I even must voice my disappointment w J. K. Rowling.
Harry Potter is a completely fictional, mythological, and very complex universe. These are my honest concerns. We need to address the fact that her created "wizarding" world remains stiflingly backwards and not particularly progressive.
The creative license, all the methodology n planning in building this universe— all of it was J. K. Rowling's conscious decision-making. Yet she falls disappointingly shirt on several counts. She could have made it a lot more well-balanced n egalitarian.
For one thing, why the constant insistence on monikering ir the "wizarding" world rather than the-what-seems-like-it-should-be-far-more-appropriate "witching world." This has far more profound implications than one might realize at cursory glance. All throughout human history, documented across different societies, cultures and time eras, women have demonstrated a propensity for being able to manipulate the natural world for the benefit of people.
And yet, still the governmental and institutional leaders created by J.K. Rowling are all male. She stills stays it as stiflingly, oppressively traditional. This is not a good thing.
Medicine women have discovered the propensity for specific plants to heal and nurture sick people. Women have cultivated and gathered crops for the express purpose of keeping people fed. Unfortunately, ignorant bigots existed in those same societies that were too stupid and too drowned in their own stupidity to acknowledge the vital contributions that women made to society. These women have been vilified, demonized, murdered for the crime of having special skills and deftness in helping their fellow humans.
Witness how massively, wildly popular, not to mention critically acclaimed, the Harry Potter book series is. J. K. Rowling has been given a golden opportunity to use her fame and influence to change the tide of human consciousness. She could make it to something far better than it has been.
I've heard several critiques sating that J. K. Rowling has ushered in a new era of a return to reading the written word, ink printed on tree. Perhaps this is so. I've always been a voracious reader my entire life, so I would not know anything about that. But if it is true, then good on her.
J. K. Rowling had a real chance to shed some much-needed positive light, and portray magically-adept women in a positive light. She could have them take on roles, volunteered, and wear the mantle of much more prominent roles of authority and power in the magical world. J. K. Rowling had a chance to portray a world much closer to golden standards of morals and human status in relation to each other, that we humans should be striving to reach.
The magical world is supposed to be an analogy for exceptionally talented, gifted, intelligent people. But now we discover that the "wizarding world" as she calls it, is not much more progressive than the ordinary human world.
She could have more assertively embraced the chance to alight the hearts and minds of the generation of children and young adults devouring her books.
The most interesting, complex, morally gray character is a male. His loyalties and motivations are very fluid, one cannot necessarily determine what his motivations are in any given moment.
Look, it’s good that they have some intelligent, able, steadfast, noble, and true characters that are women. I definitely am a fan of Minerva McGonagall and Hermione Granger.
But unfortunately there is a whole entire ministry of magic governing board, a whole entire history of that society, and a whole entire universe that is comprised almost exclusively of males. There were several chances wherein J. K. Rowling should have written in a number of female characters.
Look at the revered historical figures who are mentioned in magical history class and/or (don’t laugh; this is a real thing) commemorated on chocolate frogs packaging. Look at how shockingly few women there are in the hallowed ranks of worthy annals of the witching world history. And look at the flippant not-even-disrespect with which the characters regard them.
Harry Potter is a completely fictional, mythological, and very complex universe. These are my honest concerns. We need to address the fact that her created "wizarding" world remains stiflingly backwards and not particularly progressive.
The creative license, all the methodology n planning in building this universe— all of it was J. K. Rowling's conscious decision-making. Yet she falls disappointingly shirt on several counts. She could have made it a lot more well-balanced n egalitarian.
For one thing, why the constant insistence on monikering ir the "wizarding" world rather than the-what-seems-like-it-should-be-far-more-appropriate "witching world." This has far more profound implications than one might realize at cursory glance. All throughout human history, documented across different societies, cultures and time eras, women have demonstrated a propensity for being able to manipulate the natural world for the benefit of people.
And yet, still the governmental and institutional leaders created by J.K. Rowling are all male. She stills stays it as stiflingly, oppressively traditional. This is not a good thing.
Medicine women have discovered the propensity for specific plants to heal and nurture sick people. Women have cultivated and gathered crops for the express purpose of keeping people fed. Unfortunately, ignorant bigots existed in those same societies that were too stupid and too drowned in their own stupidity to acknowledge the vital contributions that women made to society. These women have been vilified, demonized, murdered for the crime of having special skills and deftness in helping their fellow humans.
Witness how massively, wildly popular, not to mention critically acclaimed, the Harry Potter book series is. J. K. Rowling has been given a golden opportunity to use her fame and influence to change the tide of human consciousness. She could make it to something far better than it has been.
I've heard several critiques sating that J. K. Rowling has ushered in a new era of a return to reading the written word, ink printed on tree. Perhaps this is so. I've always been a voracious reader my entire life, so I would not know anything about that. But if it is true, then good on her.
J. K. Rowling had a real chance to shed some much-needed positive light, and portray magically-adept women in a positive light. She could have them take on roles, volunteered, and wear the mantle of much more prominent roles of authority and power in the magical world. J. K. Rowling had a chance to portray a world much closer to golden standards of morals and human status in relation to each other, that we humans should be striving to reach.
The magical world is supposed to be an analogy for exceptionally talented, gifted, intelligent people. But now we discover that the "wizarding world" as she calls it, is not much more progressive than the ordinary human world.
She could have more assertively embraced the chance to alight the hearts and minds of the generation of children and young adults devouring her books.
The most interesting, complex, morally gray character is a male. His loyalties and motivations are very fluid, one cannot necessarily determine what his motivations are in any given moment.
Look, it’s good that they have some intelligent, able, steadfast, noble, and true characters that are women. I definitely am a fan of Minerva McGonagall and Hermione Granger.
But unfortunately there is a whole entire ministry of magic governing board, a whole entire history of that society, and a whole entire universe that is comprised almost exclusively of males. There were several chances wherein J. K. Rowling should have written in a number of female characters.
Look at the revered historical figures who are mentioned in magical history class and/or (don’t laugh; this is a real thing) commemorated on chocolate frogs packaging. Look at how shockingly few women there are in the hallowed ranks of worthy annals of the witching world history. And look at the flippant not-even-disrespect with which the characters regard them.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment