this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
752 points (97.8% liked)
Greentext
3990 readers
2330 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It makes enough sense for kids and adults who can suspend disbelief enough to keep turning the pages. And gives all of us reason to listen to some of the many podcasts exploring the plot holes.
Side note, now that I’ve commented a few times in this thread without mentioning it:
refrain from using her global platform to attack trans people. Bad Rowling, bad! I’m thankful I can separate artists from art enough to still enjoy something I grew up enjoying but do have a duty to call out her grievously public stance on this so readers know we still fancy ourselves as allies even when stooping to discuss what the now-monster created.
It must be amazing to be able to huff your own farts and have it smell like roses.
I could either not give her money and hate books I read as a kid, or not give her money and not hate them. That’s huffin’?
There's no artistic value to be gained from reading Slaveowner Potter
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”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
define value
A net increase in pleasure, or decrease in suffering, in sentient beings.
that is an effect, not a definition
No, it's a definition. I'm a utilitarian, so I only value pleasure and avoiding suffering.
but what about a general definition of value that encapsulates everyone's experiences and not only yours?
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.
you misunderstand. you told me what you value. I asked for a definition of value. something can be valuable (by being valuable to someone else) even if you yourself do not value it
Why would I agree that Harry Potter is valuable if I don't and cannot value it, even for its net effect on others?