JK Rowling & Why Death of the Author Doesn't Work

JK Rowling created one of the greatest book franchises of all time. She also revealed that she's transphobic. So can we still love Harry Potter? How can we separate her from her work?
✔ Patreon: / jessiegender
✔ PayPal: paypal.me/jessiegender
✔ Instagram: / jessiegender
✔ Twitter: / jessiegender
✔ Facebook: / jessie.gender1

[@CouncilofGeeks]

For me the author’s intent is pretty much only useful anecdotally or academically. For my experience as a reader or viewer, that happens between me and the text, not me and the author. The author may have created the text but I’m not actually interacting with them directly and they can’t control how I choose to interpret the work (much as some would like to).

[@anaiglesias9972]

I feel the same way that you .

[@Cachalyce]

I'm totally with you that everyone can interpret the work like they choose, because they have different experiences and such. But: For these interpretations, you can't and should never use "the author intendet" unless it is something where you can research that the author agrees on that interpretation. This is in my experience far more common for poems, but I hate it when people think their interpretation has to be what the author meant (aka their intent). If someone can't proof the author said/wrote that this was their intent, it is only your interpretation. That doesn't make it less valid! At least thats my take on it as a hobby author - I agree that you can have your own interpretation of fictional texts/poems/etc, as long as you don't try to tell me what I intendet or not. Because (and language-teachers might close their ears, it could be too shocking) it is totally possible for authors to write stuff without any intendet interpretation at all. (Which makes your point even more valid, because for them the readers interpretation is actualy the only one that exists.)

[@LordZeebee]

While i do agree for the most part this can easily become really murky when looking at a work that was meant as an extension of the author. A cry for understanding or an attempt to communicate something deeply personal. Best example i can think of is Neon Genesis Evangelion, a work which is all but incoherent if not viewed as a conversation between author and viewer. This can be juxtaposed with Death Stranding, a work that is essentially the same story as NGE but viewed from a slightly different angle. This slight shift in perspective results in a work that can still be effectively understood on it's own but also doesn't feel as intimate. It's less a conversation and more like a sermon. This doesn't mean you can't view NGE without knowledge of authorial intent but doing so misses a lot of what makes the work interesting.

[@cheechee6473]

I don’t agree with this comment at all (personally). I’m salty when it comes to who wrote what, and if I’m reading a Harry Potter book or anything regarding Harry Potter related stuff, it’d have to be written by J.K Rowling herself; she basically holds the key to original content, she’s the creator and basically the god of the whole entire Wizarding World. Reading some person’s work without Joanne’s consent or her assistance just makes it feel as if I’m reading something that I shouldn’t entirely classify as original. Idk if that’s explained well, but whateves

[@cawareyoudoin7379]

Exactly.

[@tomxaros48]

no one is black or white, bad people can have some good messages at times and vica versa. let's focus on what feels important to us :-)

[@karenwoolley4279]

You just need to know where the dangers are, letting your guard down to one who does not hold your value in the heart is no bueno. I am getting Cheeto flashbacks of "Their are good people on both sides of the argument" (well not a direct quote as that was a cogent sentence -- and screw nazis).

[@michaelsantamaria3053]

the nazis where one of the first anti-smokers and anti-animal abuse parties. i agree with those message but that doesn't mean i belive in their sick twisted views on race and religion @ Karen Woolley yes screw the nazis

[@flyingcapsicum]

Re: the house-elves' enslavement - while I was reading the books as a kid, in my mind the house-elves clearly had some kind of Stockholm Syndrome thing going on, so the fact they didn't believe they should be free served to add a layer of complexity on to the situation. How do you go about liberating someone who's brainwashed into thinking they deserve abuse? It's a bit like helping someone get out of a cult. It can be extremely damaging to try force them out, as it robs the victim of what little control they feel they have, which is why I sympathised with the house-elves when Hermione was trying to trick them into being free. Though I agree with you that the fact Hermione's desire to help them was potrayed as comical (the whole SPEW thing in book 4) in a supposedly an anti-slavery text was rather ... oof. After I read book 7 though, I thought I might have been too generous with my interpretation, since the slavery subplot didn't end up going anywhere. Harry even tells Kreacher to get him a sandwich at the end of the war, like nothing's changed. I wasn't too happy with that, to put it mildly. Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts about Death of the Author. It can get messy when a work has positive messages you relate to, but then you're made painfully aware of the author's bigoted views. I'm glad you've been able to make best out of the situation. Rock on! =)

[@OllamhDrab]

Kind of. Or, actually a generally-helpful disposition and nature that was *exploited.* Also not really respected. My read on House Elf nature is that they actually genuinely really wanted to help and care for people. Just tended to get treated like crap for it, like a lot of people that take care of others do. Dobby might have been one of the unusual ones, and/or his master was *so* bad Dobby couldn't stand it. It's kind of an open question how many House Elves *really wanted* to be on their own or go into business for themselves, or if they were just trapped and kinda conditioned by magical binding. What Dobby seemed to want most of all was... freedom to *choose.* I think in a way, that's what Harry gave Dobby and Kreacher, and I have a hard time believing Dumbledore in particular would not also grant that freedom to any of the Hogwarts' elves that asked for it. Or a sock. :) In a way, Hermione's efforts were comical kind of because she *didn't* *really* think past what *she* would want, just kind of said, 'Making House Elves more like us is better!' in a way, you know? It actually reminds me a lot of Terfs and Vegans that way. She took it to the level of trying to *trick* House Elves into 'freeing themselves.' It's kind of like some of those 'feminists' who were also TERFs back in the 20th century trying to get us punks and riotgrrls to 'rebel against uncomfortable footwear' by ...throwing paint in shoe stores, I guess, when we was all standing there in combat boots or Converse or skater sneakers. And frankly, the other side of that is when they'd say 'Accept who we say women are, so don't do this, don't do that, 'Are you trying to be a man when you wrench on cars? But we can do anything! Just, what the Hel are you doing?" Etc etc. TERFs generally are only consistent in that they appear to try to divide the LGBT community and the feminist community right on cue when the Christian Right needs some Judas mares. They did the same thing against lesbians, too, before my times.

[@optimusprime320-h9c]

OllamhDrab did you know that the mythical creatures the house elves are based on would kill anyone who disrespected them or their efforts to care for the home they lived in.

[@OllamhDrab]

@@optimusprime320-h9c Well, they seem to be based on a number of similar house-spirits, some of whom you should leave out some food and drink for, but never directly acknowledge, or they'll go away, ..I think the 'might get offended or just go away if you thank them,' is an Irish thing. I can't think of a particularly muderous version on hand, but definitely some could mess up your life if given a chance.

[@mkwatchesvideos]

I think it also speaks to the complexity of autonomy. Would it be taking the house-elves self autonomy away to demand they live in a new way? Is this comparable to their original enslavement? I'm not arguing it is - by any means. And this doesn't even begin to discuss the displacement house-elves would experience attempting to assimilate into the current norm dictated to them by the wizards. What's worth noting is that the wizards continue to be of higher social status; allowing them the ability to assess and prescribe the ways of being which will maintain said social order. The house-elves will continue to be enslaved - as will the marginalized groups of our world. The ways which we can analyze this story to teach us more about ourselves is endless and I'm happy that I've found people that enjoy doing so as much as I do!

[@Goosewitdajuice317]

Shes not even bigoted. She just doesnt believe in ignorance like your goofy ass

[@gaberodriguez4023]

Slight correction: JRR Tolkien served in WWI.

[@justin-md4xm]

but he still lived through ww2 and came out with lotr after ww2

[@saraa.4295]

@@justin-md4xm true, but in many ways the themes of lord of the rings allign more with the world of ww1... The strong theme of industrialization, the colonization and the fact that it was the first time where emotional damage after a war was publicly addressed

[@NikkiAirytStorytime]

I think she has a lot to learn from her own books.

[@Ian_Jules]

"Death of the Author" is a complex, nuanced idea that has a lot of dimensions, but essentially ,it allows for plural interpretations. It's also about de-romanticizing the author, situating their work as a product of social environment instead of as a self-contained individual. E.g. JK Rowling's problematic views aren't a matter of some essential "badness" in her; they come from all the influences in her life. As an aspiring writer and lit scholar, it's always interesting to see how ideas I know from an academic viewpoint get applied to popular discourse.

[@melissamenchaca9121]

Rowling is NOT a Hufflepuff

[@danielm6341]

While the author concedes by the end of the series (or more precisely Dumbledore does) that the dramatic trope of a trait based boarding school undermines the character's psychosocial diversity; the fact that she was comfortable to write towards that trope with minimal deconstruction for the bulk of series, is an early warning sign that the author likes categorising humans and isn't a Hufflepuff. Edit - Which I've just also done. _sigh_ Writing is hard.

[@TahtahmesDiary]

As a Black kid I definitely thought she was going somewhere with the house elf thing...I thought it would turn out they really resented the abuse and overwork, or rebelled. As a grown Black woman, I know better than to expect better, but back then I definitely concocted a back story and guessed ahead! Good video 💜

[@hoaujudaiyubel]

Didn't realize modern day black people suffer from the enslavement their ancestors went through, I knew about discrimination and what not but not this

[@Swinburnean]

Quick correction at 2:40, you say WWII when you mean WWI.

[@JessieGender1]

Whoops, thank you for that!

[@CouncilofGeeks]

Beat me to it. It’s kind of an important distinction because it makes any relation of the Ring to the atomic bomb even less likely.

[@karenwoolley4279]

@@CouncilofGeeks The grind of warfare, industrialization, dehumanization all that is in there with Saruman and his orcs and chopping down trees for industrialized warefare ... so not atom bombs, but yes where war had gotten to. quote: History Meriadoc Brandybuck and Peregrin Took entered the forest in the second volume of The Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers. There, they met Treebeard and alerted him to the danger Saruman posed to the Ents and their forest. Following an Entmoot, the rest of the Ents agreed to march against Isengard, taking Merry and Pippin with them, and sent Huorns to Helm's Deep to deal with the Orcs there. Part of the Ents' anger was caused by Saruman's Orcs chopping down the trees at the south and west side of the forest. It was especially notable in that Fangorn Forest was embodied by Treebeard, whose deliberate and slow moving character anthropomorphised Tolkien's deep invented history and placed its vast time in a contrapuntal humour with the 'hasty' immediacy of the Hobbits' drama in the War of the Ring.[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fangorn#History

[@snakes3425]

@@JessieGender1 Tolkien actually hated people looking for alagory in his books, one thing he did do that Rowling seems to have forgotten is this: Bilbo and Frodo could be anybody and Tolkien worked on his mythos his entire life not to score political points or to seem progressive, hell he didn't do it to even please his fans, he did it because it was what he loved doing

[@danielm6341]

@@snakes3425 As far as I tell, Tolkien wanted a platform to publish a Conlang alongside previously-academic resurrection of old European folk lore. But he wouldn't be the first author to prefer that readers refrain from excessive meta-textual analysis of their work. Which we are both doing :-)

[@FrozEnbyWolf150]

As an author and editor, one of the first things I learned and have taught to others is that you do not have final say in how your work is interpreted. You may have poured your heart and soul into your book, but there comes a time when you need to let it go, to take on a life of its own. It's entirely in the hands of your audience, and future generations, to decide what they get out of your book. You can't expect to stand there in the bookstore, or on social media, and constantly yell at people that they're doing it wrong because that's not what you intended. Fans are going to read themselves and their own experiences into the book, they're going to write fanfiction and draw fan art, and they're going to create fan characters, and there's nothing you can do about it. (There are some authors who try, like Patricia Cornwell and Anne Rice, but all this gatekeeping does is scare away their audience.) It doesn't matter how wealthy you are, or how much power and influence you think you have. One day you won't be around anymore, and your works will carry on without you. There will be new adaptations, spinoffs, and sequels, and they'll all happen without your input. As it should be. This should be what any creator strives for, to leave a lasting legacy. The more an author tries to clamp down on their already-published work and impose restrictions on what people are allowed to think, the more it's going to encourage fans to take that work in directions very different from anything the author intended.

[@fairycat23]

I've found that there can be yet another, if spiteful, way to handle aspects of the text that show (or could show) the author's troubling views: acknowledge the troubling interpretation, but then run with a completely different one with the thought, "X Author, eat your dang heart out!" I've seen people call this, "The author is dead to me." No, it's not usually a demonstration of critical thinking. Yes, it is amusing. Yes, it is petty. Yes, it is cathartic.

[@CharmingNewSociety]

Not everyone is familiar with the author of a text, and hence the two are divorced by default. The death of the author works because knowing biographical information or intentions of an author isn't necessary to consume it or interpret it, which makes those things extraneous.

[@CJCroen1393]

Rowling's name is inextricably linked with Harry Potter. Consuming Harry Potter gives Rowling a platform through which she can spew her bigoted garbage by default.

[@rokssolana]

I have a BA in literature and still this is the best practical interpretation of the death of the author I've ever seen!

[@offtheball87]

I've been conflicted about how to approach the series since the tweet. I think it's important enough to me that I will continue to enjoy it, though I'll avoid actively supporting it with my money. And I'll keep in the back of my mind that, as much as I love this world and its characters, all were made by someone who's not my ally.

[@BisectedBrioche]

Death of the Author, AKA blaming problematic works on poor, poor, Miku.

[@tysondennis1016]

Minecraft isn't problematic. Notch is, but he doesn't have anything to do with Minecraft now.

[@serraramayfield9230]

@@tysondennis1016 He's different as he willfully relinquished control

[@tysondennis1016]

@@serraramayfield9230 Okay

[@klisterklister2367]

7:00 i read that part of the books as Hermione's baby steps into activism, and the struggles of making people care. especially when you're a little kid and you're bad at selling your ideas so no one cares what you think. if i remember correctly, doesn't she advocate for house elf rights when she became pm of the wizarding world? or maybe that is some twitter shit jkr has said after the books were done. or it's fanon, i'm sometimes a bit confused by all the fanfic i've read. but yeah, i can also see your interpretation! she's portrayed during this phase as being a bit... holier-than-thou and a bit like a wine socialist who really cares about the plight of the working class, but has never actually interacted or spoken to them directly. like the part when she's going around leaving clothes in the common room in hopes that any of the house elves will pick them up. so they all get scared of her because they think she's trying to get them sacked. also anyone who really remembers the books well please correct me!

[@SapphWolf]

Pretty much how I read it too. She's doing what she thinks is a good thing, but in reality she's just making their lives harder. In truth the only way to free the house elves would be to break the magic that makes them subservient. Something I think she'd be up to doing eventually, but she miiiight want to flee the country shortly thereafter.

[@cholofelomalunga6744]

I am so sad and disappointed to hear that someone I have worshiped since childhood can have such harmful views, reading Harry Porter I had a feeling that she was a liberal with a wide view of the world, not some narrow minded hateful person. So knowing all this, what does that make me if I continue supporting her work. This is such a difficult dilemma, It's like when I found out that Chanel was created by an anti Semitic person, so do I continue using my favorite perfume ? Honestly I can't reply that, but I love the Death of the Author theory you just presented. Thank you

[@redactedredacted6656]

It's frustrating that Hermione campaigning for house elf rights was used to show how pigheaded and stubborn she was."House Elf Liberation Front" being used to say how it's a useless caused is a bad look that was probably accidental.Everything you love really has flaws.Beautiful video

[@karenwoolley4279]

I thought it was a pollution from Monty Python's the Life of Brian (scroll down to where they are ranting about splitters montypython.50webs.com/scripts/Life_of_Brian/8.htm ) ... not anything the audience would know (children readers), but that doesn't mean the author didn't inject it by accident (as someone influenced by the work and thinks on that when trying to make fun of something being wibbly wobbly).

[@danielm6341]

I interpreted it as meaning that Hermione was the moral anchor of the trio; but that being a moral person is not a cost free exercise when you see further than your peers. That scene felt exactly like how high school students would react in that scenario; for better or worse.

[@pigeon2503]

...is it possible that JK held different views way back when, but has been radicalised by the TERF online community? Maybe her views were virtually non-existent in regards to the trans community (maybe she never put much thought into it), but held the more positive beliefs of acceptance... and could have been swayed one way or another depending on who she came into contact with? Idk I just hate the idea of Harry Potter being written with a massive red marker-pen "EXCEPT X/Y" onto it though having thought about it (just this second) the whole warewolf = hiv thing is er--- I mean we have Remus an all who is fantastic but every other werewolf we come into contact with, and also Remus being bitten is totally an allegory of child rape so

[@clarisacalderon9555]

That probably is what happened. After all a lot of the ideas that were in J.K. essay were really persuasive and easy to over look how harmful they could be if you don't have the right resources to look through. I've certainly heard a lot of similar stuff on twitter and tumblr that makes what she says not sound bad or that I've heard elseware. It was only through looking at videos and essays that explained WHY there were issues and problems with those interpretations that it helped balance that stuff out. you fear what you don't understand and there is a lot of misinformation out there and that gets confusing when you THOUGHT you understood a situation but it turns out you had been misinformed. I think J.K. rowling was going to be open to being educated when there were issues brought up in her believes until people started hating on her and the death threats started showing up which DEFINITLY isn't the majority of the community....but it does ake J.K. rowling understandably on the defensive because if she admits there are issues or that she didn't know than it would feel like validating the people giving her death threats and stuff. which it wouldn't because those are a minority and its better if she just admits she was misinformed and takes the opportunity really learn about the issues. especially since its dangerous for her to have such a wide reach when she might spread that misinformation where eve if she adjusts her views in the future it still spread the bad views. J.K. rowly sounds like she is regurgitating stuff she learned from other sources though I'm worried she'll just keep digging in her heels the worst the backlash is.

[@CJCroen1393]

Rita Skeeter was described as grotesquely masculine looking, all of her "feminine" attributes (hair, make up, nails, teeth, etc.) being gaudy and "fake" looking and her schtick was illegally transforming her appearance so she could sneak into people's private spaces (mostly those of minors in the book she's introduced in) and spy on them in their intimate moments. Rowling always at least had TERFy leanings. We just didn't notice because the non-essential nostalgia blinded us to it.

[@Nerdcoresteve1]

I honestly don't know how to think about it yet. I'm not as attached to those stories as others though. After learning about the prophecy that either Harry had to kill Voldemort or vice versa I became significantly less interested in the series. After getting the synopsis of the final book I never bothered to read it. If I ever decide I'm interested in reading them again I'll probably have to think and introspect more about this.

[@blagw2677]

Im not judging at all, im just genuinely curious, why was the prophecy the "kill switch" of your intrest?

[@wood0257]

It's a little late and its a bit of a minor point, but Tolkien fought in World War I, not World War II. He also notes in the preface to the ring trilogy that the experience of the first world war was probably more influential on the book than the second world war. He criticizes reading the trilogy as a metaphor for WWII from the standpoint that the events of the novel just don't align very well with the history, but he also criticizes allegory for forcing readers to experience the novel as the author expects them to, rather than having their own subjective engagement with the novel. Sorry a bit of a tangent.

[@NorthernDruid]

It feels to me like 'death of the author' is a lot harder to apply when the author is still engaging creatively or critically with the work in question. I think we should strive to do so with harry potter though. And I've two primary reasons in mind as for why. 1) It spoke to us, fascinated us, uplifted and inspired us and enriched our lives before the author made an ass of herself on twitter. We should always strive to read both the meaning that is being written to us and the meaning that we can create for ourselves out of the finished text, regardless of what we believe of the author. And importantly, we should refuse to let the author take that away from us after the fact. We owe it to ourselves to not let our dreams be broken, even by the one who gifted them to us. 2) There's many people who's work we cherish, who haven't yet made a fool out of themselves on twitter, some of my favourite works growing up, that continue to inspire me are made by people who have been dead longer than I have been alive. I'll never get to know what kind of horrible bigotry they might have supported in their time. And even when I engage with material by current authors I generally don't look to dig into their political views in detail first. It's unfair of me to give up on someone only when they screw up in a public way, when I don't make an effort only to read and support authors who are verified to be without severe fault. I owe it to everyone else to not be a hypocrite, and either view everyone's morals critically or no one's, not just the morals of those that spill them out on twitter. All that said, it's still gonna be hard to enjoy the series as wholeheartedly for a while.

[@andrewmalinowski6673]

I agree, most of what I've read has been from authors like C.S. Lewis or Isaac Asimov, people who were inspiring in their writing and gave me ideas for my own style but I was either born too late to ever know about (Lewis) or died when I was too young to ever get a chance to see or meet them personally (Asimov). The only thing I ever took from Rowling's post-authorial work in Harry Potter was the "Dumbledore is gay" statement even if when reading Deathly Hallows there was nothing but innuendo and supposition due to dialogue, it was never made clear whether or not he was or wasn't and it inspired me to feel more open in myself with the idea.

[@jeffreygao3956]

It's a lot easier to apply Death of the Author with someone dead.

[@CoffeeBitchChronicles]

I believe she was specifically saying to accept yourself with your flaws I also believe her intent was to call attention to the court case which I would rather read than taking everyone elses views as fact on

[@thedryshake]

I agree with the concept of the death of the author. But I also think you're looking at the books too preciously. Whether or not we divorce Rowling as a transphobe from the text should not even be a question. With or without social media, the forward progression of history will add context and color the reading of any book. Ask Lovecraft fans. Books, even fiction, are living entities, and their narrative structure is an artificial simulacrum of our own conscious process. That it can represent concepts that she may disagree says more about that potential and Rowling's own hypocrisy than it does your interpretation, and that gleaned hypocrisy might provide even further insight into the book in future readings, thus prolonging the life of the book. I'm not disappointed in Rowling, so much as concerned. I'll say this here because I don't have an audience, but what is it in the middle of a pandemic and societal unrest that provoked unsolicited transphobic comments like she made on twitter? Is she okay?

[@falseworldtruehearts3740]

Yikes. I never grew up watching or reading Harry Potter, and after hearing that interpretation in regards to the treatment of the house elves, I'm not inclined to. The fact that Ron and Harry actively belittle Hermione for refusing to dehumanize the elves, and give them their own freedom (Since apparently the books are all about the dangers of dehumanization), the book series just come across as hypocritical. It makes me think, "Does that important lesson only apply to when it's convenient for the main characters or something?" If so, then , for all intents and purposes, there is no message that holds up ,not as long as that hypocrisy is kept in mind. (And, in a worst case scenario=the exact opposite idea is reinforced, in which people can get away with treating others poorly with absolutely no moral repercussions whatsoever. It reminds me of the George Orwell saying, : "Here, everyone is equal. But some are more born more equal than others."

[@ammieloris]

This is a brilliant analysis, and my past lit-geek self loves this. I love how you argued for the legitimacy of the reader (in addition to the author and the text itself) in creating meaning. And then you related this to the issues of transphobia! I think it's important to your conversation in these JKR TERF videos that your reading as a trans person is as important as authorial intent and the text itself.

[@wellingtonsmith4998]

My interpretation of the House Elves as slaves goes like this: Elves were not strong enough to resist enslavement but Goblins were, hence the many rebellions against Wizards. Once all Elves had been enslaved generation after generation with the Wizards pacifying them with magic, they became accustomed to it. And I had hoped that, in the books, there would have been a Ministry of Magic effort to undo this damage as quickly as possible, but so fast as to cause harm. We saw what happened to Winkie when she got her 'freedom', it was too much for her.

[@wellingtonsmith4998]

oh, and I'm one of the people who've lost interest in HP over the past year, I'm giving away my books and other HP stuff. I don't think others should stop enjoying HP, it's just that I no longer do.

[@andrewmalinowski6673]

That's an interesting perspective, especially since there has neve been an explanation. It's likely an interesting counterpoint between Dobby and Kreacher as Dobby was willing to risk his own safety because he cared for and respected Harry even being pleased at being freed while Kreacher despised the idea of freedom as if he was so used to being abused and mistreated that he practically challenged anyone except Sirius and Harry regardless of his feelings for them

[@Perri-Prinz]

Trans author here. As an author, I am very much aware that my intensions or motivations are irrelevant to the reader's interpretation. Even if a line in my story is talking about something else, if the arrangement of the words connects two dots in regard to something else in the reader's mind, I regard that as a good thing. It's great if I actually worded it that way to insert a thought on that different topic, but even if I didn't, any inspiration I can give the reader I regard as a good thing. It makes me feel useful as a wordsmith. On the other hand, the fact that I'm a Trans author shouldn't infer that you, as a Trans reader, will automatically agree with everything I write, or that I'm someone Trans people should look up to and idolize as their perfect representative. Truth be told, I'm bemused every time you talk about a Trans community. I have no community. I'm all alone in being Trans. And I typically don't relate well to what Trans activists like yourself write, because it suggests that there is some common Trans experience, when actually I'm sure every individual's Trans experience is quite unique. Consequently, I would never set out to write a story specifically for a "Trans community," because my Trans experience is all I'd have to fall back on, and it likely wouldn't be useful to other Trans people. And even if it would, I don't believe in boiling Trans down to stereotypes, placing expectations or prejudices on Trans people that would be anything but universal. And, of course, I don't just write for Trans people. I want to be inspirational to all kinds of people. So I just kind of write a lot of what I consider to be positive ideas, and wise one-liners into the story. And if one of those lines impacts you positively as a Trans person, I consider that to be a success story. And whatever characters you find inspirational are your choice, not mine. On the other hand, what I've seen of JK Rowling suggests she's not that kind of writer. She's always struck me as an author who includes allegories to be trendy. She's not really trying to say anything about society or give representation to the marginalized. But if she sees gay characters are suddenly trendy, she will suddenly announce that a character she obviously wrote to be asexual is suddenly gay. Never mind how hurtful that might be to the asexuals who might previously have felt represented by the character. Asexuals are not trendy, and all that matters is the publicity to be gained. It wouldn't surprise me if all this anti-Trans stuff she's doing is just another publicity stunt to sell her new book about a cross-dressing murderer. And I'm sure every time you make a video about her, her sales go up a few points, because she's trying to sell that book to everybody but Trans folks. She's appealing to a new trendy Transphobic audience and using you to get the word out. I've never thought much of Rowling or her Harry Potter series. As an allegorical fantasy writer, on my worst day I could create better fantasy realms than Rowling, as could all of the fantasy writers I learned my craft from. Rowling apparently seems to think that, because she targets kids, she doesn't have to work that hard. In fact, if there's one word that comes to mind when I think of the Harry Potter movies, it's "Colorless." Those movies might as well be in black & white. But if you like it and take inspiration from some aspects of it, that's up to you, and JK Rowling has nothing to do with it. Once a story leaves her pen it doesn't belong to her anymore. It belongs to the mind of the individual reader, and you should divorce her entirely from your experience. It's your interpretation that counts. I actually prefer that my readers focus as little on me as possible. The work is the work. The work follows the characters and concepts to their conclusions whether they reflect my personal views or not. If I just make the characters mouthpieces for my political views, that's not fantasy writing. That's propaganda. My issues might enter the story, but it's up to my characters to deal with the issues their way. If they just do everything my way, I'm not truly writing the characters. So when you read Harry Potter, read the characters, not the author. If she did her job right, the characters will speak for themselves, not for her. Real fantasy writing, as opposed to propaganda, is a lot like role playing. The author channels the characters. They tell the author what to write, not vice versa. So you should draw your interpretations exclusively from the characters, never from your impressions of the author. I can tell you from experience that my characters often say things that don't reflect my views. And it's not my job to slap the character and say, "Conform to my views or I'll cancel you." It's my job to write the character as it reveals itself. Anyway, I don't want to defend Rowling, because she's always been pretty far down on my list of fantasy authors to be taken seriously. I'm more concerned that you do not lose a work or characters that are meaningful to you just because the author turns out to be something less than perfect as a human being. A writer may be the god of the universe they create, but once created the world develops with its own sense of free will, and readers read the world through the lens of their own experience. So that no two readers may see exactly the same thing. So it's what the world does inside your head that's important. And if it did something good for you, nothing should take that away from you.

[@grooveyerbouti]

If people as a whole choose to ignore the author then this works. However it is also possible that her views outside of her fiction can taint the message for future readers,i am sure this wont affect her. I must point out that i haven't read any of her books, not for any other reason than kids. And whilst i am grumpy and old i didn't like kid heroes when young and slightly less grumpy. Best case scenario is books will live on to inspire for years to come whilst she becomes footnote.

[@siljeborgan4531]

I do not agree that the houselves are happy to be enslaved (Dobby) But some of them are taught from childhood that this is as good as it gets for houselves (Winky) so why try to fight it? What would be fun was a Dobby short story on where he picked up his ideas 💙

[@siljeborgan4531]

Or did I misunderstand you? 😊

[@siljeborgan4531]

ULGROTHA There, I fixed it.

[@JessieGender1]

I can hear your point, but if I recall, characters like Winky are more the norm then Dobby . In fact, all house elves just seem to believe not only is this as good as it but that enslaving house elves is their natural state, that they like and enjoy being enslaved, and to free them is actually the most horrific thing you can do to them. Winky for example becomes a depressive abusive drunk after being freed, and we never see her recover from that, and she laments that she just wishes she could be enslaved again. There is certainly something to be said for how slavery can brainwash people, but that didn’t really seem to be addressed within the text or even the intention of JK, as it was mostly played for comedy, with the only time it being dramatic was when humans were looking at the situation and saying “oh how horrible, this says so much about us as wizards” without actually working to fix the problem. Hermoine is literally the only person who does actual work to try to help, and she gets belittled for it before ultimately sidelining the issue to focus on the larger Voldemort narrative.

[@flo9]

These days I find solace in the fact that Harry Potter gave me a community when I needed it, and gave life to a lot of really inclusive fan fiction that is better than the OG. Looking at you, A Priori. I have no idea how people grew up reading the series and now go "racism is just such a great idea and also closets are amazing houses" but it also made a lot of us critical thinkers.

[@fairycat23]

Sometimes I enjoy the things the community makes even more!

[@flo9]

@@fairycat23 definitely

[@shimonnym]

So this video finally showed up in my feed. So, anyway, you mention her saying Dumbledore is gay and her hypothetically telling us that Hermione grows up to be a TERF. The former can be easily supported in the text (some did point it out before she said it) the latter cannot. So we don't have to listen to what she has to say to believe that Dumbledore is gay. But we have to not only listen but also reject the text to believe Hermione is a TERF.

[@pacmanshooter247]

It was very interesting to me when you said "I'd be the first to admit that I'm biologically male"...honestly shocked me a bit. Not even sure were I'm going with this. I just... I guess I still struggle with talking about gender-things as I've only recently come out as partially nonbinary/genderfluid... your videos help a great deal. All of them.

[@JessieGender1]

Pacmanshooter I say that mostly because people have this narrative of “Trans people don’t understand biology.” And I like to basically go, no I totally Understand my biology thank you very much, it’s not what we are talking about.

[@JessieGender1]

Also congrats on coming out ❤️❤️❤️

[@flo9]

Well a, good for you for coming out :) I have to agree actually. The most mind opening thing ever for me was the realisation that not only gender is a social costruct, but the concept of sex is as well. Like 150 years ago, people and by people I mean scientists thought that the female reproductive system was literally an inverted penis. Then society changed and people didn't like that definition anymore so scientists found one that is more like the one we have now. And while the whole "a vagina is the lack of a penis" this has, shall we say, problematic, so is the current way of determining sex. And it isn't even less accurate, really. In fact, while in the womb, all babies are created equally at first. Basically, the vagina really does "fall out" of the body to form a penis. Hence the non functional male nipples. Like Jessie says, she is only assuming she has XY chromosomes. There's hormones which nobody ever checks in babies unless there is a really good reason. Science is just what people make it 🤷

[@pacmanshooter247]

@@JessieGender1 Thanks for replying! And you're so totally right of course. I guess I feel like its a taboo for transpeople to say that for some reason. Like... Even though as those affected we probably understand the biology better than many others, it still feels like its a tiny bit crass to say. (Though I have the added complication of living with a naturally high level of male hormones - while otherwise physically seeming mostly female - which, added to my gender-fluidity- makes it difficult for me to quite yet find my standing in some parts of certain social constructs. Still adjusting, I guess). The actual point of this video was helpful for me too, btw, since...yeah. Obviously, artists being like this is such a shitty blargh for all of us.

[@pacmanshooter247]

@@JessieGender1 Thank youuu!

[@sethheasley9538]

Solid analysis here. I tend to lean toward Death of the Author and ignore authorial intent, but I like the idea you presented of the three-way conversation.

[@trekjudas]

Music has many different meanings for many different people.

[@JessieGender1]

Beautifully said.

[@ChristyAbbey]

I have too many comments. I'm sitting here trying to pick one, and I can't. Been weeks now and I still don't know what I want to say, but I want to say something. When I went to make a video about it, I failed. I have failed on every level to deal with this.

[@JessieGender1]

And that’s ok, it shouldn’t be on us to deal with someone else’s bigotry.

[@BlackCover95]

6:02 Good way to show expressing an opposing view. Distinct enough, yet isn’t overly mocking.

[@potato-dono7562]

I think most people have a difficulty to reconcile the male-female and man-woman usage and meaning when it comes to sex and gender (even if there’s a difference to sex and gender), sometimes, myself included. (I sometimes even feel it has to do a lot with semantics?) I hope you take this the best way possible as I’m actually admitting it is kind of hard to understand sometimes. To be fair I feel is kind of a complex issue. On the other hand, why can’t a man be a woman? As far as I understand “woman” is a gender and genders are more associated more to social roles, right? Anyhow, I feel TERFs are a mix of fear and ignorance. Like whenever an issue A brushes a bit issue B and some people react vehemently to Issue B because feel like is making issue A more vulnerable. So TERFs females might feel like trans-woman (?) (maybe males in their eyes (?)) (really sorry if I’m not using the right terminology at any point) are making their stance/cause/issues vulnerable or like “trying to get on the same boat”. (o maybe some miss placed misandry in there too?) Don’t really know but talking it out helps me process it a bit and I’m trying to understand as I don’t believe it is out of malice/evil that they think like they think. Would like to hear anyone’s input.

[@christiangrady1291]

I’m gay and have always advocated for, and put myself at risk defending trans individuals and educating many who struggle to comprehend the trans plight… that being said, JKR has proven to be an advocate and I struggle to support the notion that her personal rational discourse addressing how trans progress is counteracting womens right’s progress. I appreciate your candor addressing this and I wholeheartedly respect and acknowledge your struggle, but I must assert that labeling her narrative as harmful or hateful is perpetuating the divisiveness in society. Textual communication, such as tweets lack the author’s context and tone, leaving each reader with their own interpretations, as I see her criticism of the proposed language change to be in defense of women and not an attack on trans people. I understand how it can easily be interpreted as such, but to proclaim your side’s interpretation is absolute is a big part of the problem. Instead of using the opportunity to engage to gain clarity and discuss the issues, our community sees any challenges to the narrative as a personal attack and indicative of bigotry and a denial of existence… 🤷🏻‍♂️ We cannot lend such enormous power to others perception and how they use language…. I’m in rural mid America, where Trans individuals are being addressed by their preferred pronouns within the scope of the m/f binary… (they/them is a struggle as linguistically it’s not part of the vernacular) but to now demand society alter language further to “birth giver” and the like is an unwelcome infringement considered offensive by women… English is widespread and meaning differs geographically, such as “f@g” meaning bundle of sticks or cigarette in the UK, so to demand complete total global control over meaning and usage is an unrealistic expectation, besides we don’t need to aggressively force heteronormative society comply for our validation… and siting suicide rates is effectively emotional extortion. That’s the power we can’t give away to others. I’m frequently told to take my own life, mostly by LGBTQ+ peers, and ultimately it’s up to me how I respond, so it’s prudent we not require others to think and talk as we wish in order to exist…. As for taking her intellectual property 😬 I can’t believe it was ever suggested. Talk about a violation of human rights lol Love you all ❤️

[@SecondLifeDesigner]

I prefer to think that the JK Rowling who wrote the Harry Potter books didn't hold the negative views she apparently has towards trans people has now. People change over time and sometimes that change isn't always for the better. It be important to understand how and why she has grown to have these views. She has stated that she has known and even loved transgender individuals so she can't have gone all that bad. There is usually a core issue or truth in the beliefs and views we hold even the negative ones. If we take the time to find out what these are for Rowling we might find there is indeed something there that is legitimate and needs to be addressed.

[@CrazyGoth631]

For me I just look at the text and see if they're evidence within the story to back it up. My problem with writers (talking about any writer) they can write things unintentionally or just go back on ideas that were clearly there. Sometimes they just go with fan theories because they sound cool or just like that interpretation better or they can just flatout lie they never intended certain messages when they wrote them on purpose. I hear people say all the time whatever the writer says that's the interpretation but as said I just don't think that works. As said writers are just too wishy-washy and there too other factors. I think it's good to a point to look at the writer but I think it's a very small part in the grand scheme of things for looking at a story.

[@CJCroen1393]

All Harry Potter offers is a rush of non-essential nostalgia. Other than that, it has nothing to offer that other, better fantasy novels can't. It's not worth giving Rowling a platform for.

[@emmashot5036]

The example of Hermione being a mudblood is on point *chef's kiss*

[@hoaujudaiyubel]

A fictional book is a form of art and all art is the product of the mind of it's creator at the time it was written. There for the most accurate and thus the only factually correct interpretation is what the author had intended at the time. We have no way of knowing weither jk Rowling's tweets are new intent or something she truly intended from the begining so our best bet is to figure out who the author is as a person and base our interpretation on what is most likely their intent.

[@VictoriaAbernethy]

Literature is studied via different interpretations. Studying a text solely through author intent is limiting. As a literature student we are taught not to allow the author to skew out interpretations. The author and the text can and does exist separately. I think the bigger issue here is "cancel" culture. Many many authors have a controversial opinions. If you remove all their texts or count them into your interpretations you would have to throw out 80% of literature. Dickens was a utter a.hole to his wife, Woolf had some horrendous views on women and class. Stories are stories and the truly great stories, I feel, come from beyond the author. Look at how fairy tales exist in all cultures independently but mimic each other. If you have strong ties to a book try not to let negativity blind your interaction with it. All interpretations have a level of validity.

[@elkspirith]

Harry Potter wasn't something I always loved but there are still some things that I hold dear which is why I'm kinda mad at Rowling for not learning from her mistakes and continuing to say harmful things but not down cause there are some other fandoms that have been dear to me, so I get joy out of them. Also, like you pointed out some of the ideas from HP, it's weird how Rowling's recent statements are so against those ideas.

[@otterlover3399]

Tolkien fought in World War One. He did not "live through WWII as a soldier" as he was in his 50s by then.

[@kannibalnektar]

Thank you for contributing a nuanced discussion of this topic

[@anaiglesias9972]

Well I didn't start reading this series until I was a adult when the movies came out so I am not so attached to this series. But it is sad to see all of the hurt this cause but at the same time I want to be careful while criticism her, because after I saw Contrapoints video I can't in good conscience subscribe to the cancel culture. Transfobic views are something I will never tolerate and JK Rowling very possible could be a TERF and that is a hard pill to sallow. But also a teachable moment on not to put people on pedestal.

[@sara_sah-raezzat5086]

Great video. I hope it's okay if I put my thoughts in the discord.

[@JessieGender1]

Please do!

[@martaisabella6590]

Great video and wonderfully explained!

[@deepspacenibby]

Here's some engagement for you, my friend!!!

[@JessieGender1]

[@deepspacenibby]

@@JessieGender1 I got you, girl! Trying my best until I get another job and can join your patreon y'all hahaha

[@trekjudas]

It’s weird but it’s possible for writers to not understand their own work.

[@emmashot5036]

You in harry potter merch makes this all better. As a queer person, I also feel very conflicted cause I love the Harry Potter series but hate the author lmao.

[@stevespain6445]

Relative to the topic of Death of the Author, part of the issue, that I also see, is the Cult of the Celebrity. How much less would we care if we hadn't built her up to be 'more than' in the first place? She's an author - o.k. cool, what's her art like? Actually, it's pretty bloody good. O.k. awesome, have you got a copy I can borrow? However, The Cult of the Celebrity and raising up artists [and others] to be something they are not [better/greater than], is a thing we do, I add, unfortunately. As a theatre artist, I long ago abandoned special places for artists, however, I found I still celebrated people, like Ghandi, and then I found out even this was in error - he's a rapist. This caused me much pain - non-violent human rights activism owes much to Gandhian revolution, but we cannot uphold a rapist under any circumstances. For me, it is still an unsatisfying "resolution" now I make sure I talk about his being a rapist at every mention. I too have no good answers, except ??maybe?? to say we shouldn't raise artists to be worthy of listenable opinions apart from that of their own works, but I really appreciate your discussion of the matter. Would I give a copy of Harry Potter to a niece who is trans - sure, with a warning about the author, much like I would to other nieces and nephews. 'This is a great series, I think you may like it, it's written by a person who is not very good at all though."

[@mtsanri]

These are wise words. We can look at a work of art through several different lenses, and none of them are necessarily more correct than the others. Thanks Jessie

[@paulinettejaenquirindongor9495]

Everyday I lose faith in humanity...

[@JessieGender1]

I like to be heartened by the fact that so many came out to push back against JK after she said this. Their voices may not be as strong, but there is a community of wonderful people out there.

[@SpeedOfTheEarth]

@@JessieGender1 Exactly, choose love and strength over giving in to the hate

[@anaiglesias9972]

Why don't you read the Percy Jackson books, it will return your faith in humanity.

[@JessieGender1]

ana iglesias omg I need to read those, I’ve heard only great things.

[@joryjones6808]

Not to nitpick JRR Tolkien was a soilder in wwi not wwii.

[@jrloulanza6534]

4:01 Alternate quote: I matters not what a reader is born, but what they grow to be, REVISERS. That's something every author should think about for their credit might be lost. -Louie Ramos Lanza.

[@jasondeutschbein8102]

I was raised Catholic and later realized I was gay. Rejecting the "canon" is a norm for me. I think we reject the negative sentiments and embrace the good. The camaraderie of Harry, Ron and Hermione is an important message and I will always remember it. I will forever reject exclusionary language like Rowling uses of late, however.

[@jamesderosa2041]

People probably already said this, but Tolkien was a soldier in WWI. He was 47 and already a professor at Oxford when WWII started. Easy mistake to make. I appreciate this video’s message, though! Rowling really should apologize if she has any decency,

[@danminica]

this aged unfortunately amazingly

[@ArielVHarloff]

Your styling in this gives me Luna Lovegood vibes

[@loner844]

it doesn't ruin the text for me, but it does change somewhat how I view the text. I can't entirely divorce JK Rowling from the text, nor do I think I should, despite the horridness of her views. What I care about most is my relationship to the text, not hers. She is but one voice in the conversation, and I no longer hold her voice in high esteem, so I have no problem prioritising other voices more in line with my views over hers. The fandom, especially the LGBT+ portion of it, matter more. In the end, the text itself isn't perfect, but it also holds no outright transphobia. It doesn't hold any outright transgender characters either, so clearly it simply refuses to comment on the issue. That will have to be enough, as I'd rather take that than outright transphobia. Of course, when it comes to subtext, it's all up to your interpretation, but there are no right or wrong answers there. Anything you can say is all subjective. But art always is.

[@hads5279]

And how big her platform is is something I constantly think about.

[@sjkiddo_]

Nice shirt. Good video. I started tuning out Rowling a while back and I'm hoping I can still occasionally re-read and enjoy the books for what they are.

[@Galvion1980]

returning to this because of current events (less than half a year after this vid was posted - bloody, f#*king hell!), commenting for the algorithm

[@stevensutton4677]

This parallels my attitude with writer Graham Linehan and the sitcom he wrote called Father Ted. Despite everything, I still love that programme. He won't take that away from me.

[@Megan-gy4ly]

So I know this is an old video, but I still wanted to comment. I think for me, death of the author just means that whatever I get from the text is valid, despite the author's intent. If someone else can't separate the author's intent or the author's personal beliefs from their reading experience, that's equally as valid. But if I read the Dumbledore quote and feel it wonderfully provides support for the trans community, then it does (to me). Similarly, I could think the portrayal of house elves is racist or goblins is anti-semitic, and JKR could say she didn't mean it that way. As the reader, my interpretation is all that matters to me. Death of the author means it doesn't matter if JKR would agree with me or not, because she has zero control over what I take from the text. So I never think, "Would JKR agree with my interpretation," when I read. Death of the author to me just means that the author's intent dies when the book is published, because we all approach the story with vastly difference life experiences and beliefs that inform our reading of the text, and the author can't account for that when writing the book. For example, I could think Harry and Ron look like jackasses in their response to SPEW and learn the lesson that we should support our friends to become better people, while another person could think Hermione looks like an insufferable SJW and learn a totally different lesson. JKR doesn't get to tell us what her stories mean, and they will mean different things to all of us. Our interpretation is all that matters. Of course, she's not really dead so I won't financially support her, but she won't ruin my interpretation of the books.

[@e.458]

I wonder if fan fiction ist taking over and dealing with the issues through their writing. Hermione learning how to support the elves instead of trying to force her idea of liberation on them, would bei awesome. She might meet members of an elf-organised activist group who explain to her why her approach comes off as patronising and teach her how to be a better ally. Hogwarts treating trans characters without prejudice (maybe it's a totally normal non-issue there). It's so easy to have genderfluid characters, because ... well ... magic. Fans correcting and improving on the author. Not so much death of the author but more readers inheriting a (flawed) legacy.

[@danielbodey6775]

yo whats tha song at the end ???/?? its nice

[@Swinburnean]

Another very thoughtful video! Bravo! Warning! Warning! Ridiculously long comment incoming! As a stereotypical Discovery hater, as other comments on your videos attest to, you'll not be surprised to hear that I have serious problems with the Harry Potter series. The setting is a mess, bordering incoherent, the plot lines and character motivations are often intolerably contrived and the themes are undercut and confused at every term by a lack of thought and/or attention to detail. As a child, I grew up with the audio cassettes for the (much better work) The Worst Witch, so I also take issue with the series on the grounds of plagiarism. In sum, I believe JK Rowling has enjoyed a tremendous amount of unearned success. However, I am, and always will be, a Harry Potter 'fan'. For all its shortcomings (and they are plenty), it still has a richness of world, a diversity of cast and an emphasis on mythology that hits all the right notes for me. I am, therefore, intimiately familiar with the notion of the death of the author because Rowling's endless pronouncements of canon (via tweet), hopeless political pandering and shameless commercialism - and the irritating elements of the fandom that indulgence these things - are an anathema to me. I do not doubt that Albus Dumbledore was "intended" to be gay, on some level, and his relationship with Gellert Grindelwald (or, rather, the brief glimpse we see of it in the final book) is something I'm irresistibly drawn to and identify with. However, it creates a serious continuity issue which can only be resolved through transformation of the text. The feeble argument that it would have been inappropriate for Dumbledore to have told Harry (which is the typical defence) is utter tripe. The fact is that Dumbledore's teenage affair with Grindelwald is the subject of a sensationalised book by the nasty gossip-monger Rita Skeeter - a book that Harry reads. It is the perfect opportunity to reveal this "canonical" information. The only explanation is that Dumbledore was not, in fact, intended to be gay, or that Rowling is a coward. In general, the world of Harry Potter is broadly in line with Rowling's centre-left liberal low Church Anglicanism; culturally Christian but not explicitly religious, tolerant but only in abstract, flaccidly anti-racist but indulgent of racist ideology (hold that thought), totally confused on the issue of fate and of social change and deeply silly in its view of England (a sentiment that you may not be familiar with - the middle class of England tend to be quietly ashamed of being English, whilst holding onto the belief that England is the centre of the universe, the opposite view of the more patriotic but less egotistical working class). On the "anti-racism" point, this is a result of a "theme" that is just not very well thought through. Consider this, our hero only believes himself to be a nobody. It is his lineage (more explicitly, his bloodline) that proves him wrong. He is a descendant and heir of the legendary Ignotus Peverell and his father was a pure-blood wizard. His best friend belongs to a family of "blood traitors", but not someone of mixed ancestry. No, no, this "blood traitor" family is headed by a pair of pure-blood cousins, who are implied to be deeply ashamed of the the rare non-magical members of their family. When one factors in Rowling's out-of-text justification for backing out of the idea of Dudley Dursley producing a magical daughter, with references to his father's poor genetics being incapable of the feat, this becomes too difficult to simply ignore. Fuck me, this is long! Sorry! On the subject of SPEW, I will say that, in Rowling's defence, I think you have the wrong end of the stick (though I think you made a reference to something from the FB movies which I outright refuse to watch - her view, in general, of "American wizards" is an embarrassing mess). Hermione's fault is in prioritising her own self-righteousness and sense of morality over the feelings of the House Elves, a group she admits she's only read about. Kreacher is, ironically, a very beautiful character in my view and his story (and by extension, Regulus' - a character I strongly identify with) is one of the series' few hits. In him, we see that the issue of House Elf slavery has been abstracted into a mere cultural signifier by human beings. Sirius, who holds the "correct" views, treats Kreacher horribly because he represents the culture he, rightly, rebelled so strongly against. Bellatrix, an evil character, by contrast treats him kindly because he performs a valuable servant role (which is as important in material terms as it is in symbolic ones, a literal walking and talking reminder that her kind are superior and their rule benevolent). He has been driven mad by grief for a system that (as abhorrent as it was) provided meaning and worth to his life and has now collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, and the human beings who, flawed though they were, loved and cherished him. His own worldview seems to begin changing once Hermione offers him kindness and understanding, which seems, in my view, to produce the message that action (whether political or otherwise) ought to begin with empathy. In that sense, it is not that Ron's ends (do nothing about House Elf slavery) are correct but his means (ask what the Elves themselves - ha, Elves themselves - actually want). Hermione, conversely, derives the right ends (abolish House Elf slavery) from the wrong means (do some reading and figure out what I want). Now, I unfortunately have to admit that the point of all of this has got away from me ... which is a little disappointing. I'll end with this. I have always put more stock in the "intention" of authors whose thoughtful consideration of the plot is clearly evident (such as Tolkein and Martin), and very little stock in the professed "intention" of authors whose consideration of the plot is a result of post-facto moralising/pandering (Rowling). Keep up the good work! I'm off to have a look at your Patreon.

[@klisterklister2367]

I think it was still interesting to read your thoughts, even though you didn't have a conclusion to them. :)

[@Swinburnean]

@@klisterklister2367 Thank you! :)

[@Lucy_Wo]

Great vid, but there's a one mistake - Tolkien was a soldier in World War I, not WWII. His son fought in RAF in WWII.

[@mysticthemanakete]

I've lost almost every ounce of love I ever had for the series, but with every ounce of love I lose I gain determination to make my own series one I can be proud of. There's a voice in the back of my head that tells me 'your story will never be as good or as popular as Harry Potter is/was', and I have to fight back and say no, it won't be, but if I don't write it it won't get out there where it can be found by the people that might NEED this story, the people I'm writing it FOR.

[@SpeedOfTheEarth]

How amazing, looking forward to this. Defo.' find some way to let us HP-Crowd know once it's going forward!

[@zerpendium6051]

JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis, even though they’re Christians, made it clear their stories and novels are not allegorical. Even the British Charles Williams, wrote seven occult thrillers. Reading from them, you wouldn’t know from them that he’s Christian or not. Yet he is. Just my two cents.

[@MSTKChanel]

Honey, you are a smart and beautiful person. I would just like to tell you that anybody can have an opinion and express that opinion without harming you in any way. Nobody should loose their job, or be publicaly shamed for it. I wholeheartedly support you and I do hope that the world will accept all people exactly as they are (as long as they are not harming anybody). But accepting one doesn't mean agreeing or even liking one. One just needs to live and let live.

[@simongaudin2506]

WW1 Allegory some of the earliest texts where written in 1916 in a military hospital

[@matthiasmatsson2690]

Thank you! ❤

[@Thagomizer]

Tolkien fought in WWI, not WWII.

[@naaji5606]

No-one: Literally no-one: J.K Rowling: Hermione is Muslim

[@cheechee6473]

Ok just stop...seriously 🤦‍♂️ these comments are so pathetic

[@4496Swaggy]

This was 2 fucking months ago😂

[@IDOLL_Dev]

Jessie I am so sorry this happened to you. I hope you find a way to cope with this and move on. I couldn't possibly imagine what this must be like. I think when we idealize people and stories a big part of what we like about them originally comes from within us, which is a good and beautiful thing. It's our interpretations of the story or the person that makes them meaningful to us. In this case, the Harry Potter books and J. K. Rowling were, in a way, your inner helper and stood by your side. So maybe it helps to know that even though the Harry Potter books can't fulfill their role of being your inner helper anymore, the helper still exists within you and can manifest in other ways.

[@christiegreenwood2642]

Tolkien was a soldier during WWI.

[@arnulfovasquez7583]

Thank you for your explanation.

[@lemonsquire5993]

I’m so glad I found your videos! Subscribed, even though you’re keeping me up 🙂

[@danielm6341]

A good video article, but did it affirm the title of the video? In an amusingly meta-way, my interpretation of this article's conclusion was that it was supportive of Death of Author. At least in so far as encouraging spaces freer from authorial intent to hold one's own assessment of the work. Perhaps we focus on authors because we don't trust them not to introduce views we don't agree with into their future work - forewarned being forearmed. There is certainly a risk that authors will do that explicitly (I'm looking at you, Terry Goodkind); but when one has to reach outside their works for these values, doesn't that suggest a Tantalean purity from writers, athletes, and other cultural pedestals (of our own making no less) that humans don't actually possess? Fight bad or stale ideas wherever they arise, but only where they are expressed. The cultural thresher would leave nothing but corpses otherwise.

[@CosmoShidan]

Looking at this concept from a philosophical point of view, stating to look at the text for an explanation and not deriving from intent or biography, that just comes off as falling into the fallacy of circular reasoning insofar as it's basically saying, "we should trust the text because the text says so" to put into laypersons' terms. I also can't help but notice that this also comes off as an appeal to authority, as in the text is the authority alone, akin to claiming what the bible says is true because it is true. It's like how one reads Watchmen and assumes that it's a celebration of superheroes, but then when we hear Alan Moore ranting about the fascist implications of superheroes, and accuse the author of misreading their own text, it's easy to miss that this is what they were saying in the text, and ignoring how Moore reads superheroes and the fact that the author is anarchist. Anyhow, that's my two cents.

[@rawneae9225]

If you have never attempted to write a book before, and more than that, build an entire world, then you won't understand this thought process. Authors ask themselves many questions, but in regards to what their words mean? this comes much later. Writing is an extremely personal experience drawn from your own life. things you've witnessed, your influences and yes, many of your beliefs. Rowling isn't, herself, trans, as a result it is even less likely that she held the trans experience to have integrated it subconsciously in her writing. Because it is subconscious. Plotting is intentional. Meaning is not.

[@emmashot5036]

omg TERF in the harry potter font XD

[@VixeyTeh]

It's really sad the internet these days will find one bad tweet and throw away the whole human and forget litterally any good they ever did in the whole rest of their life. Like oh a 99% good person with 1% negative thought, they are now evil and we must destroy them. It really is that ridiculous.

[@klisterklister2367]

also i just want to say that i hated to see your videos get flooded by terf/gcf people. i'm so sorry you had to go through that, and if you still get comments, please don't read them. you have an audience who care about what you and what you want to say. don't listen to people who disrepects you. listen to people who do respect you, and who you can have a genuine conversation with both respect and kindness. don't take criticism/abuse from people who don't mean you anything well or kind.

[@kuroinekoworld]

I feel like a *a lot* of people disliked the video just by looking at the title. I would invite people to actually watch the video before forming an opinion...

[@hitokirihobbit]

are you familiar with media fan studies scholarship? if not, you should at least check out some of the foundational works by Henry Jenkins and Constance Penley. (also, you would prolly geek as hard as i did over the book NASA/TREK.) while peripheral-ish to that note, you'd prolly also like Alexander Doty on queerness in pop culture

[@SykoSilver]

I have had trouble pulling my Harry Potter shirts out of my closet to wear, because it feels like it might hurt trans people. I agree with you completely, but I also think it's fair to say that the fandom of the works won't be the same, even if the works themselves are nuanced, meaningful or even inspiring. The fandom is definitely important to many peoples enjoyment of it all.

[@JessieGender1]

Me too. I still feel awkward wearing my Hufflepuff shirt.

[@SykoSilver]

@ULGROTHA oh that's a great idea! I'll have to get one.

[@bunker2276]

Tolkien was a WWI vet and left as a lieutenant. In the second world war he was a code-breaker. He wrote the hobbit for his children. None of the books were inspired by WW2.

[@JessieGender1]

Yes, hence my correction above, but the point still stands overall, and one could argue they are about WW1, or even a WW1 veteran thinking on WW2

[@mayaha200]

I don't see how the "Author" can add so much to a work of fiction they created more then what you can add to it while reading it alone by yourself and talk about it with other people. I will say it all depends on you, at the end of the day. for me, personally, I see it has a job that totally separates to their private life. just like you don't want your job and life to mix together and be influenced by your private life. in that way I'm against judging a piece of fiction base on the author life at all. while I won't stop people from doing so, they have any right to do it, I don't think it's right for their work they created or this piece of fiction that meant to stay fiction. and also there is the fact that people, real-life people, change. they can change their view on things for better or worse, they grow up, they see many different things they might not see while they created and write the book. and that's fine since they are a living person that can change, a piece of work will not change after been complete, for better or worse. it is just a text, it can't change with the author life and it never meant to be. so take it with a little grain of salt. while the author's views can help to understand the story they write better, it's not that interesting of what they have to say about their own work as the story itself. the writing text that stays the same yet seen in totally different ways to different people and in totally different views in different times and era. that way more interesting to me then what the author has to say about it. by the way, Rowling isn't the only one that talks about her work of fiction and adds things that weren't there, but people mostly ignore that cause it just wasn't that interesting like what they took from it. and there is nothing wrong with that, each is free to take what they want from the text. if JK Rowling have harmful views, I will say don't bother reading what she has to say and judge the work for what it is and what you want it to be.

[@saraa.4295]

Another layer to this may be: living authors can change... I personally think that at the time jk wrote harry potter she had no real opinion on transgender issues and sadly, later "fell in " with the wrong crowd. It is a shame, that she does not listen and open her mind and heart to those communities..and i get if people do not want to support her financially due to her transphobic views, but a think you can still love harry potter and the teansgender community...

[@OllamhDrab]

Sometimes I think 'death of the author' is kind of a two-way street. I can look at works of people that may have proven ..disappointing later on in life, but it doesn't take away what their works *meant* to me at the time. Will I trust them going forward, or maybe skate over problematic details cause it turned out MZB or JK Rowling or maybe Heinlein proved to have problematic things going on as celebrities? Well, not so much either. (In the case of Harry Potter I saw it first and foremost as a 'private school story,' and, no, no one's a perfect exemplar of real-world awareness particularly there. I saw a lot of things as showing up some of the faults, standard to such stories even without magic involved.) Do I lose respect for what said authors do and say afterwards? Hel, yes.

[@phoenixheart79]

For me, I take a certain pride in having read things into the text that I now believe would greatly infuriate J.K. Rowling, especially trans positive readings of certain elements. It's a small way of saying "you gave this to the world and now it's ours as well as yours". I am certain there are trans students at Hogwarts and no one knows/cares, because they live in a world where bones can be regrown, teeth reshaped, a teacher can transform into a cat at will and so, so much more. The wizarding world seems like it would be so much more accommodating for trans people in many ways - we can be our true selves with the wave of a wand and nothing J.K says can make me think that wouldn't be the case, because the world she built naturally leads to it. With her recent support of a noted transphobe, I'm sure that reading would frustrate her and that gives me so much pleasure. Using her own work to subvert her apparent views appeals to me in many ways, but I understand that for many people it doesn't and can't undo the harm of knowing she supports genuinely abhorrent views about a minority group. I'm a fair bit older than you, the Potterverse wasn't as formative for me - I was 18 when Philosopher's Stone was first published - but it still supported my morality and worldview as that solidified. I refuse to let her take that from me. So I will do what I can to take Potter from her, to ensure that it isn't just hers but ours.

[@niun42]

Thank you for this!

[@AmaranthOriginal]

Weird having this show up in my feed after Rowling removed all doubt about her transphobia. Harry Potter is an awful text, full of many questionable things along the lines of the House Elves being a slave race that really loves being enslaved (an argument used for black people in the American South). Rita Skeeter and other villainous women are even described in what are most certainly transphobic terms. The only thing she finds more contemptible in a woman than manly features is being "like the other girls," which is why Hermione and Luna are who they are. Sometimes, it's better to just walk away.