Lindsay Ellis

While there were definitely fat people in Harry Potter that were demonized, there was also Molly Weasley and Hagrid which weren't. That doesn't negate her bias against fat people but I in general get the sense that she THOUGHT about some of her implications when starting out but got lazy later.

As for the Dursley's... I'm not sure if we can really count their situation as in any way comparable to a regular adoption. I don't even think there's much paperwork in taking guardianship of your nephew when his parents are dead. Usually adoptions are done by people who really wanted this kid, while by contrast the Dursley's never wanted to deal with Harry at all. Petunia only tolerates the situation probably because Dumbledore informed her that Harry would be at an incredibly high risk of death otherwise.

The situation with the Dursleys is classic British literature, really. I am even fairly sure Rowling got the idea from Jane Eyre, which has an oddly similar start to it.

Rowling does have a very positive attitude toward motherhood - that is, biological motherhood - with figures like Lily Potter and Molly Weasley, so I wouldn't be surprised if she thought adoption is inferior to it. Though, as stated above, the Dursleys weren't voluntarily adopting Harry, he was pretty much forced on them.

And I guess you could kiiinda say that Harry was unofficially adopted by the Wesleys?

Would've been better if he was officially adopted by them, for how "caring" the Dursleys were.

Come to think of it, Harry being The Unfavorite could also tie back to the possibility of Rowling hating adoption

But Harry adopts whats-his-name at the end of the series, so clearly there are also good adoptions.

Ted Lupin

I should point out that the text doesn't call them fat either. Molly is "short and slightly plump". The only people who call her fat are Draco and Vernon.

Hagrid is actually never described as fat or overweight. Just _big_ (11 feet tall and thus correspondingly large in all directions).

I dont think Rowling hates adoptions or non traditional families. While the Dursley are shit to Harry, repeatedly we're shown that the Weasleys treat Harry as part of the family. Harry in turn raises Ted Lupin and Sirius Black is all but willing to raise Harry if he wasnt a wanted criminal. I think the Dursleys being shit is mostly just a narrative tool than some thematic thing she hates.

Edited by Ghilz on Feb 25th 2021 at 8:29:11 AM

I created an Axiom’s End thread in the Literature section, if you wanna discuss it.

Stray note: the most amusing part to me in Lindsay's last video was when she showed a hate mail she got from someone who believed "death of the author" meant Lindsay wished that J.K. Rowling would die.

I came across the word "sensitivityreader", which is apparently a new(?) coinage describing someone who edits movie scripts and novels for potentially offensive or politically sensitive material. This in contrast to the idea of artistic license of the author, who in past days was considered to be allowed to offend in the name of artistic expression.

I think this would be an interesting subject for Lindsay: is this really such a good movement? Is it really a good idea to scrub all art of everything that could potentially offend, let alone of everything politically sensitive? This seems like a potential slippery slope towards only catering to government-approved material, or at least politically safe material.

Nothing wrong with making an extra effort to avoid pushing trauma buttons or tropes rooted in bigotry.

You might as well ask if hiring a fact-checker is inappropriate.

If a writer is at a point where they are wondering if they should hire a sensitivity reader due to not being confident they can approach the subject matter properly...they should probably listen to their instincts and hire a sensitivity reader.

Edited by M84 on Feb 26th 2021 at 9:17:09 PM

True, but the question is, how far do you go with that? Should all mentions of slavery be avoided, for example? What about movies or books featuring characters who are trans and experience abuse? Should those then not be allowed, lest we push someone's trauma buttons?

That's not what a sensitivity reader does. They don't outright scrub anything. They offer advice. For example, if one wants to write a story dealing with trauma, a good sensitivity reader would be a trained therapist who deals with trauma in their work.

For a story involving trans characters, one possible sensitivity reader would be someone who is trans and is deeply familiar with the challenges trans people face.

I don't know where you got the impression that sensitivity readers outright remove this sort of content.

Edited by M84 on Feb 26th 2021 at 9:22:06 PM

Ah, that makes more sense.

Yeaaah, if whatever source you heard about sensitivity readers from portrayed it from that extreme "PC censorship!" angle, you're reading some conservative bullshit and should drop it in the garbage.

Or in another angle, if you're writing a story involving Native Americans, you get a reader to fact check it so you're writing about their actual civilization and not about stereotypes colonists formed about them, nor about a random blend of bits and pieces from different cultures.

Edited by Adannor on Feb 26th 2021 at 4:30:39 PM

No, I just misinterpreted the term, partly due to its juxtaposition with artistic license.

Also, IIRC, Lindsay actually uses sensitivity readers for some of her videos.

Basically, sensitivity reader is not a censor employed by the authorities to limit the author (that's called, well, a censor), but an advisor employed by the author as their own choice, right?

It's like, if you want to actively be offensive, you're not going to hire a sensitivity reader. If you want to actually be respectful and get things right, you'll hire one.

I think that it's completely fair and reasonable to not want to portray a member of a minority group or culture in an offensive and inaccurate way.

I mean they are probably employed by authorities regularly enough. Authority being the publisher.

But yes. Their job isn't to entirely abolish things from entire literary world, it is to make sure they don't get misused, like getting thrown in without addressing implications.

Edited by Adannor on Feb 26th 2021 at 8:15:19 PM

Yes, though apparently some publishers don't cover it and you do have to pay out of pocket, even if you aren't Indie (if the author chooses to have one, for the above mentioned reasons). It's probably important to check what terms mean before writing about them though ^_^;.

Edited by phantom1 on Feb 26th 2021 at 3:27:13 AM

It's really weird that the Dusrsleys were just outright shooed away in the final book. Also there was a cut footage of Part 1 where they actually developed Petunia.

Is that somehow related to the stuff Lindsay discussed in her video? If not, I think it's better to take this question to the Harry Potter thread.

I have a question. Has Lindsay ever commented on Love Never Dies? I'm curious as to her opinions of the Phantom of the Opera sequel