/lit/ - Literature

>>8093

Any idea what page of which book this is?

Rowling twists herself in knots to appease the SJW's all the time. Fact is, she wrote Hermione as white.

>>8093

by that reasoning, could it be safe to declare all the characters not qualified otherwise as pedophiles?

so that we can save JK the hussle when it becomes the new civil rights battle.

I'm not one of the highbrow patrician bitches here, but the HP series holds zero interest for me, nor the hype surrounding it.

Sorry for being a brick but what's the issue here? Did they miscast an actor for the movie? Did she burgerize the book for the American edition, or something?

>>8094

Looks like third.

>>8094

Apparently it's chapter twenty-one of the third one, but in chapter four she was described as 'very brown' - but I think that was during the summer section and was tanned.

>>8102

They announced the cast of the main three for the play of the eighth book (or whatever - it's set when they're adults) and Hermoine has a black actress.

A more important question is, how little of a shit does J.K. give about her characters if she doesn't even give them a canon skin colour, only a character's physical feature? Didn't she demand British actors for the British characters but apparently doesn't give a shit about the skin colour? Sounds like she's been in that part of tumblr too long.

Not saying all writers need to care about skin colour but this just sounds like bullshit.

Also she was white on the book covers.

>>8105

and JK sees herself on hermoine.

>>8104

>A more important question is, how little of a shit does J.K. give about her characters if she doesn't even give them a canon skin colour, only a character's physical feature?

That's what I'm wondering. It's not even like she's just okay with Hermione being reinterpreted as a black character, she claims this wasn't a reinterpretation to begin with. And skin color is not some small, irrelevant detail, it's the very first thing you see when you look at someone. That's like not knowing your characters gender, or rough age. it just baffles me.

>>8108

Besides, there are canon black people in HP like Dean Thomas and that fag who became minister of magic later on, so it's not like she NEVER mentioned skin colour.

>>8108

Ged from Earthsea had an ambiguous skin color until late in the book when its revealed he is dark skinned. The idea was to combat prejudices by subtly turning your default image of a self-insert white hero on its head.

>>8108

you know only at the end of starship troopers that rico is filipino.

on the other hand that book is literally about humans vs space insects…

>>8120

>>8122

You don't need to know a characters skin tone as a reader, but you should know it as the author. Rowling gave me the impression that she didn't know it (or was pretending not to know it). I could be mistaken about that.

Bitch doesn't know her own work?

She's pandering too hard to SJWs.

A lot of writers are.

I'm slightly worried.

>>8123

do you really think she thought dumbledore as a gay man while she was writing it?

>>8131

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-showbiz7-23oct23-story.html

>After she outed Dumbledore, Rowling said that she viewed the whole series as a prolonged treatise on tolerance. Dumbledore is the personification of this. Like the LGBT community that has time and again used its own oppression to fight for the equality of others, Dumbledore was a champion for the rights of werewolves, giants, house elves, muggle-borns, centaurs, merpeople – even alternative marriage. When it came time to decide whether the marriage between Lupin the werewolf and Tonks the full-blooded witch could be considered natural, Professor Minerva McGonagall said, 'Dumbledore would have been happier than anybody to think that there was a little more love in the world.

By the way, am I the only guy who thinks it's pretentious as fuck to declare things to be canon, as an author, even if they've never been mentioned in any of the books? You want something to be canon, you write it the fuck down. That's how I've seen it so far.

>>8132

Yes this sort of post-hoc canonizing is either lazy writing, pandering or both.

wasn't hermione her self insert?

>>8137

Yes, she's transracist, you bigoted shitlord.

>>8132

It depends. If the person knows their world and is not obsequious to an ideology like—what's a better word for SJWism? Or take Toriyama who is senile and shouldn't be touching DB ever again. Tolkien, for example, yes.

>>8138

>not obsequious to an ideology

regardless, it's how the readers interpret the description or message. I would disregard what the author says until it's published in the book.

I would interpret dumbledore as an anon past 30 who became a wizard since he's a virgin. Anyone could interpret whatever the character is in their head unless otherwise stated in a book.

>>8132

so she has something in common with george lucas?

>>8138

>what's a better word for SJWism

liberalism.

sjwism is simply liberalism taken straight and to its extreme consequences.

kinda reminds me what tom lehrer said.

>If you take the various popular song forms to their logical extremes, you can arrive at almost anything from the ridiculous to the obscene, or – as they say in new york – sophisticated.

>>8139

I disagree. The author created the work and has every right to decide what is canon to their series, not the reader. But as Rowling shows, it's not so simple to allow this. Maybe retconning should be the exception.

>>8142

I am trying to be very pinpoint in my description. Liberalism is a vague umbrella-like term. Anyway, the word I'm looking for is one that describes a peremptory, in some ways superficial, unctuous (to minorities of all stripes), identitarian-focused group or ideology.

>>8146

>I disagree.

We agree to disagree then. I'm writing a book with a symbolism in mind but I accept it that my readers could interpret it otherwise.

>Maybe retconning should be the exception.

There are some people that said they interpret a book differently the second or more times they read it. I haven't tried reading a book twice so I agree with you on this one at the moment.

> the word I'm looking for is one that describes a peremptory, in some ways superficial, unctuous (to minorities of all stripes), identitarian-focused group or ideology.

I'm not him, but I'm also interested on that word.

>>8099

It's weird because she also appears to be pro-gun.

In Order Of The Phoenix, the symbolism surrounding that ministry bitch is pretty clear.

>>8153

>>8146

here's the word for you, it's called being a jew minus religion. that's the word.

it's less of a nazi point of view than most people might think.

there is even a not small literature written by conservative jews about the subject.

and the fact that among the things where jews are incredibly overrepresented is precisely that kind of ideology.

on the other hand is it that strange that the world's most influential minority to create system of thoughts which undermine the majority,what binds it toghether, and the idea of normality?

>>8160

how about a great marketer? She seems to jump to current issues to gain controversy.

Like her robert gabraith or whatever her other nom de plum is: "Oh, I'm not selling my books, let me out myself officially even though my agent had a slip of the tongue and can only be spread as hearsay."

>>8163

but i was not talking about her.

i was just putting my unrequired two cents about how to define the word "that describes a peremptory, in some ways superficial, unctuous (to minorities of all stripes), identitarian-focused group or ideology." very well said, btw.

The gay agenda, the race agenda, the anti-Trump agenda - she really does seems to like twisting her creations to fit the popular interpretation of the moment, huh?

That's your task for the new year, /lit/: find me an author who has sold out their creations to a greater degree (for financial gain or otherwise).

>>8227

This is neither here, nor there, but Trump is kind of an idiot.

>>8236

>but Trump is kind of an idiot.

but is he evil-er than voldemort?

>>8239

Haha, I just googled it and it's laughable. Yeah, she's butchering her characters either for her agenda or just to market her work.

Martin Luther King didn't have this dream…

If no one made a scene about it, only bazement nazis of /pol/ kind would complain about black Hermione, and Rowling would only have to nod at interviewers and say something along the lines of “actors should be chosen by their talent, not their skin colour”. Now there's agenda and all kinds of political battles to win.

>>8244

But the thing is that the character was incontrovertibly white. Choosing a black actor in an attempt to show inclusion and progressiveness needs to stop. I am sick of it. There is not a medium where this doesn't happen.

>>8245

I have never read the books I know, lynch me. How was she incontrovertibly white? I could understand that a character in a 18th century setting would be incontrovertibly white, you simply couldn't write him to be black without changing his entire background story and the way the world reacts to him. Just because a character is canonically white does not mean his ethnicity can't be changed, though, if it does little to the character or the story.

>>8250

>>8244

but you know in your heart that this is not a talented actress being given an opportunity but likely another example of currentyearing.

>>8252

I heavily suspect that. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

>>8245

>>8250

You don't seem to understand what acting is. There's plenty of stories about old divas playing Juliet and men playing women in traditional theaters. You are probably spoiled by Hollywood fair where they spend enormous money on sets, makeup, and effects, then decide that visuals are good enough to care about acting.

>>8271

>You don't seem to understand what acting is.

And you don't seem to understand that the directors of the production likely didn't choose the black for her talent.

>There's plenty of stories about old divas playing Juliet and men playing women in traditional theaters

Your point? That the conventions of theater in the past were like that does not matter. I disagree still.

>You are probably spoiled by Hollywood fair where they spend enormous money on sets, makeup, and effects, then decide that visuals are good enough to care about acting.

>if you disagree with something for whatever reason, t-then you're spoiled!

>Look at how better I am than you!

Fuck off. I don't watch Hollywood movies any more because I realized that they are 99% uninteresting garbage. I don't need any of those effects anyway. There's a Sweeney Todd theatrical performance on youtube that I love and is better than the movie, so fuck off with your pretentious pea cocking.

Now answer me this, faggot: if someone decided to cast a white for Othello, you'd be fine with that? Or how about we gender bend the whole cast; that'd be a hoot.

>>8250

>never read the books

M8, I don't give a rat's ass. Anyway, its confirmed in the books; look at the image in the OP.

>>8272

> And you don't seem to understand that the directors of the production likely didn't choose the black for her talent.

Here's a secret: people are free to do that. They may even choose the ones they sleep with, it's not that uncommon. You seem to imagine yourself an omnipotent being who is to decide in their stead (and also able to guess strangers' intentions with one hundred percent precision from a first glance).

> That the conventions of theater in the past were like that does not matter.

What “past”? No one searches for 13 year old kids to play Romeo and Juliet. Traditional performances are being performed in traditional way by those who keep them.

> if someone decided to cast a white for Othello, you'd be fine with that?

Let me guess: you're from US. There is no other place on Earth where people are completely oblivious to existence of different countries that, for example, have little to none black population. It should be obvious that Othello was/is played by white actors there. Some even wore a blackface until globalization made it “offending”. It should also be obvious that even in Shakespeare's native country no one cared about that for centuries.

> how about we gender bend the whole cast

That has been done a countless number of times, both technically (e. g. when all-male or all-female troupes perform) and deliberately (e. g. to highlight the differences between stereotypical gender norms). The idea itself won't impress anyone knowledgeable.

>>8277

Yes, but you attributed it to acting talent, you dumb faggot. And no I don't see myself as some omnipotent being, but I am perceptive enough to know when people are doing this to appear so progressive.

>"past"

I'm talking about using young boys as women and so on. That is what I am talking about.

Oh, Britain doesn't have a black population? Strange I hear that they're getting a lot of refugees. Weird. Furthermore, if there is no black person in the entire country or local area; sure, go right ahead.

>deliberately (e. g. to highlight the differences between stereotypical gender norms).

Ah, I like the smell of retards in the morning.

>The idea itself won't impress anyone knowledgeable.

>changing genders

>impressive

>Thinking I think it's impressive

>>8093

hack author thread?

http://grrm.livejournal.com/465247.html

>>8138

Progressivism. Change for the sake of change, status quo must be demolished etc.

Progressivisim is being used the same way anarchism was used at the start of the century, as a form of social-destabilization weapon.

>>8142

Nope, liberalism exists in a classical form which worships individualism.

>>8285

I was going to bash GRRM before I started writing. Now, I have to side with him. It's probably the pressure from his fans and publisher that led to hyping out his book or rushing its deadlines.

Ideas are hard to come by if what you're writing revolves on an original concept. It's especially true with GRRM's world building.

>>8287

>Nope, liberalism exists in a classical form which worships individualism.

precisely. i wish i could post chapter two of marcel lefebvre's they have uncrowned him, but i have it only in italian.

he has pretty good arguments about it. even not strictly related to religion.

one of the things that particularly won me over to his line of reasoning was the accounts of a few episodes that happened after the french revolution, how it's eerily similar to the bullshit we see right now…

>>8288

I can agree with this. I wrote ten thousand words, a while ago. Will give it a major rehaul the next days, which pretty much means starting over.

>>8132

>>8134

It is. It basically enables the writer to cheat. The writer can change their work as they swing as it seems convenient. Someone is critizicing your work? You can say they are wrong because you, the author, really meant another thing. It is based on the mistaken notion that the author cannot be wrong about their own work (ie, making up some detail that seems coherent with the canon but after an examination turns out it doesn't hold up because there is some kind of incoherence or logical flaw), that they won't lie and can't be pretentious.

It also means the author thinks of their readers as retarded and they most likely will make up some shit in five minutes and then lie that they thought of it during the creation process. An author that does this shit cannot be trusted. It's a resort that only should be used when your readers of fanbase are batshit insane enough to have some kind of war on the work's interpretation that gets out of hand, and it shouldn't never be abused.

As a final note, to be unable to keep your mouth closed about your books and move on to new projects, and being constantly giving away new "canon" on interviews and such is often a sign you are pretty much a shit writer. If you had been able to plan and develop your work properly instead of writing as it occured to you, you wouldn't be doing that in the first place, you wouldn't need to "add anything" or give "extra info" because if you concieved it that way, you would have writen it down or it would be reflected in your writing for starters. It's based on the notion the only valid interpretation of your work is yours and your readers can read you but can't have an opinion. Note that casually the kind of writers that tend to do that kind of thing are the usual mainstream hack authors.