HONESTLY!!! so sad when you think what kind of an impact a globally-acclaimed author like herself could have made for progress in inclusion... such a missed opportunity
Love that I found you in my recommended videos for the Onceler video and your Supernatural season rot video literally today AFTER having this exact conversation of how JKR really sucks as a person and how I'm choosing to do the same thing I do as a fan of HPL's Cthulu mythos and "Eldrich Horror" while fucking loathing HPL and his shitty personality.
If you draw a circle someone might interpret your circle to not be a perfect circle which obviously stands for the imperfections omnipresent in Human Creation and how the artist is trying to make a point on how humans ever strife for perfection but often dont succed or even noticed that they have in fact not reached it yet. Is it still a circle? A square? Or maybe just overanalyzed bs? I think both believes have their merits and can be nonsensical in certain situations.
@@realstonehead3436 That's a lot of words to say nothing. No offense. I know you're trying to sounds smart or make a witty remark, but honestly, less is more.
@Anon Ymous I am just saying that beeing only in one camp wont help and I wasnt trying to just "sound" smart. I just wanted to show how some interpretations can be bs in order to showcase that sometimes the authors intent should be listened to. Ps didnt expect anyone to read this anyway :P
@@theclawless1225 haha I just meant the person who posted the original comment had never played KH if it wasn't the #1 series in their heart. I like it very much is all I meant. Having said that, I replayed it for the first time in a long time recently, and a lot of the enjoyment I got out of it was just being a child and not knowing how silly some things are
This is a spectacular video. I was engrossed the whole way through. I don't think I've ever watched an entire 30min+ video without speeding it up or skipping... except for this one. You are so well-spoken and the way you discuss things is informative and really interesting :)
Ok, hear me out now. Fan fic where Bellatrix Lestrange decides to write a book about a trans sorting hat that dresses as a bonnet to commit murders due to family issues. But Bellatrix assures everyone that she wants hats to love whomever they want to. And she's not transphobic, she just bought that badge saying "Fuck your pronouns" because she thought it was neat.
Actually that brings up an interesting question. Did Hogwarts always have flush toilets and a modern sewer system or was it renovated; and if it was renovated how did they not find the massive secret snake pit under the bathroom sinks?
@@admiralgaius9796 The book implies that the plumbing and secret cavern were there since the initial build. Salazar most likely would have had to fight the other three tooth and nail to incorporate a muggle-style plumbing system. The others were all for taking dumps on the floor and making it disappear.
"The fans already know he's gay, it would be redundant to bring it up in fantastic beasts" "The fans already know Harry's a wizard so no more magic, that would be redundant"
Yeah she just said that because the fantastic beasts director didn't want Dumbledore to be gay and she had no way to explain why her "gay" character is straight in the movie
Hey, remember that time Pottermore stated that Wizards used to defecate anywhere they wanted and they would use magic to make their crap magically disappear?
Sarah Z Ahhh, me too. I think it’s best if JK Rowling just stops messing with the HP storyline and cuts ties with it. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it you know?
Yesss. And I actually do think someone (weren't other people writing with JK? So it didn't have to be her) watched musicals and thought hmm there's is something about this
What Rowling could have said: "Overall, I did a really shoddy job of including diverse and canonical representations of people of color in Harry Potter. I tried to create a world where anyone could be anything, and I inadvertently excluded some people from that world. Although that wasn't the intent of my actions, I cannot ignore that it was the result. Going forward I will do better, and looking back I will consider my work with fresh eyes. Anyone can be Hermione." What Rowling actually said: "I nEVeR SAid sHe waSN't blACK"
honestly, that would have been the best way to say it, it's clear, informative and shows Rowling is understanding and willing to grow the only problem is it doesn't fit in a tweet...which we all know she's awesome at
There was never any need to clear anything up in the first place, most characters in HP are Caucasian, so what? Most people in Britain are Caucasian, where's the controversy again? The books didn't take place in Nigeria or something.
@@madmusic341 the problem that is the only east asian character's name is cho chang (cho isn't even a name btw), the main irish character's primary character trait is making things blow up, the main black character doesn't know his blood status because his dad left when he was a baby, the bank is run by greedy, sneaky, hooknosed goblins, etc oh also she's a terf
I think that that was more because there was no description of her before she became a prominent character, so the movie people casted her, then when she became more important, she was given a description, and they had to change her actor to match.
Jowling K Rowling: *rolls dice* Peeves was actually *throws dart at board* a metaphor for *spins game-show wheel* Rodney King and the 1992 LA riots the whole time definitely
She could've talked about Dumbledore's sexuality in the books, easily. Rita Skeeter literally writes a book about his secrets, including the possibility of him having accidentally killed his own sister, but nothing about a torrid romance with magical Hitler?
D'you hear about the one between Hogwarts Castle and the Giant Squid? It exists. Pretty well written, too if I remember correctly but not something I'll read more than once. And even that once was just to say I did...
@@wolfjackle I saw a Voldemort/Giant Squid once! I don't remember the content but I remember reading it just for the shear delight of it existing. I still laugh thinking about it.
wolfjackle YES! I remember that. I don't think anyone could forget that - like, it had to do with the squid having sex with one of the towers or something right? Along with Draco/Apple and those few Hermione/Peeves ones, though admittedly Hermione gets paired with EVERYONE. And I vaguely recall something about the Whomping Willow - was it with the flying car? HP smut fanfiction yo, lol.
JK Rowling: "White skin was never specified!" Also JK Rowling: "Hermione's white face poked out from behind a tree" Also also JK Rowling: consistently draws her as a white character Also also also JK Rowling: has her illustrated as white on all her books and on Pottermore Also also also also JK Rowling: has a large part in casting a white actress to play her And then there's her often blushing bright pink or red, being described as "a panda" when she has a black eye, specifying that she looked "very brown" after getting a tan on holiday, which wouldn't have been remarked upon if she was naturally brown or black, AND she said Hermione was based on herself when she was younger. This has nothing to do with being leftist or right wing, it has everything to do with her totally bullshitting her way through this stuff to try and paint herself as this woke, progressive author that she just isn't.
She said that to allow people to imagine Hermione their own way, a pov or a whatever skin colour. People making these kind of arguments look retarted to me..
@@ipercalisse579 Oh, people can imagine her however they want, I totally agree. I don't have a problem with Hermione being protrayed as black. Or Harry as Indian, as has become popular recently. Like I said above, my problem is with Joanne retconning the story to try and make it seem like she was this super inclusive author the entire time. Why, Dumbledore was gay and Hermione's whiteness was never specified! Except that Dumbledore was never protrayed that way, and Hermione's skin colour was specified and then doubled down upon with every creative decision JK ever made. It's like she wants the Good Boy Points of having been inclusive without putting any of the work in. A simple, "I am totally on board with Hermione being reimagined as black!" would have been cool, it's the claim that "oh, that was actually the case the entire time!" that grinds my gears.
Not that I disagree that Hermonie was supposed to be white. However, some black people can blush red or pink. Some of us also get "brown" when tanning. It depends on what your natural complexion is.
@@viviannovelo6166 got any source for that? only thing I heard was that she supports a british researcher who was fired last year for saying biological sex (as in the XX or XY chromosomes) can't be changed and ultra progressives went ballistic. I dislike rowling for a couple of reasons, yet transphobia isn't among them. unless there's another incident I don't know off or you can explain why the existence of biological sex is transphobic in the first place.
You assume that I wouldn't want to watch a four-hour critique of J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter, but you would be wrong lmao. I would absolutely watch that.
Yeah. I can totally get why she wouldn’t want to make that (I can’t even imagine how un-fun that would be to make), but I can’t fathom how she thinks no one would want to see that.
If Rowling wanted Snape to be viewed as a flawed hero, she should have been more careful to write him that way. I agree that Snape’s behavior towards Harry and Neville is an abuse of power, and straight up paints him as a morally bankrupt human being.
Not just harry and neville. He was horrible to herimone too. When draco gIves herimone huge beaver buck teeth. Snape coldly says I see no difference. I hate snape and don't see him as a flawed hero that Rowling wants people to see him as
also the only reason he joined the order was bc Lily died and he was sad bc the girl he called a mudblood died. and I do agree with people on the point that if Neville were the ‘chosen one’ he would still be a death eater. his only motivation was a one-sided high school crush on a girl that he was horrible to. but he is ‘flawed and actually a good guy’ also the fact that a boggart’s purpose is to show somebody’s greatest fear (spiders, voldemort, Sirius, snakes, dead loved ones, etcetera) and Neville sees Snape is just so messed up. ;like sure, we’ve all had bad teachers, but are they our worst fears (and in a world where Voldemort has killed, and from a boy who’s parents were so tortured by Bellatrix Lestrange that they went mad) in the entire world? ;and he was so rude to everyone in their first year. ;we’re talking about literal children. ;he was horrible to everyone, and jk wants us to view him in a positive light. (I didn’t have time to proof read this, so sorry in advance lol) by the way, I love your points about abuse of power, which isn’t commonly brought up in snape arguments, at least from what I’ve seen. EDIT: i hadn’t finished the video when I wrote this, so please forgive me for any repeated points. ::))) thanks :)
Yep. Rowling clearly didn't think any of this through: Why is it even good spying for the double agent to behave so openly bigoted?! Isn't his narrative that he's fooling Dumbledore by pretending to be good? If I were Voldemort I'd have a lot of questions about Snape's openly hateful behaviour: "Why the fuck does Dumbledore trust you, like, at all?!" There's also the flawed narrative of the "poor" Snape being horrendously bullied for no reason by the Marauders, which doesn't work entirely: We are - for some reason - supposed to forget that Snape (enthusiastically) joined the Death Eaters, who's main platform was killing or enslaving Muggleborns like Snape's supposedly best friend Lily. There's also the assault of Mary McDonald by Mulciber (who specialized in the imperius, I shudder to think what he did to her), which Snape thinks was "a laugh". As my final point there's the labeling of Snape's possessive obsession with Lily as some kind of wonderful portrayal of love, which is just, no! Try to think of a person that you truly and deeply love or care for. Now imagine they had a child, who was loved by them deeply, but is now an orphan. How would you treat that child?! Would you spit on the memory&wishes of the person you care for and treat their child poorly just because the kid reminds you of their long dead husband? "I didn't get the girl, therefore I will mistreat her progeny!" It's just such a wonderful love that Snape has for Lily, amazing!
Snape was an asshole it's true but that was known. Even when James was making fun of him as a child when Lily tries to help he calls her a mudblood. He has irrational anger and it's because of being made fun of his whole life. Snape isn't just an asshole though if you think about it. Even though he hated James he honored the fact that James saved his life once. Even though Lily hated him he cared about her enough to give his whole life to Dumbledore to be a spy for him against Voldemort. Being a major part of how Voldemort ended up gone by giving Harry the information to end it all. He is severely flawed but a hero nonetheless.
31:31 the "Snape projected his hatred and jealousy of James onto Harry" tweet as a defense of Snape is wild. Why yes, projecting your hatred and jealousy of a classmate you didn't like 20 years ago onto his 11-year-old son DOES make you a bad guy!
right? like in what universe is hating a child bc u wanted his mom back in high school and she married a different dude and had him instead a sympathetic motivation? like, even if u just hate the kid bc hes a snotnosed little smartmouth that at least has smth to do with him as opposed to resenting and bullying him for old drama he wasnt even alive for
I never understood how people saw a grown man talking out his hatred of a man who had bullied him as a teenager on a literal eleven-year-old boy as somehow being okay. And even then, what about literally every other child in Hogwarts? What did THEY do wrong for Snape to be awful to them? What did Neville do wrong? Snape was an immature, selfish man-child and was never actually a good man, he just didn't let the child of the woman he had been hung up on for years even after she wanted nothing to do with him, had a husband and DIED a decade ago, get murdered by evil that adults (including Snape) should've protected him from because HE WAS A CHILD.
Gay representation in the 21st century: - Um, Gaston’s henchmen whose name literally translates to “the fool” is gay...but like, not too gay...he just has jokes about him and Gaston’s relationships that can be read as them being lovers...and I guess he dances with...a man...by accident...in one frame of the movie... YOU’RE WELCOME, LGBTQ COMMUNITY!!! - Dumbledore gay but, y’know, let’s never say it in the actual work...THIS IS THE REPRESENTATION YOU CRAVE!!!
@@spirithawk6580 pottermore twitter published that wizards and witches didint use toilets at first but when they would GO they would just use a spell to remove it. It stated that they later started to use muggle ways to go to the toilet. Basically they grossed everybody out with non important facts.
I actually find it really disturbing that so many people are so receptive to this comment on this channel in particular. You know, not too long ago, for some reason RU-vid's algorithm recommended to me a video of a little white girl who was asked by a cashier why she wanted a black doll. Evidently the news made a big deal out of it because it went viral on social media. I must admit, on premise I was skeptical that it even happened, but after reading this I'm not sure why I was.
@@futurestoryteller The black Hermione issue is not that black actress is playing her in the Cursed Child or literally anywhere in any iteration of the story. It should probably be taken as the norm and I would be trilled if it does. The problem is her claiming it's been true in the books when there were literally descriptions of her pale or white face in the text and not in the context of shock or fear. That's giving a rich white woman an honor she doesn't deserve by going along with her supposition that "she never specified Hermione's race" and she always meant to be a minority, it wasn't hard to actually do the right thing but she didn't and wants credit for it.
@@HotaruRea I've had this conversation too many times. I'm not going to sit here and pretend to be swayed by Rowling's late stage assertions, but I'm not going to pretend to be psychic either. Skin color is just not the determinative factor of race in the west. Most of the black women I worked with were as white as I am.
When you Google this you instantly get a website that insists definitive proof of Hermione, an entirely fictional character's, race because of how they _perceive_ Rowling's initial drawing of her.... Stating that the description of Hermione as "very brown" in context suggests she got a tan over summer. So let's back up here. Her racial background is not discussed, her skin color is described as both pale, and brown, at different points, and she has wild frizzy hair. Has it ever occured to *_anyone_* that Hermione is mixed race? Biracial. "Black" _because_ she's mixed. I can't imagine how mixed-race heritage relates in any way to Hermione's character, can you? That's a real headscratcher...
@@adiveler Well, actually she's already gotten herself involved in this conflict since she's making those types of comments, except she's on the side that's commiting genocide lol.
Can we acknowledge the fact that the "candy from the trolley" lady I canonically an immortal demon who tries to murder students for sneaking off the train? Like, I know she didn't write that. But. It's there.
I’ve sort of suppressed all knowledge of that book. Everything outside of the first seven books (with the possible exception of the first Fantastic Beasts movie) is just so strange that it seems to make up its own separate canon.
I remember reading that scene and half-hoping/half-expecting it to be another of Harry's dreams. Why can't the old lady who gives treats just be a sweet old lady who gives kids treats? Why does she need to be a murderous demon who punishes students with death if they try to get off the train? How would Hogwarts even explain that to the parents of the dead child? "Oh, sorry Mr and Mrs Thompson. Bobby was feeling a little train-sick and wanted to get off the train, so our immortal demon killed her. Oopsie!" It definitely makes the wizarding world seem a lot less magical than it should be :/
I got to admit even if she didn't originally plan it making the lady on the train who was selling sweets into some sort of monster that catches child who try to escape the train was actually not that bad of an idea or at the very least it was not as bad as all of that SJWish stuff that J.K Rowling tried to insert after the fact.
Rowling: Wizards used to crap wherever and magic it away. Fans: Absolutely not. That is not canon. A bunch of college kids who spent most of their musical budget on a giant candy bar: Hufflepuffs are particularly good finders. Fans: Yes. Accepted as canon.
They actually didn't buy the candy bar if I remember correctly. In one of their livestreams I think they said somebody gave it to one of their parents but they didn't want it so they gave it to the starkid, who also didn't want it, so they used it as a prop.
@@fortunatecookie probably spanish speakers as myself, since seeker in Spanish is "buscador" that can be translated back as "finder"... It's just my guess.
J.K. Rowling embodies what I like to call "Suicide of the Author", when an author shows so little respect for their own work that they effectively torpedo any credibility their Authorial Intent would have.
"J.K. Rowling embodies what I like to call "Suicide of the Author"," Love it! I think authorial intent should be the default interpretation unless there is solid reason not to trust this interpretation.
@@EinFelsbrocken Guy has so little faith in his own stories that he sells the rights for a one-time payout then gets butthurt when people who _do_ care turn it into a critically acclaimed billion dollar franchise!
I still love Harry Potter and I still admire J.K. Rowling. What she's done with her life. BUT I don't care about her shit she says about Harry Potter universe, so I don't look it up. I don't follow her on Twitter. I don't seek articles about it. I don't go to Pottermore. I keep the image of her story as it was delivered to me when I was 9. And you know what? I am so happy with that.
Yes, me, too. She's destroying her credibility. I just hate that she feels the need to recreate the characters to fit her agenda today, which is also evident in Fantastic Beasts.
I’ve just thought, after years of people demanding to know, “What happens next? What happened during?? What else do we not know about the characters???” it seems perfectly logical that she’d start dishing ridiculous stuff to throw people off. So when I see this disingenuous meme get kicked around... * * * * * * Nobody: * * * Absolutely Nobody: * * * JK Rowling: Dumbledore had a wild sex life! * * * ...I call BS. Have I validated this conjecture? Nope. For the sake of integrity, should I? Maybe, but that would go against abstaining from the JKR clickbait. In my corner of the communications profession, I do see the all the memes, as well as when something noteworthy happens. If Rowling spends an afternoon with children battling terminal illnesses, I’ll cave and read about it, because I’m a total sucker for wholesome news. Going down the rabbit hole of all the things that others have the bandwidth for (not to mention A/V talents that I lack)? I’m gonna just agree with everyone in this thread. I’m much happier keeping all that info at a stiff arm’s length.
"This video is a metaphor for the Cuban Missile Crisis." Alright, getting to work. The Harry Potter franchise represents the uneasy peace between the Soviet bloc and their communist allies and the United States and NATO. It's initial success represents the lessening of tensions, while its later failures represent the ever-deepening chances for global nuclear annihilation. JK Rowling represents general Communist leadership, with her positive effects representing the Soviet's major role in winning WWII, and her negative effects representing the turn to nationalism and paranoia against the West. JK Rowling's tweets symbolize the Soviets stationing nuclear weapons in Cuba, and fan outcry represents the US being pissed about that. As such, This video represents the peace talks that ultimately ended the crisis. Does that make Sarah Z JFK? Maybe.
But that doesn’t work. The Soviets moved nuclear missiles into Cuba as a defensive maneuver in response to the US aggressively moving missile into Turkey. If anything JK Rowling is the United States who following their success in WWII became arrogant and began making aggressively bad moves to preserve their own influence. Her tweets represent the countless coups the US Staged and the decision to escalate tensions between the US and the USSR by moving missiles into Turkey. And The Cursed Child represents how close the US and USSR came to global Nuclear War during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
@@blixer8384 you make a valuable point. My brain still associates Soviets = Villains despite me knowing its it's more complicated than that, so I assigned that role to her but you are actually accurate.
@@blixer8384 The US reaction also offended Canada, leading this country to continue its diplomatic relations with Cuba. I guess that this would represent Rowling trying to get closer to her fans by answering to their critics by not fixing her attitude in relation to their complaints.
I feel like if JK Rowling really cared about making sure that certain aspects were canon she could just write additional short stories. The Dumbledore is gay thing is the easiest example because Dumbledore is one of the most interesting characters because of his past. All she has to do is write and publish a short story from Dumbledore's perspective about Grindlewald. That could be very interesting, confirm Dumbledore's status as gay, and serve as promotion for the Fantastic Beasts movies.
I always really enjoyed the little commentaries that Dumbledore gave to the stories of the Tales of Beedle the Bard charity book, and it would have been really cool to see a full book with his voice, perhaps also rationalising his sometimes questionable choices from his perspective. But especially yes, also just canonise the fact that he was gay and make it more human and expanded and dynamic, instead of this one-note external add-on which, when given without explicit context in the books, really doesn’t add anything to his character except to make some iffy (and kinda homophobic) insinuations about his relationship with Grindelwald.
It's a shame reading hopeful comments after the release of the last movie lol. She's flushed this series down the terf hole and refuses to acknowledge criticisms of her obviously token characters.
JK Rowling: Every young wizard has to be assigned to a certain particular house. You can choose your own house but you have to be really brave to do it Also JK Rowling : IDK I'm not sure about these trans people
im one of those "love the series, hate the author" type of harry potter fan, of whom i know there are a lot, and the whole ordeal really saddens me. this is a brilliant video though, thanks for making it :)
I understand you completely. If only she just deleted her twitter and actually wrote new books... although her writings will probably be affected by her stances nowadays... Like Black female president of magic US in (my guess) 30's.
Dean Goldenstar the 20s, and actually i don’t mind that in theory, i’m always for representation, i just think the character, as well as the rest of the movie, was poorly written
By the way, she lied about Hermione's race... She drew pictures of the characters, and every time she drew hermione, she was clearly white (there were black characters in the same image).
Did she ever explicitly say that Hermione was intended to be black? The tweet included in this video was her saying she’s not bothered by black Hermione, which I think is a perfectly okay thing for her to say, but if she said she intended her to be black from the very beginning, then that has to be complete BS. I’m really curious, does anybody know?
@@monkiram No, she never said Hermione was black all along or that that was her intention. She just said that in the actual book, her race wasn't specified, so it was OK if the play cast her as a different race than the movie did. The closest the book got to describing her race was one passage where she was sitting outside and it said she was "very brown" and one passage where she got scared and she had a "white face", which are both obviously idioms in the same way "she turned green with envy" wouldn't mean she was legitimately green. I think it's obvious that Rowling intended Hermione to be Caucasian in the books, but since it was never explicitly stated, if the play was just going off of what was actually in the books and not off of Rowling's "intentions", it's perfectly fine.
@@SarahZ I think its in the books that it was mentioned that she had a pale skin. And the scene where she was stated to be "very brown" was after she visited Australia(I believe) with her parents in the summer. Now personally, I dont see a tan on my black friends, or when I go to the beach, I can see white girls have tanlines due to their straps not being perfectly still, but with a black girl, I dont see the straps leave tanlines(or they all tan topless, or somehow their straps stay perfectly still). So its pretty much certain that her skin, as described in the books, is at the very "best" light brown and at the "worst" neon white(which I personally viewed her, as she is a massive bookwurm the first 3 books and probably rarely went outside the library in her spare time). But obviously, for her character story over the harry potter books(not including the ending), her skintone was pretty much irrelevant. As her family in the wizarding world is pretty unimportant overal. Personally I take issue when a role gets changed in race out of nowhere. For example: in Hairspray, you have 2 options: the standard black people for the american version, or red haired irish people for a british version(or in the rarer cases: the local, historically discriminated minority), but Tracy needs to be the color of the local majority, no matter what. Now, I went to a local play where they thought the best person to portray Tracy, was a black girl, but her dad was white, and her mother, was white, and the host of the regular show was black. They still went for the "negroday" set up, which was utterly ridiculous, as the set up was that no black people were allowed on the show, yet Tracy was. You can see how the entire conflict now seems meaningless. She is black, and dances with a white group under a black host, then tries to mix white and black on tv because she feels that black people should be free to dance on tv whenever they want. Except that she achieved her goal by getting on the show herself in scene 3. My point must be extremely obvious by now, but that just shows that when skincolor matters for a story. Now, in Hermoine's case, she married ron, and she had children with red hair. I'd like to point out, that genetically seen, this is extremely hard. You would need at least 1 parent having the red haired gene to have it yourself. Red hair is far from being dominant. Black and asian people tend to not have that gene, which is why it normally tends to be linked with white people, as the gene has originated and spread heavily. Odds are about 10% at any given moment that a white person carries a gene for red hair. For black people, you would pretty much need a red haired carrying individual to be your (grand)parent, and then you'd have between 12-25% chance of having that gene yourself. Having 2 redhaired children points out that she has that gene. Being black in 2017 and having the recessive gene for red hair, is almost as rare as gold.
Let's be honest, Hermione is a white girl because, besides Rita Skeeter, she is the closest character to represent JK Rowling (in an idealised way) in the book. I know that here there would be a problematic Freudian interpretation, but, for starters, just take into account that Hermione has Rowling's favourite animal as a patronus. What do you expect from a person who willingly concealed her female name in order to not bias the readers' perception of her work?
Her view of British students was that of pale white people and occasional gingers. At least for main characters, that worked quite well. Even though I admit, Black Hermione would be interesting to see due to her sassiness.
honestly!!! the idea that even one person not only retained a story i created, but also thought of it when theyre not reading? and gained some meaningful attachment to someone i created? and then used their freetime to explore a story that i created in their own unique way bc they care about it? that shit is extremely flattering.
Absolutely. I used to write fanfiction, and the greatest moment I experienced in five years of doing it was when someone decided to make a fan illustration of something I'd written. I couldn't get over how incredible it was that someone liked my plot and versions of characters enough to make something based on those instead of the source material. If I had originally created those characters and that world, I wouldn't have been able to get the stupid grin off my face for weeks.
My sole ambition in life is to get a piece of fanfiction written about my characters one day. Even if it's terrible. Just the idea that people are invested enough to create something based on what I made is mind blowing. I don't get how anyone can think it's an insult
I can't believe you would do this, I'm sorry Sarah, but you're 100% wrong here. Everyone knows that "10 Things I Hate About You" is the best Shakespeare fanfiction.
As a Harry Potter fan, I will always be grateful to Rowling for writing the original book series.... for what she actually WROTE. Not for the continuous and each time even more ridiculous statements that made me progressively lose respect for her as an author... Also, I hate to say it, but... can we please get a REAL screenwriter to save the next Fantastic Beasts movie?
She lost me right when she started making absurd comments like "Dumbledore is gay" and "Hermione is totally black". Like, no. First of all, you would have cast Hermione as black in the movies and -as a commenter for one of my posts said- you would have depicted her in the cover art as black. But guess what? She is white. Which pissed me off bc of how tokenized black Hermione is. Clearly, this was just made to cover Rowling's hide from upset SJW fans. And if Dumbledore was gay, SHOW DON'T TELL! Ughhhh...I want to facepalm so hard rn.
@@MrGrimjaw You clearly never understood any of her books, which were against the sort of racism you demonstrate in your post. Were you a wizard, you'd be screaming "mudblood" left and right.
And about the whole “Dumbledore wouldn’t have have told Harry about his sexuality, that would be out of character”-yeah, true, but one of the main plot threads in Deathly Hallows is Harry learning about Dumbledore’s past and coming to grips with the kind of man he really was )because a huge part of growing up is seeing the adults you looked up to as 3-dimensional for the first time) and it would have been /so easy/ to have either 1) his letters to Grindelwald be explicitly romantic 2) have Rita Skeeter write something like “he was totally crushing on Grindelwald therefor he was evil” which would have been very in character for Rita with her whole smear campaign or any number of things. It would’ve tied in with the point of seeing your role models as adults for the first time and becoming an adult yourself, been in character, and been better rep. Anywhoo great video, I know I’m late to the party but this is very nuanced and informative
I mean, Rita Skeeter does basically say "he was totally crushing on Grindelwald and therefore he was evil". She describes Grindlewald's duel with Dumbledore with: "People may be forced to conclude that Grindelwald simply conjured a white handkerchief from the end of his wand and came quietly!" ...and then later in the same chapter heavily insinuates that Dumbledore was sexually abusing Harry. It's super gross that the only real evidence of Dumbledore's sexuality comes from coded homophobia quoted from a character who's a transmisogynistic caricature but whatever we know Rowling was a homophobe
It's this weird WASP thing of equating homosexuality as overtly sexual; for example, telling a same-sex couple not to hold hands or engage in light PDA because their are children nearby, even if a heterosexual couple could engage in the same without issue. Grindelwald can't be Dumbledore's "great love" or boyfriend, because that'd be "too much to tell a child."
Speaking of Skeeter, that woman who fakes her way into getting what she wants and has metamorphose powers... is described as having a masculine figure and is probably a trans woman :)))))))))
J.K. Rowling tweet - "White skin was never specified." J.K. Rowling book - "Hermione’s white face was sticking out from behind a tree." J.K. Rowling interview answer - "But, yeah, Hermione is a caricature of what I was when I was 11..."
I'm not saying that JK's intention wasn't for Hermione to be white (she doesn't have a problem specifying Angelina Johnson's skin colour several times over), but the whole "Hermione's white face" thing doesn't prove much because earlier in the same book (Prisoner of Azkaban) she also writes that Hermione's face looks "very brown". If people want to interpret Hermione as a person of colour they aren't going explicitly against the original text.
She backtracked and caved to PC culture and sjws. Either she thought there was no harm in it or she was afraid to be thrown under the bus in the media as a racist excetera excetera for not having certain groups represented in her books. So the answer is ,well yes, technically the author should be the final Authority. However if the author's words ,intent and content constantly very ,it's open season on interpretation. All you have to do is look at JK Rowling's very own concept art to know original intent for each character. Hermione included.
Reading the books, I always imagined Hermione as mixed race. Her struggles with her bushy hair were what made me think this way. Even after Emma Watson was cast, I still read Hermione as black or mixed black with something else. I was not offended by the black Hermione. But maybe, we all like to see ourselves in stories, and I saw my blackness in her just as many white kids are offended to discover that the character they relate to might not be as relateable as they originally imagined.
rewatching this after sarah released her jk rowling transphobia video, and i just want to add...in her manifesto (gOD) jkr complains about and compares trans women to incels. meanwhile she's been defending snape for literal years, her own incel creation. so.
I have no investment in Hermione being white, but I feel that Rowling is being dishonest about always imagining her as black. Any time we get any indication about Hermione's skin color, it always seems to imply that she is a white girl. Plus, I mean, she's white on the book covers. Weird oversight there, Rowling. Prisoner of Azkaban, Chapter 21 “One moment, please, Macnair,’ came Dumbledore’s voice. ‘You need to sign, too.’ The footsteps stopped. Harry heaved on the rope. Buckbeak snapped his beak and walked a little faster. Hermione’s white face was sticking out from behind a tree. ‘Harry, hurry!’ she mouthed.
David Andersson Yup. 1.) all the black characters in HP are described as black, with the exception of Lee Jordan, who is described as having dreadlocks. 2.) JK Rowling specifically requested that Dean Thomas was cast as a black boy, as at that point none of the books had described him as black yet. Oddly enough, she did not insist on Hermione being cast as black. 3.) all illustrations for the books, including the ones depicting Hermione as white, were approved by Rowling. Emma Watson’s casting was approved by Rowling. She has had MANY MANY MANY opportunities to make sure Hermione was portrayed as black - in her own books, through her tight control on the movie casting and through the illustrations that she had to approve. She did not take any of those opportunities.
She did not envision the character as black. You are misunderstanding what Rowling said. She simply stated that she didn't have a problem with the choice of actress who was chosen to play Hermione in the Cursed Child, and those comments that were intended to counter widespread criticism at the time of a black actress being cast in the role. At no point did Rowling say that Hermione was black.
JK also had a hand in casting the actors for the films. If Hermione was truly intended to be a black girl she would've told them to cast a black actress considering she was able to get them to not cast any non-British actors.
@@rocketcon not true. Yes, it would've be great for her to say "I might have envisioned her as white but I support her being casted as black as well" but that's not what she did. Instead she explicitly claimed that she never specified it in her books which is a blatant lie and that deserves to be pointed out.
Disagree with you on the Hermoine is black observation Most people dislike this not purely because they are left (you deserve no credit due to lack of representation) or Right (cultural Marxism agenda) but because she is so disingenuous. You can tell by the fact that her primary book covers which featured Hermoine depicted her as caucasian, she approved Emma Watson to be the actress to portray Hermoine for the whole Harry Potter Movie Franchise and her original sketches, that she drew herself, depicted Hermoine as a white girl. JK obviously had an idea on what Hermoine looked like and now she's just back tracking in order to try and earn brownie points
JK Rowling herself even drew pictures of Hermione as white. So it's ridiculous for her to claim that Hermione was always supposed to be black, and anyone who interprets her as white is wrong. How hard is it for her to say something like "yep, Hermione was always intended to be white, but if you had a different interpretation while reading, then that's ok too." She doesn't need to pretend to be some diversity queen. It's embarrassing at this point.
To be fair the cursed child was garbage regardless of whether Hermione was white or black. It was still trash. I’m not saying that one can’t have an opinion, but the fact that people are so up in arms about it just seems rather silly compared to the other crap that was introduced in that play. I mean death eater Cedric? Really?
Benny James can y’all please remember they weren’t willing to risk little white girls not connecting to the only girl that gets as much screen time as the protagonist? They didn’t want to lose any potential fans so they went with a “”safe”” option. 🤔
I agree. It sounded terribly disingenuous. She could've said that hermione's race was irrelevant to the character, but no, she goes around saying she was ”woke” the whole time
@Samriddhi Soperna Yes except the whole "men masquerading as trans women to invade women's spaces" thing is, in fact, a transphobic stereotype and informs legislature that actively harms all trans people. Even ignoring the fact that that's BS of the highest degree, what exactly makes a trans woman a trans woman and not a predator pretending to be trans is never clearly stated. Is it a diagnosis from a mental health professional? Because while most trans people do pursue a formal diagnosis in order to start medically transitioning, many either don't have plans to medically transition or can't afford to see a professional. Is it how they look or dress? That's just gatekeeping. So either JKR is misinformed and won't back down and process new information or is actively buying into harmful stereotypes. Either way, "She said men masquerading as trans women are the issue." is not a defense, it's a further indictment of her opinions.
@Samriddhi Soperna That's not a real issue. It's like saying you're not an anti-Semite, it's just the people who secretly run all the worlds banks and media that are the issue.
@Samriddhi Soperna only if you ignore her essay called terf wars(some attempt to be tongue in cheek?) You know where she directly equates allowing trans people would result in them attacking people. Because yes someone whos out to attack someone is totally going to be held back by a sign
Well duh. Rowling's increasing alienation of her progressive fans echoes the fledgling relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States following World War II, with each successive announcement escalating the tensions in a manner that recalls the stockpiling of nuclear weapons by both world powers.
"Snape did a few good things, but as a whole, he's a weird incel dick, and the good things he did don't make up for like... child abuse." - Sarah Z, 2018. Best character summary for Snape that I have come across.
@Doctor Snake Eater I don’t think the character himself would argue against anything other than being an incel. People That piss on him have this notion that he thought himself to be some courageous, righteous person when all I got from the entirety of the character and the ending itself was Snape acknowledged himself as an irredeemable piece of shit. Some people that love him after the ending over glorify him sure, but the people that hate him have the mentality of “I’ve hated him for six books I’m not going to stop no matter what the seventh says or the author.” Hell, even for my case, Draco Malfoy can suck eggs for eternity. So even I’m not innocent in that regard.
@@KiSwordsman "People That piss on him have this notion that he thought himself to be some courageous, righteous person " I've never heard anyone say this. "Some people that love him after the ending over glorify him sure, but the people that hate him have the mentality of “I’ve hated him for six books I’m not going to stop no matter what the seventh says or the author.”" The seventh book and the author were never going to paint him in a light that made up for all the bullying he did, and his general dick-iness. Snape was a horrible person from the start of our introduction to him, throughout the books, and all the way to the end of the explanation of his back story. By the time it was all over, there was nothing that was good enough to excuse what he did. Side note: Draco Malfoy was a douche, but as we've seen (and unlike Snape) he became a better person - even though I dislike JKR, I am appreciative that she didn't just make him a clone of Snape. The Malfoys loved each other so much they defied Voldemort. Snape loved Lily, but not enough to defy Riddle... until he didn't get what he wanted from her. Different stories. Just saying.
@MK Rowe _“I’ve never heard Anyone say this.”_ Good for you. I have. _“The seventh book and the author were never going to paint him in a light that made up for all the bullying he did and his general dick-ness”_ Clearly, that’s not universally true. And this proves my point. The sixth (pity party) and seventh book for me would never make up for what a bigoted little piss-ant Draco was... And here we are... _“Snape was a horrible person...”_ And where does Snape excuse what he did? Where does he think he’s a good person? I’ll wait... _“Side note:”_ Draco Malfoy became a better person when things weren’t going so great in regard to the books. I really saw it as a way to garner sympathy for a kid in over his head. Hell the same can be said for the Malfoy’s as a whole. They were in with Tom until they realized it wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. So the notion that they loved each other so much that they defied him is funny because it wasn’t until Tom was full on crazy flakes that it became a thing. Snape loved lily and defied Tom the second that Tom target her by going to Dumbledore. Kind like how the Malfoy’s were behind Tom until Draco was in his sights. Different stories with similarities. Just saying. And really the person that deserves the most credit for that is Narcissa. After that where is it shown that Draco became a better person? A head nod to the gang at the train station 19 years later? I’ve never said Severus Snape was the best or even generally a good guy. However, he appeals to me because he doesn’t either. He knows where the fault for what happened lies, (himself) and didn’t do what he did to “make up,” for anything.
On the subject of Hermione's portrayal as black in the cursed child: I always saw that as during the auditions Jenny Jules just stood out as a talented actor who was fit to play Hermione. Get representation points was probably a small part of it, but I never Jules' casting as nothing more than a way to seem progressive. If Rowling just tweeted out how Jules was the best fit for Hermione's character and her race isn't a reasonable criticism of the play, everything would be fine.
Especially since (A) we're all aware that theater is representational, not literal, and (B) we have Rowling's own drawings of Hermione, who is very clearly white. Like, it doesn't matter who's cast if they're good for the part, but to say "Oh, but I NeVeR sAiD sHe WaS wHiTe!" is just so... well... I feel the phrase "virtue signaling" is overused, and yet...
The Tolkien example is strange: Tolkien's definition of "allegory" was basically "the author meant for this to be a symbol (for, say, a World War), therefore that's the only valid way to interpret it." Tolkien himself was basically a proponent of Death of the Author: he's fine with you interpreting his writing however you want, as long as you don't insist that A) that was how *he* intended it to be read, as the author, and therefore B) that's the only valid way of reading it. His word for *reading* something as an "allegory" for something else (as opposed to trying to read authorial intent into it and using that as a cudgel of authority) was "applicability". His works were "applicable" to things like the World Wars, the experience of PTSD, etc., and they were free to do so. He'd be entirely fine with people reading Frodo's experiences as him having PTSD, as long as you didn't insist it was allegory (again, to use his definition of the word) - that Frodo has PTSD, that Tolkien intended that Frodo has PTSD, and anyone who doesn't interpret Frodo as having PTSD is Wrong because they disagree with the Allegory being used by the Author. From the man himself: "I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.” Tolkien himself is against the author dictating the One True Way to read or interpret their works, and he applies this standard to himself. The most he'd say were things along the lines of "that wasn't what I meant when I wrote it", which was emphatically not meant as "your interpretation is wrong because I wrote it, and I know what I meant when I wrote it". Tolkien believed, as he says, in "the freedom of the reader" over "the domination of the author".
Tolkien's disdain for allegory (as he used the term) is similar to the sort people have for hamfisted political cartoons, where they literally label what everything is intended to represent so the audience doesn't Get It Wrong. The sort of blatant, beat-you-over-the-head-obvious symbolism that can *only* be read one way (as a metaphor for whatever the author intended). He basically thought that that was a tool used by hack writers, and that more nuanced, realistic (or "historical", as he put it) would be validly applicable to many different things, depending on reader interpretation. To provide the rest of the above quote: “I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history - true or feigned- with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers." If you read Frodo's experience as being plausibly PTSD, Tolkien would applaud you for it (whether that was what he deliberately meant when he wrote it or not). You thought about the work and applied it in a way that's reasonable and plausible, rather than detecting the author's Glowing Neon Sign indicating the Correct Symbolism. He was tired of people insisting, for example, that the story was intended, by him, to be read solely as all one big allegory for World War Two (and that the Ring was an allegory for the Atomic Bomb), and included a foreword to that effect, explaining what he would have done if he *was* writing such an allegory (again, using his definition, where the author clearly and specifically intends for this thing in the story to solely represent this specific real-world thing or event): "The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dûr would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves. " You may note, for example, that the Free Peoples are a stand-in for the Allies, that Sauron is Hitler and Mordor is Germany (which then becomes occupied by both Isengard and Gondor), that Saruman an Isengard specifically (and only) represent Stalin and the Soviet Union, etc. This is the sort of allegory Tolkien preferred to avoid.
EXACTLY. I'd say that Tolkien definitely put his own experiences about war into stories, but he never intended it to be compared to, or directly inspired by, the wars. Write what you know and all that.
Pseudo Nym that’s exactly what I was thinking. When she got the the authorian intent and death of the author bit, all I could think of was «I don’t think you understand what an allegory is.» Also, I just noticed your psuedonym is literally Psuedo Nym.
I was okay with the example (although I don't know if she meant it this way) because I interpret that discussion as people forcing authorial intent of allegory upon Tolkien as their interpretation. In that some people wanted Frodo to directly represent Tolkien, or the Shire to directly represent England, so even if Tolkien was a DotA proponent, people's interpretation was to create a narrative of authorial intent. Although, I'm not sure how authorial intent/DotA are applied in terms of the interpretation including intent, so this might be an incorrect reading. Sorry if this comes across as really stupid! (Also, in terms of allegory, I've usually found C.S Lewis to be my go-to example).
@@iluvearth99 Nah, honestly didn't know of her before this video. ...but I might've just looked up Vampire Chronicles on AO3 and read a short fic just to be able to say that I have.
I have read fanfiction from Teen Wolf, Daredevil (the show), Merlin, Pacific Rim, Star Trek and have watched none of the original content (I will eventually get to some of them some day hopefully).
Arunima Tiwari I have seen five episodes of Daredevil and yet have read a few hundred fanfiction. Who needs canon when fanfic understands the characters better?
J.K. Towards fans: “You can’t interpret characters other than how I wrote them!!!😡” J.K.: *changes writing to fit her own interpretation of characters after the characters have already been written about*
arabella-grace brown I think this person is referencing the fact that JK hates fanfiction about HP, even though she’s essentially writing fanfiction about her own series now
It would actually be reasonable to flip a coin to determine the gender of any character for which their sex is insignificant to the narrative, and I have considered whether or not I should do this many times.
In an interview she once said something like “nope, xy isn’t gay, Dumbledore is gay”. I can’t remember the exact phrasing, but she said it as if only Dumbledore could be gay. I’ll link the interview if I find it
@@plasticfrog4533 I remember watching an interview on youtube, she was with Radcliffe, I think? He asked about Dumbledore, and she said that she always thought Dumbledore was gay, but didn't feel it was something she needed to say, because it wasn't really necessary to the plot, or might have detracted from it. (People insert their own meaning where there is ambiguity in a work, many just thought Dumbledore and Grindlewald were friends, while others thought their relationship was, ahem, _deeper._) She also said that there was a line in the script for deathly hallows part two, in the "it looks like king's cross" scene, where Dumbledore reminisces about some woman who was his love interest. And she says she just sort of. . . wrote on the script "dumbledore is gay" and gave it to the writer, who took the line out. The more public announcement came later.
Irving IV I also saw that interview, If anyone reading this want‘s to watch it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IprmyN9mEsk.html I read the books before I found out that she had outed Dumbledore and to be honest, as a queer person, I tend to notice when someone is written as queer (not always tho), and I never noticed anything with Dumbledore. That’s why I was also a bit upset, because I thought she did it for publicly. I just hope she includes him „being gay“ (a lingering look into Grindelwalds eyes with swelling music or something like that would be good enough for me) in the new movies.
On Rowling and Fanfic: A friend of mine worked for Pottermore and part of their job was to read through, and summarise, Harry Potter fanfic for Rowling. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these "reveals" came from those fanfic summaries.
It's just like with the casting for The Cursed Child. I am sure that in her mind Hermione was white when she first wrote her but when she saw the casting for the play she went "huuuum interesting.". If she were honest she would have said "I don't have a problem with this interpretation of the character" if she was self-aware too she could have added, "Hermione wasn't like that in my mind but this interpretation is fine". BUT NOPE! That response would have given all the WOKEY points to the play for being diverse so instead, she said it was actually HER idea to have Hermione be "not so white" so that people would be giving HER wokey points. She is basically taking interpretations that she finds interesting and instead of being honest and acknowledging that she didn't see things this way at first, she steals that interpretation and claim it was her ideas all along so that people will praise her. She has a huge ego. It's so huge in fact that it stops her from realizing that some of those interpretations are actually very troublesome. She doesn't want to see that because the wokey points look too good but at the end of the day, she's the only one actually seeing those wokey points because most people despise her new additions.
Eli N.S i 100% agree. i think black hermione's a great idea and it's awesome if people see her that way (especially all the black women saying they were empowered by her as kids), but she obviously was MEANT to be white and it's stupid for jk rowling to pretend otherwise. the correct course of action would have been just to go "i wrote her as white, but it's cool if you saw her as black" and not,,, whatever this is
I always loved Harry Potter but at this point, I stopped reading whatever JK Rowling has to say about it. I still love the books, but all this new information is hurting the series. Also, A Very Potter Musical was awesome.
JK Rowlings retcons are what make me be "meh" about a series I used to love (because you can't get away from hearing about what she retcons without swearing off the internet)
I believe that, fundamentally, the author decides the meaning of the story and what is canon...at the time of writing it. Which is to say, while JK Rowling is free to write the story in whatever way she wants and attach intent to this, that does not mean we have to believe her when she tries to retcon the story and act like it was this way all along.
But what about Professor Mcgonagall having a different birth date in the year than in the new Fantastic Beasts? I agree that she is free to say something was that way all along and that as the audience we don't have to believe that, like Dumbledor having a new brother that never came up when we learnt about his family history but the Mcgonagall matter is a mistake and, from what I've heard, J K Rowling has tried to hide this by removing Mcgonagall's birthday from Pottermore since the film came out.
@@kerrie6084 I agree with you. That was indeed a mistake, but it happens with many authors, I suppose. G.R.R.Martin talked in an event about how he changed the sex of a horse in the middle of a chapter. It was a silly mistake, far less important that McGonagall's birth date, but it represents how hard it can be for a writer to keep track of every single aspect of his narrative. It was a mistake, but I still admire her very much. What she did with the Harry Potter series changed forever the history of fantasy literature. I belive she deserves some slack. ^ ^"
@@romaosoares5195 I agree mistakes can happen, I guess it's just that from J K Rowling intricate plots and the fact that the information was online makes it worse because she's known for doing the opposite of simple mistakes :)
@@romaosoares5195 According to rumor, the "Game of Thrones" book series has become so complicated that GRRM himself is hopelessly confused, and he can no longer finish writing a single page without consulting with a small cadre of hardcore fans who have an encyclopedic knowledge of GoT. That old fat fuck will die before he ever finishes the series.
When I was in high school, I was psychologically bullied by my vice principal. When I worked at a different high school ten years later, he was praised at a teen mental health seminar for “getting it.” I had to leave the seminar early due to a massive panic attack. But anyway, yeah, Snape was fine. NO COMPLAINTS FROM ME!!
I just want to say that I can relate hard to this. In 4th grade I had a teacher who completely mentally destroyed me. Yet, somehow, she won teacher of the year when I was in 5th grade.
I relate... too much. I don't give a damn about teacher motivations and their "traumatic backstories". The teachers that bullied me in school damaged me and they probably shouldn't have been working with children. Snape's redemption arc? I bought into it for the first few years because I was still a child and internalising much of my experiences. As an adult that is significantly more mature, Snape's redemption arc is a joke. His wangst story line is just that. Wangst of the author.
It’s crazy how when you’re a kid you don’t realize how wrong it is because you’re taught to trust the grownups. Looking back, I can’t imagine treating a child the way I was treated, but I never said anything because I thought it was my fault. We need to start teaching kids that their feelings are valid, and that grownups are flawed human beings who don’t know everything.
JK Rowling always was a condescending hack writer, as far as I can tell. Her stories aren't that great to begin with, if you start analysing it, and her personality, from what you can read from her tweets and such, is insufferable.
_20 years after the last Potter movie_ Interviewer: So, to get into character did Rowling tell you anything secret? Ron’s actor: she told me my character was gay Everybody: she told me _my_ character was gay...
@@ilexdiapason But he was, JKR all ready thought of that back in the day, she just forgot to tell him, which is why, until now, he lived a heterosexual lifestyle
I think the issue with JK Rowlings is she hasn't really moved onto a new series for her to create. As you said, writing a paper and being like oh darn I forgot this, or oh my gosh I meant to add this to make my argument sound even more supported. She's doing that. She hasn't yet moved on and let go of Harry potter. And I personally believe that's why she hasn't let go. She has nothing new to really work on. As her new passion. I'm aware of her Fantastic Beasts book and movie, and I am excited as someone who grew up with harry potter, but it's also a pre-story. Just like when disney sees the money train for series and they do prestories and people always get frustrated. I feel like JK has done the same thing. I do find it sad in a lot of ways because it seems as if she's holding onto something that she can't quit figure out how to let go. I think if she kept going and was able to come back to harry potter and do reveals that way. It wouldn't be so bad. But I think for most people it just almost seems like she's still stuck on harry potter. Its like she's sitting in her house, wearing her robe, drinking her morning coffee,and going... "AH! I should tell twitter today that ____ is actually _____ . =) That'll be interesting for my fans! They'll love this!" Like I can think of many enjoyable Anime's I've watched that came from the same person, like Rumiko Takahashi's and all of her series. And I think the reason why I like her Anime is because when the stories are done. They are done. And I mean yes - there are also manga and anime out there, like sailor moon, or card captors which gets re-done and a new story is told or its an addition to a story that is already known. But those stories are still something we are familiar with. & typically creators still move from one passion project to the next. And I think that is something JK needs to learn as well. She could write more books, and she could add these interesting details, and giving a diverse and "real" cast and actually put in the details that people want to see, in a new series. Harry Potter I think is great when you think about a little boy who was abused by his aunt and uncle, his parents were killed, and he found himself in a new position in life with a bunch of people sucking up to him, But falls in with a group of friends who can see he is a real person, and he ends up challenges himself and finds himself, fighting against his demons, that's a great story. But this story gets so murky with all of the details and tweets that are added. Because its no longer about a boy, with a lighten bolt scar, figuring himself out and understanding his family, but its *gestures to everything* this.
What you say about letting go of a work is a really good point! I think Tamora Pierce has handled it really well. She mostly writes stories in two universes where the central character of one book/series often appears as a supporting character in another book/series which gives her opportunities to show different sides of this character and thereby creating more detailed characters while still making something new. Other authors change completely between books or series. Of all the authors I follow and keep reading, no one seems to spend the same amount of time and energy coming up with additions and new details on social media etc. compared to JKR. Some of them are happy to answer questions from fans or once in a while give some new information, but they generally seem to focus on their new books and projects.
I don't think there would be anything wrong with an author returning to their world to tell new stories. Look at Terry Pratchett and Discworld. There are over 40 books in that world. But I think the important part is to tell new stories not just add things to the old ones. If you learn something new or change your own worldview on things, don't go back to the book you have written and change things. Tell us a new story how your world develop to accept this kind of new view
Rowling needs to let go of the epilogue, she's treated it like a brick wall she can't get over. she gave other people permission to write Cursed Child, which i haven't read but sounds so stupid, and can't bring herself to go back to Harry's life. i still think Harry should have left Wizarding Britian after the war, it would have given her an easier and much more open way of expanding the world that hopping back in time. i believe the only reason she's doing the Fantastic Beasts movies is to work in everything she's put on Twitter. i don't understand why she gave up on childrens fantasy all together. i haven't read her adult detective books, but i do know the first wasn't selling until it was revealed Rowling wrote it under a pen name.
I remember someone replying to JK Rowling's tweet talking about black Hermione by circling a part in the books where her face was referred to as white, I don't think she ever replied to that. I don't have any problem with Hermione being black, I just think fewer people would have a problem with it if Rowling just admitted it was a change.
If she wanted Hermione to be black she should have written her as such originally, you can't change her ethnicity afterwards, period. Admitting she's trying to change it wouldn't matter either, Hermione Granger will never be black anymore than Kingsley Shacklebolt will ever be white.
The big question when talking about authorial intent is, the intent at what time? When writing the book? Because I'm quite sure she didn't intend a lot of what she is 'intending' right now.
@@MariahPattie You make an interesting point. In my attempts to write stuff, countless ideas pop up in my head, some being contradictory. In the end, it doesn't matter what you think, it matters what appears on paper. I you don't actually incorporate an idea in the story, you have no way of knowing if the idea works.
Hot take: the Harry Potter books were really objectively flawed, which is a shame because there was a whole lot of potential in the world that was made.
additionally - the books were super flawed and, while JK Rowling did create the world they operate in, the fan communities are responsible for sifting through those books and picking out the elements that are actually good/comforting/worth giving attention to - everyone is in love with what fans have brought from the series, not the series itself
I think "Harry Potter in 2020" said it best: The logic of the wizarding world is held together by duct tape that comes apart at the first bit of scrutiny.
Tolkien´s definition of an allegory is that in an allegory the writer forces a certain interpertation on his readers. This is different than reader´s interperting things in a story differently than the writer may have done, Tolkien did not mind that. Since Tolkien wrote that he did not wrote the books with the intent of being an allegory makes that it isn´t one in Tolkien´s mind, because the intention of the author is key for a story being an allegory. If that intention was not there it cannot be an allegory, even if some people read is as such, since it was not an interpertation forced by the author, but rather one the readers came up with themselves.
Exactly. If anything, his opinions on allegory indicate that he would be perfectly fine with people taking interpretations from the text that he did not intend so long as they were clear that they likely weren't his intent.
Also allegory has a great deal of 1 to 1 correlation which is lacking. Who in Lord of the Rings is the US, UK, German, or USSR. If the ring represents the atomic bomb why was it destroyed instead of used. The real issue is most people tend to misuse the term allegory.
@@nutsymcgregor Mordor is Japan; destroying the Ring is like the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Which would make Isengard Germany? No, Isengard is Italy, because they got rekt by the ents (aka the Greeks) Who is Germany then? The US is clearly Rohan coming to save Gondor's (aka the UK's) ass... but then, who is France? And who the f*** are the ghosts supposed to represent? The USSR because they destroyed everything but they are all dead? I think Tolkien wouldn't be that savage, though... Yeah, it doesn't work. I tried.
I always figured he was mainly just indignant at people saying his stories were traces of the World Wars when he had worked for decades building an entire world from scratch. If I were him that would certainly bother me after all that hard work.
The Jack0fHearts I mean, the dead marshes, Mordor and bonbons being simple country folk no one thinks highly of are clearly influenced by Tolkien’s own life. You can’t make something like that from scratch unless you have some personal experience
I've only read the 7 books. And I am a die hard fan. Harry Potter trivia contests. Listening to audiobooks while doing everyday tasks. I can pretty much quote it. I *_REFUSE_* to touch anything after book 7. Never have never will.
ME TOO. I absolutely REFUSE to read screenplays like the cursed child. I'm afraid of her "wokeness" bleeding into it and ruining my wonderful experience of growing up in the harry potter world. Those books were a key part of my adolescence and I wont have her ruin it by trying to pander to crazy people.
One problem I have with this is the “history of fanfiction” bit, which overlooks the fact that for thousands of years, nearly all writing was fanfiction of historical or mythological characters.
@@LoveK1 Uh. All real bro and if you see, everything to the t has come true. I wouldn't bash such a historical document that can be explored for ages upon ages and with proper linguistic knowledge and language skills you van unlock more of its secrets. Bagvaghita. Read it.
Makkaru112 wow, someone's butt hurt. Also, Armageddon is in the bible, that hasn't happened yet as far as I'm aware. I'm not a biblical historian so I'm not going to debate about everything else but I don't think literally everything in the bible is true, for example most Christians I've talked about it to seem to see Noah's Ark as a metaphor, not something that literally happened.
@@Makkaru112 That still doesn't discourage the image of the bible being able to be classified as a fanfiction since it was his 'fans' that wrote it down with biased views and all and not an unbiased third party. www.vice.com/en_us/article/8gvpj5/the-bible-is-nothing-but-jesus-fan-fiction study.com/academy/lesson/the-bible-as-a-historical-document.html#:~:text=We%20can%20classify%20most%20of,important%20to%20their%20religious%20beliefs.
Rowling’s first mistake was confirming The Cursed Child as canon. Her second mistake was thinking she was a screen writer. Too much creative control without oversight and respect for the previous Potter films. Example, George Lucas and his Star Wars prequels, though I like them, they could have been better.
Nah the problem with Lucas was that he had an entirely different world in his mind than his technology and base allowed. he should have just booted a new franchise (possibly within the same universe) and it would have been a lot better. the only reason he gets so much hate is because his worlds don't match anymore, that's the big problem there.
Liam - True to a degree, however a key component missing on the prequels was the brilliant editing team that cut the first trilogy into classic movies we all loved. Marcia Lucas, George’s first Wife was part of the editing teams credited and uncredited. She and her partners won an Oscar for best editing on A New Hope, she was also nominated for an Oscar in editing for American Graffiti also by George Lucas. George didn’t have such a talented team for the prequels editing the movies into films just YES MEN. That’s what I meant by no oversight.
Well... but that's my point... to a degree. the prequels got mostly unedited Lucas doing exactly what he wanted. But the fans don't realize that, they think the original trilogy was also Lucas just doing what he wanted. I can imagine if he actually made the prequels shortly after the sequels things would have turned out far different... but not closer to what he wanted. You see this with the new movies where they just revive tropes from the original trilogy instead of expanding on the world Lucas was intending to build, that's what makes them feel empty. Given the resources Lucas wanted to build a far bigger world in which he would essentially tell a story of a fantasy space jesus heavily influenced by asian culture. Lucas too is a far better world builder than he is a writer of stories. if you just block out the original trilogy and the new movies but you keep the licensed old canon books and series like the clone wars you will see that the intent suddenly is to go in a totally different direction. but because of the original movies he was always going to write himself into a corner. There's several writers that suffer from this when they do their foreshadowing wrong or when they try to do a prequel. Actually even within the starwars universe : Starwars Rogue One was actually a good movie at it's core... but not at it's ending. it had an interesting setup, it had the retro feel but also expanded the world.. the only problem is every character introduced in Rogue One had to be eliminated by the end of the movie because they don't exist in the actual original movies. This then is easily compared to the problems Rowling has, because she too has set up a world in a very specific manner with very specific rules that she originally used to build that world, the changes she's now making outside of her written words don't work because they don't connect anymore.
Liam - I agree with what you stated. However from my view, to make sense of your vision, one takes advantage of good people in their field while translating your vision to film. You need the right mix to produce a successful film while maintaining creative control. George had a vision with his prequels, however I think he wore too many hats in making them. He still could have made them better if he didn’t try to do it all himself. That’s what Rowling is doing now. She’s a great writer but is she a great screen play writer? In film making getting the right pieces to help fashion your vision without sacrificing too much of what you want, makes a great film. I think both bit off more than they could chew thinning the line between good and mediocre.
Exactly. No decent person would be upset at you switching Hermione to be black, but instead you decided to retcon it and pretend you were actually super woke the whole time. It’s ridiculous
@@uhuh936 She could have easily avoided this issue by saying "while I didn't write Hermione as a black character, I welcome the decision the cast a black actress to play her" she might have even gotten some of those woke points she was desperately after
Why does literature get treated so differently from, say, painting or sculpting I wonder? If I went to sculpt a bold heroic handsome man but ended up sculpting one that looked more afraid than stoic and had ugly features, my intent kinda doesn't matter when people are looking at my sculpture interpreting what they're seeing. Even if I name it 'The Handsome Hero' and write a little thing about how it's meant to be a heroic sex symbol or whatever, people are still gonna take it in all kinds of different ways as they see it. I'm not making anyone suddenly see a handsome hero just coz I want them to see that. It's just kinda weird that authors specifically often get so indignant at the idea of not having complete control over the interpretation of their writing, when really you never have complete control over how other people interpret anything, and your initial intention often means very little at all once something's out there.
I see where you're coming from, and there's merit in this comparison, but my answer to that would be: they're two different mediums and that makes all the difference. Comparison ain't that straightforward.
@@GreatWhite00000 What differences in the medium lead to a breakdown of the metaphor? It's easy to say "it's different", but I'm not interested in that argument unless it comes with at least description of what you think are the salient differences.
Tolkien's explanation makes a lot of sense. I mean can it even be called an allegory of war if it was only meant as a plot device. It's not like in Animal farm where they actually reflect on the peculiarities of an event.
Jonathan I disagree with you, mainly because people will often write about what they have experienced and people will often read something and assume things because of their own experiences. The wars were huge influences on everything, world wide, and so many things are an allegory for it, whether they want to be or not. It’s kind of like how people will assume something of a film character by the way that they’re dressed, unless you’re deliberately going to make that character the complete opposite of how they look (often to make a point or for comedy) people will see that character a certain way and the director (whether aware of it or not) has dressed him like that because that is how society sees that type of character.
@@SidRo1113 That's why Tolkien talks about applicability rather than allegory: you can read the work through that lense, but the work wasn't written exclusively for that specific lense.
Maxime Teppe I understand why he would use that word, but again o disagree. He went through war and then he wrote a book about a war, I find it hard that he didn’t use the specific lense of war and his time through the war to create it. Of course, if he says he didn’t do it deliberately then there’s not much I can argue against. However, it was discovered that he had PTSD and that can lead to it effecting your life in ways you don’t realise. He might not have realised that he was using his war time to write a story, and so it would be an allegory, however he doesn’t realise he did it, which I guess means it’s not because he didn’t realise depth the war had on his intent with writing LOTR.
@@SidRo1113 he has used his experience to write the book, sure. It's just that the book is not meant specifically to be read as a statement about WW1 specifically. this is why it is not an allegory of WW1, even though it reflects it. It would have been more disputable if the ring war was fought in trenches, the enemy was just as miserable as the allies, and if executions of deserters was a recurring instance. In the case of the text as it stands, Gondor is stuck defending one place, the soldiers are vulnerable to airborne ringwraiths and catapults are bombarding: these elements can be read as informed by WW1 but it can be read purely as a cool Idea diegetically, as religious symbolism, references to mythologies, history, etc... other matters that interested Tolkien a lot. That's basically the difference between say a symbolist painting and a surrealist one. Symbolist paintings (or religious paintings from the renaissance) are designed with a particular signification in mind, overt references to certain mythological figures, symbols with a precise meaning, while surrealism is often created to be more open to various interpretations and use symbolically loaded imagery for emotional resonance rather than signification.
Maxime Teppe an allegory is defined as: “a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.” Key words being “Can” and “Interpreted”. So yes, Tolkien interprets his own works differently to how a lot of the public did. That does not mean it’s not an allegory for WW1&2, even if he didn’t realise he was doing it. Like I said before, The great wars really effected the world, if his story was written before them it would have been interpreted differently (although I think it still would have been interpreted by a different war) but because of the great wars we can’t help but see (or a lot of people can’t help it) it in his work.
I think it's extremely hypocritical of Rowling to portray Snape as this misunderstood, emo good guy when he's just a 30+ bully with a guilt trip and some potion skills, while she actively shames any fan for finding any good in Draco Malfoy who was just a teen and had cultural and familial pressure to act as a bully, then is later shown as feeling regret. I'm not trying to defend Draco, but if Snape has redeeming qualities, then I'm pretty sure Malfoy qualifies. But Rowling hates all Draco fans and has said "They only like him because Tom Felton is hot" which is extremely condescending and insulting tbh I also think it wouldn't be so bad if she wrote her tweets as "Yeah, I kinda was imagining it like this.." But no, she post her opinions like Umbridge posts educational decrees, dogmatic and authoritarian, shaming any fans who question her with a snippy retort. ugh *_eyeroll_*
Yeah, she's frequently the "ass" part of "assumption." I'm asexual and Draco's story resonated with me. I didn't even see all of the movies. Tom Felton's casting is such a nonfactor. When it comes to Potter, I am strictly in Camp Formalism, because her tweets and Pottermore extras are so frustratingly irrelevant and unnecessary.
@@charley15z I don't deny that. I'm asking is why one character's actions are redeemable while the other's isn't? I'm just critical of JK's dismissal of fan's views on Malfoy's character. It's not in the books, so for all we know he became softer than Hagrid in his later years. Why is she so adamant that he remain a bad person, yet when any fan raises criticism of Snape for stuff _that is in the books_ she defends it? Just let the fans imagine what they want. Why does she have to belittle them for liking a character?
@@sociallyineptspider-man2366 It doesn't actually matter what Trump does, the next president inherits WWIII, whether it's his fault or not. Think about it: The Russians have the gall to invade other countries and act like "these mysterious troops, who knows where they could be from," they have been tampering in even first world elections, very publicly killing defectors and diplomats with horrifying poisons. There are America's middle eastern wars and the rise of Isis, destabilizing liberal democracies across Europe by driving that fight to their doorstep. Sewing hatred and distrust in a growing refugee population while terrorist attacks rise. You've got Saudi Arabia and China being touted as seemingly necessary allies to the west, due to their monetary and/or industrial value, despite growing concern over truly horrifying human rights abuses, with China particularly poised to overtake the US as an economic powerhouse. Current "for the rich" policies set to further destabilize the world with another financial collapse, _and_ North Korea has decided to ramp up their nuclear ballistic missile program... while China and Russia (the two most likely enemies to the west) _already have intercontinental nukes_ and infamous cyberwarfare troops, in an era where idiots can cause a worldwide ransomware panic using technology built by the NS A. It seems that not just world war, but _world _*_ending_* war is imminent. Sleep tight everyone!
@@futurestoryteller I mean, that's the nice thing - the next WW is probably really going to be the last, simply because we'll actually manage to wipe humanity out for good.
That scene in the book horrified me, he was so needlessly cruel, how anyone can turn around, especially the author and say secretly he was a good guy all along and we have to feel sorry for him because he was bullied, like no, he was a bully himself, plain and simple.
Olivia Jones This is such a bizarre and reductive way to not only look at fictional characters, but real life humans as well. His past is not an excuse of his actions, but a rationalization of them. To casually write off and disregard what is one of the most complex and gray characters in the series all because “he was kinda mean that one time” is a weird way to approach fiction in my eyes. Snape isn’t a good person, that’s kind of part of it.
@@MrStarman926 I was just using that as an example, there are multiple times Snape was needlessly cruel in the book. I am not complaining at the character, I like interesting and complex characters, I can dislike a character in a book but know they are necessary for the story or the plot. My problem is rather fans of Snape and even Rowling at times who despite Snape's behaviour justify his actions, even blaming the other characters for not 'understanding him', for example the amount of hate James gets at times for 'bullying' Snape even with evidence he was doing the same (in fact both were in the wrong, but for some reason Snape is constantly excused). I am not disregarding a character because 'he is mean' I am disregarding others justifying his actions as right.
Olivia Jones Okay, then I misunderstood what you meant, I’m sorry. I definitely agree with you that wholly defending Snape for the reason of “he was good at the end” is a way too simple way of looking at the character and how they function in the story. I wrongly assumed you were just doing the exact opposite of the blind Snape fans.
*TIME STAMPS for "JK Rowling and Authorial Intent":* @00:37 - What Is Authorial Intent?; @05:22 - Conflicting Interpretations Part 1: JK Rowling Good; @20:44 - Conflicting Interpretations Part 2: JK Rowling Bad; @34:17 - TL;DR.
I dunno, it depends on the situation. J.K. Rowling uses Authorial Intent to make her franchise seem ‘better’ than it is. If you take the author of a similar series, Rick Riordan, he mostly just uses it to clear up simple things, like character ages and stuff the reader would just wonder about.
@@jdprettynails you're so right. As much as I adore Harry Potter, I think everything Riordan writes is just better ... Crafted? (Idk if I make myself clear) but I just enjoy his writing a lot more and he doesn't push an agenda. It just seems genuine when he touches on themes of diversity and stuff like he just wrote it naturally without thinking of it being politically correct or whatever
@Super Greyflash What representation does Nico have? Genuinely wondering, I read the Percy Jackson books early last year so I can't really remember specifics.
She did specify Hermione's skin colour in a few places. Even if she didn't, Hermione was still clearly intended to be white as there are several side characters who have "black" as one of their identifying features. Why explicitly describe these characters' race but not the race of the female lead? Could it possibly have something to do with her being part of the prevalent race in UK? It's great that she supports an actress who gets attacked over an irrelevant feature, but claiming that Hermione didn't have skin colour is just disingenuous.
@@BabyBrightside7 No, Riverdale is worse because it takes an actually good work and ruins it. Modern Archie Comics are actually really progressive and good. They have really good queer representation without falling into tropes or tokenism and they're really good. And Riverdale actually undoes that good representation by turning the gay character into a stereotype and just completely rewriting the asexual character to not be asexual. 50 Shades is based off of Twilight, there's so little room to fall that she really didn't make it that much worse, and all of the problems in 50 Shades also existed in the original work
You get social-points these days for pushing a sort of social-justice agenda. She announced that Hermione was never specified as white in the novels -- when she was -- and, at least out front, was given applause for it; how progressive, after all. But consider the reverse: a character overwhelmingly interpreted to be black suddenly, retroactively announced as "never specified as black", and a white woman cast to play her in the play.
@@vellichor7676 to be honest I don't care about the cast. She can be from any race if she is a good actress. I am just starting to find JKR really cringey, with all these try-hard diversity/representation quotes of her, which are baseless and empty.
also, JK was involved with the process of the covers, in the documentaries, she tells how she asked for some details to be included like Harry's hair and eyes. If she had a black Hermine in mind...why didn't she notice that the artist painted Hermine as a brunette caucasian??
@@Jhakaro It has different page counts in different editions, only one of the UK editions has 317. Edit: Though, for the sake of fairness, JK has stated that the reference to her "White face" was supposed to allude to Hermione blanching in fear.
Yeah, she did said that, but I think that was pretty obvious damage control after she was proven to be full of it. No author would describe a black person's face as white, no matter how afraid the character was. You would say gray, or ashen, or maybe even pale, but white? No way.
I think JK Rowling gave in to peer pressure big time. She put the world of Harry Potter down and had wanted to leave it behind but when she tried to release new books they didn’t do as well. I think that alarmed her and she picked the world up again because everyone loves that world and they want more. But beating a dead horse always ruins it more. Harry Potter had a complete good work, the story began and ended - continuing it is only making it worse and worse. It’s like a painting that’s done being added to after the fact and becoming a worse version of itself. And I don’t just blame her for that, a big part of that mess is the fans. The fans just couldn’t let it the fuck go.
"It’s like a painting that’s done being added to after the fact and becoming a worse version of itself. " Uhm, Leonardo DaVinci spent his whole life working on a single painting, obsessing over getting it "just right" until the day he died. That painting was the Mona Lisa.
@@joshuarichardson6529 i dont personally think the mona lisa is anything to go crazy over - but you should also keep in mind that you're assuming he was piling paint on top of paint. he wasn't. he was painting her over and over again, until he got it perfect. not piling paint on top of paint - the painting would've been awful otherwise for sheer fact that it would've come out globby and inconsistent because the paints he used weren't the type to last as well as any others he did (mona lisa wasn't a serious painting to him, she was like his practice piece, which is why he used paints of poorer quality than with his other works)
Yeah I feel the same way even though I think she lost me in between the last books already. For me Harry should have died, because every othe horkrux did but no he s getting a disney ending. I m sure someone has a good explanation. For me it doesnt matter I feel like she wasnt brave enough to kill him even though the plot demanded it. I also didnt like the whole he's marrying Ginny stuff either or Ron and Hermoine for that matter maybe I've read too much fanfiction but both pairings felt forced and far from reality. I dont believe in happy endings where everyone has someone to kiss because they just have to. I'm sad she took that route she ruined the books for me long before she made a fool of her herself on twitter.
@@MintyDragonfly, it's not really 'peer pressure" but definitely a realization that her 'non-Potter" related writing hasn't sold nearly as well. I enjoyed "Casual Vacancy" but it wasn't set in the Harry Potter world and I think that was the reason that many people didn't like the story. I do think that Rowling has caught the same problem that George Lucas has with the Star Wars franchise. The original series (4-6) has been edited to fit Lucas' new vision and is quite different from the originals as they had been released decades ago. Given how much retconning Rowling has added via Pottermore, it's possible that she might do some sort of retconning of the series which would remove the charm of the original release of the books.
I can agree with JK that, specifically in the books alone, Hermione was never said NOT to be black. But if you look back at the Prisoner of Azkaban book cover, as well as some of the illustrations between chapters, she was always portrayed to be white, with never a hint otherwise. And if she was intended to be black, why do the official Harry Potter website illustrations, art, and even the movies portray Hermione as white? So yeah, it's pretty obvious she's just trying to earn some last-minute good points with the media for being "progressive".
@@SysterYster I definantly agree with what you said.If Hermonione was intended to be black J.K Rowling would have most likely said so especially considering the fact that in one of the other Harry Potter books one of the minor characters were refered to as being quote and quote "black" and was not refered to as being a person of color which is not only evidence that Hermione was never intended to be black in the first place it also evidence that the only reason why J.K Rowling began refering to Hermione as being black is because she trying to kiss the ass of the Ultra Liberal/ SJW comunity.
I usually react to JK Rowling's authorial inserts with suspicion or indifference, but I am unabashedly intrigued by Nagini as a Korean woman, and sad that the last movie reduced her to sexy lamp status. I want to see how Nagini and Voldemort met, how she turned to the dark side, and why she was important enough to become a horcrux. Did Nagini have a bucket list of things to do before becoming a snake? tbh if JK Rowling decides to make a cheesy "Pineapple Express"-type movie that's just Voldemort and Nagini having adventures together, I'm there. Since Rowling encourages fanfic, I might have to write it myself.
