More people have said that and been killed than there are thorium decay products.
We talk about tumblr like it's a faceless, homogenous content machine but really it is a bunch of different people and we are all grains in its sand-bucket, yes? :p
We talk about tumblr like it's a faceless, homogenous content machine but really it is a bunch of different people and we are all grains in its sand-bucket, yes? :p
Well, Kex, I don't think the intended age range of children's movies (if that's what you mean) has anything to do with it. You can do anything poorly at any age.
Plus children's stuff isn't exactly unpopular there, to my understanding. You could find teens and people fresh out of college reviewing, I don't know, My Little Pony.
We talk about tumblr like it's a faceless, homogenous content machine but really it is a bunch of different people and we are all grains in its sand-bucket, yes? :p
How many times are people going to say this? Like, come on, is it really that difficult to figure out that when I say Tumblr I mean whatever group on Tumblr we're discussing at the moment and rather than describing what group I'm talking about with every single post sometimes it's easier to just say "Tumblr?"
Like, for fuck's sake, rather than correct me *every single time I do that* why don't you focus on the actual point I'm trying to make?
We talk about tumblr like it's a faceless, homogenous content machine but really it is a bunch of different people and we are all grains in its sand-bucket, yes? :p
How many times are people going to say this? Like, come on, is it really that difficult to figure out that when I say Tumblr I mean whatever group on Tumblr we're discussing at the moment and rather than describing what group I'm talking about with every single post sometimes it's easier to just say "Tumblr?"
Like, for fuck's sake, rather than correct me *every single time I do that* why don't you focus on the actual point I'm trying to make?
You really need to realize that unless people are quoting to you they are not necessarily addressing you solely and directly.
You should also really calm down, we are ultimately discussing nothing important.
Well, Kex, I don't think the intended age range of children's movies (if that's what you mean) has anything to do with it. You can do anything poorly at any age.
You *can*, and I don't doubt it has happened, but in my experience the fandoms of movies like Rise of the Guardians or Monsters University tend to be dominated by younger teenagers.
You *can*, and I don't doubt it has happened, but in my experience the fandoms of movies like Rise of the Guardians or Monsters University tend to be dominated by younger teenagers.
True. Though, I don't expect good analyses from younger teenagers anyway. Or, anyone at first glance, really.
You *can*, and I don't doubt it has happened, but in my experience the fandoms of movies like Rise of the Guardians or Monsters University tend to be dominated by younger teenagers.
True. Though, I don't expect good analyses from younger teenagers anyway. Or, anyone at first glance, really.
Which is why I think it's ridiculous to act smug and superior about it. Every teenager goes through a faux intellectual phase.
Why are we discussing this, though? Isn't the discussion about JK Rowling more interesting and one, I might add, we haven't had a million times before?
I mean, I don't have any interest in J.K. Rowling as a person and I couldn't tell you how long it's been since I was last interested in Harry Potter at all.
The discussion only came up because Naney posted this thing, which is a great example of what I'm talking about.
I mean, I don't have any interest in J.K. Rowling as a person and I couldn't tell you how long it's been since I was last interested in Harry Potter at all.
The discussion only came up because Naney posted this thing, which is a great example of what I'm talking about.
How is that at all an example?
Note: Before you answer that, actually read the damned books before just assuming it's "lol stupid kids and their stupid pseudo-analyses."
I don't honestly understand why you're so upset. I am mildly annoyed by a trend of tumblr users seemingly needing to claim everything they liked as a child is somehow a social wonderworker, and that is all.
Because it's actually quite bothersome to see someone act condescending and smug about a work they're not particularly invested in, just because someone had the gall to assume that a reasonably good author might have included a moral in a major character's arc.
Man if you think I'm being smug you've never seen me being smug before.
Anyway, I was just using that as an example of a general trend. Even if that particular person is right (which I find unlikely but w/e), there's simply no way everyone who says things like that is. Especially if the thing they're praising is like, Ed Edd N Eddy (which, reminder, is one of my favorite shows ever).
You know, just because Tumblr is overzealous doesn't mean they're always wrong when they notice a progressive moral in a work.
It is not so much that they are wrong, more that they seem incapable of grasping the concept of "reading into" something, and thus assume that anything they see is there by authorial intent and that alone.
Well, if something can be racist/etc without the intent of the author, surely something can be progressive without authorial intent.
I just don't understand why it's out of the question to consider that maybe it was her intent.
It's not out of the question. It's just that you think she would have mentioned something about it in the various interviews that she did. Authorial intent is difficult to point to unless you have the author's out-of-story words to point to.
In other words, the theme of prejudice in Ron's story improves the story and universe of the Potter series, but we cannot say for certain that Rowling intended it to correlate to real-life prejudice. Rowling's certainly responsible for it, and it's possible that she did everything that the post said she did intentionally (and some of it was definitely intentional), but she could have been trying to teach a completely different moral with some of those actions. We just don't know, and we won't know until we break into Rowling's apartment and demand that she tells us her secrets. And Operation Muggle Storm can't be implemented until 2015, so we have a while to wait.
Oh, yeah, for the record, Operation Muggle Storm doesn't exist, and anyone claiming otherwise who isn't registered in Government Organization will be hunted down like dogs and shot.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I'm soooo tempted to make a "/royalorder" page on my blog in which I link to my friends' blogs with their pseudo-monarchy titles I've given them
Comments
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Like, for fuck's sake, rather than correct me *every single time I do that* why don't you focus on the actual point I'm trying to make?
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
You should also really calm down, we are ultimately discussing nothing important.
that awesome blog with blurry pictures of Mike, I might add.
I mean, I don't have any interest in J.K. Rowling as a person and I couldn't tell you how long it's been since I was last interested in Harry Potter at all.
The discussion only came up because Naney posted this thing, which is a great example of what I'm talking about.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
And honestly, I'm up for a discussion about racism in fantasy universes vs. RL racism.
Like the anti-Dunmer sentiment in that one city in Skyrim, what's up with that?
If they are typical dwarves and elves (and they always are), they seem to me unlikely to even be in contact.
How is that at all an example?
Note: Before you answer that, actually read the damned books before just assuming it's "lol stupid kids and their stupid pseudo-analyses."
I don't honestly understand why you're so upset. I am mildly annoyed by a trend of tumblr users seemingly needing to claim everything they liked as a child is somehow a social wonderworker, and that is all.
why?
Anyway, I was just using that as an example of a general trend. Even if that particular person is right (which I find unlikely but w/e), there's simply no way everyone who says things like that is. Especially if the thing they're praising is like, Ed Edd N Eddy (which, reminder, is one of my favorite shows ever).
Also I hate picnics, so if anything I'd be more irritated.
Two, aside from arbitrary skepticism, what makes you doubt that the post was right?
When has JK Rowling demonstrated to you an inability to convey a moral?
Because if you can't provide a reason, yes, it's completely arbitrary even if you say it isn't.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
In other words, the theme of prejudice in Ron's story improves the story and universe of the Potter series, but we cannot say for certain that Rowling intended it to correlate to real-life prejudice. Rowling's certainly responsible for it, and it's possible that she did everything that the post said she did intentionally (and some of it was definitely intentional), but she could have been trying to teach a completely different moral with some of those actions. We just don't know, and we won't know until we break into Rowling's apartment and demand that she tells us her secrets. And Operation Muggle Storm can't be implemented until 2015, so we have a while to wait.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead