Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Review of HP reunion in The Guardian…they just can’t help themselves

287 replies

OhDear2200 · 01/01/2022 17:42

www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/jan/01/harry-potter-20th-anniversary-return-to-hogwarts-review-perilously-close-to-emetic

I guess they at least note her absence. But can’t help say ‘widely considered as transphobic’. Just why? Why say anything.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
Mochudubh · 01/01/2022 18:41

To be fair, the phrase in the sub-heading "but there's also a conspicuous absence at it's heart" gives a hint. But then again, the Graun's sub-headings are often notoriously misleading, so who knows?

rabbitwoman · 01/01/2022 18:37

I cannot honestly believe for one moment that jk Rowling doesn't have complete control over this situation. If she is not involved it's because she chose not to be, for whatever reason, but no one has the power or balls to exclude her from her own creation, she would have made sure of that.

At the very most, some of those actors could have refused to take part if she did, that's as much sway as they have.

Really honestly and with all my heart, I believe we are getting closer to the time when everyone is going to have to apologise and admit she was right. She's just holding on until the optimum moment. If she hadn't become a billionaire through her talent, she would have cleared up at poker.

(of course, I could be wrong. Can you imagine the phone call or meeting where they told her she would not be involved and her just saying OK, tho)

EmpressaurusWitchDoesntBurn · 01/01/2022 18:32

The thing that intrigues me is the use of ‘emetic’ - meaning ‘something that makes people vomit’. I bet she wouldn’t have got away with using ‘nauseating’ or ‘vomit-worthy’ but that’s what she’s saying.

zanahoria · 01/01/2022 18:17

It says "widely denounced as transphobic", which is accurate

It would be if they added by people who have not read it

Original poster
OhDear2200 · 01/01/2022 18:11

Ok happy to be corrected about article.

OP posts:
letsallchant · 01/01/2022 18:04

It's alphabetical by surname, which is what I assume has ordered the text. I can see your point about how it doesn't match with their position in the photo though.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 01/01/2022 17:59

Sigh. A photograph with the caption "Like family ... Rupert Grint, Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson."

I assume that must mean that Daniel Radcliff is a woman, since the person in the middle (reading from left to right) is a woman.

What on earth is the justification for putting the woman last, there?

Marzipano · 01/01/2022 17:58

I think Lucy Mangan (who wrote the piece) is team JKR:

twitter.com/LucyMangan/status/1278791418673274881

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 01/01/2022 17:51

‘A void remains.’ I thought it was clearly on JKR’s side.

Waftypants · 01/01/2022 17:50

My New Years Resolution is not to give the Gruniad any clicks so not read the article. I'm guessing it doesnt say she's got widespread support among feminists who are concerned about women's safety, privacy & dignity.

letsallchant · 01/01/2022 17:49

I also thought the closing sentence indicated an expectation that Rowling will in time be vindicated.

Marzipano · 01/01/2022 17:47

It says "widely denounced as transphobic", which is accurate. I think the overall tenor of the piece was clearly pro-JKR. As the closing sentence says: "Perhaps in another 20 years they will let Rowling back in, too."