunnels where the children are kept in Ukraine and this is why Russia is fighting so hard...a battle of good vs evil. Make of it what you will.
OK I will. It's fucking mental.
Presumably the Russians are fighting child trafficking by abducting tens of thousands of children from Ukraine !
What utter crap to portray them as virtuous defenders of abducted children.
Have you noticed that the Russian state accuses people of what they (the Russian state) are doing, again and again?
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
Mate, you've got no clue what you're talking about. The average millennial puts their Harry Potter house in their dating profile.
I don’t get the number of people sucked in by Raab’s counter narrative.
Everyone has known for a long time that he is a bullying, incompetent shit.
Complaints about him go back to the late noughties. There’s a clip of him calling Keir Starmer a wanker in the House of Commons; Gina Miller says he called her a silly bitch.
Not to mention the alleged superinjunction.
A deeply unpleasant individual, who added nothing. We are well rid.
If he had opinions in line with most civil servants, would the same complaints have been made against him?
You are making a presumption that the particular civil servants who complained did not have opinions in line with him. Is that set out somewhere, that they were politically opposed to him, or is that just his assumption? Who is to say the ones who complained have opinions in line with most civil servants?
The whole point of the civil service, is that they don’t have political opinions, and exist to implement the policies of the government of the day.
One gets the impression that, since 2016, that has not necessarily been the case in many departments, and that ministers have come up against active pushback to the actual policy positions, rather than simply raising issues of implementation.
One doesn't get that impression, it is just the apologists for inefficient politicians who get that impression.
Thank God we have public servants with the backbone to speak truth to crazy, incompetent, self-obsessed politicians like Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Plenty of people a few years younger than me, more in time for when the books were written, still seem fully on board with the universe. The first two Fantastic Beasts films made plenty of money, and new games etc about it seem to do very well, so there seems to be a good audience remaining for new Potter stuff which they can enjoy more as adults. A quick google suggests people are still buying the books too.
So whether people stick with JK the person, particularly if she gets even more into public disputes, remains to be seen, but normal people don't seem to have a problem enjoying her work regardless.
Oh yes the franchise is massive. Very very popular and not just with kids. But how many young people (adults or children) who would have been reading Potter for the 1st time (right about now) are not doing so because of JKR's anti-Trans reputation? This is the specific question I'm posing - and tbf not at all expecting anybody even here on PB to know the answer to.
The most vocal Rowling critics it seems to me are people who enjoyed her works as a child and are horrified to see what they view as her hanging out with bigots on social media. I doubt this is cutting through to many 9 year olds getting the reading bug.
A Harry Potter book was the 2nd bestselling kids book in the UK last year. 25 years after being published
I find it very difficult to believe this is adults belatedly coming to her work after being interested in her political opinions. It’s kids reading her for the first time, as she is a classic kids’ author and they famously sell well decade after decade - she is the Enid Blyton of her time (who also sold billions)
Given that the UK is the one place her “controversial” Trans views might be expected to have an impact (the whole debate is way less salient elsewhere, or simply non existent) the fact she is selling as well as ever in the UK proves it is having no effect at all. It is a tiny minority of woke social media people and Hollywood types terrified of being cancelled who create the kerfuffle
There is also the apposite point that her “controversial Trans views” probably coincide with 80% of British views. It is the Trans activists on Twitter who are extreme and out of tune, as Nicola Sturgeon found out to her cost
Most people don't care about trans. Tastemakers are in the group of people for whom trans is as important as a religion. However, media for kids is different and tastemakers have less power; tons of kids' entertainers you will never have heard of if you're not a parent of young kids, or listening closely to them.
...The average millennial puts their Harry Potter house in their dating profile....
If we are using American generations, then the average millennial would be somewhere between the mid-20s to late-30s. Were you referring to a later generation?
...The average millennial puts their Harry Potter house in their dating profile....
If we are using American generations, then the average millennial would be somewhere between the mid-20s to late-30s. Were you referring to a later generation?
If English nationalism is on the march, no one has told the English. Like the life of St George, the rise of English identity is largely myth, argues Sir John Curtice, a political scientist…..
The new nationalism is just as hard to spot in Britain’s politics. It is often taken as a given that English nationalism was the driver of Britain leaving the eu. England makes up 85% of the country’s population and, lo, it contributed 87% of the Leave vote. But English votes were not enough to win the referendum in 2016. Leave-supporting Scots (38% of Scottish voters) were needed, too. A majority of voters in Wales voted to depart…..
English nationalism is absent because there is no need for it. Nationalism flourishes when people feel thwarted. But what England wants, England gets. England, usually, prefers a Conservative government and so Britain, usually, has one. England wanted out of the eu, and Britain did leave. Having your own way is not a recipe for resentment. So on St George’s Day, do the most English thing of all: forget about England. It still has not spoken yet.
...The average millennial puts their Harry Potter house in their dating profile....
If we are using American generations, then the average millennial would be somewhere between the mid-20s to late-30s. Were you referring to a later generation?
If English nationalism is on the march, no one has told the English. Like the life of St George, the rise of English identity is largely myth, argues Sir John Curtice, a political scientist…..
The new nationalism is just as hard to spot in Britain’s politics. It is often taken as a given that English nationalism was the driver of Britain leaving the eu. England makes up 85% of the country’s population and, lo, it contributed 87% of the Leave vote. But English votes were not enough to win the referendum in 2016. Leave-supporting Scots (38% of Scottish voters) were needed, too. A majority of voters in Wales voted to depart…..
English nationalism is absent because there is no need for it. Nationalism flourishes when people feel thwarted. But what England wants, England gets. England, usually, prefers a Conservative government and so Britain, usually, has one. England wanted out of the eu, and Britain did leave. Having your own way is not a recipe for resentment. So on St George’s Day, do the most English thing of all: forget about England. It still has not spoken yet.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
Jesus F Christ. Why not have a go, retired golfer accountant? You’re not exactly busy
Because I need a data grunt type for this sort of thing. But, ok, if you're not up for it. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things. JKR is clearly doing alright with the Potter even if she is attracting fewer new young readers. And that's IF she is - which we don't know.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
Mate, you've got no clue what you're talking about. The average millennial puts their Harry Potter house in their dating profile.
Indeed. And then there’s the parents - and aunts and uncles - who really want their kids to start reading, coz they feel it’s a good thing. Then they remember what got them reading. Harry Potter
So the kids of 9, 10, 11 get Harry Potter for birthdays and Xmas. I doubt 5% of these adults worry about the “Trans-TERF wars”. It’s absurd
Conservative activists, would be my best guess. Maybe even younger people who don’t expect to be elected in 2024, but look forward to a safer seat nomination in 2028 or 2029?
I don’t get the number of people sucked in by Raab’s counter narrative.
Everyone has known for a long time that he is a bullying, incompetent shit.
Complaints about him go back to the late noughties. There’s a clip of him calling Keir Starmer a wanker in the House of Commons; Gina Miller says he called her a silly bitch.
Not to mention the alleged superinjunction.
A deeply unpleasant individual, who added nothing. We are well rid.
If he had opinions in line with most civil servants, would the same complaints have been made against him?
You are making a presumption that the particular civil servants who complained did not have opinions in line with him. Is that set out somewhere, that they were politically opposed to him, or is that just his assumption? Who is to say the ones who complained have opinions in line with most civil servants?
The whole point of the civil service, is that they don’t have political opinions, and exist to implement the policies of the government of the day.
One gets the impression that, since 2016, that has not necessarily been the case in many departments, and that ministers have come up against active pushback to the actual policy positions, rather than simply raising issues of implementation.
The Daily Mail and its various credulous adherents get that impression, because they are fed it by incompetent politicos.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
Mate, you've got no clue what you're talking about. The average millennial puts their Harry Potter house in their dating profile.
My son did. I came across a dating profile of his (by accident!) and there it was. Potter. Included in a kind of self-dep way, I'd say, but yep it featured.
However, not for the 1st time people are reacting to what they think I'm saying rather than what I am saying. Not sure why this happens so often. I use pretty basic English.
So here, this one, I know Potter is huge, HUGE, and I'm not claiming that JKR is attracting fewer new young readers (to it) than she otherwise would if it weren't for her anti-trans activism. I don't know if she is or she isn't. I was merely wondering about that specific impact.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
Ordinarily I am very suspicious of reboots and remakes - why not create something new? In this case though, its a good thing.
Two reasons - the franchise remains hugely popular. The films are quite old now, so relaunching it for a new generation has some merit.
More fundamentally, the films were stymied at the start by Chris fucking Columbus making some stupid decisions which hampered the rest of the films. Making Ron an idiot, making it all saccharine and small child friendly, hiding the darkness that clearly was hanging over everything.
A remake that has some umph from the start would be fun.
I wonder if Rowling realises quite how dystopian is the world that she created.
Soul-consumption by the dementors is a form of punishment that is much nastier than even the worst forms of execution. I think even Stalin's executioners might have baulked at it.
Being sent to Azkaban is among the worst forms of torture.
Even sympathetic wizards view non-wizards at best, with patronising contempt. Most of them view them as cattle. That's not just the view of the Death Eaters, it's almost universal. Even Hermione, who is often on the receiving end of some vicious prejudice, has partially internalised those values.
It was never made entirely clear what, exactly, Fenrir Greyback wanted to do to Hermione, but it was horribly suggestive.
Nor was it ever made entirely clear what the centaurs did to Dolores Umbridge, when they carried her off, but Rowling (and her alter ego, Hermione) are familiar with classical literature, and there is one thing that centaurs are very well known for, in classical literature.
So, yes, I'd like the TV series to ramp the horror.
That is a common trend now, to take things relatively innocuous and make them a bit darker. If the underlying work had understated darkness in it to begin with, then all the better - and as you say despite some relatively serious stuff in it Harry Potter was a bit more f*cked up than it seemed to recognise.
Speaking of f*cked up, for some reason the cinema was doing a rescreening of Wall-E of all things today. Utter brilliance that movie. Pixar have made plenty of great movies, but for all the creativity some are more obviously to a formula than others. Wall-E is about as emotionally hard hitting as any film I've seen in my life, and told for a kids film in an unconventional way. I practically had tears at some points.
It should have won Best Picture that year - were Slumdog Millionaire, Benjamin Button, Milk, Frost/Nixon, and The Reader better?
Yes theres dark sruff floating around. On social media there are rumours Russia is fighting this war so hard because ukraine is a global centre of child trafficking with children then being sold to the elite as sex slaves. There is apparently a network of tunnels where the children are kept in Ukraine and this is why Russia is fighting so hard...a battle of good vs evil. Make of it what you will.
OK I will. It's fucking mental.
Presumably the Russians are fighting child trafficking by abducting tens of thousands of children from Ukraine !
What utter crap to portray them as virtuous defenders of abducted children.
Have you noticed that the Russian state accuses people of what they (the Russian state) are doing, again and again?
They raise the false flag at every opportunity. This is their trademark, their u.s.p., their m.o. When they lie they know you know that they lie; they let you know that they're up to no good by dropping polonium in the tea and wiping the doorknob with novichok, knowing that no other plausible actor can easily get these exotic poisons. They really want you to know who did it.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
Mate, you've got no clue what you're talking about. The average millennial puts their Harry Potter house in their dating profile.
Indeed. And then there’s the parents - and aunts and uncles - who really want their kids to start reading, coz they feel it’s a good thing. Then they remember what got them reading. Harry Potter
So the kids of 9, 10, 11 get Harry Potter for birthdays and Xmas. I doubt 5% of these adults worry about the “Trans-TERF wars”. It’s absurd
In my experience pretty much every primary school age child in the country is into HP, whether they be the children of raging antiwokies, anxious centrists or right-on-works-in-the-arts types. Suspect the vanishingly small proportion who views JKR as 'problematic' very rarely have kids.
Personally, I find JKR achingly and slightly irritatingly left wing, with her universe of toff-and-suburban baddies vs public sector working goodies. But I wouldn't go calling for boycotts or death threats.
...The average millennial puts their Harry Potter house in their dating profile....
If we are using American generations, then the average millennial would be somewhere between the mid-20s to late-30s. Were you referring to a later generation?
No, that one. The one I'm in.
Fuck. If there had been such a thing as dating profiles during the period when I was mid 20s-late 30s and I had required one, encountering references to books I'd liked as a kid would have put me right off.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
Mate, you've got no clue what you're talking about. The average millennial puts their Harry Potter house in their dating profile.
My son did. I came across a dating profile of his (by accident!) and there it was. Potter. Included in a kind of self-dep way, I'd say, but yep it featured.
However, not for the 1st time people are reacting to what they think I'm saying rather than what I am saying. Not sure why this happens so often. I use pretty basic English.
So here, this one, I know Potter is huge, HUGE, and I'm not claiming that JKR is attracting fewer new young readers (to it) than she otherwise would if it weren't for her anti-trans activism. I don't know if she is or she isn't. I was merely wondering about that specific impact.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
Jesus F Christ. Why not have a go, retired golfer accountant? You’re not exactly busy
Because I need a data grunt type for this sort of thing. But, ok, if you're not up for it. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things. JKR is clearly doing alright with the Potter even if she is attracting fewer new young readers. And that's IF she is - which we don't know.
“Attracting fewer new young readers”
Lol. You’re such a tit
Here is the amazon children’s bestseller list RIGHT NOW
Apparently, 42 ambulance service response vehicles, that cost £72k each, comes out as £31m rather than £3.1m. The story’s been up for 20 hours, and still not been corrected.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
Jesus F Christ. Why not have a go, retired golfer accountant? You’re not exactly busy
Because I need a data grunt type for this sort of thing. But, ok, if you're not up for it. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things. JKR is clearly doing alright with the Potter even if she is attracting fewer new young readers. And that's IF she is - which we don't know.
“Attracting fewer new young readers”
Lol. You’re such a tit
Here is the amazon children’s bestseller list RIGHT NOW
We can safely conclude that Ms Rowling is selling extremely well and your fantasies of her failure due to her gender critical feminism are insane
Fewer than otherwise, lol. It's like saying 2,000,000 people would have bought something but instead only 1,999,999 actually did. The "controversy" is absolutely tiny.
With Raab’s departure, I was thinking about the turnover in top jobs.
I was reminded again that from 2010 to 2019, Britain was ruled by a small and largely stable coterie: Cameron, Osborne, Hague, May and Hammond, Gove.
I have doubts about all of those characters, but I also recognise each of them as significant figures.
Obviously 2016 was the turning point at which governance broadly started to deteriorate. This can be measured in ministerial turnover, parliamentary rebellion, and polling volatility. But until May was finally ousted, it was to some extent the same regime.
Since 2019 we’ve had the incredible mayhem of Johnson, Raab, Cummings, Patel, Truss, Zahawi, Kwarteng, and Braverman. Nutters and chancers all.
The question is, is Rishi Sunak the vaguely plausible fag end of the crazy. Or is he the beginning of something else - the Sunak - Hunt - Dowden imperium?
One one hand, to lose three key ministers in six months speaks to his poor ability to pick a cabinet. On the other, they were all obvious barnacles to be scraped. Only Braverman remains who is notably loony.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Plenty of people a few years younger than me, more in time for when the books were written, still seem fully on board with the universe. The first two Fantastic Beasts films made plenty of money, and new games etc about it seem to do very well, so there seems to be a good audience remaining for new Potter stuff which they can enjoy more as adults. A quick google suggests people are still buying the books too.
So whether people stick with JK the person, particularly if she gets even more into public disputes, remains to be seen, but normal people don't seem to have a problem enjoying her work regardless.
Oh yes the franchise is massive. Very very popular and not just with kids. But how many young people (adults or children) who would have been reading Potter for the 1st time (right about now) are not doing so because of JKR's anti-Trans reputation? This is the specific question I'm posing - and tbf not at all expecting anybody even here on PB to know the answer to.
The most vocal Rowling critics it seems to me are people who enjoyed her works as a child and are horrified to see what they view as her hanging out with bigots on social media. I doubt this is cutting through to many 9 year olds getting the reading bug.
Is about 9 or so when you'd expect a child to start Potter? I was thinking a bit older than that. Your example sounds like my niece. She read them but says she wouldn't if she had her time again. Smart girl, she is, and totally on the opposite side of the Trans issue to JKR. Surprised me with her strength of feeling on the matter, and also her knowledge.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Plenty of people a few years younger than me, more in time for when the books were written, still seem fully on board with the universe. The first two Fantastic Beasts films made plenty of money, and new games etc about it seem to do very well, so there seems to be a good audience remaining for new Potter stuff which they can enjoy more as adults. A quick google suggests people are still buying the books too.
So whether people stick with JK the person, particularly if she gets even more into public disputes, remains to be seen, but normal people don't seem to have a problem enjoying her work regardless.
Oh yes the franchise is massive. Very very popular and not just with kids. But how many young people (adults or children) who would have been reading Potter for the 1st time (right about now) are not doing so because of JKR's anti-Trans reputation? This is the specific question I'm posing - and tbf not at all expecting anybody even here on PB to know the answer to.
This post is delusional Kin. I'd suggest you actually get off the internet and into the real world, kids love Harry Potter. Hogwarts Legacy is going to sell 30m+ copies this year and generate over $1.5bn in revenue. It's an absolutely gigantic franchise and it brings in millions of new fans per year. The first book is always in the top 5 kids book sellers per year.
Well, yes, and one thing we can all agree is ... she has NOT been cancelled.
Was Potter on YOUR (single days) dating profile btw?
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
Jesus F Christ. Why not have a go, retired golfer accountant? You’re not exactly busy
Because I need a data grunt type for this sort of thing. But, ok, if you're not up for it. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things. JKR is clearly doing alright with the Potter even if she is attracting fewer new young readers. And that's IF she is - which we don't know.
“Attracting fewer new young readers”
Lol. You’re such a tit
Here is the amazon children’s bestseller list RIGHT NOW
We can safely conclude that Ms Rowling is selling extremely well and your fantasies of her failure due to her gender critical feminism are insane
Fewer than otherwise, lol. It's like saying 2,000,000 people would have bought something but instead only 1,999,999 actually did. The "controversy" is absolutely tiny.
It is an example of how social media can entirely warp perceptions. @Kinabalu might not be the brightest pulsar in the universe, but he’s not remotely stupid, and he genuinely seems to think the Trans-TERF wars might be seriously affecting Potter sales. Completely bonkers
It’s 4.6% of all the people on Twitter who care, who are in turn about 2.1% of the people in the world
I don’t get the number of people sucked in by Raab’s counter narrative.
Everyone has known for a long time that he is a bullying, incompetent shit.
Complaints about him go back to the late noughties. There’s a clip of him calling Keir Starmer a wanker in the House of Commons; Gina Miller says he called her a silly bitch.
Not to mention the alleged superinjunction.
A deeply unpleasant individual, who added nothing. We are well rid.
If he had opinions in line with most civil servants, would the same complaints have been made against him?
You are making a presumption that the particular civil servants who complained did not have opinions in line with him. Is that set out somewhere, that they were politically opposed to him, or is that just his assumption? Who is to say the ones who complained have opinions in line with most civil servants?
The whole point of the civil service, is that they don’t have political opinions, and exist to implement the policies of the government of the day.
One gets the impression that, since 2016, that has not necessarily been the case in many departments, and that ministers have come up against active pushback to the actual policy positions, rather than simply raising issues of implementation.
The Daily Mail and its various credulous adherents get that impression, because they are fed it by incompetent politicos.
Is anyone at all really buying this crap from Raab that he was forced out by plotting remoaner civil servants to thwart his noble mission to 'drive change'?
Apart from all the evidence of him being warned about his behaviour then not changing it and then lying about the warnings etc, surely having a useless idiotic arse like Raab in the cabinet is a big asset to the anti-Brexit fanatics.
I very much admire Rowling’s story and achievement, but I’d view her as slightly right-wing these days, even if she started on the left.
I was too old to get into Harry Potter. It’s possible I’ll read them to my kids, although my eldest (8), who is a precocious reader, affects to be sniffy about them. She prefers a series about two school-girls who solve murders.
I read one of the Robert Galbraith books and it was total gash.
Speaking of huge franchises that have recently failed to develop offshoots and are forced to return to the original characters and settings, Picard series 3 episode 10 dropped this week. With spoilers widely available early Thursday morning but a self-denying ordnance in place until people at Brit pace caught up, we can now talk about it.
And it was...ok. Not bad, and with some very nice bits of character interaction, but it was memberberries all the way. And although they've set up a legacy series going forward, it does feel like it's run its course. Discovery is sputtering to its end, SNW is a tribute band, and I'm wondering "now what".
I now return you to your fantasy series for children
I don’t get the number of people sucked in by Raab’s counter narrative.
Everyone has known for a long time that he is a bullying, incompetent shit.
Complaints about him go back to the late noughties. There’s a clip of him calling Keir Starmer a wanker in the House of Commons; Gina Miller says he called her a silly bitch.
Not to mention the alleged superinjunction.
A deeply unpleasant individual, who added nothing. We are well rid.
If he had opinions in line with most civil servants, would the same complaints have been made against him?
You are making a presumption that the particular civil servants who complained did not have opinions in line with him. Is that set out somewhere, that they were politically opposed to him, or is that just his assumption? Who is to say the ones who complained have opinions in line with most civil servants?
The whole point of the civil service, is that they don’t have political opinions, and exist to implement the policies of the government of the day.
One gets the impression that, since 2016, that has not necessarily been the case in many departments, and that ministers have come up against active pushback to the actual policy positions, rather than simply raising issues of implementation.
The Daily Mail and its various credulous adherents get that impression, because they are fed it by incompetent politicos.
Is anyone at all really buying this crap from Raab that he was forced out by plotting remoaner civil servants to thwart his noble mission to 'drive change'?
Apart from all the evidence of him being warned about his behaviour then not changing it and then lying about the warnings etc, surely having a useless idiotic arse like Raab in the cabinet is a big asset to the anti-Brexit fanatics.
There appear to be many - and a surprising amount on here - who would happily announce that it’s raining while a Tory MP pisses on their leg.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
The people who fell in love with Potter as kids are now parents, and it has become immortal as they are buying it for their kids who will buy it for theirs. The cash will only stop rolling in when it’s public domain in half a century, and even then the machine will have enough trademarked, unique, new Potter related material to be ok.
Most people barely have a clue Rowling is part of a debate on trans-issues, and those that do don’t care as it’s such a minority sport. We on here get very excited by things that pass most by.
I very much admire Rowling’s story and achievement, but I’d view her as slightly right-wing these days, even if she started on the left.
I was too old to get into Harry Potter. It’s possible I’ll read them to my kids, although my eldest (8), who is a precocious reader, affects to be sniffy about them. She prefers a series about two school-girls who solve murders.
I read one of the Robert Galbraith books and it was total gash.
Am I the only one who doesnt care much about Rowling? The only thing of slight interest is the observation that those who get most riled by Lineker talking love a bit of Rowling talking but that hypocrisy is no longer any surprise.
I very much admire Rowling’s story and achievement, but I’d view her as slightly right-wing these days, even if she started on the left.
I was too old to get into Harry Potter. It’s possible I’ll read them to my kids, although my eldest (8), who is a precocious reader, affects to be sniffy about them. She prefers a series about two school-girls who solve murders.
I read one of the Robert Galbraith books and it was total gash.
There’s plenty of left-leaning centrists, that have become rabid right-wingers because of the trans debates.
I very much admire Rowling’s story and achievement, but I’d view her as slightly right-wing these days, even if she started on the left.
I was too old to get into Harry Potter. It’s possible I’ll read them to my kids, although my eldest (8), who is a precocious reader, affects to be sniffy about them. She prefers a series about two school-girls who solve murders.
I read one of the Robert Galbraith books and it was total gash.
Am I the only one who doesnt care much about Rowling? The only thing of slight interest is the observation that those who get most riled by Lineker talking love a bit of Rowling talking but that hypocrisy is no longer any surprise.
I don’t care much about her. I also have no interest in Picard, horse racing, test cricket, F1.
I have a vague interest in Nick Palmer’s threesomes.
I’ve just left my mate’s place and waiting for the bus to Salisbury
I’m now up to seven cans of beer so far today. I’ve run out of beer now but should have about forty five minutes in Salisbury to get to the train and stock up with more
I have been saying the same thing that the chances of RDS running were quite low when you looked at the logic of things. I still stand by my view a DJT-RDS run is very much on the cards. One question will be whether DJT thinks having RDS loses him votes on the abortion issue or reassures the evangelical voters.
I was merely wondering what (if any) impact JKR's rather intense Trans punditry, which is perceived as bigoted by many young people, is having on the number of new young readers coming to her core product, Potter.
It seems to have by equal measure irritated and bemused people - so I suggest we move on.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
Mate, you've got no clue what you're talking about. The average millennial puts their Harry Potter house in their dating profile.
My son did. I came across a dating profile of his (by accident!) and there it was. Potter. Included in a kind of self-dep way, I'd say, but yep it featured.
However, not for the 1st time people are reacting to what they think I'm saying rather than what I am saying. Not sure why this happens so often. I use pretty basic English.
So here, this one, I know Potter is huge, HUGE, and I'm not claiming that JKR is attracting fewer new young readers (to it) than she otherwise would if it weren't for her anti-trans activism. I don't know if she is or she isn't. I was merely wondering about that specific impact.
Hang on. Sorry. Stop. We can’t leave that hanging. What were the circumstances in which you came upon your son’s dating profile. We all need this story now.
I very much admire Rowling’s story and achievement, but I’d view her as slightly right-wing these days, even if she started on the left.
I was too old to get into Harry Potter. It’s possible I’ll read them to my kids, although my eldest (8), who is a precocious reader, affects to be sniffy about them. She prefers a series about two school-girls who solve murders.
I read one of the Robert Galbraith books and it was total gash.
Am I the only one who doesnt care much about Rowling? The only thing of slight interest is the observation that those who get most riled by Lineker talking love a bit of Rowling talking but that hypocrisy is no longer any surprise.
I don’t care much about her. I also have no interest in Picard, horse racing, test cricket, F1.
I have a vague interest in Nick Palmer’s threesomes.
Test Cricket is a fail, unless growing up in a country where it is not played.
I’ve just left my mate’s place and waiting for the bus to Salisbury
I’m now up to seven cans of beer so far today. I’ve run out of beer now but should have about forty five minutes in Salisbury to get to the train and stock up with more
On the bus now
I feel for you. A 30 min gap in an all day session can feel like an age.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
Mate, you've got no clue what you're talking about. The average millennial puts their Harry Potter house in their dating profile.
My son did. I came across a dating profile of his (by accident!) and there it was. Potter. Included in a kind of self-dep way, I'd say, but yep it featured.
However, not for the 1st time people are reacting to what they think I'm saying rather than what I am saying. Not sure why this happens so often. I use pretty basic English.
So here, this one, I know Potter is huge, HUGE, and I'm not claiming that JKR is attracting fewer new young readers (to it) than she otherwise would if it weren't for her anti-trans activism. I don't know if she is or she isn't. I was merely wondering about that specific impact.
Hang on. Sorry. Stop. We can’t leave that hanging. What were the circumstances in which you came upon your son’s dating profile. We all need this story now.
Reminds of a terrifying story I think I saw on Twitter of a young guy who arranged a hook-up on Grindr and realised he was going to meet…his Dad.
I very much admire Rowling’s story and achievement, but I’d view her as slightly right-wing these days, even if she started on the left.
I was too old to get into Harry Potter. It’s possible I’ll read them to my kids, although my eldest (8), who is a precocious reader, affects to be sniffy about them. She prefers a series about two school-girls who solve murders.
I read one of the Robert Galbraith books and it was total gash.
Not read any Galbraith - I've read zero pages of JKR - but I've seen the tv adaptation (Strike) and quite enjoyed that.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
Ordinarily I am very suspicious of reboots and remakes - why not create something new? In this case though, its a good thing.
Two reasons - the franchise remains hugely popular. The films are quite old now, so relaunching it for a new generation has some merit.
More fundamentally, the films were stymied at the start by Chris fucking Columbus making some stupid decisions which hampered the rest of the films. Making Ron an idiot, making it all saccharine and small child friendly, hiding the darkness that clearly was hanging over everything.
A remake that has some umph from the start would be fun.
I wonder if Rowling realises quite how dystopian is the world that she created.
Soul-consumption by the dementors is a form of punishment that is much nastier than even the worst forms of execution. I think even Stalin's executioners might have baulked at it.
Being sent to Azkaban is among the worst forms of torture.
Even sympathetic wizards view non-wizards at best, with patronising contempt. Most of them view them as cattle. That's not just the view of the Death Eaters, it's almost universal. Even Hermione, who is often on the receiving end of some vicious prejudice, has partially internalised those values.
It was never made entirely clear what, exactly, Fenrir Greyback wanted to do to Hermione, but it was horribly suggestive.
Nor was it ever made entirely clear what the centaurs did to Dolores Umbridge, when they carried her off, but Rowling (and her alter ego, Hermione) are familiar with classical literature, and there is one thing that centaurs are very well known for, in classical literature.
So, yes, I'd like the TV series to ramp the horror.
That is a common trend now, to take things relatively innocuous and make them a bit darker. If the underlying work had understated darkness in it to begin with, then all the better - and as you say despite some relatively serious stuff in it Harry Potter was a bit more f*cked up than it seemed to recognise.
Speaking of f*cked up, for some reason the cinema was doing a rescreening of Wall-E of all things today. Utter brilliance that movie. Pixar have made plenty of great movies, but for all the creativity some are more obviously to a formula than others. Wall-E is about as emotionally hard hitting as any film I've seen in my life, and told for a kids film in an unconventional way. I practically had tears at some points.
It should have won Best Picture that year - were Slumdog Millionaire, Benjamin Button, Milk, Frost/Nixon, and The Reader better?
Yes theres dark sruff floating around. On social media there are rumours Russia is fighting this war so hard because ukraine is a global centre of child trafficking with children then being sold to the elite as sex slaves. There is apparently a network of tunnels where the children are kept in Ukraine and this is why Russia is fighting so hard...a battle of good vs evil. Make of it what you will.
OK I will. It's fucking mental.
Presumably the Russians are fighting child trafficking by abducting tens of thousands of children from Ukraine !
What utter crap to portray them as virtuous defenders of abducted children.
Have you noticed that the Russian state accuses people of what they (the Russian state) are doing, again and again?
Isn't that just playbook since the Babylonian Wars?
I don’t get the number of people sucked in by Raab’s counter narrative.
Everyone has known for a long time that he is a bullying, incompetent shit.
Complaints about him go back to the late noughties. There’s a clip of him calling Keir Starmer a wanker in the House of Commons; Gina Miller says he called her a silly bitch.
Not to mention the alleged superinjunction.
A deeply unpleasant individual, who added nothing. We are well rid.
If he had opinions in line with most civil servants, would the same complaints have been made against him?
You are making a presumption that the particular civil servants who complained did not have opinions in line with him. Is that set out somewhere, that they were politically opposed to him, or is that just his assumption? Who is to say the ones who complained have opinions in line with most civil servants?
The whole point of the civil service, is that they don’t have political opinions, and exist to implement the policies of the government of the day.
One gets the impression that, since 2016, that has not necessarily been the case in many departments, and that ministers have come up against active pushback to the actual policy positions, rather than simply raising issues of implementation.
The Daily Mail and its various credulous adherents get that impression, because they are fed it by incompetent politicos.
Is anyone at all really buying this crap from Raab that he was forced out by plotting remoaner civil servants to thwart his noble mission to 'drive change'?
Apart from all the evidence of him being warned about his behaviour then not changing it and then lying about the warnings etc, surely having a useless idiotic arse like Raab in the cabinet is a big asset to the anti-Brexit fanatics.
If he has proper evidence then we should know when the Sunday papers front pages come out.
I very much admire Rowling’s story and achievement, but I’d view her as slightly right-wing these days, even if she started on the left.
I was too old to get into Harry Potter. It’s possible I’ll read them to my kids, although my eldest (8), who is a precocious reader, affects to be sniffy about them. She prefers a series about two school-girls who solve murders.
I read one of the Robert Galbraith books and it was total gash.
She's not in the least bit right wing. She's a massive lefty and a feminist. She just doesn't buy into the one weird TWAW delusion - which I don't see anything particularly left wing about - that so many on the left seem keen to due for.
I very much admire Rowling’s story and achievement, but I’d view her as slightly right-wing these days, even if she started on the left.
I was too old to get into Harry Potter. It’s possible I’ll read them to my kids, although my eldest (8), who is a precocious reader, affects to be sniffy about them. She prefers a series about two school-girls who solve murders.
I read one of the Robert Galbraith books and it was total gash.
Am I the only one who doesnt care much about Rowling? The only thing of slight interest is the observation that those who get most riled by Lineker talking love a bit of Rowling talking but that hypocrisy is no longer any surprise.
I don’t care much about her. I also have no interest in Picard, horse racing, test cricket, F1.
I have a vague interest in Nick Palmer’s threesomes.
Test Cricket is a fail, unless growing up in a country where it is not played.
Even when I was a kid in NZ, 30-40 years ago, it was only enjoyed by men called Neville who, even in the height of summer, wore walk-shorts with socks up to the knees.
They invariably had Yorkshire accents and suffered from eczema and bad dentistry.
I recognise there is something special about Test Cricket but I am now too old I think, and would rather reserve my middle years for a deeper appreciation of jazz, Wagnerian opera, and A Dance to the Music of Time.
I very much admire Rowling’s story and achievement, but I’d view her as slightly right-wing these days, even if she started on the left.
I was too old to get into Harry Potter. It’s possible I’ll read them to my kids, although my eldest (8), who is a precocious reader, affects to be sniffy about them. She prefers a series about two school-girls who solve murders.
I read one of the Robert Galbraith books and it was total gash.
She's not in the least bit right wing. She's a massive lefty and a feminist. She just doesn't buy into the one weird TWAW delusion - which I don't see anything particularly left wing about - that so many on the left seem keen to due for.
She’s a centre leftist who has moved vaguely right. She’s a practicing Episcopalian, who lives in a castle, and her fiction is also comfortably conservative.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
Mate, you've got no clue what you're talking about. The average millennial puts their Harry Potter house in their dating profile.
My son did. I came across a dating profile of his (by accident!) and there it was. Potter. Included in a kind of self-dep way, I'd say, but yep it featured.
However, not for the 1st time people are reacting to what they think I'm saying rather than what I am saying. Not sure why this happens so often. I use pretty basic English.
So here, this one, I know Potter is huge, HUGE, and I'm not claiming that JKR is attracting fewer new young readers (to it) than she otherwise would if it weren't for her anti-trans activism. I don't know if she is or she isn't. I was merely wondering about that specific impact.
Asking questions is not to believe.
I know! Really got more than I bargained for here. It's like one is dissing Rowling merely with the query. Leon seems livid about it.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
Mate, you've got no clue what you're talking about. The average millennial puts their Harry Potter house in their dating profile.
My son did. I came across a dating profile of his (by accident!) and there it was. Potter. Included in a kind of self-dep way, I'd say, but yep it featured.
However, not for the 1st time people are reacting to what they think I'm saying rather than what I am saying. Not sure why this happens so often. I use pretty basic English.
So here, this one, I know Potter is huge, HUGE, and I'm not claiming that JKR is attracting fewer new young readers (to it) than she otherwise would if it weren't for her anti-trans activism. I don't know if she is or she isn't. I was merely wondering about that specific impact.
Asking questions is not to believe.
I know! Really got more than I bargained for here. It's like one is dissing Rowling merely with the query. Leon seems livid about it.
Actually more shocked at your stupidity. I know I often accuse you of being stupid but generally i don’t mean it, particularly. You’re not an actual cretin
But this was real low-watt stuff - which, by the way, you could have disproved all by yourself with a minute of research. Yet you chose not to. Telling
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Plenty of people a few years younger than me, more in time for when the books were written, still seem fully on board with the universe. The first two Fantastic Beasts films made plenty of money, and new games etc about it seem to do very well, so there seems to be a good audience remaining for new Potter stuff which they can enjoy more as adults. A quick google suggests people are still buying the books too.
So whether people stick with JK the person, particularly if she gets even more into public disputes, remains to be seen, but normal people don't seem to have a problem enjoying her work regardless.
Oh yes the franchise is massive. Very very popular and not just with kids. But how many young people (adults or children) who would have been reading Potter for the 1st time (right about now) are not doing so because of JKR's anti-Trans reputation? This is the specific question I'm posing - and tbf not at all expecting anybody even here on PB to know the answer to.
The most vocal Rowling critics it seems to me are people who enjoyed her works as a child and are horrified to see what they view as her hanging out with bigots on social media. I doubt this is cutting through to many 9 year olds getting the reading bug.
A Harry Potter book was the 2nd bestselling kids book in the UK last year. 25 years after being published
I find it very difficult to believe this is adults belatedly coming to her work after being interested in her political opinions. It’s kids reading her for the first time, as she is a classic kids’ author and they famously sell well decade after decade - she is the Enid Blyton of her time (who also sold billions)
Given that the UK is the one place her “controversial” Trans views might be expected to have an impact (the whole debate is way less salient elsewhere, or simply non existent) the fact she is selling as well as ever in the UK proves it is having no effect at all. It is a tiny minority of woke social media people and Hollywood types terrified of being cancelled who create the kerfuffle
There is also the apposite point that her “controversial Trans views” probably coincide with 80% of British views. It is the Trans activists on Twitter who are extreme and out of tune, as Nicola Sturgeon found out to her cost
What about America? Her Trans views would be controversial there, no?
I very much admire Rowling’s story and achievement, but I’d view her as slightly right-wing these days, even if she started on the left.
I was too old to get into Harry Potter. It’s possible I’ll read them to my kids, although my eldest (8), who is a precocious reader, affects to be sniffy about them. She prefers a series about two school-girls who solve murders.
I read one of the Robert Galbraith books and it was total gash.
She's not in the least bit right wing. She's a massive lefty and a feminist. She just doesn't buy into the one weird TWAW delusion - which I don't see anything particularly left wing about - that so many on the left seem keen to due for.
She’s a centre leftist who has moved vaguely right. She’s a practicing Episcopalian, who lives in a castle, and her fiction is also comfortably conservative.
There’s a decent chunk of 80s/90s Scottish Labour that might have Tory in a different world. The Adam Ingram type New Labour minister, often sent to defence and the Home Office. I liked those guys. They were my Labour Party.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Pretty sure she still sells trillions of copies . You could of course Google this for yourself in 3 seconds, but you’re too lazy
“Sales of Harry Potter titles were strong, up 35%. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was the 2nd bestselling children’s book of the year to date on UK Nielsen Bookscan, on the 25th anniversary of its first publication, showing the enduring appeal of this classic series”
WHY are you so lazy and willfully misinformed? It’s somewhat irritating. But, as I have oft said, in keeping with your narrow I’m-an-accountant-and-I-know-what-I-like character
Thanks - and no need for the extras. But this isn't quite enough to conclude that her Trans stuff is not materially impacting the number of new young readers to the Potter oeuvre. A bit more digging and analysis is required for that. I wonder if anyone has done it?
Jesus F Christ. Why not have a go, retired golfer accountant? You’re not exactly busy
Because I need a data grunt type for this sort of thing. But, ok, if you're not up for it. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things. JKR is clearly doing alright with the Potter even if she is attracting fewer new young readers. And that's IF she is - which we don't know.
“Attracting fewer new young readers”
Lol. You’re such a tit
Here is the amazon children’s bestseller list RIGHT NOW
Apparently, 42 ambulance service response vehicles, that cost £72k each, comes out as £31m rather than £3.1m. The story’s been up for 20 hours, and still not been corrected.
The Telegraph needs decent sub editors. In yesterday's Tele there was a story about the sister of the Reading headteacher who committed suicide after an Ofsted report, criticising the organisation. The headline referred to"sister of late Epsom head". It had confused the story about the head who was murdered by her husband with the one about the head who killed herself.
I very much admire Rowling’s story and achievement, but I’d view her as slightly right-wing these days, even if she started on the left.
I was too old to get into Harry Potter. It’s possible I’ll read them to my kids, although my eldest (8), who is a precocious reader, affects to be sniffy about them. She prefers a series about two school-girls who solve murders.
I read one of the Robert Galbraith books and it was total gash.
Am I the only one who doesnt care much about Rowling? The only thing of slight interest is the observation that those who get most riled by Lineker talking love a bit of Rowling talking but that hypocrisy is no longer any surprise.
I don’t care much about her. I also have no interest in Picard, horse racing, test cricket, F1.
I have a vague interest in Nick Palmer’s threesomes.
Test Cricket is a fail, unless growing up in a country where it is not played.
Even when I was a kid in NZ, 30-40 years ago, it was only enjoyed by men called Neville who, even in the height of summer, wore walk-shorts with socks up to the knees.
They invariably had Yorkshire accents and suffered from eczema and bad dentistry.
I recognise there is something special about Test Cricket but I am now too old I think, and would rather reserve my middle years for a deeper appreciation of jazz, Wagnerian opera, and A Dance to the Music of Time.
About 15 or so years ago we were touring NZ and took a coach tour of the North East area. Most of the rest of the passengers were Aussies. At a stop one of the men came up to me “you two Poms?”. I admitted to it. “Can’t be” he said. “You’re wearing shorts and sandals without socks.”
I very much admire Rowling’s story and achievement, but I’d view her as slightly right-wing these days, even if she started on the left.
I was too old to get into Harry Potter. It’s possible I’ll read them to my kids, although my eldest (8), who is a precocious reader, affects to be sniffy about them. She prefers a series about two school-girls who solve murders.
I read one of the Robert Galbraith books and it was total gash.
She's not in the least bit right wing. She's a massive lefty and a feminist. She just doesn't buy into the one weird TWAW delusion - which I don't see anything particularly left wing about - that so many on the left seem keen to due for.
Yes, I agree. I don't see anything much right-wing about JK Rowling at all, and am sure we'd disagree on many things.
She just doesn't buy into Trans dogma, that's all.
I very much admire Rowling’s story and achievement, but I’d view her as slightly right-wing these days, even if she started on the left.
I was too old to get into Harry Potter. It’s possible I’ll read them to my kids, although my eldest (8), who is a precocious reader, affects to be sniffy about them. She prefers a series about two school-girls who solve murders.
I read one of the Robert Galbraith books and it was total gash.
She's not in the least bit right wing. She's a massive lefty and a feminist. She just doesn't buy into the one weird TWAW delusion - which I don't see anything particularly left wing about - that so many on the left seem keen to due for.
Yes, I agree. I don't see anything much right-wing about JK Rowling at all, and am sure we'd disagree on many things.
She just doesn't buy into Trans dogma, that's all.
To be fair, you classify certain types of meat as left wing, so you’re not a terribly reliable arbiter.
Apparently, 42 ambulance service response vehicles, that cost £72k each, comes out as £31m rather than £3.1m. The story’s been up for 20 hours, and still not been corrected.
The Telegraph needs decent sub editors. In yesterday's Tele there was a story about the sister of the Reading headteacher who committed suicide after an Ofsted report, criticising the organisation. The headline referred to"sister of late Epsom head". It had confused the story about the head who was murdered by her husband with the one about the head who killed herself.
Promotional initiative by Ford, perhaps? It's probably more like 1.5m than 3.1m.
The Telegraph morons have just taken the highest RRP in the range and multiplied it up.
Why does the one in the pic look as if it has been T-boned?
(And why is it on a double-yellow rather than the parking space next to it? It's not obviously on a call that gives an exception.)
I very much admire Rowling’s story and achievement, but I’d view her as slightly right-wing these days, even if she started on the left.
I was too old to get into Harry Potter. It’s possible I’ll read them to my kids, although my eldest (8), who is a precocious reader, affects to be sniffy about them. She prefers a series about two school-girls who solve murders.
I read one of the Robert Galbraith books and it was total gash.
She's not in the least bit right wing. She's a massive lefty and a feminist. She just doesn't buy into the one weird TWAW delusion - which I don't see anything particularly left wing about - that so many on the left seem keen to due for.
Yes, I agree. I don't see anything much right-wing about JK Rowling at all, and am sure we'd disagree on many things.
She just doesn't buy into Trans dogma, that's all.
To be fair, you classify certain types of meat as left wing, so you’re not a terribly reliable arbiter.
Aside from the trans issue, as far as I recall JKR is/was somewhat left of Blair. In fact, I think, left of Brown.
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Dreadful news, which I feel duty bound to share. Activists in my mentions are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I've taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
Have to appreciate the top tier trolling by JK Rowling here.
That TV show is easily going to be the most viewed premium production around the world while it's running. It's a shame that we're going to be stuck with watching it on Sky or NowTV which won't have it in proper 4K.
If people just stuck to moaning about her they might be more effective. Trying to organise boycotts of massively popular entertainment franchises are setting up for failure and makes them look silly.
I do know someone who used to be a fan of the series but now seems conflicted about it because they describe JK as problematic (they also no longer rewatch Friends, which they used to love). We can reflect that some of the things we enjoyed once might not be what we'd agree with now, or dislike the creator, but it seems to cause an unreasonable level of anxiety for some.
"Problematic" is one of those pseudo-intellectual terms that I wish would just vanish. People end up criticising works not on the basis of whether they're good or bad, but whether or not they conform to their political outlook. Art should never be the servant of politics.
I was never into Friends, seeing it as completely anodyne. If someone can't watch something so innocuous, I imagine they'd have conniptions if they ever saw Blazing Saddles or The Producers.
I think the concept of 'problematisation' is often linked to Foucault, and deconstruction. It could be explained as being representative of a cultural tendency towards inaction in the face of complexity, or just intellectual laziness.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on here bothering to describe works as problematic, right wing ‘woke gone mad’ types getting exercised about problematisation otoh..
The Gone With the Wind censorship frenzy was a classic of the type.
Lots of antiwokies seem to have discovered a love for the Harry Potter franchise. I smell a rat.
I’m sure that many of her more ‘mature’ fans fitting a particular political template is entirely coincidental.
On the transitioning rightwards as one gets older thing, I wonder how many of her younger fans are influenced by Rowling’s twitter noisiness, and will they be Rowlingers for life?
The Potters aren't the sort of thing you stay with as an adult, I wouldn't have thought. Although I confess I haven't read any. Seen a couple of the films and liked them well enough.
It'd be interesting to know how many new young readers JKR is attracting these days. Her anti-trans/pro-biology (delete to taste) stance is at odds with younger people but does this turn them off the books? Don't know.
Plenty of people a few years younger than me, more in time for when the books were written, still seem fully on board with the universe. The first two Fantastic Beasts films made plenty of money, and new games etc about it seem to do very well, so there seems to be a good audience remaining for new Potter stuff which they can enjoy more as adults. A quick google suggests people are still buying the books too.
So whether people stick with JK the person, particularly if she gets even more into public disputes, remains to be seen, but normal people don't seem to have a problem enjoying her work regardless.
Oh yes the franchise is massive. Very very popular and not just with kids. But how many young people (adults or children) who would have been reading Potter for the 1st time (right about now) are not doing so because of JKR's anti-Trans reputation? This is the specific question I'm posing - and tbf not at all expecting anybody even here on PB to know the answer to.
The most vocal Rowling critics it seems to me are people who enjoyed her works as a child and are horrified to see what they view as her hanging out with bigots on social media. I doubt this is cutting through to many 9 year olds getting the reading bug.
A Harry Potter book was the 2nd bestselling kids book in the UK last year. 25 years after being published
I find it very difficult to believe this is adults belatedly coming to her work after being interested in her political opinions. It’s kids reading her for the first time, as she is a classic kids’ author and they famously sell well decade after decade - she is the Enid Blyton of her time (who also sold billions)
Given that the UK is the one place her “controversial” Trans views might be expected to have an impact (the whole debate is way less salient elsewhere, or simply non existent) the fact she is selling as well as ever in the UK proves it is having no effect at all. It is a tiny minority of woke social media people and Hollywood types terrified of being cancelled who create the kerfuffle
There is also the apposite point that her “controversial Trans views” probably coincide with 80% of British views. It is the Trans activists on Twitter who are extreme and out of tune, as Nicola Sturgeon found out to her cost
What about America? Her Trans views would be controversial there, no?
Her video game, Hogwarts legacy, which was boycotted because her views, has been an enormous success.
Indeed, the boycott will probably emboldened others: simply, the financial consequences of "standing up" to the trans lobby clearly aren't that severe.
Comments
Then you could bot away for hours, and you would programme the bot to only get slowly Putinist, or to do it fast for more impact, or whatever
I find it genuinely hard to believe the Kremlin is paying hard roubles to human trolls and bots to be this consistently terrible: so bad they always get banned within twenty minutes
So whether people stick with JK the person, particularly if she gets even more into public disputes, remains to be seen, but normal people don't seem to have a problem enjoying her work regardless.
One gets the impression that, since 2016, that has not necessarily been the case in many departments, and that ministers have come up against active pushback to the actual policy positions, rather than simply raising issues of implementation.
Isn't the simplest explanation for all the talk of Raab being an awful boss that he was an awful boss?
There is no direct mention of barn or stable, or of course animals (donkey, sheep, cows). This is presumed from the words "Because there was no room for them in the inn".
I think the author (Luke - a genius by the way) intended to mean there was no birthing room, so a manger did service for a cot/crib/incubator/Moses basket.
But please don't tell the Infant School, the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury. Or the Daily Mail. And don't tell them that the likely historicity of all this is approximately Zero.
And I don't think it is absurd to suggest there may have been some level of pushback. But if you go in with the view that everyone is an enemy, as some in government do, you end up with a self fulfilling prophecy about pushback and resistance.
But how big an issue is it, really? I'd take pride in being able to do a good job even if the policy idea was not one I thought was a good idea. There are a lot of Ministers and a lot of civil servants, and politicians are not shy about blaming civil service obstruction - it is not ony this government that has used the line before - and yet I'm to believe this particular area is particulaly activist?
Just look at the whole pile of sh!t that Budweiser has got itself into in the US at the moment, when a young lady marketing manager decided that alienating their core customer demographic was a good idea. She’s now ‘taking a leave of absence’, as their sales are reportedly down 20% this month.
While older ones like me, who think the books are pretty thin and lengthy think JKR is great because she has sense and courage and is normal, and is a proper old fashioned liberal feminist even if volumes four to seven are several hundred pages too long. (I have daughters and grandchildren so reading this stuff - and the films - is/was pretty much compulsory. Agony by the end.)
I find it very difficult to believe this is adults belatedly coming to her work after being interested in her political opinions. It’s kids reading her for the first time, as she is a classic kids’ author and they famously sell well decade after decade - she is the Enid Blyton of her time (who also sold billions)
Given that the UK is the one place her “controversial” Trans views might be expected to have an impact (the whole debate is way less salient elsewhere, or simply non existent) the fact she is selling as well as ever in the UK proves it is having no effect at all. It is a tiny minority of woke social media people and Hollywood types terrified of being cancelled who create the kerfuffle
There is also the apposite point that her “controversial Trans views” probably coincide with 80% of British views. It is the Trans activists on Twitter who are extreme and out of tune, as Nicola Sturgeon found out to her cost
The new nationalism is just as hard to spot in Britain’s politics. It is often taken as a given that English nationalism was the driver of Britain leaving the eu. England makes up 85% of the country’s population and, lo, it contributed 87% of the Leave vote. But English votes were not enough to win the referendum in 2016. Leave-supporting Scots (38% of Scottish voters) were needed, too. A majority of voters in Wales voted to depart…..
English nationalism is absent because there is no need for it. Nationalism flourishes when people feel thwarted. But what England wants, England gets. England, usually, prefers a Conservative government and so Britain, usually, has one. England wanted out of the eu, and Britain did leave. Having your own way is not a recipe for resentment. So on St George’s Day, do the most English thing of all: forget about England. It still has not spoken yet.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/04/19/if-english-nationalism-is-on-the-rise-no-one-has-told-the-english
The Conservative Party has invited people to apply for selection for the following five new seats:
Bicester & Woodstock
Earley & Woodley
Eltham & Chislehurst
Isle of Wight East
Kingston-upon-Hull West & Hessle
Can anyone advise me on who is likely to apply for these seats?
https://twitter.com/tomorrowsmps/status/1649773973817663489?s=20
So the kids of 9, 10, 11 get Harry Potter for birthdays and Xmas. I doubt 5% of these adults worry about the “Trans-TERF wars”. It’s absurd
However, not for the 1st time people are reacting to what they think I'm saying rather than what I am saying. Not sure why this happens so often. I use pretty basic English.
So here, this one, I know Potter is huge, HUGE, and I'm not claiming that JKR is attracting fewer new young readers (to it) than she otherwise would if it weren't for her anti-trans activism. I don't know if she is or she isn't. I was merely wondering about that specific impact.
Suspect the vanishingly small proportion who views JKR as 'problematic' very rarely have kids.
Personally, I find JKR achingly and slightly irritatingly left wing, with her universe of toff-and-suburban baddies vs public sector working goodies. But I wouldn't go calling for boycotts or death threats.
If there had been such a thing as dating profiles during the period when I was mid 20s-late 30s and I had required one, encountering references to books I'd liked as a kid would have put me right off.
'I'm a hot wood elf of the House of Finarfin...'
SWIPE LEFT
Lol. You’re such a tit
Here is the amazon children’s bestseller list RIGHT NOW
Of the top 20, 8 are Harry Potter
Phenomenal
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Sellers-Children's-Books/zgbs/books/69
We can safely conclude that Ms Rowling is selling extremely well and your fantasies of her failure due to her gender critical feminism are insane
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/21/london-ambulances-31m-electric-cars-paramedic-pay-dispute/
“Ambulance service spends £31m on Mustangs”
Apparently, 42 ambulance service response vehicles, that cost £72k each, comes out as £31m rather than £3.1m. The story’s been up for 20 hours, and still not been corrected.
I was reminded again that from 2010 to 2019, Britain was ruled by a small and largely stable coterie: Cameron, Osborne, Hague, May and Hammond, Gove.
I have doubts about all of those characters, but I also recognise each of them as significant figures.
Obviously 2016 was the turning point at which governance broadly started to deteriorate. This can be measured in ministerial turnover, parliamentary rebellion, and polling volatility.
But until May was finally ousted, it was to some extent the same regime.
Since 2019 we’ve had the incredible mayhem of Johnson, Raab, Cummings, Patel, Truss, Zahawi, Kwarteng, and Braverman. Nutters and chancers all.
The question is, is Rishi Sunak the vaguely plausible fag end of the crazy. Or is he the beginning of something else - the Sunak - Hunt - Dowden imperium?
One one hand, to lose three key ministers in six months speaks to his poor ability to pick a cabinet. On the other, they were all obvious barnacles to be scraped. Only Braverman remains who is notably loony.
Was Potter on YOUR (single days) dating profile btw?
It’s 4.6% of all the people on Twitter who care, who are in turn about 2.1% of the people in the world
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/22/inside-the-collapse-of-ron-desantis-presidential-campaign/
Apart from all the evidence of him being warned about his behaviour then not changing it and then lying about the warnings etc, surely having a useless idiotic arse like Raab in the cabinet is a big asset to the anti-Brexit fanatics.
I was too old to get into Harry Potter. It’s possible I’ll read them to my kids, although my eldest (8), who is a precocious reader, affects to be sniffy about them. She prefers a series about two school-girls who solve murders.
I read one of the Robert Galbraith books and it was total gash.
Seems like perfect complement to "Dominic Raab martyred by Woke anti-'bullying' smears" line.
IF you are a Tory-Putinist Wack-job.
And it was...ok. Not bad, and with some very nice bits of character interaction, but it was memberberries all the way. And although they've set up a legacy series going forward, it does feel like it's run its course. Discovery is sputtering to its end, SNW is a tribute band, and I'm wondering "now what".
I now return you to your fantasy series for children
Most people barely have a clue Rowling is part of a debate on trans-issues, and those that do don’t care as it’s such a minority sport. We on here get very excited by things that pass most by.
The Tories aren’t yet the Republicans.
Yet.
I also have no interest in Picard, horse racing, test cricket, F1.
I have a vague interest in Nick Palmer’s threesomes.
I’m now up to seven cans of beer so far today. I’ve run out of beer now but should have about forty five minutes in Salisbury to get to the train and stock up with more
On the bus now
It seems to have by equal measure irritated and bemused people - so I suggest we move on.
🤢😵💫🤢
They invariably had Yorkshire accents and suffered from eczema and bad dentistry.
I recognise there is something special about Test Cricket but I am now too old I think, and would rather reserve my middle years for a deeper appreciation of jazz, Wagnerian opera, and A Dance to the Music of Time.
But this was real low-watt stuff - which, by the way, you could have disproved all by yourself with a minute of research. Yet you chose not to. Telling
All gone now.
She just doesn't buy into Trans dogma, that's all.
The Telegraph morons have just taken the highest RRP in the range and multiplied it up.
Why does the one in the pic look as if it has been T-boned?
(And why is it on a double-yellow rather than the parking space next to it? It's not obviously on a call that gives an exception.)
Indeed, the boycott will probably emboldened others: simply, the financial consequences of "standing up" to the trans lobby clearly aren't that severe.