I don't get it o.O

from a physics perspective, that means all the force he’s applying is concentrated at the point of contact between his sword’s edge and the target, and it moves at just the speed that breakage propogates through the material. too slow and it wouldn’t have enough force; too fast and he’d get ahead of the break, shoving the target over instead of cutting it.

Okay, but you’re not going to like the answer.

Here’s the truth: you can’t separate the art from the artist. Not entirely. HP Lovecraft was an incredibly talented, but much more incredibly racist man. It would nice to say you don’t agree with his views but you can enjoy his works without that leaking in but.... well, I’m afraid that would be misunderstanding his books entirely.

Consider, for a second, that Lovecraft’s works were horror stories about extradimensional creatures having mutant children with humans; they were about invasions from distant aliens; they were about the purity of quaint, white, American towns being tainted. Now consider how this may have all been influenced by the fact that he just simply despised anybody who wasn’t white. Consider how his opinions on “mixing the races” might feed into this; consider why being unable to maintain the “purity” of white Americans was the scariest thing of all to him.

This extends to Rowling too.

I would love to say we can just acknowledge that she is an awful, racist, antisemitic, transphobic person and then say “but at least her books are good,” because, well, they are, aren’t they? I would say so, for sure. But to suggest that one can separate her from them is.... ridiculous, and it’s an insult to fans, can know and do better.

Consider why an antisemitic woman wrote about a species of goblins who live among us, but who for the most part keep to themselves and are maybe a little discriminated against on an individual level, but also hold all the cards, all the money, run the banks.

Consider why a racist woman would write about a species of slaves who loved being enslaved, who enjoyed working for no pay, and cleaning up after humans, with the only small caveat of that they didn’t want to be beaten. Imagine that only the most radical of their species wanted to be free, and he still spent the rest of his life working for no pay and helping out a little white boy and his friends wherever he could. Consider why the only person in the story who thought they should be free, that they should have rights, was treated as an overzealous joke, who was acting against the wishes of those slaves who really LOVE being enslaved. Consider that Rowling went on to say that she kind of considers that girl to be black, now.

Consider why JK Rowling, an open and proud transphobe, wrote Rita Skeeter as having a large square jaw, thick “manly” hands, and dressing incredibly gaudily with the most obvious fake nails and fake teeth and fake hair and fake everything. Consider why a woman who tweets about how trans women are “foxes pretending to be hens to get in the hen house” might write this Rita Skeeter character to then illegally transform her body in order to spy on children.

Harry Potter is full of Rowling’s bigotry, start to finish. Not even tangentially, like, “oh the goblins are bad, Rita Skeeter is bad, the house elves are bad, but most of it’s good!” because the deeper you dig and the longer you think the more you realise the entire story is based on her prejudices.

Harry Potter pretends to be an aracial story about found family, but if that were true, why are Harry’s distant ancestors important to who he is today even in the seventh book? Why does Harry have to live with his cousin and aunt and uncle? Because magic inherently prefers blood ties. Whilst Rowling was writing a story that seemed to say, “your heritage is not that important and doesn’t make you better than others” she was still writing a story about a boy who got all of his money through his bloodline, who was protected by living with his bloodline, no matter how evil, who was uniquely able to stop Voldemort because his bloodline passed down the invisibility cloak for generations and generations. Any step Harry takes he is compared to his perfect parents who were exactly like him — he looks just like his father, but he has his mother’s eyes, you know! — consider WHY a woman who is racist might’ve written a story like this. A story that on its surface, condemns a blood caste, but still in every step it takes, validates the idea that blood is thicker than water, and your geneological origin is what makes you special.

You can enjoy Harry Pottwr, of course you can. There are fantastic parts. I love a small group of teenagers deciding to become anarchist rebels and train to fight against fascism in secret. I love the murder mystery plots, I love how the series tells kids that it’s a good thing to be brave, and a good thing to fight injustice, and a good thing to challenge the government. But I cannot separate it from its author because it is such a product of its author. All of the structures of the world, the way things work in the universe, are drenched in Rowling’s beliefs, her bigotries. Of course they are: she made them.

Fighters train and fight all the time. We are very comfortable with physical contact because we constantly fight each other.

Good to see others feeling comfortable as well.

Train and fight!

The literary Sherlock Holmes was an autistic coded character before people knew what autism was.

The literary Sherlock Holmes was an explicitly aromantic character before people had a word for that.

Literary Holmes solved mysteries not merely for the intellectual stimulation but also out of a genuine desire to do good. He cared deeply about every client. HE WAS NOT A HIGH-FUNCTIONING SOCIOPATH! He could definitely be insensitive and blunt but he was not callous or unfeeling.

Literary Sherlock threatened to beat a guy who was being creepy with his own stepdaughter.

Literary Sherlock learned to grow past his misogyny after a woman outsmarted him.

In particular, he was always respectful to Mrs Hudson, never belittling or talking down to her (the otherwise enjoyable Guy Ritchie films screw this up too). In fact, they got along so well that they were actually a very popular ship back in the day.

Literary Holmes would NEVER call Watson an idiot. He was his only friend who he loved and respected, even if he did get frustrated with him sometimes. He didn’t need to belittle others to feel powerful.

Literary Holmes and Watson broke into a corrupt man’s house and witnessed him being murdered by a woman he was blackmailing. They knew exactly who she was but they let her get away because they were chaotic good like that.

Literary Holmes had HUMILITY: something a smug prig like Steven Moffat will never understand. He could be arrogant but he had a sense of humour and was willing to admit when he was wrong. And he was wrong sometimes because he was a flawed human being, not some gross male power fantasy.

Literary Holmes respected the working class and was often disdainful of the rich. In Victorian England!

Literary Holmes indirectly caused the death of a guy who abused (and implicitly molested) his daughters and he didn’t give a single fuck about it.

Please, enjoy this smattering of beauty and wonder.