Discussion YMMV / FantasticBeastsTheCrimesOfGrindelwald

I agree with your reasoning and I support the removal of the entry.

I think this can basically be split into two entries: one Rooting for the Empire saying that some people do think "hey, the man wants to stop WWII and any means to do so would be okay by me" and a Draco in Leather Pants entry about how some fans paint him as personally trying to stop the Holocaust.

I mean, the reason she killed the baby brother is directly tied into the Tragic Mulatto narrative. She switched the baby largely because she wasn't as loved as the fully white baby.

IIRC, there's no explicit "I like the baby more than you because you're mixed-race," but it's a visible enough thing that lots of people have picked up on it. Not enough to, say, have Tragic Mulatto on her character sheet, but enough to have here.

The reason she switched the baby was because he was crying and she wanted to get some sleep.

And the reason they were on the boat was because the father explicitly didn't love her and they were fleeing because the white son who was loved was in danger.

Her entire narrative is based on the notion that she wasn't as loved as the white child which lead to the entire boat scene and the switch and all that.

^ She wasn't as loved as the male child. Hell, papa Lestrange ensnared Leta's mother because he was mad with lust for her. It's been a while since I saw the movie, but I don't remember Leta angsting over her skin color —only over her gender, which made her inferior in her father's eyes. IIRC, it was the fandom that made such a fuss about the matter.

PS, just in case anyone's thinking about getting out the ol' pitchfork: A white man kidnapping, drugging, and raping a black woman is all sorts of wrong, and the writers could have handled it better (read: have avoided it entirely). (Same, of course, goes for any situation where rape's involved, regardless of gender, skin color, etc...)

Take to the Unintentionally Unsympathetic Cleanup https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=15194292110A03429900

I'll post in the thread if need be. But I agree with what you're saying, Tippetarius. In fact, I myself was iffy about those entries even before you brought this up.

As noted, I don't think it's "unintentional" in either case. We are meant to sympathize with Jacob for what he goes through; he's very much portrayed as a victim. Meanwhile, the film makes it clear that Queenie is making a terrible mistake by joining Grindelwald.

You’re saying that the film sends unfortunate implications. Okay, that’s your opinion, but that’s still deviates from the author’s message. It doesn’t matter whether you know the author’s intent or not, you’re still choosing to focus on the color of the characters’ skin and drawing implications that are different from the message of the film.

If it makes you feel uncomfortable, good. It’s supposed to make you feel uncomfortable, it’s supposed to be a tragic situation for these characters. Bad things happen to characters of all races, but you’re acting like people of color shouldn’t be put in these specific situations because you’re afraid it might set an example for other representation. Would you have reacted the same way if the characters were white?

“You’re saying that the film sends unfortunate implications. Okay, that’s your opinion, but that’s still deviates from the author’s message.” - with respect, it’s not “my opinion”. It’s racist, plain and simple, and that doesn’t change just because you can’t see it.

“you’re still choosing to focus on the color of the characters’ skin and drawing implications that are different from the message of the film.” - the whole point of this is that they are unintentional, and harmful, and people point them out. I’m sorry that it’s making you upset that I don’t want to ignore racism just because you don’t agree, but you clearly aren’t the marginalised group here. Her intentions are irrelevant, and so is the message, like I said, so I don’t know why you keep bringing that up.

“If it makes you feel uncomfortable, good. It’s supposed to make you feel uncomfortable, it’s supposed to be a tragic situation for these characters. Bad things happen to characters of all races, but you’re acting like people of color shouldn’t be put in these specific situations because you’re afraid it might set an example for other representation.” - this part is so ignorant I barely know how to respond to it. I never said people of colour shouldn’t be put in bad situations. I said that these tropes are racist. I explained how they’re racist. Racist tropes reinforce stereotypes and bring up harmful aspects of minority history that really shouldn’t be glamourised on film. It would be one thing if Rowling commented on either trope - it would still be bad, but better - but she didn’t, which tells me she didn’t know she was doing it. She put these characters in these situations without a thought as to how they’d be received.

“Would you have reacted the same way if the characters were white?” - really? That’s the hill you want to die on?

Look, we’re clearly going to have to agree to disagree, because you either can’t see the racism, don’t want to, or think that racism is “an opinion” that should be discarded if it hurts someone’s feelings. I think the Misaimed Fandom entry is incorrect, and both examples should go in Unfortunate Implications.

Mixtape's definition of Misaimed Fandom is so hopelessly broad that pretty much every YMMV item that isn't about reception is Misaimed Fandom. Ho Yay? Also deserves a Misaimed Fandom entry. Alternative Character Interpretation? Author didn't explicitly intend every single interpretation, so it gets a Misaimed Fandom entry. It's... an odd stance.

From my perspective, mixtape3022 is more upset that people think that the racism is racism because they don’t think it’s racism. The example fits because it’s a very loose interpretation; they’re basically criticising the criticism because they don’t think it’s legitimate.

• Devil's Advocate hat on*

Quoting from Unfortunate Implications: "Keep in mind that Unfortunate Implications are unintentional. An intended offensive message (for example, a piece of Nazi propaganda about Jews) does not belong here, nor does natter about the author's true intentions. Also, for something that may not be offensive to you personally but may offend others in a different culture or time period (or vice versa), see Values Dissonance."

In this particular instance, I think that the timeframe is equally important. We're talking about The Twenties, when racism was still rampant. A white man kidnapping and raping a black woman? Not as widespread as a few decades ago (EDIT: 19th century), but it still happened. An Asian (in general) being exhibited in a freak show? Trivial. A white man using an Asian woman as a servant/slave/Soul Jar? Yawn.

You have to remember that human rights have evolved a lot since those days.

• Devil's Advocate hat off*

The timeframe isn’t important, because JK Rowling wasn’t making a comment on the racism of the time, and nobody inside or outside the universe acknowledged it. I don’t know if you know this, but racism is still rampant today. It’s just evolved, and it’s either explicit or implicit; in this case, it’s implicit.

I would suggest actually reading the many articles on both of these topics, because the whole devils advocate thing just feels like a played out way of arguing against the point without looking like you’re arguing against it.

First off, calm down. Implying that people are being racist just because they don't share your views isn't okay.

Second, let's make one thing clear here: I think that both Leta's mother and Nagini got a raw deal. They're victims. And their circumstances are tragic regardless of the color of their skin. For that matter, nobody's saying that what happened to them was okay; even the examples themselves explicitly say how bad it is.

And now that that's out of the way, let's get to the crux of the matter: Misaimed Fandom does have basis; specifically, in the eight paragraph: "Alternatively, they might read the text too closely, and find symbolism and meaning that the author never intended — especially if the symbolism in question is something quite obscure, that the author may not necessarily be aware of." Now, obviously, the mistreatment of people of color is anything but obscure symbolism. However, it's still different than what the author intended.

Edit: I guess I have a question. Do Unfortunate Implications outweigh a (potential) Misaimed Fandom?

Nobody said anything about anyone being racist. I don't think anyone here is racist. Do not tell me to calm down just because you don't understand what I'm talking about.

Second, the fact that Leta and Nagini are victims isn't the point. The point is that, however unintentional, JK Rowling evoked harmful stereotypes - one of which literally involves slavery - and in the larger context of representation and especially her own history of treating women of colour badly in her works, wrote a backstory for a woman of colour that was iffy at absolute best. Their race matters because the harmful stereotypes would not exist if they were white. I'm not trying to be rude, but could you explain why you're having so much difficulty understanding this? Because you've now talked around the point twice, which tells me that you don't actually understand why people are upset.

There is no symbolism, because Leta doesn't represent enslaved black women who were raped by their white masters, and Nagini doesn't represent women of colour who lose their agency and are forced into servitude by Wizard Hitler. Because nobody mentioned it. Rowling didn't do this on purpose, which is the entire point of Unfortunate Implications. It's not Everyone is Jesus in Purgatory because people don't think that's what Rowling meant, they think she did it by accident; there is nothing obscure because a good chunk of the fanbase is talking about it and nobody had to dig very far to see it. People thought this about Nagini in the trailer, and Tragic Mulatto is written all over Leta. Rowling didn't make a point that we're all misunderstanding, she wrote a backstory for two women of colour that's problematic. It's not Misaimed Fandom because nobody is seeing things in the characters that aren't there, they're pointing out a problematic story.

Unfortunate Implications trumps Misaimed Fandom because, for the third time, you can't say that people are complaining about things that don't exist and then later on provide proof of what they were complaining about. In this case, you can have one or the other.

These people are reading into the subtext and declaring racism. I was merely pointing out how this view was a misrepresentation of the author’s intent and message. I highly doubt that a person who wrote novels condemning bigotry and supremacy intended her work to be viewed this way. I don’t see why my argument should be deleted and the other should stay. If people can interpret these characters as racist, then I can interpret why this was not the author’s intent.

Unfortunate Implications are by definition unintentional. They are recorded instances of people reading things into a work that the author did not intend.

You don't have to agree with what they perceive, but at that point, you're just criticizing criticism.

I don’t see why we can’t have both up here. I’m not saying we can’t have the other, I’m simply delivering my side of the argument. If they can make an argument for the work being racist, then I should be able to argue against it. This entry isn’t contradicting anything to the definition of the trope and, at the end of the day, the argument is still a misrepresentation of the author’s views.

I'm rather confused what's being argued, here. It's playing with Misaimed Fandom in such a way that I know audience reactions aren't supposed to be played with.

For one, they seem to both be inversions. There's no Misaimed Fandom, it's claiming Misaimed Hatedom.

For another, they basically seem to be... pretty much strawman arguments? Like, no one thinks the movie is playing Leta's backstory as sunshine-y happiness, but instead needlessly uncomfortable and inexplicably playing Tragic Mulatto straight. Ditto Nagini. We don't need to be sold that Voldemort's bad; going "and then the Asian lady was literally a subhuman snake" is just a weird direction to go (especially since she adds nothing to this movie).

Lastly, part of the issue is that these are just... data points in a series littered with a whole lot of... let's just say "underuse" of minorities if we're being charitable.

Misaimed Fandom doesn’t necessarily indicate that the viewers have to be fans. It defines it as “Work's audience acts or interprets it differently than what the work's creator(s) intended.” which means that it includes anyone who has seen the film, whether they are fans or haters. The point still stands that people are reading racial subtext that was never supposed to be there and insisting that it sends some kind of racist message like slavery or tragic mulatto or whatever when it clearly isn’t the author’s intent. Unless there’s a way you think I can write it better, I don’t see why it doesn’t belong there. My entry isn’t keeping you from explaining your side of the story and taking it out makes the argument seem rather one-sided on a page that is supposed to have a variety of opinions.

Laconics are... not something to go by. That laconic in particular is so hopelessly broad that literally everything that isn't explicit or implicit text in an audience's interpretation is Misaimed Fandom.

And again, no one is disagreeing with the presentation of these acts as being bad. They're pointing out that still using them and playing them straight is still bad.

And who labelled the characters with these tropes? You or Rowling?

My entry fits the basic definition of the trope. A certain portion of the audience interpreted a character differently than how the author intended despite knowing that was not the intent. My entry does not negate your point from existing. Again, I can rewrite my point if it needs improvement.

So what’s the verdict? Are we removing the examples or not?

The page was locked for a while, but now it's been unlocked again, so your edits should work.

... Jesus Christ. Yes, remove that. When I saw your discussion post I had thought that you were talking about the bit about "This is exacerbated by the fact that the franchise has had difficulty with East Asian representation to date" and thought "geez, I didn't think that came across as portraying Rowling as a bigot" but then I saw the edits by Looky Looky 00 and... yipes.

I completely agree with the removal of that comment, for all the reasons stated. It's unfounded and it makes a rather unfair assumption about a real-life person. I'd also like to add that Unfortunate Implications can be unintentional. It doesn't have to be someone deliberately trying to spread harmful messages around.

How can you assume Rowling is ignorant in all this? This character is full of blatant racist Asian tropes. Rowling knows exactly what she’s doing.

I had a look at that trailer, and I honestly don't see anything malicious about it. They picked an actress to play Nagini who just so happens to be Asian. The actress playing Nagini has nothing to do with the fact that she's Asian. That in itself doesn't indicate to me that there's a racist agenda at play. I do understand that other people felt differently, however, and that's okay. Their interpretation isn't any less "correct" than mine, hence we have the Unfortunate Implications entry on the page.

However, even if you do take it as racist, I'm not seeing any definitive proof that Rowling despises Asians or anything like that. And until there is proof of that, then there's no reason it needs to be noted on the page. Otherwise it's speculative and it falls under Creator Bashing, which is a site policy violation.

So I’m allowed to interpret the author’s work as racist but I can’t call the author itself racist? It’s not like she’s going to read this page and be offended, especially since she clearly offended a lot of other people. I only added it in because she is obviously utilizing racist tropes in her work and it only serves to paint her as a white supremacist. If you don’t see that, you’re not reading deep enough into the undertones of the work

We trope works, not people. Doesn't matter if she's not going to read this page.

People find Nagini's portrayal to be problematic. Fine. Then write an example about how people find Nagini's portrayal to be problematic. It's not carte blanche to start calling Rowling a bigot, and certainly not a white supremacist who believes that Asian people are servants to white people.

You say that I'm not reading deep enough into it. Conversely, I could say that you're reading too deep into it.

So assuming racist undertones from a trailer scene is fine but the moment I criticize the author I’m reading too deep into it? Whatever. I’ll play by the rules because I already feel validated knowing that other people have seen the racially insensitive stereotypes hidden within this work like I have. I won’t attack Rowling because I know others are doing that for me.

Let's remove or comment out this Unfortunate Implications entry at least until the movie is released.

Based on a casting list and a split-second shot of the character in the trailer, it's way too early to accuse the movie of racism (and using the entry to accuse the entire franchise of racism goes way too far, as pointed out above).

Side note: the note about "Nagini" being a Sanskrit instead of Korean word is natter and should be removed in any case; why couldn't a Korean person be given a different-language name? English-speaking people give their children, say, French or Spanish names frequently, just because they like the names.

Also, the character of Nagini is referred to as "Korean" while "Asian" would be more appropriate—the actress might be Korean in Real Life but what nationality/heritage the character of Nagini (as a human) specifically has In Universe can't be said based on the trailer.

I'm not for removing or commenting out the entry since it's no less valid than anything else on the page; everything is based on trailers and casting lists. Now, if you want to say "delete the page until it comes out" that's something I could get behind.

Totally agreeing with your sidenotes, though.

Yes, but the other entries haven't been stirring up a controversy the same way Unfortunate Implications has. We've already had two people who were suspended for edit-warring based on that one entry alone. In light of this, I see no reason why we can't just leave it off the page and wait one more month until the film is actually out. Until then, I just don't think anything good will come from keeping it on the page.

However, I think deleting or locking the whole page would be a great idea too. I'm not really in favour of having YMMV pages for pre-release works in general. Although we would need a mod to delete or lock the page for us.

I requested a lock the other day (when Looky was incessantly edit-warring), but no response from mods.

I'll wait to see if anyone else comments. But if it's explained in the novels, then I think we could remove that entry. I also got the impression that, if the headmaster can bend the rules about Apparition, high-ranking ministry officials probably could as well.

And even if it were still a canon contradiction, it seems like too minor of an issue to qualify for something like Internet Backdraft.

Decided to just go ahead and remove, but I'm open to discussion about it if someone else feels otherwise.