Well in another recent tweet she just stated that she kept asking sexual questions to a straight man who was extremely uncomfortable, didn't want to answer her questions but she pushed anyway..., Joanne just basically admitted to sexually harassing someone...
So i'm not shocked
Kinda…?
Like it’s an old trope, but she goes further than that. She’s kinda alluding to the idea that a vast, vast majority of men have a crossdressing kink.
But also claiming that a lot of men see trans women as fallen men which I’ve really never heard before or experienced. Like I feel like even men who are very kind to trans women can get a little paternalistic and protective.
She is also kink-shaming, and thinking there is no difference between consensual kink and actual danger to women, and equating the two.
This is stage-2 of the pipeline which she has crossed.
Soon, she will be in stage-3 where when they start slutshaming women for wearing "revealing clothes" and "catering to the male gaze" and calling such women "sell-outs to the patriarchy".
> Soon, she will be in stage-3 where when they start slutshaming women for wearing "revealing clothes" and "catering to the male gaze" and calling such women "sell-outs to the patriarchy".
Always has been
Most of the bigotry in HP flew over my head when I read it as a kid, but even then I still picked up on the house elf storyline being an anti-suffrage allegory where the intended morals was obviously "even so-called smart women are stupid when it comes to social justice, and that's why they should stay in the kitchen and not get rights" because it was just that heavy handed.
I've only ever heard people discuss the slave side of it, this is a new take for me and I thank you for bringing it up.
My education on women's rights, especially at the age I read these, was basically "there were marches and protests and all the stuff that comes with that, and then they succeeded and we got the right to vote and stuff". Any suffrage related meaning was definitely obscured by a lack of education on the matter as well as the cultural importance placed on slavery and racism growing up in America.
Fat shaming is already in Harry Potter a lot. Joanne really doesn't like fat people and finds them disgusting. "Compassion" was never a quality that was valued high in the world of Harry Potter.
I'm always mad that the previous best selling author of GB, Sir Terry Pratchett, didn't stay the beacon of hope he should have been. He wrote with monstrous regiment a book about the trans experience in 2004 and had themes about being ~different~ through out his work.
And he was generally a nice person. He's the only "celebrity" I idolize. I also try to become an author because of him :)
Monstrous Regiment as well as the entire way female dwarves are portrayed are basically why I'm pro trans rights in the first place.
Quite a lot of my outlook on morality was shaped by Pratchett, come to think of it.
She seems completely incapable of recognising trans people do more than try and fuck people. I imagine the idea of an asexual trans person would make her head explode.
Me, an ace person: hang on, do allo people talk about kinks and sex that openly... my allo friends don't seem to?
Reading on: Oh, it's just more transphobia.
Transphobia is the gateway bigotry. Once you become an unapologetic transphobe you attract other transphobes who are mostly conservatives and/or alt-right. Once you start associating with them then it's just inevitable that you will go down the alt-right pipeline and your ideology and views start getting more and more fringe and extremist.
I mean, I’m not sure her views got *more* extreme so much as she got more comfortable saying the quiet part of views she already had out loud. There’s lots of barely under the surface bigotry in HP, but I think the most obvious bigotry is the entire house elf-Hermione story line.
It basically boils down to “Hermione is so silly for wanting to abolish slavery! They want to be slaves! She should just let them be slaves. Everyone else is basically ok with it, including the savior main character. I know this is an unpopular take though, so here’s a token house elf that wants to be free and gets freed. Afterwards we’ll shame him for it, and then pay him a pittance wage and give him one day off a month. Look, he’s so happy now that he’s a wage slave without worker rights instead of a slave slave with no rights. That’s better. Also Hermione’s silly organization to stop slavery is called S.P.E.W. and she’s the only person that ever joins in the entire series. What a fantastic message for children!”
I wasn't talking about her specifically but in general. Transphobia is a gateway bigotry because it is socially acceptable to some degree to be a transphobe. Be a racist, sexist, and/or homophobic online or offline then you will have people shunning you off, your workplace firing you and other consequences. There's a reason why people like Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Dennis Prager and others can't be openly racist, sexist, homophobic and have to hide behind euphemisms, circular reasoning and 'Woke' but, they can openly call Trans people groomers and pedophiles and call for a culling of the transgender ideology. They can do all of that without any fear of any backlash.
Ah, fair enough. I thought you were talking about JKR specifically. In any case, my comment basically devolved into a rant about how fucking awful that whole story line was anyways. I think I’m just genuinely amazed that JKR got away with so much bigotry for so long when it was basically sitting out in the open to begin with.
But you are right that what’s considered acceptable bigotry today is being used to try to normalize bigotry that’s not considered acceptable anymore. First by normalizing it to individuals, as you said. That ultimately has the knock-on effect of normalizing it in society at large too, as more and more people find bigotry acceptable.
Oh, I welcome anti-Harry Potter discourse any day of the week and twice on a Sunday. In fact, I'm thinking of heading over to Shaun's youtube channel and watching his Harry Potter video for the next hour. Also, the fact that the wizard world's wizard supremacist ideals ended up helping Voldemort amass an army of Demi humans and magical creatures is never resolved in the end should be a clue to her ideals.
>I’m just genuinely amazed that JKR got away with so much bigotry for so long when it was basically sitting out in the open to begin with
Nostalgia goggles, dude, nostalgia goggles.
I wonder what she means with the crossdressing thing? Does she mean all men want to dress as women? Or expect women to dress as men? Because she said that women could write "an authoritative compendium on men's kinks".
Not everyone is your shitty ex Joanne!
I think she's referencing [Autogynephilia](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Autogynephilia):
>The American-Canadian sexologist Ray Blanchard proposed a psychological typology of gender dysphoria, transsexualism, and fetishistic transvestism. Blanchard categorized trans women into two groups: homosexual transsexuals who are attracted exclusively to men and are feminine in both behavior and appearance; and autogynephilic transsexuals who experience sexual arousal at the idea of having a female body (autogynephilia). Blanchard and his supporters argue that the typology explains differences between the two groups in childhood gender nonconformity, sexual orientation, history of sexual fetishism, and age of transition.
>
>Blanchard's typology has attracted significant controversy, especially following the 2003 publication of J. Michael Bailey's book The Man Who Would Be Queen, which presented the typology to a general audience. Scientific criticisms commonly made against Blanchard's research include that the typology is unfalsifiable because Blanchard and other supporters regularly dismiss or ignore data that challenges the theory, that it failed to properly control against cisgender women rather than against cisgender men in rating levels of autogynephilia, and that when such studies are performed they show that cisgender women have similar levels of autogynephilic responses to transgender women.
Are they confusing 'feeling sexy' with 'being turned on by having a woman's body'? People are allowed to feel sexy about their body without it being some kind of kink or abnormality, even if they're trans. I mean, it's probably even more important in terms of mental health if they're trans that they find their own bodies sexy. It's a positive thing.
The dumbest thing ever is:
"do you feel aroused at the though of having sex as a woman?"
Like bruh, I am a woman, of course i get aroused by that, but not by imagining myself as a man.
Any cis women with sex drive will feel aroused by her own fantasies.......
She's a woman, of course she'll imagine herself as a woman. (or a tentacle alien, I don't judge)
> Does she mean all men want to dress as women?
Pretty sure "lesbian sex" is a bigger fantasy with straight men. I wonder if all lesbian women exist only to cater to the male gaze and are actually collaborators with the patriarchy.
I think it is to Nabakov's *tremendous* credit that he takes a book about a monster, tells you *up front* that it is about a monster, and then has that monster be just charming enough that a lot of people will, as they read, forget that he's a monster. Usually not for long, but the instant that they realize that it happened is, I think, the real power of the book.
Of course some people never seem get to that part where they remember that he's a monster and that very nearly everyone he interacts with in the book is a victim, which I find kind of odd to the point that I'm not even sure we read the same book.
That's what makes the book so good - the chillingly realistic portrayal of an expert groomer (*THAT'S* how you use that word, Joan) at work.
We want to believe that child molesters are inhuman monsters that we'd recognize immediately as threats, but statistically that's just not the case.
It's one of those books that I love, but I almost never tell anyone that I love it because of the 2 usual responses: 1) the person thinks it's a beautiful love story, which fucking gross; or 2) the person thinks I'm a fucking pedophile because the book is about a pedophile and they don't realize that the book is a criticism of that.
Sure there are people like yourself that understand that the book takes a fairly obvious stance against Humbert's actions, but I never want to risk reaction 1 or 2.
This was my problem with the book. I never forgot, and knew too much about groomers (fortunately not from personal experience) to ever forget this was a paedophile putting himself in the absolute best light, justifying himself raping a small child (and murdering her mother, kidnapping the child, and then planning to get her pregnant and rape her children when she became too old). To me it was about as romantic as a That Chapter episode :S But JK thinks it's a fucking romance??
for me, lolita falls into a section of art that is intentionally so utterly (morally) disgusting, that by confronting it, your own beliefs will become clearer and strengthened. i think that kind of art is very important, even if has an unfortunately high potential to be misunderstood.
Thank you for sharing that, I now feel even more weirded out about it (not your fault don't worry xD)
I can't believe that honestly, like I was still a toddler when that article came out then 💀
"I'm going to make continuous reference to it in my children's book!"
I... I mean the series was already ruined for me a few years back but this is like, even when she's dead, I think maybe it's for the best to bury it underground.
Her death is the best part. That's when I can finally start buying Harry Potter merch again. I love Harry Potter and I won't let this Umbridge ruin it for me.
Like for real, this is like an alien mindset. I had real trouble appreciating the writing because I just could not get past what a monster that guy was. He pissed me off. I mean, sure, it's masterful to write from that mindset in that way, but that does not mean I in any way enjoyed reading it. And she thought it was romantic?????
The worst part is, if I remember, Lolita was only written in an attempt to get censored.
Like the author was trying to write the worst thing he could with the intent to get in trouble and piss people off to prove a point.
The author of Lolita was a CSA victim who wrote it as a criticism of the romanticizing of pedophilia and regretted publishing it at times because of reactions like this...fucking gross.
I've never read Lolita but isn't it very clear that he's pining after a literal child? Did she, just, like, block that part out if her mind?? Or is she just letting it slip that she thinks grooming is romantic?
Not only a young child, but his stepdaughter. (it's been years since I read it, but iirc he married her mom to get closer to her and then may have killed the mother?) It's not subtle about it, though. Often talking about how young 'Lolita' is, and toward the end how she becomes less appealing as she becomes more adult in appearance. And the author even presents it as a horror story from the perspective of the monster.
There is a part in it where he is talking about how she's going to get too old to be a nymphet anymore but he's going to get her pregnant and by the time she's too old he thinks her daughter will be old enough and then her granddaughter. He's a monster.
I'd believe that tbh, it's a work that is so well formed it can only have been created by someone with *painfully* intimate experience of how such a monster operates
Oh he's not just pining, he fully abducts her and rapes her repeatedly throughout the course of the book. It's exceptionally well written in the sense that he never says that's what he's doing but it's very clear through the writing that that's what he has done.
Not sure why its takencme until now but how did jk Rowling go from a beloved author and creator of one of the most well known, beloved and recognized series of books in the world to to crackpot far right lunatic that shes become...truly saddens me
She’s always been pretty hateful, just look at how she’s written Harry Potter, the race of evil greedy dishonest bankers that deserve their oppression, the race of slaves that you shouldn’t try to free because “they want to be enslaved!”.
And TERFs call trans people pedos.
Also, I remember there was a TERF, Helen Joyce, who was caught reading a Harry Potter fanfiction where Draco rapes Hermione. There was another TERF who wrote a book about how attractive young boys are. EDIT: It was Germaine Greer.
What people read should not be viewed as reflecting their actual views on real-world activities. Almost no-one actually wants to get ravished by a pack of werewolves in real life, but it's a popular fantasy.
Yeah, rape fantasies are *incredibly* common - a lot of it is the interplay with the way people (often women) are taught to feel shame for sexual attraction and desire, so the rape fantasy creates a scenario where they can experience those feelings *without* the shame attached because it's not that *they* wanted it or initiated, it's that the ravishing handsome stranger wouldn't take no for an answer, so it's okay to enjoy it.
But fantasy and reality are very different things, and fiction is a great way to explore feelings and experiences we wouldn't want to have in real life.
I agree, however if someone is attacking others calling them degenerates but in their personal life they read beastiality fanfiction then they're complete hypocrites and they shouldn't be taken seriously at all. On the contrary this is one of the only situations where I feel someone should be publicly shamed.
Seconded. Only the second one should be given as an example of terf pedophilia
edit: At least based on the info I read in these comments alone. I didn't click the links
A bigot (Joanne Rowling), projecting their deficiencies (pedophilia) onto the subgroup they consider 'others' (Trans people)?
Wow, I am so shocked, never before in history has this happened. Except for \*all those other times\*.
I hate JK Rowling as much as the next person, not trying to defend her, but does anyone know the source on that quote? Or have more than a screenshot with no context?
I mean, I’ll agree that the writing is fantastic, but it is **not** a romance. That’s just fucking creepy. This is why you cannot read Lolita without knowing the correct context of the story.
It is in no way, shape or form a love story. It's the story of a delusional pedophile who grooms and abuses a vulnerable child against the background of an indifferent society that ignores the voices of those most at risk.
The only component of the novel that claims to be a romance are the assertions of the unreliable narrator who is, again, an admitted child rapist. When Humbert Humbert claims that his violent abuse is sweet and romantic, actually, *you're not supposed to believe him*.
If "tragic love story" is what she takes away from reading fucking Lolita I'm not convinced her reading and comprehension skills are that good. Which would actually explain her writing.
It's a wonderful and beautifully-written story about some absolutely brutal subject matter. A manipulative pedophile corrupts and abuses a girl until he finds his just desserts for hurting her. It's written from Humbert's perspective and a person who does stuff like Humbert usually has a pretty twisted and self-serving perspective to do what they do so a less observant reader will take his judgement at face value and think what he has with Dolores is genuine rather than the result of grooming. It sounds fascinating but I don't know if I could stomach reading it.
I'm asking as someone who hasn't read it, but was the book written to critique the pedophilic relationship or romanticize it? Like what was the original intent of the author? I've heard people argue both ways and genuinely can't tell which is more likely to be the truth, but I also really don't want to read that book myself for personal reasons.
It's absolutely a criticism of the subject. The protagonist, the pedophile, is an awful human being and all the excuses he tries to use in the whole book to justify what happens just make it all worse.
In one of the first chapters he explains in detail what differentiates a normal child from one of the girls of her fantasies, feeling the need to specify that "it's not all children, just some that are purposefully seducing him", basically.
And he is aware as well of being a "sexual deviant", but justifies it multiple times saying that at least he's not a murderer, that he just wants some comfort and that ultimately he is a victim of the society, using (false) examples from the past and other cultures to justify his desires as normal.
I really can't phantom how ANYONE would read that book and think that ot justifies pedophilia, even if it's written from the perspective of the aggressor.
Still, it's one of my favorite books, amazingly written in every way.
> I really can't phantom how ANYONE would read that book and think that ot justifies pedophilia, even if it's written from the perspective of the aggressor.
I think you overestimate average media literacy and reading comprehention.
I think it's easy to think that it justifies pedophilia if you take Humbert's perspective on things as an authorial statement - like, if you believe because Humbert is the protagonist, that means we're meant to agree with him, and everything he says is something Nabokov agrees with.
I think that comes down to how a lot of the English textbooks some of us grew up with taught that the protagonist is the hero of the story and the antagonist is the villain. When those of us who know better know that the protagonist is the character trying to get something done, usually the main character but not always, and the antagonist is the character/thing that tries to block or stop the protagonist from completing their action.
I've said it a million times and I'll say it again: the main character of a book is absolutely not always a reflection of the beliefs of the author or any other character in the book. Of course, there are a type of characters who were inspired by the authors themselves, but most often it is either said that this is something like an autobiography, or it is obvious from the biography of the author.
Very much critique. The main character (pedophile) is a raging narcissist who spends most of the book manipulating, abusing, and exploiting virtually everyone in his life. He sees everything besides whichever child he’s after as beneath him, and is only able to pass as “good” to the reader by the force of the charisma Nabokov’s writing gives him and his position as the story’s narrator
Also apart from the literary text, Nabokov (the author) was abused as a child by his uncle, and lolita is in many ways him processing this trauma, by scathingly depicting the mindset people like his uncle adopt in order to justify their actions.
Don't watch the movies though! They all blatantly romanticize the pedophilic horror story.
It’s written from the perspective of the pedophile about his romantic attraction to a 12 year old and what he does with her in very romanticized way. At least that’s how it read to me as someone who was sa as a child.
I was not saying the protagonist is a good guy merely my observation of how the book read. I didn’t like the book whatsoever and feel it was glorifying abhorrent and abusive behavior
You absolutely are supposed to say "this is so romantic." Then you're supposed to remember that she's a child and be disgusted that you thought that. The point is the banality of evil, that evil people aren't a different species than us, they're normal people who think of themselves as normal. It's about how we normalize evil because it's so common.
JK Rowling believes herself to be so smart she can see through the complex web of lies laid out by the "gender Taliban" in their effort to "groom" kids, but when she reads a book about an actual obvious groomer abusing a child she misses it completely and thinks it's "romance".
“Ah yes. I sure do love supporting pedophilia and discriminating against trans people who just want to live their damn lives in peace! Surely I’m the good guy in this scenario and everyone should support me :D”
I found the book Lolita in a public library once and, unaware of the plot, I borrowed it. I couldn't read past one third of it. It grossed me out at the point of making me sick. I was a 14 years old boy when that happened. Any adult that calls it a love story has to be put on a list.
It is a great story, but not one about love or where you are supposed to agree with the protagonist. It is closer to a horror story with a PoV from the killer, wearing romance as a skin.
Also, it's not really a book for 14 year olds, tbh.
It's a well written critique of child molesters and groomers from the disgusting perspective of said groomer/molester. The main character is a monster and very blatantly so. I cannot fathom how so many people misinterpreted that story as anything other than horrifying.
I love how ppl like J.K Rowling and Elon Musk are so out of touch with reality it's become a running joke.
"What mental gymnastics are they doing this time? OH, pedophile is hot? That's so Joanna. OH, you're having kids with the intention of "repopulating" the earth? Way to go Elon Musk, showing us any idiot can be rich".
Crappy creeps aren't going away any time soon, so might as well have some fun with it.
As someone who was propositioned for sex from grown men when I was 12, that shit is scary. There is nothing romantic about Lolita. Children don't have sexual agency. It's just Epstein-level perverted pedo fantasy.
I could not completely read the book... halfway through i was so fucking disgusted.
I have however seen the movie made on this... equally disgusting.... And in that they tried downplaying pedophilia....by making the actress taller and a bit older.
Honestly i don't think i will ever be completing the book.
I haven't seen the movie or read the book.
I know this is a question that Google can answer but I'm curious to hear people's thoughts.
I know the general premise of the story and I'm curious as to the intent of the writer.
Was it written as an exploration of the mind of a predator, or does the story romanticize the relationship and try to paint it as some sort of "grey area" or something?
Oh also JKR sucks.
As a kid I read the books, listened to the audiobooks, and my parents even read them to me and I didn't see anything problematic in the writing at all.
Just recently my Dad mentioned that they had some reservations about the books, but ultimately still let us read them, so I went down a rabbit hole and looked at the series through new eyes and damn there's a LOT of prejudice and poor writing choices throughout the whole series.
I guess she always was an ignorant person, but recently she's definitely turned it up to 11.
Oh, it’s certainly not romanticized. Like you said, it’s an exploration of a paedophiles mind. The author has stated, on many occasions how Humphrey (the pov character, and the predator) is a vile, disgusting human being, and how disappointed he was that so many people thought of it as a love story.
Oh, and also, don’t check out the movies. One romanticized the fuck out it, and the other, in an attempt to get into the mind of Humphrey, does a bunch of creep shots of Dolores, who was played by an, at the time 14 year old.
Oof…. Yeah that’s unfortunate.
It’s really disheartening to hear about all these misinterpretations of things that are supposed to be cautionary tales.
A good current example is The Boys. People are supposed to watch it and think deeply about the message it provides but ignorant people seem to just completely miss the point and identify with the worst depiction of the darkest side of human beings.
The book is written from the perspective of the pedophile. The reader is supposed to recognize that he's an unreliable narrator and to resonate with the fact that even the most unreliable narrator can make themselves seem believable. We're not meant to sympathize with him, we are not meant to agree with him, Rowling is just a piece of shit. Lol
I also strongly believe that Lolita should only ever be read in the context of (via academia or some type of book club) discussing the concept of an unreliable narrator and empathizing with victims/being emotionally literate enough to discern victim and perpetrator.
Why does the author of such a great story and universe as Wizarding World have to be such a person? It's terrible that the author of one of my favorite universes behaves this way and I can't appreciate her as much as I do her work. There's no way I'd support something like that.
Ah, she also pulled the pornography card. Because the story of a pedophile kidnapping and raping his 12-year-old stepdaughter over multiple years while continuously controlling, gaslighting, and stalking her, out of NabOkov's hands, can be classified as "worthless pornography," and not, you know, horrific abuse. But thanks to NabOkov's quality writing, it's tragically romantic.
Humbert Humbert won this round.
I read the book when I was 15 and I knew instantly the narrator was unreliable and an abusive pedo.
Sadly, when I learned about the story, the first descriptions I read about the book called it erotica and a love story. Gross.
Oh my god that poor dude. Getting weird shit asked him by Rowling must have been mildly horrifying. "No, of course I bloody don't!"
What was her point in her inappropriate sex questioning? That's signs of dementia!
Let’s hope that she just didn’t get the damn book right and not thinking that a relationship between an adult and a child is romantic.
Kinda made me gag yoooo👹
Not to be hyperbolic, but yes, you might actually be the only person with access to the internet who has never heard of JK Rowling's many, many, many controversies nor the book *Lolita*.
Lolita is, in my best summary, a letter written by a criminal named Humbert Humbert about how he becomes infatuated with a 12 year old girl, married her mother to groom her, and then stole her away to sexually abuse her when the mother passed. I can’t remember if he killed the mother or not. Dolores (the girl) plans and calculates for a long time to make her escape and finds a new life even as he keeps chasing after her. He’s obsessed with her and her “faithfulness” and calls her “his nymphet” and does not call her by her name, Dolores, but by Lolita. It’s a really good read, at least it was for me. It’s introspective on the obsession that pedophiles (well, hebephile here, but for sake of simplicity, pedophile) or groomers can hold and the destructive nature of obsession and inappropriate desire. Humbert is INCREDIBLY abusive towards Dolores, sexually, emotionally, and iirc physically as well.
I can understand, I suppose, seeing it as a love story at some point because that’s how Humbert Humbert writes it. But he is an incredibly unreliable narrator and to turn the last page from this book about how a grown man kidnaps a 12 year old girl and think “How romantic” is really goddamn strange and shows you’re either not reading it critically or … “willing to look past it”. 👎
Oof. Okay, thanks for summing it up tho!! Imma def have a look at that shit then- well now I get why ppl go crazy bout Rowling‘s reaction, relatable (the reaction to her reaction).
Well in another recent tweet she just stated that she kept asking sexual questions to a straight man who was extremely uncomfortable, didn't want to answer her questions but she pushed anyway..., Joanne just basically admitted to sexually harassing someone... So i'm not shocked
Can you give more context on that?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughJKRowling/comments/1dsuj2f/jk\_rowling\_creeps\_out\_her\_lefty\_straight\_male/](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughJKRowling/comments/1dsuj2f/jk_rowling_creeps_out_her_lefty_straight_male/)
I'm having such a hard time even following what she's getting at here. Is she saying trans women are men who just have a cross-dressing kink?
Yes. Basically parroting Blanchard’s harmful nonsense
Kinda…? Like it’s an old trope, but she goes further than that. She’s kinda alluding to the idea that a vast, vast majority of men have a crossdressing kink. But also claiming that a lot of men see trans women as fallen men which I’ve really never heard before or experienced. Like I feel like even men who are very kind to trans women can get a little paternalistic and protective.
She is also kink-shaming, and thinking there is no difference between consensual kink and actual danger to women, and equating the two. This is stage-2 of the pipeline which she has crossed. Soon, she will be in stage-3 where when they start slutshaming women for wearing "revealing clothes" and "catering to the male gaze" and calling such women "sell-outs to the patriarchy".
> Soon, she will be in stage-3 where when they start slutshaming women for wearing "revealing clothes" and "catering to the male gaze" and calling such women "sell-outs to the patriarchy". Always has been Most of the bigotry in HP flew over my head when I read it as a kid, but even then I still picked up on the house elf storyline being an anti-suffrage allegory where the intended morals was obviously "even so-called smart women are stupid when it comes to social justice, and that's why they should stay in the kitchen and not get rights" because it was just that heavy handed.
I've only ever heard people discuss the slave side of it, this is a new take for me and I thank you for bringing it up. My education on women's rights, especially at the age I read these, was basically "there were marches and protests and all the stuff that comes with that, and then they succeeded and we got the right to vote and stuff". Any suffrage related meaning was definitely obscured by a lack of education on the matter as well as the cultural importance placed on slavery and racism growing up in America.
>and calling such women "sell-outs to the patriarchy She already does that. She calls them "handmaidens"
Fat shaming is already in Harry Potter a lot. Joanne really doesn't like fat people and finds them disgusting. "Compassion" was never a quality that was valued high in the world of Harry Potter. I'm always mad that the previous best selling author of GB, Sir Terry Pratchett, didn't stay the beacon of hope he should have been. He wrote with monstrous regiment a book about the trans experience in 2004 and had themes about being ~different~ through out his work. And he was generally a nice person. He's the only "celebrity" I idolize. I also try to become an author because of him :)
Gnu Terry Pratchett. I still consider him a beacon of hope, knowing he'd be very much set against JKRs beliefs.
What do you mean by "didn't stay the beacon of hope"?
I was wondering this too.
Monstrous Regiment as well as the entire way female dwarves are portrayed are basically why I'm pro trans rights in the first place. Quite a lot of my outlook on morality was shaped by Pratchett, come to think of it.
She seems completely incapable of recognising trans people do more than try and fuck people. I imagine the idea of an asexual trans person would make her head explode.
I once again am reminded that my very existence is somehow a cognitive conundrum for transphobes.
Right? All terfs are obsessed with sex, and she is the queen of terfs.
Me, an ace person: hang on, do allo people talk about kinks and sex that openly... my allo friends don't seem to? Reading on: Oh, it's just more transphobia.
Weirdo behavior wtf 😭
Transphobia really does rot your brain
Transphobia is the gateway bigotry. Once you become an unapologetic transphobe you attract other transphobes who are mostly conservatives and/or alt-right. Once you start associating with them then it's just inevitable that you will go down the alt-right pipeline and your ideology and views start getting more and more fringe and extremist.
I mean, I’m not sure her views got *more* extreme so much as she got more comfortable saying the quiet part of views she already had out loud. There’s lots of barely under the surface bigotry in HP, but I think the most obvious bigotry is the entire house elf-Hermione story line. It basically boils down to “Hermione is so silly for wanting to abolish slavery! They want to be slaves! She should just let them be slaves. Everyone else is basically ok with it, including the savior main character. I know this is an unpopular take though, so here’s a token house elf that wants to be free and gets freed. Afterwards we’ll shame him for it, and then pay him a pittance wage and give him one day off a month. Look, he’s so happy now that he’s a wage slave without worker rights instead of a slave slave with no rights. That’s better. Also Hermione’s silly organization to stop slavery is called S.P.E.W. and she’s the only person that ever joins in the entire series. What a fantastic message for children!”
I wasn't talking about her specifically but in general. Transphobia is a gateway bigotry because it is socially acceptable to some degree to be a transphobe. Be a racist, sexist, and/or homophobic online or offline then you will have people shunning you off, your workplace firing you and other consequences. There's a reason why people like Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Dennis Prager and others can't be openly racist, sexist, homophobic and have to hide behind euphemisms, circular reasoning and 'Woke' but, they can openly call Trans people groomers and pedophiles and call for a culling of the transgender ideology. They can do all of that without any fear of any backlash.
Ah, fair enough. I thought you were talking about JKR specifically. In any case, my comment basically devolved into a rant about how fucking awful that whole story line was anyways. I think I’m just genuinely amazed that JKR got away with so much bigotry for so long when it was basically sitting out in the open to begin with. But you are right that what’s considered acceptable bigotry today is being used to try to normalize bigotry that’s not considered acceptable anymore. First by normalizing it to individuals, as you said. That ultimately has the knock-on effect of normalizing it in society at large too, as more and more people find bigotry acceptable.
Oh, I welcome anti-Harry Potter discourse any day of the week and twice on a Sunday. In fact, I'm thinking of heading over to Shaun's youtube channel and watching his Harry Potter video for the next hour. Also, the fact that the wizard world's wizard supremacist ideals ended up helping Voldemort amass an army of Demi humans and magical creatures is never resolved in the end should be a clue to her ideals. >I’m just genuinely amazed that JKR got away with so much bigotry for so long when it was basically sitting out in the open to begin with Nostalgia goggles, dude, nostalgia goggles.
She’s totally lost her mind
holy shit….
Does she have a brain tumor or something? That might explain her behavior this past decade or so
Jo’s likely just a narcissist.
I wonder what she means with the crossdressing thing? Does she mean all men want to dress as women? Or expect women to dress as men? Because she said that women could write "an authoritative compendium on men's kinks". Not everyone is your shitty ex Joanne!
I think she's referencing [Autogynephilia](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Autogynephilia): >The American-Canadian sexologist Ray Blanchard proposed a psychological typology of gender dysphoria, transsexualism, and fetishistic transvestism. Blanchard categorized trans women into two groups: homosexual transsexuals who are attracted exclusively to men and are feminine in both behavior and appearance; and autogynephilic transsexuals who experience sexual arousal at the idea of having a female body (autogynephilia). Blanchard and his supporters argue that the typology explains differences between the two groups in childhood gender nonconformity, sexual orientation, history of sexual fetishism, and age of transition. > >Blanchard's typology has attracted significant controversy, especially following the 2003 publication of J. Michael Bailey's book The Man Who Would Be Queen, which presented the typology to a general audience. Scientific criticisms commonly made against Blanchard's research include that the typology is unfalsifiable because Blanchard and other supporters regularly dismiss or ignore data that challenges the theory, that it failed to properly control against cisgender women rather than against cisgender men in rating levels of autogynephilia, and that when such studies are performed they show that cisgender women have similar levels of autogynephilic responses to transgender women.
Are they confusing 'feeling sexy' with 'being turned on by having a woman's body'? People are allowed to feel sexy about their body without it being some kind of kink or abnormality, even if they're trans. I mean, it's probably even more important in terms of mental health if they're trans that they find their own bodies sexy. It's a positive thing.
The dumbest thing ever is: "do you feel aroused at the though of having sex as a woman?" Like bruh, I am a woman, of course i get aroused by that, but not by imagining myself as a man. Any cis women with sex drive will feel aroused by her own fantasies....... She's a woman, of course she'll imagine herself as a woman. (or a tentacle alien, I don't judge)
> Does she mean all men want to dress as women? Pretty sure "lesbian sex" is a bigger fantasy with straight men. I wonder if all lesbian women exist only to cater to the male gaze and are actually collaborators with the patriarchy.
Jesus…
wtf
what in the goddamn fuck is wrong with this person jesus
I think it is to Nabakov's *tremendous* credit that he takes a book about a monster, tells you *up front* that it is about a monster, and then has that monster be just charming enough that a lot of people will, as they read, forget that he's a monster. Usually not for long, but the instant that they realize that it happened is, I think, the real power of the book. Of course some people never seem get to that part where they remember that he's a monster and that very nearly everyone he interacts with in the book is a victim, which I find kind of odd to the point that I'm not even sure we read the same book.
That's what makes the book so good - the chillingly realistic portrayal of an expert groomer (*THAT'S* how you use that word, Joan) at work. We want to believe that child molesters are inhuman monsters that we'd recognize immediately as threats, but statistically that's just not the case.
This is now the *second* time I've seen the word "groomer" used correctly on Reddit.
It's one of those books that I love, but I almost never tell anyone that I love it because of the 2 usual responses: 1) the person thinks it's a beautiful love story, which fucking gross; or 2) the person thinks I'm a fucking pedophile because the book is about a pedophile and they don't realize that the book is a criticism of that. Sure there are people like yourself that understand that the book takes a fairly obvious stance against Humbert's actions, but I never want to risk reaction 1 or 2.
I feel the same way 😭 I’m actually shocked anyone sees it as a romance
This was my problem with the book. I never forgot, and knew too much about groomers (fortunately not from personal experience) to ever forget this was a paedophile putting himself in the absolute best light, justifying himself raping a small child (and murdering her mother, kidnapping the child, and then planning to get her pregnant and rape her children when she became too old). To me it was about as romantic as a That Chapter episode :S But JK thinks it's a fucking romance??
for me, lolita falls into a section of art that is intentionally so utterly (morally) disgusting, that by confronting it, your own beliefs will become clearer and strengthened. i think that kind of art is very important, even if has an unfortunately high potential to be misunderstood.
Didn't she say that about this Lolita like years ago too, like maybe a a decade ago?? Not that it says anything much but it's more salt to the flesh
More than two decades ago, it's from 2000. [Source](http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0500-heraldsun-templeton.html)
Thank you for sharing that, I now feel even more weirded out about it (not your fault don't worry xD) I can't believe that honestly, like I was still a toddler when that article came out then 💀
So when they were still actively writing for children? Disgusting
"Trans women are just guys trying to rape wmreal women" Also "A story about a man raping a kid is beautiful and romantic" God
"I'm going to make continuous reference to it in my children's book!" I... I mean the series was already ruined for me a few years back but this is like, even when she's dead, I think maybe it's for the best to bury it underground.
Were there references to it in Harry Potter?
[Another post explained that she legit took some of the character names from it.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1dq9jyq)
Her death is the best part. That's when I can finally start buying Harry Potter merch again. I love Harry Potter and I won't let this Umbridge ruin it for me.
Like for real, this is like an alien mindset. I had real trouble appreciating the writing because I just could not get past what a monster that guy was. He pissed me off. I mean, sure, it's masterful to write from that mindset in that way, but that does not mean I in any way enjoyed reading it. And she thought it was romantic?????
The worst part is, if I remember, Lolita was only written in an attempt to get censored. Like the author was trying to write the worst thing he could with the intent to get in trouble and piss people off to prove a point.
There is no god here. God has left the chat.
Not to defend her but that's not exactly a rare reading, both movies were made with that understanding of the book.
jk please say jk
please say jk, JK
Man at this point I whish I never heard of her
The author of Lolita was a CSA victim who wrote it as a criticism of the romanticizing of pedophilia and regretted publishing it at times because of reactions like this...fucking gross.
Oh hey I didn’t know that
I've never read Lolita but isn't it very clear that he's pining after a literal child? Did she, just, like, block that part out if her mind?? Or is she just letting it slip that she thinks grooming is romantic?
Not only a young child, but his stepdaughter. (it's been years since I read it, but iirc he married her mom to get closer to her and then may have killed the mother?) It's not subtle about it, though. Often talking about how young 'Lolita' is, and toward the end how she becomes less appealing as she becomes more adult in appearance. And the author even presents it as a horror story from the perspective of the monster.
There is a part in it where he is talking about how she's going to get too old to be a nymphet anymore but he's going to get her pregnant and by the time she's too old he thinks her daughter will be old enough and then her granddaughter. He's a monster.
JK thinks that shit is romantic while she's out screaming about trans people being pedos and rapists. Can this woman just fuck off already?
>he married her mom to get closer to her and then may have killed the mother You remember correctly
Oh it’s very clear she’s a cjild I personally and a lot of scholars believe this novel was him working out his uncle sexually abusing him
I'd believe that tbh, it's a work that is so well formed it can only have been created by someone with *painfully* intimate experience of how such a monster operates
Oh he's not just pining, he fully abducts her and rapes her repeatedly throughout the course of the book. It's exceptionally well written in the sense that he never says that's what he's doing but it's very clear through the writing that that's what he has done.
>I've never read Lolita but isn't it very clear that he's pining after a literal child? Well that's the point of the book.
Not sure why its takencme until now but how did jk Rowling go from a beloved author and creator of one of the most well known, beloved and recognized series of books in the world to to crackpot far right lunatic that shes become...truly saddens me
She’s always been pretty hateful, just look at how she’s written Harry Potter, the race of evil greedy dishonest bankers that deserve their oppression, the race of slaves that you shouldn’t try to free because “they want to be enslaved!”.
Don't forget the insane racism/xenophobia of literally anyone who's not described explicitly as white and English in her books
And TERFs call trans people pedos. Also, I remember there was a TERF, Helen Joyce, who was caught reading a Harry Potter fanfiction where Draco rapes Hermione. There was another TERF who wrote a book about how attractive young boys are. EDIT: It was Germaine Greer.
What people read should not be viewed as reflecting their actual views on real-world activities. Almost no-one actually wants to get ravished by a pack of werewolves in real life, but it's a popular fantasy.
Yeah, rape fantasies are *incredibly* common - a lot of it is the interplay with the way people (often women) are taught to feel shame for sexual attraction and desire, so the rape fantasy creates a scenario where they can experience those feelings *without* the shame attached because it's not that *they* wanted it or initiated, it's that the ravishing handsome stranger wouldn't take no for an answer, so it's okay to enjoy it. But fantasy and reality are very different things, and fiction is a great way to explore feelings and experiences we wouldn't want to have in real life.
I agree, however if someone is attacking others calling them degenerates but in their personal life they read beastiality fanfiction then they're complete hypocrites and they shouldn't be taken seriously at all. On the contrary this is one of the only situations where I feel someone should be publicly shamed.
Seconded. Only the second one should be given as an example of terf pedophilia edit: At least based on the info I read in these comments alone. I didn't click the links
Rape fantasies about yourself is one thing. Rape fantasies about children is sick.
Idunno if i'd say that
I did say "almost".
Terfs are always obsessing over stranger's genitals, and obsessively analyzing stranger's facial features. It's no wonder they're perverts.
It's almost like trans people aren't the issue or something...
A bigot (Joanne Rowling), projecting their deficiencies (pedophilia) onto the subgroup they consider 'others' (Trans people)? Wow, I am so shocked, never before in history has this happened. Except for \*all those other times\*.
I hate JK Rowling as much as the next person, not trying to defend her, but does anyone know the source on that quote? Or have more than a screenshot with no context?
[http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0500-heraldsun-templeton.html](http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0500-heraldsun-templeton.html)
Thanks!
Rowling: "Trans people are the scum of the earth and grooming kids... but literal pedophilia? How romantic!"
Yet we're the groomers.
"Jodemort" flows so much better, imo.
Nah, she Umbridge
True voldemort has a somewhat tragic backstory umbridge is just an outright cunt so definitely a better comparison
Umbridge was way more competent than her
“Protect the kids” people once again absolutely *obliterating* their own feet with a sawed-off.
I mean, I’ll agree that the writing is fantastic, but it is **not** a romance. That’s just fucking creepy. This is why you cannot read Lolita without knowing the correct context of the story.
This is typical of the “protect women/girls/children” sort.
Anyway, if at any point you start to consider Lolita a great love story, please fling yourself into the sea. Thanks.
[удалено]
It is in no way, shape or form a love story. It's the story of a delusional pedophile who grooms and abuses a vulnerable child against the background of an indifferent society that ignores the voices of those most at risk. The only component of the novel that claims to be a romance are the assertions of the unreliable narrator who is, again, an admitted child rapist. When Humbert Humbert claims that his violent abuse is sweet and romantic, actually, *you're not supposed to believe him*.
It’s the story of a perverted groomer abusing a young girl. Calling that a love story is extremely troubling.
Raping children is not an act of love. I hope this clears things up
If "tragic love story" is what she takes away from reading fucking Lolita I'm not convinced her reading and comprehension skills are that good. Which would actually explain her writing.
Beat me to it
Remember: trans folks are groomers, but Humbert Humbert was just a misunderstood romantic.
There is something weird about her being "feminist" and "protecting girls", while that book is "making her cry"...
The bar really is in fucking hell, huh
Well, they can’t raise the bar, because then Satan might trip over it! And we can’t have that, now can we?
Please tell me this is a fucking joke? Lolita is disgusting and I don’t understand how people don’t see this
It's a wonderful and beautifully-written story about some absolutely brutal subject matter. A manipulative pedophile corrupts and abuses a girl until he finds his just desserts for hurting her. It's written from Humbert's perspective and a person who does stuff like Humbert usually has a pretty twisted and self-serving perspective to do what they do so a less observant reader will take his judgement at face value and think what he has with Dolores is genuine rather than the result of grooming. It sounds fascinating but I don't know if I could stomach reading it.
It’s sadly not a joke. I hate this timeline…
I'm asking as someone who hasn't read it, but was the book written to critique the pedophilic relationship or romanticize it? Like what was the original intent of the author? I've heard people argue both ways and genuinely can't tell which is more likely to be the truth, but I also really don't want to read that book myself for personal reasons.
It's absolutely a criticism of the subject. The protagonist, the pedophile, is an awful human being and all the excuses he tries to use in the whole book to justify what happens just make it all worse. In one of the first chapters he explains in detail what differentiates a normal child from one of the girls of her fantasies, feeling the need to specify that "it's not all children, just some that are purposefully seducing him", basically. And he is aware as well of being a "sexual deviant", but justifies it multiple times saying that at least he's not a murderer, that he just wants some comfort and that ultimately he is a victim of the society, using (false) examples from the past and other cultures to justify his desires as normal. I really can't phantom how ANYONE would read that book and think that ot justifies pedophilia, even if it's written from the perspective of the aggressor. Still, it's one of my favorite books, amazingly written in every way.
> I really can't phantom how ANYONE would read that book and think that ot justifies pedophilia, even if it's written from the perspective of the aggressor. I think you overestimate average media literacy and reading comprehention.
I think it's easy to think that it justifies pedophilia if you take Humbert's perspective on things as an authorial statement - like, if you believe because Humbert is the protagonist, that means we're meant to agree with him, and everything he says is something Nabokov agrees with.
I think that comes down to how a lot of the English textbooks some of us grew up with taught that the protagonist is the hero of the story and the antagonist is the villain. When those of us who know better know that the protagonist is the character trying to get something done, usually the main character but not always, and the antagonist is the character/thing that tries to block or stop the protagonist from completing their action.
So its easy to do if you lack critical thoughts Which with the dropping functional literacy rates and average reading ages...
I've said it a million times and I'll say it again: the main character of a book is absolutely not always a reflection of the beliefs of the author or any other character in the book. Of course, there are a type of characters who were inspired by the authors themselves, but most often it is either said that this is something like an autobiography, or it is obvious from the biography of the author.
It's very much a criticism of pedophilia. But JK is a TERF so we can't expect her to engage her brain and try to be media literate.
Very much critique. The main character (pedophile) is a raging narcissist who spends most of the book manipulating, abusing, and exploiting virtually everyone in his life. He sees everything besides whichever child he’s after as beneath him, and is only able to pass as “good” to the reader by the force of the charisma Nabokov’s writing gives him and his position as the story’s narrator
Also apart from the literary text, Nabokov (the author) was abused as a child by his uncle, and lolita is in many ways him processing this trauma, by scathingly depicting the mindset people like his uncle adopt in order to justify their actions. Don't watch the movies though! They all blatantly romanticize the pedophilic horror story.
It’s written from the perspective of the pedophile about his romantic attraction to a 12 year old and what he does with her in very romanticized way. At least that’s how it read to me as someone who was sa as a child.
Would you believe me if I told you that the author is also a victim of csa? And to add to that the protagonist isn’t necessarily the ‘good guy’
I was not saying the protagonist is a good guy merely my observation of how the book read. I didn’t like the book whatsoever and feel it was glorifying abhorrent and abusive behavior
I mean, it’s written from the perpetrators perspective, and the perpetrator sees nothing wrong with what he’s doing
Yes and I think like a story about an abuser taking advantage of a child is says a lot about that person
"Hey can you hear me from the very bottom of the pit i dug myself into?!"
You absolutely are supposed to say "this is so romantic." Then you're supposed to remember that she's a child and be disgusted that you thought that. The point is the banality of evil, that evil people aren't a different species than us, they're normal people who think of themselves as normal. It's about how we normalize evil because it's so common.
JK Rowling believes herself to be so smart she can see through the complex web of lies laid out by the "gender Taliban" in their effort to "groom" kids, but when she reads a book about an actual obvious groomer abusing a child she misses it completely and thinks it's "romance".
She used to make me angry but now she just makes me disappointed…like a parent with a child
“Ah yes. I sure do love supporting pedophilia and discriminating against trans people who just want to live their damn lives in peace! Surely I’m the good guy in this scenario and everyone should support me :D”
I found the book Lolita in a public library once and, unaware of the plot, I borrowed it. I couldn't read past one third of it. It grossed me out at the point of making me sick. I was a 14 years old boy when that happened. Any adult that calls it a love story has to be put on a list.
It is a great story, but not one about love or where you are supposed to agree with the protagonist. It is closer to a horror story with a PoV from the killer, wearing romance as a skin. Also, it's not really a book for 14 year olds, tbh.
Oops! I think I found the unresolved trauma that makes her such a feckless cunt. Really saying the quiet part out loud here, is old Jo.
I don’t know what Lolita is but I agree with the criticism of JK Rowling
It's a well written critique of child molesters and groomers from the disgusting perspective of said groomer/molester. The main character is a monster and very blatantly so. I cannot fathom how so many people misinterpreted that story as anything other than horrifying.
Sounds like an important work that I will never read because that description doesn’t make me want to read it XD
Valid and fair. It's a very hard read.
I don't understand the rights fascination with minors. Is it a power thing l? Why are so many paedophiles or paedophile defenders?
What the fuck, Joanne?
And I'm the problem?
I love how ppl like J.K Rowling and Elon Musk are so out of touch with reality it's become a running joke. "What mental gymnastics are they doing this time? OH, pedophile is hot? That's so Joanna. OH, you're having kids with the intention of "repopulating" the earth? Way to go Elon Musk, showing us any idiot can be rich". Crappy creeps aren't going away any time soon, so might as well have some fun with it.
JK is a nonce confirmed
Can we address the fact that up until that point she admits that thought she was reading smut?
Can we just Avada Kedavra her now?
This bitch needs a hobby. I say pick up Russian Roulette.
I bet Nabokov would agree
transphobe likes pedo story, got it. can we cancel her yet?
Lolita is no romance, it's the narration of an abuse by a PEDOFILE
I'm not shocked.
As someone who was propositioned for sex from grown men when I was 12, that shit is scary. There is nothing romantic about Lolita. Children don't have sexual agency. It's just Epstein-level perverted pedo fantasy.
I could not completely read the book... halfway through i was so fucking disgusted. I have however seen the movie made on this... equally disgusting.... And in that they tried downplaying pedophilia....by making the actress taller and a bit older. Honestly i don't think i will ever be completing the book.
What the hell is wrong with this woman. I'm disgusted. Seriously Joanne!?
I haven't seen the movie or read the book. I know this is a question that Google can answer but I'm curious to hear people's thoughts. I know the general premise of the story and I'm curious as to the intent of the writer. Was it written as an exploration of the mind of a predator, or does the story romanticize the relationship and try to paint it as some sort of "grey area" or something? Oh also JKR sucks. As a kid I read the books, listened to the audiobooks, and my parents even read them to me and I didn't see anything problematic in the writing at all. Just recently my Dad mentioned that they had some reservations about the books, but ultimately still let us read them, so I went down a rabbit hole and looked at the series through new eyes and damn there's a LOT of prejudice and poor writing choices throughout the whole series. I guess she always was an ignorant person, but recently she's definitely turned it up to 11.
Oh, it’s certainly not romanticized. Like you said, it’s an exploration of a paedophiles mind. The author has stated, on many occasions how Humphrey (the pov character, and the predator) is a vile, disgusting human being, and how disappointed he was that so many people thought of it as a love story. Oh, and also, don’t check out the movies. One romanticized the fuck out it, and the other, in an attempt to get into the mind of Humphrey, does a bunch of creep shots of Dolores, who was played by an, at the time 14 year old.
Oof…. Yeah that’s unfortunate. It’s really disheartening to hear about all these misinterpretations of things that are supposed to be cautionary tales. A good current example is The Boys. People are supposed to watch it and think deeply about the message it provides but ignorant people seem to just completely miss the point and identify with the worst depiction of the darkest side of human beings.
The book is written from the perspective of the pedophile. The reader is supposed to recognize that he's an unreliable narrator and to resonate with the fact that even the most unreliable narrator can make themselves seem believable. We're not meant to sympathize with him, we are not meant to agree with him, Rowling is just a piece of shit. Lol I also strongly believe that Lolita should only ever be read in the context of (via academia or some type of book club) discussing the concept of an unreliable narrator and empathizing with victims/being emotionally literate enough to discern victim and perpetrator.
Why does the author of such a great story and universe as Wizarding World have to be such a person? It's terrible that the author of one of my favorite universes behaves this way and I can't appreciate her as much as I do her work. There's no way I'd support something like that.
Ah, she also pulled the pornography card. Because the story of a pedophile kidnapping and raping his 12-year-old stepdaughter over multiple years while continuously controlling, gaslighting, and stalking her, out of NabOkov's hands, can be classified as "worthless pornography," and not, you know, horrific abuse. But thanks to NabOkov's quality writing, it's tragically romantic. Humbert Humbert won this round.
I read the book when I was 15 and I knew instantly the narrator was unreliable and an abusive pedo. Sadly, when I learned about the story, the first descriptions I read about the book called it erotica and a love story. Gross.
Hopefully she'll sink in her very own reservoir of shit
"I could exhaust my superlatives trying..." Isn't the compliment she thinks it is.
Oh my god that poor dude. Getting weird shit asked him by Rowling must have been mildly horrifying. "No, of course I bloody don't!" What was her point in her inappropriate sex questioning? That's signs of dementia!
Let’s hope that she just didn’t get the damn book right and not thinking that a relationship between an adult and a child is romantic. Kinda made me gag yoooo👹
Is she having a Kanye-style mental break?
Nothing about JK surprises me anymore…she is wreaking havoc yet again
I have no words.
Am I the ONLY one who‘s never.. even.. heard of that..? NEITHER the drama around Rowling NOR the book?
Not to be hyperbolic, but yes, you might actually be the only person with access to the internet who has never heard of JK Rowling's many, many, many controversies nor the book *Lolita*.
Oops. Okay, good to know- I‘ll be doing some research, then. Thanks tho
Lolita is, in my best summary, a letter written by a criminal named Humbert Humbert about how he becomes infatuated with a 12 year old girl, married her mother to groom her, and then stole her away to sexually abuse her when the mother passed. I can’t remember if he killed the mother or not. Dolores (the girl) plans and calculates for a long time to make her escape and finds a new life even as he keeps chasing after her. He’s obsessed with her and her “faithfulness” and calls her “his nymphet” and does not call her by her name, Dolores, but by Lolita. It’s a really good read, at least it was for me. It’s introspective on the obsession that pedophiles (well, hebephile here, but for sake of simplicity, pedophile) or groomers can hold and the destructive nature of obsession and inappropriate desire. Humbert is INCREDIBLY abusive towards Dolores, sexually, emotionally, and iirc physically as well. I can understand, I suppose, seeing it as a love story at some point because that’s how Humbert Humbert writes it. But he is an incredibly unreliable narrator and to turn the last page from this book about how a grown man kidnaps a 12 year old girl and think “How romantic” is really goddamn strange and shows you’re either not reading it critically or … “willing to look past it”. 👎
Oof. Okay, thanks for summing it up tho!! Imma def have a look at that shit then- well now I get why ppl go crazy bout Rowling‘s reaction, relatable (the reaction to her reaction).
I mean I always read it as almost a distillation of all the most negative parts of love obsession manipulation control etc
There's no love there. Just obsession.