JK Rowling the Labout Party Donator...
You may have read a number of my article criticising JK Rowling for her heavy-handed political agenda on completion of the Harry Potter series. Her decision, for instance, to reveal the fact that Dumbledore was, in fact, gay AFTER the final book was published, pushed my opinion of her over the edge. To me, this smacked of someone who:
a) despite her millions, is still desperate for an increase in sales, publicity and, sadly, dosh. Isn't it great when socialists tell us how to think and act whilst sipping their champagne?
b) is determined to win the gay vote. How cynical can you get – as if gay people are that stupid to think – "yep, Dumbledore is one of us now!" I would personally feel insulted.
And in any case, if he were gay, then why not reveal it in the books? She had perfect opportunity throughout 7 books (she claims she has been planning the series since 1990) to make this clear – why tell us now? It's irrelevant once the final book is written!
Her left wing zeal has aimed to bring about a sway in middle class values from right to left in the United Kingdom. However, the hypocrisy and pointlessness of this soon becomes clear when one examines the books beyond their metaphorical meanings. Hogwarts is, after all, the equivalent of a state school, responsible to a minister (Its intake is comprehensive). The books' attitude to anything which smacks of "elitism" is spiteful and venomous. The worst sin is "racism" of course, closely followed by snobbery. Conservatism is grudgingly tolerated, but characters who exhibit it even in tolerant, consensual form - who are wealthy, say, or who gladly rejoice in the luxuries of life - are usually guilty of cowardice. Ravenclaw house - note the animal and its feature - omen of wickedness with sharp talons - is elitist on academically selective grounds, but it is dangerously close to Slitherin, the snob racist house. Comprehensive Hufflepuff, meanwhile is close to noble Gryffindor. It is all too obvious. The drumbeat of propaganda is ever present in all the books, but becomes loudest in the last. For this reason, the characters are thin; for this reason the overall impression left by the stories is one of sour-face self-righteousness.
Great books, great stories, annoying message. Oh, and this is the woman who is chums with Gordon Brown, our celebrated Prime Minister – the man now responsible for government over-interference (particularly in schools) and the nanny state, amongst a range of other issues. What was the message of the Ministry...oh yes, over-interference in the school (Umbridge, etc...) and that we should question authority? So it's a little bit rich for a Multi-Millionaire, to promote the merits of the Labour government when they may just as well be run by Cornelius Fudge himself!
One million pounds of her personal wealth has been ploughed into the Labour party. Do not let it buy your vote!
You may have read a number of my article criticising JK Rowling for her heavy-handed political agenda on completion of the Harry Potter series. Her decision, for instance, to reveal the fact that Dumbledore was, in fact, gay AFTER the final book was published, pushed my opinion of her over the edge. To me, this smacked of someone who:
a) despite her millions, is still desperate for an increase in sales, publicity and, sadly, dosh. Isn't it great when socialists tell us how to think and act whilst sipping their champagne?
b) is determined to win the gay vote. How cynical can you get – as if gay people are that stupid to think – "yep, Dumbledore is one of us now!" I would personally feel insulted.
And in any case, if he were gay, then why not reveal it in the books? She had perfect opportunity throughout 7 books (she claims she has been planning the series since 1990) to make this clear – why tell us now? It's irrelevant once the final book is written!
Her left wing zeal has aimed to bring about a sway in middle class values from right to left in the United Kingdom. However, the hypocrisy and pointlessness of this soon becomes clear when one examines the books beyond their metaphorical meanings. Hogwarts is, after all, the equivalent of a state school, responsible to a minister (Its intake is comprehensive). The books' attitude to anything which smacks of "elitism" is spiteful and venomous. The worst sin is "racism" of course, closely followed by snobbery. Conservatism is grudgingly tolerated, but characters who exhibit it even in tolerant, consensual form - who are wealthy, say, or who gladly rejoice in the luxuries of life - are usually guilty of cowardice. Ravenclaw house - note the animal and its feature - omen of wickedness with sharp talons - is elitist on academically selective grounds, but it is dangerously close to Slitherin, the snob racist house. Comprehensive Hufflepuff, meanwhile is close to noble Gryffindor. It is all too obvious. The drumbeat of propaganda is ever present in all the books, but becomes loudest in the last. For this reason, the characters are thin; for this reason the overall impression left by the stories is one of sour-face self-righteousness.
Great books, great stories, annoying message. Oh, and this is the woman who is chums with Gordon Brown, our celebrated Prime Minister – the man now responsible for government over-interference (particularly in schools) and the nanny state, amongst a range of other issues. What was the message of the Ministry...oh yes, over-interference in the school (Umbridge, etc...) and that we should question authority? So it's a little bit rich for a Multi-Millionaire, to promote the merits of the Labour government when they may just as well be run by Cornelius Fudge himself!
One million pounds of her personal wealth has been ploughed into the Labour party. Do not let it buy your vote!
Well said. Couldn't agree more.
ReplyDelete