Beware, "Potter" fans: If you can't stand controversial views of the universe of Her and its creator, this may not be the right reading. It's not a love letter – even though I'm a passionate fan myself.
But that's the point: I'm a fan of "Harry Potter", not by J.K. Rowling. Now I have a real courage against them. Because the way she deals with criticism, makes me angry.
But let's start from the beginning.
"Harry Potter" changed my life. This is not a loving queen fan phrase, I mean it seriously: When "Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows" were released in the summer of 2007, I was 15 years old, a hardcore fanatic and too impatient to wait three months for the German version , Then I waited for the English original – and later landed in English studies. Thanks, Harry. And thank you, J.K., for of course I know I owe it to her.
Who does not commit me to kiss her feet in the real world of the tweeted words. Because of that, she tries convincingly to add a little more color to the world view of the white, heterosexual magician who is conveyed in the "Harry Potter" books.
This is about tweets like this.
In itself a good message. Of course, it's not about the literal, but about the metaphorical cabinet: Rowling will tell us her story insists on free expression of all sexuality, in response to the hopeful theory of a fan that Hogwarts is a safe place for LGBT people. community.
My problem with that: Unfortunately, such a community does not exist in Hogwarts.
Before you call, "But what about Dumbledore?" – Yes, obviously, the revelation of Dumbledore's (gay) sexuality as a fact trumpet by Rowling on a Q&A in New York in 2007 is now valid. However, there are several hooks:
- Nowhere in the book is it even suggested – not just to Dumbledore: All the characters in "Harry Potter" seem heterosexual.
- Although it is an indication of Dumbledore's homosexuality in the "Fantastic Beasts" films, but explicitly "not explicitly," director David Yates says.
- Rowling had the big "Dumbledore Gay" bomb in October 2007 – just three months after the release of the seventh installment. Literally, she said, "I always saw Dumbledore as gay. […] Had I known it would make you so happy, I would have preached it many years ago! »
It is this subsequent treatment of already existing material that bothers me so much. And she just doesn't want to quit. "Deathly Hallows" may have been released in 2007 – but Rowling has never stopped tampering with history over the past eleven years.
Of course, it's their intellectual property – but the retrospective draws utopia that just isn't in the books.
Countless times Rowling was accused of presenting in "Harry Potter" not a very varied picture of society: not only sexuality is very one-dimensional, also religion and nationality are represented in just a few or no aspects. And Rowling is trying to make it since – with a Twitter campaign.
A fan tweeted, "My wife says there are no Jews in Hogwarts. I'm Jewish, so I suppose she just said it was the only witch in the family." Rowling responded, "Anthony Goldstein, Ravenclaw, Jewish Wizard."
Who is Anthony Goldstein?
Yes, the good Anthony never played a significant role and was just a Ravenclaw proprietor in Dumbledore's army. His religion? If anything, so trivial as well as some other character in "Harry Potter." I have no problem with it; a story that is not only religion but also nationality, sexuality, education, etc. pp. In so many facets that no one could feel excluded, I will not read. An already existing story, which has deficiencies in some of these directions, but with flamboyant Twitter additions afterwards, is aufhübschen cheating on me.
Racism? Doesn't exist in Harry's world.
Sexual discrimination? Not even.
And especially religious diversity seems to be a major concern for Rowling.
On Twitter, remember – not in the books. Because even though she writes, …
… Wiccans (Wicca's Witch's Religion) are the only religionists she can't see in Hogwarts, because their concept of magic collides with booksA question arises: Why do you see nothing of all these religions? Harry celebrates Christmas and Easter, but not in his original religious context. Rowling makes her claim very simple: City really not Religion shows, it's easy to claim everything be represented. Just not visible.
But that's not the end – because Rowling also tries to insert later (skin) color.
Harry, Ron and Hermione are white – that's what most readers always thought. Why? Maybe because of her movie actors.
The potential exception: Hermione, which was only described in the books as brown eye and curly, thus allowing for skin color. When Noma Dumezweni, a dark-haired actress, was cast in the role of Hermione for the "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child" toys in 2015, the rebellion was great. And suddenly Rowling also threw the opportunity on Twitter that Hermione had been dark-skinned all the time:
Don't get me wrong: I also want to see more variety in the books.
But also looked right – from the beginning, not later added via Twitter footnote. For me, this gives the impression that Rowling wanted to keep the books as "clean" as possible by giving out questions such as religion, nationality and sexuality, And even over a decade later, depending on your whim, it was added where the critics started. Because if someone expresses the responsibility that there is not enough sexual or religious diversity in "Harry Potter", it is not enough to blame this with a "oh, I have never mentioned it? By the way, Dumbledore is gay and less rated # 5674 is Jewish! ”.
Above all, if one is not consistent enough, then translate this addendum openly and honestly into "Fantastic Beasts" -prequel – both sexually and religiously: Dumbledore and Grindelwald, his adversary and Voldemort's predecessor, are considered homosexuals, but barely show (not at all) and Tina and Queenie Goldstein seems to be Anthony's ancestors, but apparently (?) does not exercise Jews. But I've long since turned out about the prequels.
Of course, it's nice that "magic" never seems to end – but in the end it's over.
If you can pattern the energy to read every single potter's tweet from Rowling and every article on "Pottermore", where not only the author, but a whole team of people build up the story with more information, I prefer my hat to you. Personally, this "expanded version" of a story, which I thought I knew of the heart, just beats me.
There is always something new about it, which is already partly changing what I have learned so that I – and my heart is bleeding on this insight – are no longer 100% familiar with the "Potter" universe. And maybe my version of the story is no longer the story that Pottermore and Twitter Rowling added. I will never know.
Because now the train is so exhausted that I will probably need several weeks to read through all the new material. And this is a work I don't want to do – because "Harry Potter" I like the way it is. Without Pottermore. Without Twitter. And yes, without J.K. Rowling, who still hasn't stopped writing on her long-published story after all these years.
Are "Harry Potter" Stolen?
Video: srf / SDA SRF