JK Rowling’s latest book is about a murderous cis man who dresses as a woman to kill his victims -

AnOminous

So what?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Troons are so utterly full of shit. Finding "transphobia" in shit that predates the modern "social construct" that even being a troon at all is.

Troons literally just invented the whole idea of troonery. And they're going back in time to come up with instances that history was bigoted against shit that didn't even exist until recently.
 

Sourceress

chaotic neutral
kiwifarms.net
Could someone who likes it but isn't a childlike autistic weirdo please explain to me what they like about Barry Hooter? I read first 40 pages of IIRC Goblet of Fire and have no idea why it caught on.
YMMV on whether or not I'm a childlike autistic weirdo but I'll give it a go.

Most of the appeal is to people who were kids when it came out, because it started out as a children's story about a kid who was abused and disadvantaged who finds out that he's actually both special and rich in this richly described and fleshed-out fantasy world where he really belongs. It's essentially a fantasy written for and primarily beloved by kids who feel left out, abused or othered in some way, who cling to the idea of this fantasyland where they would be popular, loved and treated well, where no one goes to bed hungry and parents don't hurt their kids. It also has things like the Hogwarts house system, which gives kids further ways to feel like they "belong" in the fantasy world, because they can pick out which house they think they would be "sorted into" and belong in.

A lot of the more broad-spectrum appeal comes from the rich worldbuilding that JKR did - she describes wizarding society really well and puts considerable depth into it, especially for a children's series. The aesthetic is also really lovely.

As the core audience got older, the material began to get more mature, describing some of the darker parts of the world JKR had created and dealing with more serious subject matter. It's a gradual process and really interesting to observe as an adult. The technical skill involved in creating a series that would age with its readers is still impressive to me.

I say all of this as someone who grew up with the books, and I'm not especially a fan anymore, but I can absolutely understand why people still are. I'd recommend picking it up from the first book (while keeping in mind that the first couple of books are meant for a quite young audience) and reading from there. There's a lot of context and worldbuilding in the first book that doesn't get repeated a lot and is really important later in. The books aren't really meant to be read standalone. Hope that helps.
 

muh_moobs

Lord of mspaint shitposts
kiwifarms.net
This reminds me of the outrage woke weebs had with the term trap, where trap is defined as a dude who looks (convincingly) female but is in fact a male and considers himself male.

So the term/archetype got labeled transphobic, even if a trap isn't trans, just a transvestite.

Far as I can tell in this book, the killer dresses as a woman not because he feels he doesn't deserve his penis, but so he can lure in female victims. How that makes him trans? I have no idea.
It's "transphobic" because trannies wish they could pass as convincingly.
 

Dave.

Not all heroes wear brass.
kiwifarms.net

muh_moobs

Lord of mspaint shitposts
kiwifarms.net
The audience age for HP is in part due to Rowling fucking up. She originally intended for the first book to be for 10 year olds, with each additional book going up for audience ages by 1 year each, and for each book to take one year to write.

However after the 4th book, with the fame, movies and money flying around she ended up taking 2-3 years to write each book after the 4th, so by the end of the series you had huge tonal issues where some of the story was still written for legit children and then some parts for much older audiences.

So it's understandable if people who'd first started the series when they were 10-12 ended up being 20-22 by the time the series was finished. Still pretty fucking gay if you were reading that shit in your 20's but understandably gay at least.
Plenty of adults like things for younger audiences. There's nothing wrong with that until you start making your personality about it or bringing it into parts of your life where it doesn't belong.
 

Ghostse

Gorilla Channel Executive Producer
kiwifarms.net
To be honest... the TV adaptation done by the BBC is better. Tom Burke stars as Strike and its the first role he apparently really hurled himself at with method acting. He interviewed Afghan War veterans extensively and even wears a leg brace during filming in order to ensure his leg work is exactly "on point". (Strike is a Afghan War Vet who lost his leg). His portrayal has been apparently celebrated by various groups due to the sympathetic and accurate portrayal.



Well, the reality is Rowling was concerned anything else she wrote would just be an instant hit if it had her name attached to it when she wanted to move on from Harry Potter.

Which proved completely and utterly true.

"Robert Galbraith" when the first Cormoman Strike Book dropped was considered very good but not really standing out to the wider public, selling about 500 copies of its 1500 hardback run in its initial run. Nothing really stood the book series out aside from Strike's background, but the book was highly praised by other crime writers who read it without knowing it was written by Rowling.

The books sold steady and at least made the publishing house a bit of money, but they then leaked that it was actually a Rowling Book and sales promptly surged, and have remained popular ever since.




Strike books are Scandi-Noir style, so the plots are dripped out steadily and plenty of red herrings are picked up and dropped to give a more realistic pacing to a crime drama. Its become an enormously popular type of storytelling in the UK.

"Leaked". Lol.

Rowling had snuffed some feminism nose candy about "how easier it was to be a male author". So she wrote a book that if you like Britbong detective stories where there's a BBC-approved moral lesson and plenty of relevant social issues, was quite good, but not outstanding. So she missed the point and basically used her editor to ram-rod the story through to publication and much more prominence than would have otherwise been afforded a first-time mystery author.

Rowling had her ego stroked appropriately, so while the Publisher had already OK'ed her second book but was bulking at the 3rd to levels not even her editor could override, they let the cat out of the bag and "leaked" the identity behind the author.

If we wanted to compare writing to art, the Strike Series is a bunch of recreated landscapes.
I am not knocking landscapes. Most of the art on my walls is landscapes. But you can have a really nice landscape with lots of framing, light and shadow and a good mix of elements, or you can have someone who just followed the Joy of Painting episode down to ever last happy little tree with not a lot of imagination.
The two Strike novels I read are much the latter, except in book 2 Rowling covered half the frame with an idealized self potrait.


Plenty of adults like things for younger audiences. There's nothing wrong with that until you start making your personality about it or bringing it into parts of your life where it doesn't belong.
There is nothing wrong with liking stuff for younger audiences.
This IS something wrong with liking ONLY stuff for younger audiences.
 

muh_moobs

Lord of mspaint shitposts
kiwifarms.net
That's a lot of words for "humans like escapist fiction as a coping mechanism." As I've already mentioned, that's fine, but once you grow up your life really out to be about more than "I like Harry Potter!". I'm a big fan of 80's and 90's video games, and still play them when I have time. But if Shigeru Miyamoto came out as a tranny tomorrow I'm not going to burn all my games and throw a temper tantrum on the internet. Growing up, my favorite Transformer was the original Megatron. If a cartoon came out and Frank Welker was voicing a character that is a communist I'm not going to lose my mind over it.

There is nothing wrong with liking stuff for younger audiences.
This IS something wrong with liking ONLY stuff for younger audiences.
Not even. If that's all someone enjoys, whatever. It's only an issue if you can't separate fantasy from reality. If you're a mature, responsible adult when you turn the cartoons off, who cares?
 

Andrew Neiman

I'll cue you!
kiwifarms.net
Could someone who likes it but isn't a childlike autistic weirdo please explain to me what they like about Barry Hooter? I read first 40 pages of IIRC Goblet of Fire and have no idea why it caught on.

I am Rowling BTW. It was me all along.
The first four books have a charming sense of whimsy and an overall comfy atmosphere. A story involving zany magic powers also appeals to kids, I think, because you naturally find yourself imagining what you would do if you had a wand you could use to levitate or conjure or transform things. It's the same thing with the Force in "Star Wars." It also constructed a fantasy universe that was convincing but that also had a lot of loose ends and unresolved questions, which I think is a quality that invites fans to spend time puzzling things out for themselves.

I regret that my fond memories of the early Potter books have at this point been pretty much buried by their transformation into an all-encompassing corporate franchise and consumerist pseudo-religion.
 
Last edited:

Zig Zag

kiwifarms.net
Could someone who likes it but isn't a childlike autistic weirdo please explain to me what they like about Barry Hooter? I read first 40 pages of IIRC Goblet of Fire and have no idea why it caught on.

I am Rowling BTW. It was me all along.
I was in the perfect age group for the books as the first was released in America when I was 11 years old. I was an autistic bookish weirdo as a kid and loved fantasy so the first few in the series were like crack. It was also lots of fun to go to a midnight release and be surrounded by other fans around the same age, my first experience with "fandom" was very wholesome as a result. As I grew into my teens, I started reading more adult sci-fi/fantasy like Anne McCaffrey, Mercedes Lackey, and of course Terry Pratchett (pbuh) and started turning a more critical eye towards the HP series. IIrc the final book was released over here right as I was going into college so as a whole it was a good bookend to my childhood. It's an entertaining series but not the mind-shattering lifechanging experience some of these Twitter autists seem to think it is. Some parts are funny, some are sad, some are cringey. As @Sourceress said it was very relatable for kids who were outcasts/rejects to imagine there was a super-cool world right around the corner where magic was real and you could have awesome friends and do magic tricks. As an adult, I can see clearly that they are definitely books written for kids/teenagers, but the later books also have interesting parts such as the deaths of some very major characters, and the realization that the government and mass media can easily lie and change public perception even when you know the truth.

I've never been to Harry Potter World or purchased merchandise other than the novels themselves. I saw the main movies, didn't read or watch Cursed Child (fucking awful licensed fanfiction), and didn't see any of the Fantastic Beasts shit either. The good feelings that HP gave me were from the nostalgia of being a kid reading fantasy books aimed directly at my age group, and the movies with cool CG that helped me picture the world and characters more clearly. It's not worth a tattoo or anything but if Joanne really is a Kiwi and gets verified here I'll get "JK ROWLING WAS RIGHT" tattooed across my forehead.
 

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
YMMV on whether or not I'm a childlike autistic weirdo but I'll give it a go.

Most of the appeal is to people who were kids when it came out, because it started out as a children's story about a kid who was abused and disadvantaged who finds out that he's actually both special and rich in this richly described and fleshed-out fantasy world where he really belongs. It's essentially a fantasy written for and primarily beloved by kids who feel left out, abused or othered in some way, who cling to the idea of this fantasyland where they would be popular, loved and treated well, where no one goes to bed hungry and parents don't hurt their kids. It also has things like the Hogwarts house system, which gives kids further ways to feel like they "belong" in the fantasy world, because they can pick out which house they think they would be "sorted into" and belong in.

A lot of the more broad-spectrum appeal comes from the rich worldbuilding that JKR did - she describes wizarding society really well and puts considerable depth into it, especially for a children's series. The aesthetic is also really lovely.

As the core audience got older, the material began to get more mature, describing some of the darker parts of the world JKR had created and dealing with more serious subject matter. It's a gradual process and really interesting to observe as an adult. The technical skill involved in creating a series that would age with its readers is still impressive to me.

I say all of this as someone who grew up with the books, and I'm not especially a fan anymore, but I can absolutely understand why people still are. I'd recommend picking it up from the first book (while keeping in mind that the first couple of books are meant for a quite young audience) and reading from there. There's a lot of context and worldbuilding in the first book that doesn't get repeated a lot and is really important later in. The books aren't really meant to be read standalone. Hope that helps.
I have a similar feeling, though less about self inserting myself into the world and rather just liking the worldbuilding and most characters. HP hits a good mark of darkness vs. light in a story and JKR has a talent to inserting elements from previous books and make a reader think it was intentional, as well as making the genius move of slowly making the books darker with each installment, to resonate with the main group of readers.

Was HP especially smart, well written or engaging? Not really. But it does a good job in being memorable and appealing, which is really what most people want in a normie book series.
 

kuniqsX

Dead man.
kiwifarms.net
YMMV on whether or not I'm a childlike autistic weirdo but I'll give it a go.

Most of the appeal is to people who were kids when it came out, because it started out as a children's story about a kid who was abused and disadvantaged who finds out that he's actually both special and rich in this richly described and fleshed-out fantasy world where he really belongs. It's essentially a fantasy written for and primarily beloved by kids who feel left out, abused or othered in some way, who cling to the idea of this fantasyland where they would be popular, loved and treated well, where no one goes to bed hungry and parents don't hurt their kids. It also has things like the Hogwarts house system, which gives kids further ways to feel like they "belong" in the fantasy world, because they can pick out which house they think they would be "sorted into" and belong in.

A lot of the more broad-spectrum appeal comes from the rich worldbuilding that JKR did - she describes wizarding society really well and puts considerable depth into it, especially for a children's series. The aesthetic is also really lovely.

As the core audience got older, the material began to get more mature, describing some of the darker parts of the world JKR had created and dealing with more serious subject matter. It's a gradual process and really interesting to observe as an adult. The technical skill involved in creating a series that would age with its readers is still impressive to me.

I say all of this as someone who grew up with the books, and I'm not especially a fan anymore, but I can absolutely understand why people still are. I'd recommend picking it up from the first book (while keeping in mind that the first couple of books are meant for a quite young audience) and reading from there. There's a lot of context and worldbuilding in the first book that doesn't get repeated a lot and is really important later in. The books aren't really meant to be read standalone. Hope that helps.
Thanks, I appreciate the explanation.
TBH I like LotR and read it young but never understood the worship, remembering how dull the writing can be.
I mean, I was damn obsessed with Planescape: Torment for a week after, to the point of contemplating suicide because I'll never experience such a story ever again, but there comes a moment you realize it all happened in your head, bro.

I was in the perfect age group for the books as the first was released in America when I was 11 years old. I was an autistic bookish weirdo as a kid and loved fantasy so the first few in the series were like crack. It was also lots of fun to go to a midnight release and be surrounded by other fans around the same age, my first experience with "fandom" was very wholesome as a result. As I grew into my teens, I started reading more adult sci-fi/fantasy like Anne McCaffrey, Mercedes Lackey, and of course Terry Pratchett (pbuh) and started turning a more critical eye towards the HP series. IIrc the final book was released over here right as I was going into college so as a whole it was a good bookend to my childhood. It's an entertaining series but not the mind-shattering lifechanging experience some of these Twitter autists seem to think it is. Some parts are funny, some are sad, some are cringey. As @Sourceress said it was very relatable for kids who were outcasts/rejects to imagine there was a super-cool world right around the corner where magic was real and you could have awesome friends and do magic tricks. As an adult, I can see clearly that they are definitely books written for kids/teenagers, but the later books also have interesting parts such as the deaths of some very major characters, and the realization that the government and mass media can easily lie and change public perception even when you know the truth.

I've never been to Harry Potter World or purchased merchandise other than the novels themselves. I saw the main movies, didn't read or watch Cursed Child (fucking awful licensed fanfiction), and didn't see any of the Fantastic Beasts shit either. The good feelings that HP gave me were from the nostalgia of being a kid reading fantasy books aimed directly at my age group, and the movies with cool CG that helped me picture the world and characters more clearly. It's not worth a tattoo or anything but if Joanne really is a Kiwi and gets verified here I'll get "JK ROWLING WAS RIGHT" tattooed across my forehead.
Thanks, I appreciate that.
Interesting talk about worldbuilding. I tried HP when 12 and didn't like it, I thought it was bog-standard boring fantasy world I've seen 1000 times already. I also didn't like the social aspect - as an antisocial autistic weirdo myself, fantasy for me -> blowing shit up with fireballs + beating orcs and taking their lunch money i.e. power fantasy.
I guess it's not the books' fault; I liked Witcher books at the same time, they pandered to my 14yo atheist edgelord side. HP felt... girly? Like Guin's Earthsea, but less unique.
 
Last edited:

muh_moobs

Lord of mspaint shitposts
kiwifarms.net
As an adult, I can see clearly that they are definitely books written for kids/teenagers, but the later books also have interesting parts such as the deaths of some very major characters, and the realization that the government and mass media can easily lie and change public perception even when you know the truth.
You're old enough to remember 9/11 and were around for "No WMDs" during Iraq. If you didn't realize this by then, I'm afraid you're late to the party, bruh.

Thanks, I appreciate the explanation.
TBH I like LotR and read it young but never understood the worship, remembering how dull the writing can be.
I mean, I was damn obsessed with Planescape: Torment for a week after, to the point of contemplating suicide because I'll never experience such a story ever again, but there comes a moment you realize it all happened in your head, bro.
 

Ghostse

Gorilla Channel Executive Producer
kiwifarms.net
Not even. If that's all someone enjoys, whatever. It's only an issue if you can't separate fantasy from reality. If you're a mature, responsible adult when you turn the cartoons off, who cares?
In my experience, that's never a thing. If someone only consumes children's media, even Men of Culture, they are usually mentally stunted and hanging around with other immature people until it eventually rubs off on them.

Again, nothing is wrong with liking Harry Potter, or Hunger Games, or continuing to follow Spiderman, or liking whatever the japanese book with the mute note girl is. But when that is all you take in for mental stimulation, it shows an unwillingness or inability to mature which inevitably manifests in other parts of their life.
 

jellycar

Bonjour, je suis Jelly Duvall
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
death_2.jpg
Here's the villain from the Wonder Woman episode Death in Disguise.

Here's the villain from the Charlie's Angels episode Angel on the Line
ezgif-6-f71b3a9340ee.gif
ezgif-6-a851c24fdb49.gif

Let's not pretend that the crossdressing villain wasn't not original lol (i.e. Anthony Perkins, Michael Caine, Ted Levine) but its funny how only a fraction of the main plot of her story is the most controversial and misinterpreted.
 
Tags
None