JK Rowling's new book - A detective novel about a trans serial killer murdering women

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Who the hell of Robbie Coltrane and why should we care?
Actor. Originally a comic actor, later moved into drama. Played that giant dude with a beard who lived in a shed near Hogwarts in the Harry Potter movies.
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
1,977
347
88
Country
US
She forgot the most important rule of writing murder mysteries these days: you must have a diverse cast of characters of which the killer must be a cis straight white man.

I was starting to get worried we would have like actual Slytherin vs Ravenclaw political parties rising up or some other madness. LOL
No, no...all politicians are already Slytherin.

The werewolf was their friend, a good guy who actively tried to keep himself from harming anyone when he would uncontrollably turn and didn't want to infect or kill anyone. He taught Harry how to fight off the dementors, which saved both Harry's and Harry's Godfather Sirius life. The Werewolf gave his life fighting against the Death Eaters ( the Nazis). to protect the kids. Harry was The werewolf's son's Godfather.
They don't mean that one, they mean Fenrir Greyback. You know, the one who spread the curse and liked to attack children in particular?

and used his new found freedom to work at Hogwarts where he was paid and could come and go as he pleased.
...and how did the other house elves feel about that?

So I've read a little more on this and apparently the "cross dressing" is a man using a burqa to disguise himself? Cause if that's true then....

................ Like really guys? THIS, is what everyone is mad about? Someone dressed in what is essentially ninja garb to disguise himself because the only thing is shows is your eyes?
That just makes it transphobic *AND* racist.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,568
4,374
118
Phew, Robbie Coltrane, a man born five years after the end of the Second World War, has stepped in to confirm that none of the people unhappy with JK Rowling could have won the war.

Insightful.
Nu uh, I could've won the war, Robbie. *plffft* I'm gonna tell my big brother on you.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,027
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Please tell me this is sarcasm.
Judging by the first sentence in that post, I think it's intended as sarcasm, yes.

Although "dangerous person hiding under a burqa" is a trope that crops up in quite a few racist tabloids, as an excuse to restrict what people can wear and/or kick people out of the country. Not saying that Rowling is appealing to that trope, I haven't read the book and don't think that she would.
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,632
2,849
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
Judging by the first sentence in that post, I think it's intended as sarcasm, yes.

Although "dangerous person hiding under a burqa" is a trope that crops up in quite a few racist tabloids, as an excuse to restrict what people can wear and/or kick people out of the country. Not saying that Rowling is appealing to that trope, I haven't read the book and don't think that she would.
Ah I see now. I skipped over his responses to everyone else.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
So I've read a little more on this and apparently the "cross dressing" is a man using a burqa to disguise himself? Cause if that's true then....
So, bit more info. It was not as far as I could see a burqa, but the killer does appear to use women's clothing as a disguise, and at one point lies about being a cross-dresser.

So like I said, epic trolling by the Daily Telegraph: that book reviewer must be laughing his/her arse off about the fake furore he/she single-handedly cooked up. Of course, in a slightly more sinister way, perhaps the intent was also to turn more anger at Rowling.
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,050
2,460
118
Corner of No and Where
Okay someone explain this to me because Im not following. JK wrote a book. Sure. In it is a killer. Great. That killer kills women. Of course. That killer is trans. HOLD UP!
That's the line? If the argument is that its current year and that's offensive, why isn't the whole thing offensive? Would it have been okay to kill women if they killer was cis? Or would killing men have been okay if the killer was trans? and why is killing okay? Would it have been okay if the trans villain was simply a rapist or assaulter?
And the whole idea that serial killers target only women is mostly a myth - some famous loons have, absolutely, but its mostly a Hollywood trope rather than reflective of real life victims. Not to say women aren't the majority, the stat I looked up said 65% victims are women. But most serial killers kill both genders fairly regularly with the outliers being the mono-gender assaulters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
That killer is trans. HOLD UP!
That's the line?
I think it's supposed to be: "The killer is cis, but pretends to be a woman in order to (gain access to women's spaces (like bathrooms and ) kill (them), furthering the HATEFUL myth that trans women have ulterior motives (and just want to peep on women and girls while they change, and maybe beat them at sports)"
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,050
2,460
118
Corner of No and Where
I think it's supposed to be: "The killer is cis, but pretends to be a woman in order to gain access to women's spaces (like bathrooms) and kill them, furthering the HATEFUL myth that trans women have ulterior motives and just want to peep on women and girls while they change."
But he is the villain? He's killing women. He's evil and so are his actions. Why should any action the villain take be likeable/progressive? Not all villains have to be Loki where they can turn good every other scene. Its okay to have a fully evil monstrous person being the villain.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
But he is the villain? He's killing women. He's evil and so are his actions. Why should any action the villain take be likeable/progressive? Not all villains have to be Loki where they can turn good every other scene. Its okay to have a fully evil monstrous person being the villain.
Because, apparently, if your villain has a real counterpart, it must be wish fulfillment or reveal some bigotry on the part of the author.

Like if you make a villain and he's a black mugger/bike thief, then that reveals your secret (or overt) racism.

But it's okay if he's white and cis because white cis people are already evil, kind of like how Nazis and zombies are acceptable, guilt-free targets in video games and movies.

I dunno, they aren't my rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,632
2,849
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
But he is the villain? He's killing women. He's evil and so are his actions. Why should any action the villain take be likeable/progressive? Not all villains have to be Loki where they can turn good every other scene. Its okay to have a fully evil monstrous person being the villain.
Welcome to 2020.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,906
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
From a biologically sexed female, having a biologically sexed male, regardless of gender, then dictating what your own identity means and dismissing a huge part of what it means to be a woman as being not important is not going to be accepted well. While I disagree that trans are broken or need to be fixed, I see her point about dismissing what it means to be a woman to a biologically sexed female. Trying to redefine that to now include penises doesn't really work for most women because that is also removing a huge part of our identity to be able to do so.
I think one of the biggest issues with the way the "trans debate" has translated into popular culture, especially in the UK, is that it's been framed as an issue of identity when in fact it is an issue of rights.

To me, it reminds me very much of the gay marriage debate, where you've got one side arguing that they're not being treated equally under the law, and the other is arguing that the definition of marriage is under threat, and thus the debate gets pulled into the semantics of defining marriage and away from the real substantial point, which is how people are actually treated.

Trans people are typically very aware that the majority of the population, even people who support trans rights or trans inclusivity, don't really see trans people as men/women/non-binaries. They're making allowances for what they see as a disability, but deep in their hearts they will never get past the definition of sex they learned as children. That doesn't matter. If you believe that only people who can menstruate or have children are actually women, then I disagree, and I think I can argue my case on that, but fun as that sounds I don't want to do it because I worry doing so will already be falling into the trap of accepting that this is a debate about defining what a woman is. I don't think that's ultimately the problem. The problem is when people expect their definition of what a woman is to effectively govern public space, or demand that trans people be treated as if their being trans is a mental illness, and then justify this with the rhetoric that not doing these things is attacking the definition of women.

Of course, in a slightly more sinister way, perhaps the intent was also to turn more anger at Rowling.
Since this thread seems determined to stay on topic, I'm going to point out that, in a previous book in this series, Rowling had her protagonist threaten a transwoman with rape in a way that was clearly supposed to be funny because transwomen are gross.

I don't think you get to come back from that, personally.

Phew, Robbie Coltrane, a man born five years after the end of the Second World War, has stepped in to confirm that none of the people unhappy with JK Rowling could have won the war.
I mean, most of them aren't communists, so I agree.
 
Last edited:

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,568
4,374
118
Okay someone explain this to me because Im not following. JK wrote a book. Sure. In it is a killer. Great. That killer kills women. Of course. That killer is trans. HOLD UP!
That's the line? If the argument is that its current year and that's offensive, why isn't the whole thing offensive? Would it have been okay to kill women if they killer was cis? Or would killing men have been okay if the killer was trans? and why is killing okay? Would it have been okay if the trans villain was simply a rapist or assaulter?
And the whole idea that serial killers target only women is mostly a myth - some famous loons have, absolutely, but its mostly a Hollywood trope rather than reflective of real life victims. Not to say women aren't the majority, the stat I looked up said 65% victims are women. But most serial killers kill both genders fairly regularly with the outliers being the mono-gender assaulters.
There's kind of a history of serial killers in fiction also cross-dressing to show how freakish and disturbing they are; Psycho, Sleepaway Camp, Silence of the Lambs. Heck, even Ace Ventura did it. Typically male to female. Correlating cross-dressing or being a trans woman to being dangerous or a freak, something to gaze at with suspicion. And I'm sure I don't need to explain why that's an extremely harmful trope.

It's possible for a trans person to be a serial killer without them being trans factoring into why they're a serial killer, but seeing as this has never been done before, and seeing as Rowling's history is what it is, I'm not expecting it this time around either.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
26,690
11,192
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
But he is the villain? He's killing women. He's evil and so are his actions. Why should any action the villain take be likeable/progressive? Not all villains have to be Loki where they can turn good every other scene. Its okay to have a fully evil monstrous person being the villain.
The main problem being is that is yet another trans person being portrayed as a villain. The fact that JK Rowling has a hate boner for trans people does not help either. Even though there are more positive examples of trans people, you still rarely ever see one in a heroic role or one that's not to be seen as a constant complete victim.
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,050
2,460
118
Corner of No and Where
There's kind of a history of serial killers in fiction also cross-dressing to show how freakish and disturbing they are; Psycho, Sleepaway Camp, Silence of the Lambs. Heck, even Ace Ventura did it. Typically male to female. Correlating cross-dressing or being a trans woman to being dangerous or a freak, something to gaze at with suspicion. And I'm sure I don't need to explain why that's an extremely harmful trope.

It's possible for a trans person to be a serial killer without them being trans factoring into why they're a serial killer, but seeing as this has never been done before, and seeing as Rowling's history is what it is, I'm not expecting it this time around either.
I haven't read the book, so Im legit curious - is the killer citing being trans as the reason they're a killer? As in if they said "I am a trans woman" they expect everyone to know that means they're a serial killer? Or is being trans just an aspect of their personality, not necessarily connected with the killings? In the same way liking Chipotle over Qudoba is a personality trait, but not one associated with serial killers.
Like is the killer expressing their trans identity through killing women, or do they just happen to be trans, in the same way they could just happen to be brown haired, or a red head or blonde.

and I guess I don't see the connection between like Buffalo Bill or Norman Bates and trans culture. Buffalo Bill skinned people alive and Norman Bates was clinically insane and heard voices. How does that correlate to trans culture? Isn't the idea of saying its a representation of trans culture inviting the comparison, cart before the horse way? Watching Buffalo Bill torture women and then saying "That's offensive, we're not all like that." kinda implies a connection or identification with Bill. I would have thought people didn't need to qualify they're not similar to a villain, fictional or otherwise. The only time you need to qualify your actions are different from another is when there is a chance the actions could be seen as similar in intent or action. And if the other person is a serial killer/rapists/torturer, I was under the impression most people did no actions anywhere in the same region of overlap or misunderstanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Breakdown

Oxy Moron
Sep 5, 2014
753
150
48
down a well
Country
Northumbria
Gender
Lad
The main problem being is that is yet another trans person being portrayed as a villain. The fact that JK Rowling has a hate boner for trans people does not help either. Even though there are more positive examples of trans people, you still rarely ever see one in a heroic role or one that's not to be seen as a constant complete victim.
The character isn't actually transgender and the extent of his cross dressing is wearing a pink coat and a wig while hiding in a van.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/b...oubled-blood-thriller-robert-galbraith-review
 

MrCalavera

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
906
980
98
Country
Poland
I don't even know who Dan is, and yet i want to slap him.



Let's not forget her hook-nosed goblins that run the economy from the shadows!
And Harry's asian girlfriend named Cho Chang.
And an irish boy called Seamus, that likes to blow up stuff.


So I've read a little more on this and apparently the "cross dressing" is a man using a burqa to disguise himself? Cause if that's true then....

................ Like really guys? THIS, is what everyone is mad about? Someone dressed in what is essentially ninja garb to disguise himself because the only thing is shows is your eyes?
Well, i found the supposed controversial excerpt for more context:



Make of it what you will.
 
Last edited: