Post: #26

(02-15-2017 07:38 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 12:12 AM)Sooth Wrote:  The Harry Potter series displays a seriously deep understanding of historical mythology and human archetypes and I've recently become a little suspicious of this dumb bitch on twitter.

I don't see it.

This is why she's worth hundreds of millions and you're not.

She (or someone) told the story right.

She told it so right that a snake beneath a castle where you freeze when you look at it makes sense to the viewer such that they have no problem.

Post: #27

Hermione change in the theater play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child



Why this change, whats wrong with white (now milf probably) Hermione? Not a racist, but curious.

Post: #28

(02-15-2017 06:40 AM)weambulance Wrote:  ...On the other hand, all evidence points to Rowling becoming a nutty SJW after she finished the Harry Potter series. So all the SJW bullshit is shoehorned into her expanded universe work, not the original books. And since she's not as batshit as George Lucas, I don't think she'll ever go back and revise her work to include her dumbass after-the-fact notions...

That's been my take on it as well. I don't like the fantasy genre (no real reason, just not my thing), but like LOTR I was persuaded to read the Potter books because of the 'libertarian' content and messages.

And I was pleasantly surprised at the generally conservative and pro-liberty messages I found throughout the series. The dangers of centralized power is a huge theme in the series, for example, as is the central importance of the individual (personal courage, independent thinking, efficacy of individual choice and action, etc.). This "anti-family" thing is bizarre for exactly the reasons outlined earlier - a positive view of traditional family is a constant element, integral to the characterization and plot.

That's what makes her Hallows-and-after swerve into SJW and retconning of SJW themes and messages into her books so jarring. It's not that she's "coming out" as SJW, or that it was always there in her work as a subtext, but that it's such a turnabout.

Her political nonsense is less about her being a puppet of the intel community, and more just a woman following fashion in pursuit of approval from the clique. Having pro-liberty ideas at the moment will get you labeled a fascist (of all things) and shunned, but mouthing SJW platitudes gets you praise and party invitations. All serious writers think this way, you know. You want to be taken seriously, don't you? She was a low-class nobody who became popular and famous for writing YA fiction - this SJW stuff is sufficiently explained as pandering motivated by her social and intellectual insecurities.

(Aside: the last couple books really sucked from all the deus ex machina and out-of-nowhere plot developments and such. If anything, her story mechanics got worse over time to the degree that reading the last book was an enjoyment-free slog. If intel is ghostwriting for her, they did a terrible job at the end.)

Post: #29

(02-15-2017 01:43 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

FretDancer Wrote:@weambulance: That was a great post. I can tell you really know your stuff and are really good at analyzing written works. If you have written books or do ever write one, I would love to read it.

Funny you should say that. I've been meaning to post this clip for ages. Bill Whittle from a few years ago (it's short):

One of ideas I like to obsess a bit over is why so many people involved in nerd fandoms and people who are into fantasy/sci-fi/superheroes in general tend to be SJWs and why so much of the material promotes SJW causes. This video sums it up pretty well. In the video he gave the example of all those movies and TV shows from the 80s and 90s that featured quirky kind hearted nerds fighting against the meathead bully jocks that torment them for no reason and how the nerds eventually win out. It's just as much of a fantasy fulfillment as anything that involves dragons, wizards, or sci-fi space operas featuring spunky rebels fighting against an evil authoritarian empire.

I know as a kid about to go into high school I was expecting to be stuffed into lockers on a daily basis by football players since I was a small shrimpy guy and it was due to my exposure to all these old nerds vs jocks tropes. Once I actually got to high school I found that in reality the popular kids were mostly either 1) nice and pleasant or 2) didn't care enough about your existence to bother doing anything to you. The people who were the biggest bullies tended to be people who were lower on the social hierarchy but still had enough people underneath them that they could kick around to feel better about their own status. In other words, my pre-conceptions that had been programmed into me had been overturn by reality. A lot of these SJW geeks typically don't get the same exposure to reality since they tend to isolate themselves and only hang around with people like themselves. The isolation leads to them to not having much exposure to the outside world which results in them having very little idea how most people actually are which then leads to them substituting caricatures in place of them: a guy who is athletic must be a dumb bro-jock, any sort of attractive blonde white girl must be some sort of stuck up sorority bitch, etc. These ideas are allowed to fester and become the truth in the minds of these SJW geeks because they never have it corrected by exposure to reality via having to actually interact with these people that they love to stereotype so much.

Where do these caricatures come from? It was programmed into them by the media they consume, especially those of the nerd variety. I don't think it's any confidence that a good chunk of the people involved in the silly anti-Trump "resistance" constantly try to relate their struggles to Star Wars, Harry Potter, and the like.

Post: #30

Post: #31

(02-15-2017 07:38 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  For the record, this was my favourite book as a child:

Not to jump to conclusions, but if you don't describe this book, aren't you giving it short shrift?

Got more to say, but I just ate, and for some reason need to go eat again.

Post: #32

(02-15-2017 09:25 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  Hermione change in the theater play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child



Why this change, whats wrong with white (now milf probably) Hermione? Not a racist, but curious.

Because you're not a proper SJW if you don't chuck continuity to the winds to pander.

Hermione's supposed to be pretty, too. Fail.

Maybe the next play will be Harriet Potter and the Magic Sex Change Operation, that would be something. They can cast Melissa McCarthy or Rosie O'Donnell as "Harry".

Post: #33

(02-15-2017 08:00 AM)Sooth Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 07:38 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 12:12 AM)Sooth Wrote:  The Harry Potter series displays a seriously deep understanding of historical mythology and human archetypes and I've recently become a little suspicious of this dumb bitch on twitter.

I don't see it.

This is why she's worth hundreds of millions and you're not.

She (or someone) told the story right.

She told it so right that a snake beneath a castle where you freeze when you look at it makes sense to the viewer such that they have no problem.

Perhaps I do not understand your point.

Rowling is a decent storyteller. Her work is (mostly) internally consistent and she doesn't try to explain fantastic things, so there are no threads for inquisitive skeptics to start pulling. Thus she's not doing anything that breaks disbelief.

Why should I have a problem with the basilisk? It's a magic world. If I already accept magic wands, giants, self-driving carriages, flying cars, trees that punch the shit out of you, and walls you can walk right through, why should I balk at the basilisk? Nothing in Harry Potter is particularly hard for fantasy readers to swallow. Piers Anthony used much stranger stuff in his popular (now misogynistic) Xanth series, which started in the late 70s.

You can't just point to her success as proof of her (or "somebody's") amazing competence and understanding of humanity because doing so ignores the element of luck that's always necessary to achieve huge success in any field. Very often, the best in a field do not achieve the most success. The "good enough" who are in the right place at the right time are the ones who strike gold.

The only thing that makes the Harry Potter series special is for some reason, it struck a chord at exactly the right time and took off to be huge.

If the books had been published 10 years earlier or later, that probably wouldn't have happened. They would've been successful, sure, and Rowling would probably have a few million bucks in the bank, but there would be no billion dollar media empire. The movie rights would've been bought by a studio, but many books are bought and few are produced; odds are there would be no movie series. And frankly, Rowling would probably be happier with the state of her career because people wouldn't be hounding her to keep writing more Harry Potter stuff. She's probably sick to death of working with the same material.

Post: #34

(02-15-2017 04:34 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  More info here:

Religious debates over the Harry Potter series

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_...ter_series


The books also promote homosexuality to children through the character of Dumbledore.

The books don't promote homosexuality at all. If I am not mistaken, this allegation comes from a interview with Rowling where she said that she always viewed Dumbledore as a homosexual, but she never stated him as such in the books.

Either way, if you have read the books you will know that Dumbledore is probably the only and most praised and admired character in the whole story by the narrator, like some sort of saint. He has the qualities that seem like that of a "perfect" human being: kindness, forgiveness, believing in people, thirst for knowledge, power without making abuse of it, appreciation of life, enjoyment for life, not being afraid of being "himself", etc, etc.

A character such as Dumbledore would not be the same, and would be completely ruined if things such as sexuality were to be introduced or probably if even just mentioned, in the context of Dumbledore.

Post: #35

(02-15-2017 01:14 PM)Wutang Wrote:  One of ideas I like to obsess a bit over is why so many people involved in nerd fandoms and people who are into fantasy/sci-fi/superheroes in general tend to be SJWs and why so much of the material promotes SJW causes. This video sums it up pretty well. In the video he gave the example of all those movies and TV shows from the 80s and 90s that featured quirky kind hearted nerds fighting against the meathead bully jocks that torment them for no reason and how the nerds eventually win out. It's just as much of a fantasy fulfillment as anything that involves dragons, wizards, or sci-fi space operas featuring spunky rebels fighting against an evil authoritarian empire.

I know as a kid about to go into high school I was expecting to be stuffed into lockers on a daily basis by football players since I was a small shrimpy guy and it was due to my exposure to all these old nerds vs jocks tropes. Once I actually got to high school I found that in reality the popular kids were mostly either 1) nice and pleasant or 2) didn't care enough about your existence to bother doing anything to you. The people who were the biggest bullies tended to be people who were lower on the social hierarchy but still had enough people underneath them that they could kick around to feel better about their own status. In other words, my pre-conceptions that had been programmed into me had been overturn by reality. A lot of these SJW geeks typically don't get the same exposure to reality since they tend to isolate themselves and only hang around with people like themselves. The isolation leads to them to not having much exposure to the outside world which results in them having very little idea how most people actually are which then leads to them substituting caricatures in place of them: a guy who is athletic must be a dumb bro-jock, any sort of attractive blonde white girl must be some sort of stuck up sorority bitch, etc. These ideas are allowed to fester and become the truth in the minds of these SJW geeks because they never have it corrected by exposure to reality via having to actually interact with these people that they love to stereotype so much.

Where do these caricatures come from? It was programmed into them by the media they consume, especially those of the nerd variety. I don't think it's any confidence that a good chunk of the people involved in the silly anti-Trump "resistance" constantly try to relate their struggles to Star Wars, Harry Potter, and the like.

100% agreed, and if you apply this to adult politics rather than the high school social scene, you see the same pattern. Just replace the old jocks/cheerleaders vs. nerds trope with the themes you learn about in history class.

Take slavery and the Jim Crow era: An alien learning about these events from a history textbook, and knowing nothing about present day Earth, would conclude that whites are an evil and violent race of abusers while blacks are peaceful, timid and downtrodden. The alien would assume that to this day, white people are collective bullies of black people (along with other minorities, gays, etc).

As men attuned to reality, we can all correctly perceive that the dynamic has shifted drastically since the Jim Crow days. White society, if anything, is overcompensating for its past, giving blacks and other minorities overt preferential treatment (e.g. affirmative action). Most white run nations treat "racism" as an unspeakable evil, while non-white nations couldn't give a shit about not being racist. The white race is, by far, collectively the most tolerant toward homosexuality and general deviancy. And on average, black people behave far more hostilely toward whites than vice versa (interracial crime stats show this objectively).

But you won't read these things in any textbook. They require some independent observation of reality which, as Wutang explains, SJWs are incapable of. Thus, SJWs take the view of the hypothetical alien, in which white males are the cartoon supervillain, minorities are the innocent victim, and they're the superhero. When you grasp just how cartoonish and un-nuanced the SJW worldview is, it's not hard to see why they advocate for punching "Nazis" and censoring "fascists."

Post: #36

There's a tendency of SJWs to automatically side with who whoever is the underdog no matter the actual merits or moral fiber of the underdogs and to automatically demonize who ever is seen as wielding power. That's why you get absurd situations like where the people who endlessly moralize about sexism, racism, homophobia also end up being the biggest defenders of Muslims: Muslims being seen as a disfranchised and underdog group gives them enough points with the SJWs to over the cognitive dissonance of advocating for a group that's nearly the opposite of them in every social issue.

Post: #37

(02-16-2017 01:17 AM)Wutang Wrote:  There's a tendency of SJWs to automatically side with who whoever is the underdog no matter the actual merits or moral fiber of the underdogs and to automatically demonize who ever is seen as wielding power. That's why you get absurd situations like where the people who endlessly moralize about sexism, racism, homophobia also end up being the biggest defenders of Muslims: Muslims being seen as a disfranchised and underdog group gives them enough points with the SJWs to over the cognitive dissonance of advocating for a group that's nearly the opposite of them in every social issue.

I've wondered whether it's that, or SJWs simply being too ignorant to realize that the Muslim world is so homophobic and patriarchal it makes Alabama look like San Francisco. I really think a good portion of SJWs literally believe that racism, sexism and homophobia are unique products of white society. In their cartoon world of good guys (marginalized groups) and bad guys (white male "fascists"), it doesn't make sense for the good guys to actually be worse than the bad guys. There's just no room for any nuance whatsoever beyond a perceived struggle of good against evil.

Post: #38

This research does not make any sense. As many noted before, it is plainly obvious that the author did not read the book.


FAMILY


First of all, the whole series do promote the premise that the nuclear family is the best for children to grow in. Good example of that is the Wesley (or something) family. Yes, I know that the wife is basically the head of the household (if I remember correctly...)...but still...even that is better than a broken family. Even Harry directly said to Ron how lucky he is.


Speaking of Harry, during the whole trilogy, we see that he longs for a family. He is well aware that Weasleys, despite everything...can't be a replacement. In the fourth book (?), we can see that his need for a family (and more specific, father) was somehow filled when Sirius Black (his godfather) came into play. When he (Sirius) died...we can see how devastating it was for him. Also, when Harry went to fight George Sor...ahem...Voldemort...take a look how he reacted when he saw the ghosts of his relatives.


Now...contrast Harry to Voldemort (his real name was Tim or something, and that is how I am going to call him). He came from a broken family. We all know the fact that 90% of criminals, murderers etc. come from broken families (data does not lie). Like our good friend Tim. If someone feels called out, or even triggered, yours truly is also coming from this background. The family thing of Tim is familiar to most of us. His father was a Muggle PUA, who banged Tim's Mom (HB 9/10 witch, who also happened to be descended from some wizard that hated Muggles). She spat out Tim, and died some time later. Eventually, Tim figured out what happened, and murdered his PUA father (and his family), and became evil. Now...if his family remained intact...the whole trilogy would not exist, as simple as that.


TLDR- HP trilogy does promote family values.



PLAGIARISM


The author certainly did take a lot of ideas from other sources...like everyone else in publishing, art, movie industry...that is nothing new.


Let me explain.


She took (by her own admission) a lot of material from Tolkien. And Tolkien took a lot of material from pagan and medieval Europe (especially Celtic and Germanic myths). Celts and Germanic people, being Indo Germanics...took a lot of material from...the Middle East (it was close to them, because they lived near the Kavkaz Mountains). See my point?


Or...something more related...the concept of Red and Blue pill, on which the whole Manosphere believes in one way or another. From which movie trilogy it came from?.


She did what many people did for centuries.



SJW CRAP


Yes, I am well aware about the recent stuff the author said about Brexit, Trump, gay Dumbeldore etc... .But we need to be aware of this fact.

Women are followers. And as followers...they follow what appears to be trendy.


Woman (for the most part) do not buy things because they are nice. They buy them because they are cool and trendy. There is reason why women are 90% of consumer base.


Let's go back to the author.


When most of the trilogy (pre Obama tyranny) was written, was race baiting and SJW stuff popular and treandy? Not that much.

Is it popular and trendy now, in 2017? Yes, indeed (although is losing appeal bit by bit).



That explains her behavior.






Other posters have disproven the rest of the premises of this poorly done research...all I can do is parrot, so I will stop here.



EDIT(s) - formatting

Post: #39

Ian Flemming was British Intelligence, if they keep pumping out books his and Rowlings sort I'm all for it.

Post: #40

(02-15-2017 09:25 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  Hermione change in the theater play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child



Why this change, whats wrong with white (now milf probably) Hermione? Not a racist, but curious.

Pwoaah, I'm here fighting a raging stiffy at the new Hermione (neck down)!!

Post: #41

I don't know about this tin-hat theory but I am LOVING the campaign to call her virtue signalling out and house some refugees in her mansions.

Put up or shut up JKR

Post: #42

(02-19-2017 09:11 AM)Moma Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 09:25 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  Hermione change in the theater play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child



Why this change, whats wrong with white (now milf probably) Hermione? Not a racist, but curious.

Pwoaah, I'm here fighting a raging stiffy at the new Hermione (neck down)!!

WNB

Post: #43

Thankfully, I cannot really add anything to this thread cause I've never read a single Harry Potter book.
Nor even seen much at all of the films.

I still stand by my analysis that JK Rowling is a silly old bint.

Post: #44

I found that the description in the books was excellent, very exciting, creative. Kind of a spark of hyper realism. But the plots were absolute shit. Zero foreshadowing, and whatever you thought was real wasnt. And that is a very common Illuminati training..betrayal. Whatever you thought was real isn't. Trust no one, not even your own father. And supposedly if you torture children it gives them special psychic powers..sounds like magicians. And they like to kill people and animals in front of children..why kind of like Harry's mom being killed in front of him. Total Illuminati training.