• brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ever see boomers writing “cRAP”?

      Feels like a literary riff on that, gotta say. The whole thread’s about worldbuilding shortcomings but we’re still here discussing it aren’t we? Clearly it made an impact.

      Also - made me think of seeing a Jackson Pollock

      & dismissively muttering “I could do that”

      • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        2 months ago

        There’s entertainment and thought to be gained, but it’s not of value. It’s neoliberal shit. The books aggressively push a certain set of political beliefs which suck.

        • angrystego@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          Think Leni Riefenstahl, there can be valuable art used for utterly despicable ideology. Rowling had a huge impact before it became obvious how much she sucks, because there was value in what she did. There were also ideological problems all along. Value and shitty ideology can exist in art at the same time and it can get pretty confusing for the consumer.

          • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            2 months ago

            Nah, I just didn’t have any taste yet when I was a kid. The book utterly fails to deliver on many of its core themes. Like, Rowling deliberately introduces the idea that human supremacy is bad and it’s part of why Voldemort is able to gain so much power. And then she immediately proceeds to do absolutely nothing with this idea. Human supremacy is never addressed or solved. Yet the book says after Voldemort is defeated, “all was well”. No it’s not! There are still elves in slavery, centaurs on reservations, and goblins without equal rights.

            The book teaches you to acknowledge systemic issues as problems, and then do absolutely nothing to fix them.

            • angrystego@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yeah. Also it took some time for the books to come out and at the beginning, people were hooked and could still hope that the issues were going to be addressed later. And the plots are convoluted, so it takes some time to digest. People also get all occupied with the lovestories and sports and thrills. Not everyone was able to realize how badly she works with some of the more serious topics, because that’s not what they focused on.

              • CoCo_Goldstein@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 months ago

                House Elves were one of the things that made me realize that JK Rowling was something of a hack. I found it odd that Hermione was the first person in the wizarding world to ever point out that House Elves were slaves and were being treated very badly. In the thousands of years that wizards and wizard schools had existed, no one ever protested the treatment of House Elves? Not even the ‘Good Guys’? Everyone just accepted this over the centuries??

                And then she does almost nothing with this potential plot point…

                • angrystego@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Yes, I find this frustrating too! However, before I fully realized what JKR was like, I kind of thought it was perhaps good writing, because it was reminiscent of how it works in reality. In real world, not even most good people care eg. about slave labour around the world that is directly conected to the production of the goods they use. I had shimmers along my spine reading it, because it rang true to me. Well meaning people CAN be totally oblivious to other people’s suffering, including me.

              • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                No, it’s a definition. I’m a utilitarian, so I only value pleasure and avoiding suffering.

                • yetiftw@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  but what about a general definition of value that encapsulates everyone’s experiences and not only yours?

                  • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    I don’t care who experiences the pleasure or suffering. Individual ego is an illusion. The self is a social construct. The divisions between oneself and others are a lie.