JK Rowling and the Nasty Nationalists

June 15, 2014 at 9:04 am (misogyny, Racism, reactionay "anti-imperialism", Rosie B, scotland, sectarianism, sexism, thuggery)

feature image number one

JK Rowling has donated £1 million to the Better Together campaign. Rowling is a long-standing Labour supporter

By Rosie Bell (via Facebook):

When J K Rowling wrote best-selling children’s books that even children who didn’t read, would read, she was a force for betterment.

When she showed that a writer could hit the jackpot she was a creatives’ beacon of hope.

When she insisted that the popular film adaptations or her books should not be Hollywoodised she was a patriot.

When she recalled her own years of being a single mother dependent on welfare payments and reiterated her support for Labour she was a good socialist.

When she donated considerable sums to clinics treating multiple sclerosis and campaigned for research on the disease because of her own mother’s illness she was a heart-string puller.

I think Scots may have even been a wee bit proud that this unassuming woman of considerable achievement chose to live in Edinburgh. At least one coffee house has put up a plaque noting that she used to hang out there.

But now she is a bitch; a whore; a traitor; a Tory; a deluded wee hen, all with added sweiry words. Oh, and English as well.

All because she wrote a sane, reasoned article on why she thought Scotland should not go independent and contributed some money to a campaign she believed in.

No wonder I hate this referendum.

Update:

Since Game of Thrones has come up in the comments thread, here’s a video which covers both Game of Thrones and Edinburgh:-

 

16 Comments

  1. JK Rowling and the Nasty Nationalists | OzHouse said,

    […] Jun 15 2014 by admin […]

  2. Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

    When she donated a million quid she was anti-democratic (in the same way the lottery winners who donated to the Yes campaign were).

    Why do the rich get more of a say (which is the effect of the money they donate)?

    There should be an individual donation limit of, say, £1000. Those who do give such sums as Rowling did deserve (non-reactionary) criticism.

    But then what do you expect from an author who maintains the traditional, ultra-reactionary ‘blood-line’ tradition of British ‘literature’.

    e.g. Robin Hood lives among peasants but is a secret noble; various characters in Dickens (e.g. David Copperfield, Oliver Twist) live amongst rogues until they are rescued by their higher class relatives or benefactors and Harry Potter: the golden child of two super witches fated simply by such birth to save mankind, both the superiors with magic as well as the hapless Muggles.

    In short you are either born ‘well’ and so may be the hero – or you’re not.

    • Jim Denham said,

      “an author who maintains the traditional, ultra-reactionary ‘blood-line’ tradition of British ‘literature’”: is this comment supposed to be serious? Is “Southpawpunch” for real or a cruel parody by some Tory determined to ridicule the left for its alleged pig-ignorance, Dave-Spart-type dogmatism, philistinism and total lack of humanity, imagination and humour.

      • Rosie said,

        The latter, I think.

      • Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

        You will be pleased that you are in the same category as Newman, who once accused me of being a piece of performance art or similar, rather than serious in my criticisms.

        The problem with both you and him is that you have moved so far away from your original Trotskyism (willingly, in his case) that you now think the authentic thing is a parody.

        I maintain that there is a long line of – ‘reclaim my birthright’ – often mixed up with ‘A Quest’ and often involving goblins, fairies and the like and which is a reactionary seam in culture. You will often get idealised middle-class kids leading the story e.g. Narnia.

        Things common to this are an automatic deference to an aristocracy who have the god-given right to rule (unless taken by other nobles) is ever present. Apart from in Harry Potter, you have such in Lord of the Rings and (I imagine) Game of Thrones (haven’t seen it). Backward culture – one and all.

        Added to that are these correct words from a Socialist Review review: And I did find the books depressingly derivative, conservative and dispiritingly nostalgic for a bygone notion of a middle class Britain of public school and jolly hockey sticks (Quidditch at Hogwarts) that I thought had gone out of fashion when I grew out of Enid Blyton.

        http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr244/brown.htm

      • R F McCarthy (@RF_McCarthy) said,

        Loath as I am to defend SPP, Rowling does indeed have bloodlines giving magical or superhuman abilities as core to her fantasy world – as does Tolkien (and although you could argue Tolkien’s real heroes are hobbit everymen their hardiness and incorruptibility are every bit as genetically determined as Aragorn’s kingliness).

        Game of Thrones is however much more complex in that while there are one or two characters with magical bloodlines these don’t actually help them much.

        In fact archetypal Mighty Whitey princess Daenerys actually ends up in a political quagmire very clearly modelled on the occupation of Iraq where neither her magical ability to control dragons or her benign intentions can overcome the religious and political fanaticisms of the broken slave society she blithely thinks she has liberated.

        Indeed the overall message of the books (and so far at least the TV series) is that life in a pre-modern society was shit for most people and that high-minded aristos starting off civil wars to depose unjust rulers just makes everything even worse by adding the random uncontrolled violence of rampaging armies and desperate brigands to the mix.

        And this is the dramatic problem that makes this far more interesting than the archetypal fantasy series in that while the audience craves endings where at whatever cost the Dark Lord is overthrown, the True King returns and the Everyman Hero (if there is one) can go back to his (and it usually is his) farm or hobbit hole, George RR Martin having set himself up as the realist anti-Tolkien seems quite incapable of supplying one.

        (One could also write an essay on how such a successful series acquires a capitalist dynamic of its own – turning that relatively simple commodity a book into an ever proliferating stream of new products – TV series, spin-off books, websites, conventions, replica swords, props, costumes, – until its original creator seemingly forgets that he is in the business of writing books at all and his original audience turns against him for failing to meet their expectations that he should actually finish the series).

    • Lamia said,

      The Yessers would have done better to show some grace and if they must comment say she’s entitled to her opinion, not go into smear mode. Their reaction will possibly lose them more support than simply Rowling expressing her view. She’s just one person, and her view isn’t in itself more important than anyone else’s in Scotland, but she’s widely liked, and seemingly not without reason, so it was daft to make it personal.

      • Rosie said,

        Actually I think “rich English bint tells Scots what to do” will have some traction, sadly.

  3. Robert said,

    We rather went for the line — of course merely with reference to the ingenuity involved, since we are not commenting on the rights and wrongs of YES or NO — that Ms. Rowling donated the money because her powers of imagining the non-existent, the infeasible and the impossible had been dwarfed by the amazing scope of the YES campaign’s!!!

    And all without any of the conscious effort we presume there has been in Ms. Rowling’s case, all those books and fiends, and quite without her scepticism regarding whether or not the railway viaduct in the middle of Harry Potter country might actually be in the Western Highlands and nowhere near any Hogwarts school,

    We find in her the same hypocrisy as we find where Orwell wrote of pigs talking while well aware that such a thing was impossible, and Animal Farm yet another fantasy, a situation without the utter honesty of the sincerest Cyborgnuts.

    Their fantasy universe has been spoken of as so much more extensively fantastic than anything dreamt of in all her books, surely it was her resentment expressing itself which sent all that money to the non-separation campaign — no doubt with a view to keeping Scotland in touch with the planet rather than see it helicopter itself up gloriously into the airless spaces by means of a synchronised operation of all these wind turbine vanes cherished by First Minister Salmond. These use some of the superfluity of Scottish wind which can be so converted, to produce light as well as heat. Wind is something Scotland has seldom been short of, but of course a lot of it cannot be transformed into light, or at least self-illumination. ..

    Needless to say this should not be taken seriously, Ms. Rowling simply differs in view from those who like to say Yes, but who as a matter of political correctness are no longer casually referred to as Yes-Men.
    Well, maybe she lacks fanaticism.

    • Monsuer Jelly More Bounce to the Ounce (Much More Bounce) said,

      another loony

      punchbowel kovement is a well known loony already

  4. Ken said,

    Southpawpunch is the buffoon who started the Dave Osler libel case back in 2007 with his comments, before running like a rat and refusing to testify in the action. It turned out that he gets his kicks from adopting Trot positions on most things to discredit the left. Dunno why he bothers because orthodox Trotscum are more than capable of doing that on their own:

    http://grayee.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/southpawpunch-fesses-up-as-paid-anti.html

  5. Southpawpunch (@Southpawpunch) said,

    ‘Ken’ – the ‘facts’ in your comment are but fiction.

    And moreover, Tory that she was (and former CPGBer, Respect & more that she had been), the person who sued had been maligned, in my opinion (and not by me) on that blog and in reference to her younger radical days and by someone with the usual LP venom for Trots, radicals, revolutionaries etc – just like you, in fact.

    • Jim Denham said,

      I fear we are now in danger of becoming embroiled in an obscure and fruitless argument between two nut-cases, neither of whom has the slightest interest in the ATL issue under discussion. No further comments from either of these two lunatics will be tolerated.

      • Jim M. said,

        I was going to pull up a chair and enjoy the show but you’ve ruined that now, Mr D.

        I blame the children for not being more nuanced and sophisticated consumers in the first place. Why… it’s nothing short of irresponsible!

      • dagmar said,

        I wouldn’t use the word “fruitless” in this context if I were you.

  6. Jumble Spoiler – 06/18/14 | Unclerave's Wordy Weblog said,

    […] JK Rowling and the Nasty Nationalists […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 500 other followers

%d bloggers like this: