J.K. Rowling
Bits & Pieces
The Apparating Moon-Gentian
The apparating moon-gentian stands out even within this distinctive group. It forms a sturdy tree reaching 4 to 5 metres in height, with a trunk up to about 6.5 centimetres in diameter. Yet, its most striking feature is its foliage: the leaves are among the largest known in the genus, measuring 25 to 60 centimetres long and up to 30 centimetres wide. Broadly ovate to elliptic, dark green, and covered in short hairs, they give sterile plants an almost tobacco-like appearance. The whitish-green flowers are funnel-shaped, 40 to 50 millimetres long, and appear in branched inflorescences.
The species is endemic to a small area in Parque Nacional Podocarpus and the surrounding Amotape–Huancabamba region of southern Ecuador, where it grows in wet montane rainforest and roadside secondary vegetation at elevations between roughly 1,600 and 2,450 metres.
Both its scientific name and English common name tell the story of its discovery. In February 2001, botanists Jason R. Grant and Lena Struwe were exploring some roadsides in the park[1]. For much of the afternoon they found only sterile individuals of an unusual plant and could not be certain of its identity. Just as rain set in and dusk approached, several flowering trees suddenly came into view, as if they had materialised from nowhere. The researchers were immediately reminded of the magical ability to 'apparate' — to disappear from one place and reappear in another — popularised in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (1998). They therefore named the new species Macrocarpaea apparata, and the plant is now known as the apparating moon-gentian.
Even forgetting the Harry Potter connection, this species shows us the extraordinary biodiversity of Ecuador’s cloud forests and the continued discovery of new plants, even in relatively accessible areas.
[1] De Macrocarpaea Grisebach (Ex Gentianaceis) speciebus Novis III: Six New Species of Moon-Gentians (Macrocarpaea, Gentinaceae) From Parque Nacional Podocarpus, Ecuador in JSTOR - 2003. See here.
J.K. Rowling: The twilight of Nicola Sturgeon
I know I’m stating the obvious, and I’ll probably be one of countless reviewers making the same point, but it’s impossible to read Nicola Sturgeon’s memoir without remembering the smash hit fictional franchise, Twilight by Stephenie Meyer. For those who don’t know (ie, everyone who wasn’t a tween or teenage girl, or living with one, 2005-2015), Twilight was massively popular for roughly a decade, each new book or film being greeted adoringly by its devoted fans. The heroine of Twilight, a shy, awkward, bookish girl, moves to a small, rainswept town called Forks to live with her single father. In doing so, she unknowingly takes her first step towards a staggeringly unlikely future nobody could have predicted.
The heroine of Frankly is also a shy, awkward, bookish girl who lives in a small, rainswept town. About to turn seventeen, she approaches a bungalow in Dreghorn, knocks on the door of the SNP candidate for her constituency, and asks if she can help with canvassing.
‘I don’t yet realise it but in this moment the course of my life will be set. Everything that has gone before has been leading me here.’
These are Sturgeon’s words, but they could just as easily be Bella Swan’s, for both shy, insecure teenagers have dates with destiny. Nicola Sturgeon will one day become First Minister of Scotland. Bella Swan will join the ranks of the undead.
Like all well-rounded characters, Bella Swan has flaws. She’s clumsy and accident-prone, traits that only make her more dorkily loveable, and give sexy, brooding vampire Edward Cullen pretexts to alternately scold and rescue her, which he does on repeat through four books and five film adaptations.
Sturgeon talks quite a lot about becoming a well-rounded person in Frankly, usually in the context of regretting that she wasn’t one in her hyper-ambitious youth. She admits that she, too, has flaws: lack of confidence, fear of failure, and a heart that simply cares too much. The epigraph of her memoir is a quotation from Eleanor Roosevelt: ‘Do what you feel in your heart to be right – for you’ll be criticized anyway.’
Just as Bella’s propensity for accidents doesn’t stop her riding motorcycles, jumping off cliffs or choosing to meet evil vampires for a spot of unarmed combat, Sturgeon’s alleged imposter syndrome and constant crises of confidence don’t prevent her admitting to ‘the raw talent I had for politics’, or that ‘I certainly wasn’t lacking in ability’, that ‘far from being the weak link, I was seemingly the star attraction’, ‘it all added to the sense that I had the Midas touch’ or that ‘there is no doubt that I was a massive electoral asset.’
This bombast is likely to shock some of my liberal London friends who’ve frequently told me, especially during the pandemic, how lucky I was to have such an an earnest, down-to-earth leader in charge. They, of course, were subject to the whims of the then prime minister Boris Johnson, who could have been replaced with three ferrets in a sack and the only change would have been a slight increase in decisiveness and gravitas, so, to them, Sturgeon seemed a paragon of sober governance, treating Scotland to almost nightly presidential-style podium appearances in which she delivered admonitions with an appropriately dour countenance.
Her English fans can’t be expected to know about every single clusterfuck over which the supposedly competent Sturgeon presided, and they certainly won’t find out about them from Frankly. The mysteriously vanished government WhatsApp messages from the pandemic, the tanking educational outcomes, the CalMac Ferry disaster, the disappearance of a half a million pounds of her own supporters’ money that was supposedly ringfenced for a new independence referendum: you’ll search in vain for candid accounts of these in Frankly; indeed, most aren’t mentioned at all. Perhaps the most disgraceful omission – and I’ll admit to a personal interest here, because I’m married to a doctor who used to run a methadone clinic, so saw the national scandal up close – is the fact that Scotland continues to lead the whole of Europe in drug deaths.
The truth is that Sturgeon, like Bella Swan, is a monomaniac. Both are consumed by a single, overriding ambition. In Nicola’s case, it’s independence for Scotland. In Bella’s, it’s having loads of hot sex with Edward Cullen without getting accidentally killed. Spoiler alert: only one of these ambitions is realised.
I doubt many No voters are going to be won over by Frankly. This is partly because Sturgeon doesn’t make a single argument for Scottish independence we haven’t heard a thousand times, but mostly because of the quite extraordinary obtuseness she displays in talking about the referendum of 2014.
‘Much has been written since the referendum about how unpleasant and divisive it was. My experience… was the opposite of that characterisation.’
No shit, Nicola. You, surrounded only by adoring nationalists, flying between public meetings in a helicopter bearing a large image of your own face, enjoying police protection and all the excitement of potentially bringing about your life’s ambition, enjoyed the referendum? I’m amazed.
Both Sturgeon and her predecessor, Alex Salmond, made great play back in 2014 about how very different their nationalism was to the nasty kind – you know, the racist, get-the-immigrants-out, thuggish sort you find in other, lesser countries. Scotland, they asserted, breeds a kinder, better type of nationalist. You get all the good stuff – an upsurge in national pride, a flowering of native culture, a people once more embracing self determination – without the slightest echo of jackboots.
Oddly, this message didn’t resonate too well with No voters who were being threatened with violence, told to fuck off out of Scotland, quizzed on the amount of Scottish blood that ran in their veins, accused of treachery and treason and informed that they were on the wrong side of, as one ‘cybernat’ memorably put it, ‘a straightforward battle between good and evil.’
Even while conceding she possibly ‘didn’t make enough effort at the time to appreciate what it was like for those on the other side’, Sturgeon’s final analysis of the referendum is that ‘the contest was, in the main, positive and good-natured.’ This is an excellent example of a recurrent feature of Frankly: Sturgeon acknowledging that she could – maybe, perhaps, just possibly – have done something a teeny bit better, then awarding herself an A-.
In 2014 Sturgeon wasn’t yet First Minister, and in those days I felt some non-partisan admiration for her as a woman successfully navigating the male-dominated power structure at Holyrood. Sturgeon talks a lot in Frankly about the sexist expectations and assumptions made about women in the workplace and by the media, about the sexualised insults thrown women’s way by men, about being physically intimidated while out canvassing and about the disdain for women she’s encountered in men of the hard left. I have personal experience of all of this. Yet Nicola Sturgeon’s obtuseness runs far deeper than an inability to truly step into a No voter’s shoes. When your belief in your cause is so deeply rooted that there is literally no evidence that could shake it, it has become religious, and opposition will inevitably come to be seen, not as rational disagreement, but as a fundamental moral failing.
Seventeen is the age when you’re supposed to believe in things that seem barking mad to less special, more cynical people – astrology, Jeremy Corbyn, devoting your life to a very sexy vampire. Adults, though – especially adults with the power to remove protections from over half the population – surely we’re allowed to expect them to do the critical thinking and look at the facts?
Notwithstanding all the ruminating on sexism and misogyny Sturgeon does in Frankly, always as it affects her personally, she is unshakeable in her belief that if men put on dresses and call themselves women they can only be doing so with innocent motives. Sturgeon hasn’t been remotely humbled by the Supreme Court ruling that proved her government was forcing a misinterpretation of the UK-wide Equality Act on Scotland, one that robbed women of many single sex spaces and of their very existence as a definable class with rights protected in law. She remains stubbornly wedded to her belief that it is possible to let some men into women’s spaces on the men’s say so, without letting any man who fancies it come inside. She denies there are any risks to a policy of gender self-identification. She can’t imagine any male predator capitalising on such policies, in spite of the fact that it has, demonstrably, happened many times. She is flat out Trumpian in her shameless denial of reality and hard facts.
She asks in Frankly what my intentions were, in posting a picture of myself online wearing a T-shirt bearing the words: Nicola Sturgeon, Destroyer of Women’s Rights. She says this was a turning point that changed everything and made her afraid for her physical safety.
Eleven years ago, when she and I found ourselves on opposite sides of a different public debate, I didn’t hold her accountable for all the threats I received from nationalists, nor for the porn her supporters circulated, with my face pasted onto a naked actress’s body. As the gender wars have raged, I have not accused her of emboldening the kind of 'activist' whose threats against me have twice necessitated police action.
What were my intentions in posting the picture? I hoped journalists would use it as a pretext to confront the First Minister with questions she’d so far either refused to answer, or treated with contempt, when non-famous women asked them. I knew for a fact that grassroots feminists had clamoured to meet her – I was friends with some of them, which is how I got the T-shirt. All-female policy groups had attempted to show Sturgeon the data on risks of letting men self-identify into women’s changing rooms, bathrooms, rape crisis centres and domestic abuse shelters, to no avail. She’d dismissed all of them as unworthy of her time and attention.
Sturgeon tells us in Frankly that she wants to eradicate misogyny directed at women in the 'public sphere', ie, famous people like her and like me, who’re sent sexualised threats and insults. 'Sphere' is an interesting word, isn’t it? So very close to 'bubble'. While Sturgeon is focused on making sure no hurty sexist words penetrate hers, she’s entirely dismissive of the harms done in actual physical spaces, where she expected nurse Sandie Peggie to deal with a heavy menstrual flood in front of a cosplaying man, and vulnerable female prisoners to accept being incarcerated with trans-identified male sex offenders. The First Minister, with her police protection, her carefully monitored official residence and her chauffeured car just couldn’t see what these bigots were making a fuss about.
But then Isla Bryson burst into the news. Bryson, a convicted double rapist, had decided he was a woman and would rather be incarcerated with the sex against which he’d already committed the most male of crimes. When asked on television whether bald, blonde wig-wearing Bryson was a man or a woman, the First Minister, whose composure and articulacy under fire had, for years, been her most potent political asset, made herself look – and forgive me for employing a PR term here – a complete fuckwit.
Of course, the blame for her looking like a complete fuckwit lies with others. Nobody had warned her about Bryson, you see. She apparently had no idea that the very thing feminists had warned her was likely to happen, and had already happened – trans-identified man Katie Dolotowski had already sexually assaulted a ten-year-old girl in a public bathroom, and served his time in a women’s prison in Scotland – would happen again. She explains in Frankly that she was worried about the impact it would have on trans people if she denied Bryson was a woman.
Therein lies the problem in the smallest of nutshells. If you’re prepared to accept the foundational falsehood that some men are women, you’ll inevitably find yourself panicking like a pheasant caught in headlights one day, because to admit that even a single man who says he’s a woman isn’t means the whole edifice of gender self-ID collapses.
Does Sturgeon show any humility about this in Frankly? Come now – you know our heroine better than that. Far from apologising or reconsidering, she took to television once more and spoke the words she omits to include in her memoir, but that damned her forever among the women who’d fought hard against the authoritarian, misogynistic climate she’d done so much to foster.
‘There are people who have opposed this bill [the Gender Recognition Act] that cloak themselves in women’s rights to make it acceptable, but just as they’re transphobic you’ll also find that they’re deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well.’
This was Sturgeon’s 'basket of deplorables' moment, the quote that will – and should – be forever attached to her political legacy. Those words fell out of her mouth so easily and fluently they must have been either long suppressed or previously rehearsed, and in speaking them, she demonised and stigmatised not only women in her own party who’d believed in her integrity and worked hard to get her elected, but female survivors of sexual trauma, women with disabilities wanting same-sex care, lesbians asserting a right to associate without straight, cross-dressing men, everyone concerned about safety, privacy, fairness and dignity for girls, and regular women fighting not to be erased in law as a definable class with issues and needs specific to those with female anatomy.
And so to the three hundred thousand pound question: is Frankly a good read? Honestly, only if you find Nicola Sturgeon so fascinating the dull details of her political decision-making intrigue you, and are prepared to accept all her special pleading. The biggest impediment to enjoyment is that Sturgeon, like Bella Swan, has a complete void where a sense of humour should be. Bella’s best attempt at a witticism in Twilight is when she says, in answer to a query as to why she isn’t tanned, ‘my mother is half albino’. The only time Sturgeon makes what I think is supposed to be a joke is when she says of a teenage boyfriend, 'His nickname was Sparky (he wasn’t an aspiring electrician)'.
Most of the time, Frankly reads like a PR statement that’s been through sixteen drafts. The best anecdote is on page 120, when Sean Connery teaches Sturgeon an acting trick to lower her voice. But if you’re looking for a more scintillating read, I recommend The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht – especially if you want the real low down on the dystopian nightmare Sturgeon’s gender beliefs have imposed on Scottish women.
Of course, I might be missing the point. Maybe Frankly isn’t supposed to entertain, but to serve as what is sometimes called a CV distinguisher? Its author has expressed a fervent wish to escape the confines of Scotland, and is still young enough that a cushy sinecure with UN Women would be welcome. I hear a penis isn’t a prerequisite for absolutely all the women’s posts they hand out like candy.
Like vampires who attempt to blend in undetectably with regular humans, successful politicians must understand the public mood, if only to mimic or manipulate it. Neither group can afford to slip out of touch with the real-life concerns of normal people. The lifeblood of politics is connection, feigned or sincere. You have to understand, or pretend to, the hopes and fears animating the populace you’re supposed to be serving.
If, like gorgeous, muscular-chested Edward Cullen, you’re a Good Vampire – an ethical hunter determined to do no harm to humans – you won’t sneer at ordinary mortals' well-founded instinct for danger. You won't persecute women for being afraid, or for wishing to defend themselves. You’ll be self-aware enough to know that you have powers and protections they don’t.
By this standard, Nicola Sturgeon, unlike the eventually undead Bella Swan, isn’t a Good Vampire at all. She’s caused real, lasting harm by presiding over and encouraging a culture in which women have been silenced, shamed, persecuted and placed in situations that are degrading and unsafe, all for not subscribing to her own luxury beliefs.
So I’d like to suggest a more fitting epigraph for Frankly, one I feel represents its subject’s career far better than the words of Eleanor Roosevelt. Spoken by a solipsistic fictional teenager, but just as appropriate coming from the mouth of an arrogant woman of fifty-five who continues to believe the problem is always the wicked enemies who refuse to view matters her way:
Sometimes I wondered if I was seeing the same things through my eyes that the rest of the world was seeing through theirs. Maybe there was a glitch in my brain.Source.
Stephenie Meyer
Twilight
Snake named after Salazar Slytherin
More recently, a newly discovered species of pit viper has been named in both honour and dishonour of Salazar Slytherin.
Salazar’s pit viper (Trimeresurus salazar) is a species of venomous green pit viper first identified in the summer of 2019 in the Eastern Himalayas, specifically in the lowlands of western Arunachal Pradesh (India)[1]. It is characterized by a dark green, triangular, elongated head, and yellowish-green dorsal scales covering the rest of its body. The snake has a slender build and typically reaches a length of around 40 centimetres.
This species is sexually dichromatic, meaning males and females differ in colouration. Males display striking reddish-orange or yellow-orange stripes, along with a rusty red-orange tail, a feature that the females lack.
Salazar’s pit viper inhabits forested environments that are increasingly under threat from human development. Its diet consists of lizards, amphibians, birds, rodents, and other small mammals. Like many pit vipers, its venom is haemotoxic, destroying red blood cells, disrupting blood clotting, and causing tissue damage and organ degeneration.
Not the friendliest of namesakes, and certainly not the friendliest of snakes.
[1] Mirza et al: A new species of green pit vipers of the genus Trimeresurus Lacépède, 1804 (Reptilia, Serpentes, Viperidae) from western Arunachal Pradesh, India in Zoosystematics and Evolution – 2020. See here.
Harry Palmer and Harry Potter
In 1962, British writer Len Deighton (1929-2026) published his first spy story, 'The IPCRESS File'.
The story was written as a first-person narrative, and introduced a working-class protagonist, who was both cynical and tough. Deighton did not want to invent a name for the character and later explained that 'some people felt that a contrivance, but I kept putting off inventing a name for him until I got to the end of the book and realised I could finish the book without giving him a name'. Deighton then went on to write 'Horse Under Water' (1963), 'Funeral in Berlin' (1964), 'Billion Dollar Brain' (1966), and 'An Expensive Place to Die' (1967), also with the (still unnamed) intelligence officer.
But when it was decided that the first three of these spy novels would be made into movies, it became a problem that the main character was nameless. Actor Michael Caine was contracted to star in the main role, and the co-producer of the (early) James Bond movies, Harry Saltzman, would produce these three movies.
Michael Caine and Harry Saltzman sat together and discussed the problem. Michael Caine mentioned to Harry Salzman that he once knew a dull kid at school called 'Palmer', with Harry Saltzman saying 'good, and what about a first name?', to which Caine innocently remarked 'Harry', not immediately realising his gaffe until seeing Saltzman's icy stare.
Harry Potter
Joanne Rowling once commented of her choice of 'Harry Potter' as the name of the wizard: 'The joy of Harry Potter’s name was that it seemed like one so delightfully ordinary for someone who achieved so much.[1]'
This contrast emphasizes Harry's everyman quality—he starts as an unremarkable boy in a cupboard under the stairs before becoming the extraordinary 'Boy Who Lived.' The plainness helps make him relatable, not because Rowling wanted 'dull' per se, but to ground the fantasy in something familiar and humble.
It's a bane for all Harry's that two separate instances their name would be seen as 'ordinary'.
[1] Rowling: Discover the fascinating etymology behind Harry Potter character names! Published on PotterMore on May 10th, 2018. See here.
J.K. Rowling: The Condemnation of Emma Watson
I'm seeing quite a bit of comment about this, so I want to make a couple of points.
I'm not owed eternal agreement from any actor who once played a character I created. The idea is as ludicrous as me checking with the boss I had when I was twenty-one for what opinions I should hold these days.
Emma Watson and her co-stars have every right to embrace gender identity ideology. Such beliefs are legally protected, and I wouldn't want to see any of them threatened with loss of work, or violence, or death, because of them.
However, Emma and Dan in particular have both made it clear over the last few years that they think our former professional association gives them a particular right - nay, obligation - to critique me and my views in public. Years after they finished acting in Potter, they continue to assume the role of de facto spokespeople for the world I created.
When you've known people since they were ten years old it's hard to shake a certain protectiveness. Until quite recently, I hadn't managed to throw off the memory of children who needed to be gently coaxed through their dialogue in a big scary film studio. For the past few years, I've repeatedly declined invitations from journalists to comment on Emma specifically, most notably on the Witch Trials of JK Rowling. Ironically, I told the producers that I didn't want her to be hounded as the result of anything I said.
The television presenter in the attached clip highlights Emma's 'all witches' speech, and in truth, that was a turning point for me, but it had a postscript that hurt far more than the speech itself. Emma asked someone to pass on a handwritten note from her to me, which contained the single sentence 'I'm so sorry for what you're going through' (she has my phone number). This was back when the death, rape and torture threats against me were at their peak, at a time when my personal security measures had had to be tightened considerably and I was constantly worried for my family's safety. Emma had just publicly poured more petrol on the flames, yet thought a one line expression of concern from her would reassure me of her fundamental sympathy and kindness.
Like other people who've never experienced adult life uncushioned by wealth and fame, Emma has so little experience of real life she's ignorant of how ignorant she is. She'll never need a homeless shelter. She's never going to be placed on a mixed sex public hospital ward. I'd be astounded if she's been in a high street changing room since childhood. Her 'public bathroom' is single occupancy and comes with a security man standing guard outside the door. Has she had to strip off in a newly mixed-sex changing room at a council-run swimming pool? Is she ever likely to need a state-run rape crisis centre that refuses to guarantee an all-female service? To find herself sharing a prison cell with a male rapist who's identified into the women's prison?
I wasn't a multimillionaire at fourteen. I lived in poverty while writing the book that made Emma famous. I therefore understand from my own life experience what the trashing of women's rights in which Emma has so enthusiastically participated means to women and girls without her privileges.
The greatest irony here is that, had Emma not decided in her most recent interview to declare that she loves and treasures me - a change of tack I suspect she's adopted because she's noticed full-throated condemnation of me is no longer quite as fashionable as it was - I might never have been this honest.
Adults can't expect to cosy up to an activist movement that regularly calls for a friend's assassination, then assert their right to the former friend's love, as though the friend was in fact their mother. Emma is rightly free to disagree with me and indeed to discuss her feelings about me in public - but I have the same right, and I've finally decided to exercise it.
[Update 01 October 2025] Crash and Burn - The Emma Watson Story.
The Critical Drinker mercilessly takes down the spineless 'activist' Emma Watson.
"She shot to fame playing Hermione in Harry Potter, she was the darling of the indy film industry and well on her way to becoming an A-List starlet. But a dangerous flirtation with political activism and a public feud with J.K. Rowling effectively derailed her career, and just a few days ago, Emma Watson finally crashed and burned in spectacular fashion".
J.K. Rowling's Rebuttal of Some 'Open Letters'
'In light of recent open letters from academia and the arts criticising the UK's Supreme Court ruling on sex-based rights, it's possibly worth remembering that nobody sane believes, or has ever believed, that humans can change sex, or that binary sex isn't a material fact. These letters do nothing but remind us of what we know only too well: that pretending to believe these things has become an elitist badge of virtue.
I often wonder whether the signatories of such letters have to quieten their consciences before publicly boosting a movement intent on removing women's and girls' rights, which bullies gay people who admit openly they don't want opposite sex partners, and campaigns for the continued sterilisation of vulnerable and troubled kids. Do they feel any qualms at all while chanting the foundational lie of their religion: Trans Women are Women, Trans Men are Men?
I have no idea. All I know for sure is that it's a complete waste of time telling a gender activist that their favourite slogan is self-contradictory nonsense, because the lie is the whole point. They're not repeating it because it's true - they know full well it's not true - but because they believe they can make it true, sort of, if they force everyone else to agree. The foundational lie functions as both catechism and crucifix: the set form of words that obviates the tedious necessity of coming up with your own explanation of why you're one of the Godly, and an exorcist's weapon which will defeat demonic facts and reason, and promote the advance of righteous pseudoscience and sophistry.
Some argue that signatories of these sorts of letters are motivated by fear: fear for their careers, of course, but also fear of their co-religionists, who include angry, narcissistic men who threaten and sometimes enact violence on non-believers; back-stabbing colleagues ever ready to report wrongthink; the online shamers and doxxers and rape threateners, and, of course, the influential zealots in the upper echelons of liberal professions (though we can quibble whether they're actually liberal at all, given the draconian authoritarianism that seems to have engulfed so many). Gender ideology could give medieval Catholicism a run for its money when it comes to punishing heretics, so isn't it common sense to keep your head down and recite your Hail Mulvaneys?
But before we start feeling too sorry for any cowed and fearful TWAWites who're TERFy on the sly, let's not forget what a high proportion of them have willingly snatched up pitchforks and torches to join the inquisitional purges. Call me lacking in proper womanly sympathy, but I find the harm they've enabled and in some cases directly championed or funded - the hounding and shaming of vulnerable women, the forced loss of livelihoods, the unregulated medical experiment on minors - tends to dry up my tears at source.
History is littered with the debris of irrational and harmful belief systems that once seemed unassailable. As Orwell said, 'Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.' Gender ideology may have embedded itself deeply into our institutions, where it's been imposed, top-down, on the supposedly unenlightened, but it is not invulnerable.
Court losses are starting to stack up. The condescension, overreach, entitlement and aggression of gender activists is eroding public support daily. Women are fighting back and winning significant victories. Sporting bodies have miraculously awoken from their slumber and remembered that males tend to be larger, stronger and faster than females. Parts of the medical establishment are questioning cutting healthy breasts off teenaged girls is really the best way to fix their mental health problems.
One seemingly harmless little white lie - Trans Women are Women, Trans Men are Men - uttered in most cases without any real thought at all, and a few short years later, people who think of themselves as supremely virtuous are typing 'yes, rapists' pronouns are absolutely the hill I'll die on,' rubbing shoulders with those who call for women to be hanged and decapitated for wanting all-female rape crisis centres, and furiously denying clear and mounting evidence of the greatest medical scandal in a century.
I wonder if they ever ask themselves how they got here, and I wonder whether any of them will ever feel shame.'
J.K. Rowling: What was the Name of that Nymph Again?
or
Greek and Roman Studies Recalled
by Joanne Rowling[1]
I enquire now as to the genesis of a philologist and assert the following:
1. A young man cannot possibly know what Greeks and Romans are.
2. He does not know whether he is suited for finding out about them.
Unzeitgemässe Betrachtungen
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
However, I was not asked to contribute a book review ("asked to contribute", how I love that phrase… that I should be asked to contribute to the Classics department magazine… the irony…) The point is that Nietzsche’s ominous assertions gave me pause for thought, and then a hearty guffaw, because the reason the Classics department of Exeter University ever let me in is a mystery right up there with anything the Bacchae got up to, a feeling I probably shared with the department once it realised what it had done.
I arrived at Exeter enrolled for joint honours French and German, but it soon became apparent to me that what German and I needed was a clean break, with no empty promises about staying friends. It was then that I turned thoughtfully towards the Classics department. Somewhere along those unknown corridors, it was whispered, lurked a subsidiary course which went by the name of “Greek and Roman Studies”, and the word on the street was that one did not need any Greek or Latin to join up. This was fortunate, as my Latin consisted of the word cave, which I had gleaned from the Molesworth book.
I was uncomfortably aware as I entered the unfamiliar department that I knew pitifully little about what the study of Classics might involve. The Comprehensive I had just left had never dropped any hints; the headmaster’s ramblings about Heraclitus had been admired about as much as his halitosis. Nevertheless, I had somewhere along the line gained the impression that Classics meant Culture. As far as I was concerned, behind these doors lay a world of mysterious, runic knowledge, and I was keen to be let in. I lingered furtively around a noticeboard for a while, trying to compose an eloquent plea for admission. Then, not entirely confident about my material, I knocked on the relevant door, entered, and I found myself face to face with a man I shall call Professor X (to shield him from the Aryan equivalent of a fatwah, as we shall see).
Professor X had a moustache that positively shouted ancient learning, and my nervousness increased. I explained why I had come and braced myself for a close examination of my non-existent classical credentials. I was taken aback when the first words from under that classical moustache were "You want to leave the German department? I don’t blame you."
I can’t remember another word we said to each other, but I am certain that none of Nietzsche’s quibbles came up. Possibly Professor X’s admirable antipathy towards the German department extended to Nietszche. Ten minutes after I had knocked at Professor X’s door, I was tripping ecstatically off to the book shop to buy a stack of stylish black-covered Penguins.
My mood of excitement was short-lived, however. I left my very first Classics lecture feeling that the whole thing would have been just as comprehensible in German, or indeed Kurdish. There were slides of fragments of vases and a commentary from a distinguished looking man that I was sure would be enthralling if I had the faintest idea what he was talking about. This was a level of bewilderment I had never reached before, which was saying something, because in those days I was so disorganised that turning up at the right lecture theatre was often more a matter of luck than judgement. I sat and listened with a mounting sense of a panic while all around me people scribbled assiduously with every appearance of understanding the gibberish issuing from behind the projector.
The odd thing is that I never, then or later, contemplated another change of subject. I was quite sure that the fault lay with me, not with Classics (whereas with German, I had been more sinned against than sinning).
The unfortunate man who had most to do with me during my classical career was Dr. Y. Dr. Y made quite an impression on me. Once, under the influence of too long a night in the Ram, I decided that what was missing from his life was a Valentine card signed with a quotation from Phaedra. A cunning touch, I felt; he would never guess it was from me, because I had never given him reason to suppose I’d opened Phaedra. Then again, the card must have arrived two days late, which might have given him a valuable clue.
Dr Y’s tolerance towards my frightening ignorance of his subject was awe-inspiring. The closest he ever came to admonishing me for my erratic attendance and propensity to lose every handout he gave me the moment we parted company was when he described me as sleepwalking around the place. This was said with an expression of mingled patience and amusement. I lived to regret repeating his remark to friends. It was sufficiently apt for them to repeat it rather more often than I found funny.
I had a vague idea that Dr. Y might help lift my fog of confusion if I asked him, directly, for help. The trouble was that I just couldn’t bring myself to reveal how dense the fog was. I was well paid for this vanity the day we sat down to examine the life and times of a mass-murderer and bigamist called Theseus.
“What is the most obvious question we should ask about Theseus?” said Dr. Y, throwing the debate wide open. The question that popped instantly into my brain was, “Did he really exist?” Naturally, I did not utter it aloud. I knew that would reveal only too clearly my unsuitability to find out about Theseus. I sat in bitter silence, knowing that what he wanted was one of those not remotely obvious questions these classical types kept asking, which were always the cue for comprehensible stories to mutate suddenly into bizarre metaphors and symbols. Only the previous week, a thrilling tale of kidnap starring one Persephone had turned out to be about crop storage.
A student we shall call Hugh, because that was his name, broke the silence.
“Did he really exist?” he suggested lazily.
“Exactly“, said Dr Y, with an approving smile.
A thousand curses. Just once, I could have earned an approving smile. I was sure my chance would never come again, and I was quite right. Twelve years later, it is still Dr. Y and smug Hugh who spring to mind whenever I teeter on the verge of posing a possibly stupid question.
Dr. Y was wearing his familiar expression of barely suppressed amusement when he told me two years later that I had passed the course. He admitted that given my disastrous first paper, he was rather surprised that I had managed it. I sat opposite him, feeling that at long last, I had the advantage of him – I was much more surprised than he was.
There is no getting away from the fact that I did not get from the Classics department what Dr. Y and his colleagues set out to give me, but that was my fault, not theirs. On the plus side, the farmers of Devon had no reason to fear me, and my bedclothes stayed where they were supposed to. Greek and Roman Studies gave me a few things I value even more highly than my fond memories of The Frogs: two of the best friends I ever made at university, for instance, and the unforgettable experience of being lectured to by a person best known simply as Z. It was Z I had in mind when I created Professor Binns, a minor character in the novel I published last year. More than that I am not prepared to say; we all know how underpaid university lecturers are, and I have no wish to be sued.
Perhaps, in the deepest and truest sense, I still don’t really know what Greeks and Romans are, but I’ve never entirely given up hope of lifting a little more fog. A shelf next to me as I tap out these words is dotted with books on Greek mythology, all of which were purchased post-Exeter. And I’m confident I know more than Dr. Y would have credited when I left his office for the last time: enough to inform a pair of bemused four-year-olds with whom I watched Disney’s latest offering that Heracles definitely didn’t own Pegasus. That was Bellerophon, as any fool knows.
[1] Rowling: Pegasus: Journal of the University of Exeter Department of Classics and Ancient History - 1998.
Hogwarts and Hogmanay
Origin of the name 'Hogwarts'
According to wizard lore, Hogwarts got its name after Rowena Ravenclaw dreamt of a warty hog (or warthog) that lead her to a cliff by a lake. This explanation cannot be true, since warthogs do not live in Scotland. They are pigs that live in sub-Saharan Africa.
Since Hogwarts is located in Scotland, its name has probably connections with (the feast of) Hogmanay, the word for the last day of the old year and synonymous with the celebration of the New Year. Another potential connection is the Hogfather, mythical creature akin to Father Christmas, who grants children's wishes on Hogswatchnight (December 32) and brings them presents[2].
It seems that '-manay' in Hogmanay is cognate with Old-Norse mánaðr or mánuðr ('month').
Etymology of 'Hog-'
The etymology of the part 'hog' is vague.
It can be speculated that the roots of Hogmanay may reach back to the celebration of the winter solstice, or the shortest day, among the Norse[3]. I think that Old-Norse höggu-nótt or höku-nótt, meaning the 'Hewing Night' or 'Butchering Night' must be the origin of the feast of Hogmanay. It coincides with 'Midwinter Night'. It appears to have been the most solemn sacrificial festival of the Norse. It might well be the source of the 'hog' in both Hogmanay and Hogwarts.
Etymology of '-warts'
The etymology of the part 'warts' is less problematic.
It is possibly a corruption of the Old English word weard, meaning 'keeper', 'watchman', 'guard', 'guardian', 'protector'.
![]() |
| [Ring of Brodgar - Orkney Islands] |
Conclusion
Could the name of Hogwarts therefore mean 'guardian of the winter solstice'? That would mean the castle had a very important and hitherto unknown extra task, equivalent to the many prehistoric monuments in Scotland.
Again, we discover that Joanne Rowling has a firm grasp of history.
[1] Joanne Rowling: The Prisoner of Azkaban - 1999.
[2] Terry Pratchett: The Hogfather - 1996.
[3] Ben Johnson: The history of Hogmanay – 2021. See here.
J.K. Rowling turns blue
Maybe she's been searching for the exact location of Durmstrang, the notorious school of magic that is one of the most secretive of all schools about its whereabouts. See here.
Anyway, she does look gorgeous, doesn't she?
Ant named after Voldemort
Lead researcher Dr. Mark Wong said that the fearsome antagonist in Harry Potter and the ant both have a ghostly and slender appearance and live in the shadows.”.
The ant was discovered in an ecological survey that documented animals living below ground in the arid Pilbara region in the north of Western Australia.
"Only two specimens of the new ant species were found, and both were collected in a net lowered down a 25-meter drill hole and retrieved by scraping against the hole's inner surface," Wong said.
"Unlike most ants, species of Leptanilla live in small colonies, usually comprising a queen and only a hundred or so workers, and nest and forage exclusively underground," Dr. Wong said. "Adapting to life in darkness, Leptanilla workers are blind, devoid of pigmentation, and measure between just one to two millimeters—not much larger than a grain of sand—allowing them to move effortlessly through the soil."
Leptanilla voldemort is only the second Leptanilla species discovered on the Australian continent.
"From what we know from the few observations of other Leptanilla species and the highly specialized, sharp mandibles of Leptanilla Voldemort, this new species is almost surely a predator, a fearsome hunter in the dark," Dr. Wong said. "While the exact prey of Leptanilla voldemort remains unclear, other Leptanilla species are known to use their sharp jaws and powerful stings to immobilize soil-dwelling centipedes much larger than themselves, before carrying their larvae over to feed on the carcass."
[1] Wong et al, Leptanilla voldemort sp. nov., a gracile new species of the hypogaeic ant genus Leptanilla (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from the Pilbara, with a key to Australian Leptanilla in ZooKeys - 2024. See here.
Durmstrang and 'Sturm und Drang'
![]() |
| [Rising of the moon from the sea by Caspar David Friedrich (1774-1840)] |
The first of these unhappy men, Harfang Munter, took over the school shortly after the mysterious death of its founder, the great Bulgarian witch Nerida Vulchanova. Munter established Durmstrang’s reputation for dueling and all forms of martial magic, which remain an impressive part of its curriculum today. The second dark period in Durmstrang’s history came with the Headmastership of Igor Karkaroff, an ex-Death Eater who fled his post upon the return from exile of Lord Voldemort, fearing the latter’s retribution. Karkaroff was an unprincipled and egotistical man who encouraged a culture of fear and intimidation among the students, and many parents withdrew their children from Durmstrang while he was in charge.
The ex-pupil who has done more than any other to cause damage to Durmstrang’s reputation was Gellert Grindelwald (1882 or 1883-1998), one of the most dangerous wizards of the twentieth century. However, in recent years, Durmstrang has undergone something of a renaissance, and has produced such international luminaries as international Quidditch star Viktor Krum (1976).
Where is Durmstrang?
Although believed to be situated in the far north of Europe, Durmstrang is one of the most secretive of all schools about its whereabouts, so nobody can be quite certain of its location. Most think that Durmstrang must be located somewhere in northern Scandinavia, but some speculate that the school might even be located on one of the Norwegian Arctic islands like Spitsbergen (Svalbard) or Bear Island (Bjørnøya).
Another possibility is a location in the northern reaches of the Urals (Russia), as the dark reputation of the school correlates neatly with the Russian mindset.
![]() |
| [Northern Urals: Manpupuner Plateau and Dyatlov Pass] |
Visitors to Durmstrang, who must comply with memory charms to erase their knowledge of how they got there, speak of vast, sprawling grounds with many stunning views, not least of the great, dark, spectral ship that is moored on a mountain lake behind the school, from which students dive in summertime.
Sturm und Drang
A liberating sort of spin-off of Durmstrang was 'Sturm und Drang', a proto-Romantic movement in German literature, music, and painting (see painting of Caspar David Friedrich above) that occurred between the late 1760s and early 1780s. The term is usually translated as 'Storm and Stress' with a sense of purpose. However, a better translation of 'Drang' would be 'Urge'.
Extremes of emotion were given free expression in reaction to the perceived constraints of rationalism imposed by the Enlightenment and associated aesthetic movements. The period is named after Friedrich Maximilian Klinger's play of the same name, which was first performed in 1777.
Sturm und Drang was possibly invented by former students of Durmstrang to form a community of wizards in plain sight that could help them to overcome the psychological effects of the harsh constraints of their infamous school.
Source (partly)
Azkaban
Azkaban has existed since the fifteenth century and was not originally a prison at all. The island in the North Sea upon which the first fortress was built never appeared on any map, Muggle or wizarding, and is believed to have been created, or enlarged, by magical means. The fortress upon it was originally home to a little-known sorcerer who called himself Ekrizdis. Evidently extremely powerful, but of unknown nationality, Ekrizdis, who is believed to have been insane, was a practitioner of the worst kinds of Dark Arts. Alone in the middle of the ocean, he lured, tortured and killed Muggle sailors, apparently for pleasure, and only when he died, and the concealment charms he had cast faded away, did the Ministry of Magic realise that either island or building existed. Those who entered to investigate refused afterwards to talk of what they had found inside, but the least frightening part of it was that the place was infested with Dementors.
Many in authority thought Azkaban an evil place that was best destroyed. Others were afraid of what might happen to the Dementors infesting the building if they deprived them of their home. The creatures were already strong and impossible to kill; many feared a horrible revenge if they took away a habitat where they appeared to thrive. The very walls of the building seemed steeped in misery and pain, and the Dementors were determined to cling to it. Experts who had studied buildings built with and around Dark magic contended that Azkaban might wreak its own revenge upon anybody attempting to destroy it. The fortress was therefore left abandoned for many years, a home to continually breeding Dementors.
Once the International Statute of Secrecy had been imposed, the Ministry of Magic felt that the small wizarding prisons that existed up and down the country in various towns and villages posed a security risk, because attempts by incarcerated witches and wizards to break out often led to undesirable bangs, smells and light shows. A purpose-built prison, located on some remote Hebridean island, was preferred, and plans had been drawn up when Damocles Rowle became Minister for Magic.
Rowle was an authoritarian who had risen to power on an anti-Muggle agenda, capitalising on the anger felt by much of the wizarding community at being forced to go underground. Sadistic by nature, Rowle scrapped the plans for the new prison at once and insisted on using Azkaban. He claimed that the Dementors living there were an advantage: they could be harnessed as guards, saving the Ministry time, trouble and expense.
In spite of opposition from many wizards, among them experts on both Dementors and buildings with Azkaban’s kind of Dark history, Rowle carried out his plan and soon a steady trickle of prisoners had been placed there. None ever emerged. If they were not mad and dangerous before being placed in Azkaban, they swiftly became so.
Rowle was succeeded by Perseus Parkinson, who was likewise pro-Azkaban. By the time that Eldritch Diggory took over as Minister for Magic, the prison had been operating for fifteen years. There had been no breakouts and no breaches of security. The new prison seemed to be working well. It was only when Diggory went to visit that he realised exactly what conditions inside were like. Prisoners were mostly insane and a graveyard had been established to accommodate those that died of despair.
Back in London, Diggory established a committee to explore alternatives to Azkaban, or at least to remove the Dementors as guards. Experts explained to him that the only reason the Dementors were (mostly) confined to the island was that they were being provided with a constant supply of souls on which to feed. If deprived of prisoners, they were likely to abandon the prison and head for the mainland.
This advice notwithstanding, Diggory had been so horrified by what he had seen inside Azkaban that he pressed the committee to find alternatives. Before they could reach any decision, however, Diggory caught dragon pox and died. From that time until the advent of Kingsley Shacklebolt, no Minister ever seriously considered closing Azkaban. They turned a blind eye to the inhumane conditions inside the fortress, permitted it to be magically enlarged and expanded and rarely visited, due to the awful effects of entering a building populated by thousands of Dementors. Most justified their attitude by pointing to the prison’s perfect record at keeping prisoners locked up.
Nearly three centuries passed before that record was broken. A young man was successfully smuggled out of the prison when his visiting mother exchanged places with him, something that the blind and loveless Dementors could not detect and would have never expected. This escape was followed by another, still more ingenious and impressive, when Sirius Black managed to evade the Dementors single-handedly.
The weakness of the prison was demonstrated amply over the next few years, when two mass breakouts occurred, both involving Death Eaters. By this time the Dementors had given their allegiance to Lord Voldemort, who could guarantee them scope and freedom hitherto un-tasted. Albus Dumbledore was one who had long disapproved of the use of Dementors as guards, not only because of the inhumane treatment of the prisoners in their power, but because he foresaw the possible shift in loyalties of such Dark creatures.
Under Kingsley Shacklebolt, Azkaban was purged of Dementors. While it remains in use as a prison, the guards are now Aurors, who are regularly rotated from the mainland. There has been no breakout since this new system was introduced.
Author’s notes
The name ‘Azkaban’ derives from a mixture of the prison ‘Alcatraz’, which is its closest Muggle equivalent, being set on an island, and abaddon (אבדון), which is a Hebrew word meaning ‘place of destruction’ or ‘depths of hell’. Ultimately from אבד (ʾāḇaḏ) with the meaning of 'to be lost' and 'to perish'.
Dementors and Autocondimentors are two entirely different entities. See here.
Source.
J.K. Rowling: My View on Women
I don’t believe a woman is more or less of a woman for having sex with men, women, both or not wanting sex at all. I don’t think a woman is more or less of a woman for having a buzz cut and liking suits and ties, or wearing stilettos and mini dresses, for being black, white or brown, for being six feet tall or a little person, for being kind or cruel, angry or sad, loud or retiring. She isn't more of a woman for featuring in Playboy or being a surrendered wife, nor less of a woman for designing space rockets or taking up boxing. What makes her a woman is the fact of being born in a body that, assuming nothing has gone wrong in her physical development (which, as stated above, still doesn't stop her being a woman), is geared towards producing eggs as opposed to sperm, towards bearing as opposed to begetting children, and irrespective of whether she's done either of those things, or ever wants to.
Womanhood isn't a mystical state of being, nor is it measured by how well one apes sex stereotypes. We are not the creatures either porn or the Bible tell you we are. Femaleness is not, as trans woman Andrea Chu Long wrote, ‘an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes,’ nor are we God’s afterthought, sprung from Adam’s rib.
Women are provably subject to certain experiences because of our female bodies, including different forms of oppression, depending on the cultures in which we live. When trans activists say 'I thought you didn't want to be defined by your biology,' it’s a feeble and transparent attempt at linguistic sleight of hand. Women don't want to be limited, exploited, punished, or subject to other unjust treatment because of their biology, but our being female is indeed defined by our biology. It's one material fact about us, like having freckles or disliking beetroot, neither of which are representative of our entire beings, either. Women have billions of different personalities and life stories, which have nothing to do with our bodies, although we are likely to have had experiences men don't and can't, because we belong to our sex class.
Some people feel strongly that they should have been, or wish to be seen as, the sex class into which they weren't born. Gender dysphoria is a real and very painful condition and I feel nothing but sympathy for anyone who suffers from it. I want them to be free to dress and present themselves however they like and I want them to have exactly the same rights as every other citizen regarding housing, employment and personal safety. I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. I believe the ideology that preaches those tenets has caused, and continues to cause, very real harm to vulnerable people.
I am strongly against women's and girls' rights and protections being dismantled to accommodate trans-identified men, for the very simple reason that no study has ever demonstrated that trans-identified men don't have exactly the same pattern of criminality as other men, and because, however they identify, men retain their advantages of speed and strength. In other words, I think the safety and rights of girls and women are more important than those men's desire for validation.
Was J. K. Rowling a fan of 'Lethal Weapon'?
Riggs and Murtaugh do not get along well at first as Murtaugh is equally dismissive of Riggs's mental state, but is eventually convinced Riggs is truly suicidal.
Together they uncover a massive drug-trafficking ring. As they encounter increasingly dangerous situations, Riggs and Murtaugh begin to form a bond. Riggs' volatile behavior might just help them apprehend the criminals.
Lethal Weapon remains one of those rare 1980s action movies that has managed to pass the test of time and is still shown regularly on television.
But how do we know that J.K. Rowling liked (or loved) this movie?
On page 48 of the Bloomsbury pocket-edition of 'Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets' (1998) we find ourselves in Ron's bedroom where Harry Potter spots a pile of comics which all seemed to feature The Adventures of Martin Miggs, The Mad Muggle.
Was J. K. Rowling a fan of 'Lethal Weapon'?
The origin of the word 'Quidditch'
So, it is the most popular game played by witches and wizards. As there are no known witches and wizards alive, one would imagine that quidditch isn't played anymore.
You'd be wrong in thinking that, because idiots with broomsticks between their legs imagined that they played quidditch. But now, because Rowling is a bit controversial in some small circles, these spineless people want to change the name of their game.
The 'governing bodies' said that 'Quidditch' will henceforth be known as 'Quadball.' The name change is to distance itself from author Rowling's comments to protect 'real' women from predatory men who claim to identify as women. Besides, the organisations do not own the tradename 'Quidditch', which is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.
The question you might ask is: where did J.K. Rowling find the idea for the word 'quidditch'?
In scholastic philosophy, 'quiddity' – deriving form the Latin quidditas - was another term for the essence of an object, literally its 'whatness' or 'what it is'. The Latin word quidditas, which was used by the medieval scholastics as a literal translation of the equivalent term in Aristotle's Greek to ti en einai (τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι)) or "the what it was to be (a given thing".
In law, the term is used to refer to a quibble or academic point. An example can be seen in Hamlet's graveside speech found in Hamlet by William Shakespeare. "Where be his quiddities now, his quillets, his cases, his tenures" says Hamlet, referring to a lawyer's quiddities.
The adaption of the word 'quiddity' to form 'quidditch' shows how well-read J.K. Rowling is, in stark contrast to the people who continue to attack her with false arguments. Or fallacies, as Rowling would probably say.
J.K. Rowling killed off in book by vile author
Transgender author Gretchen Felker-Martin had a sinister idea: let's add a scene in which J.K. Rowling is killed off during a fire at a Scottish castle in a story a character is telling around a campfire. While J.K. Rowling is not an actual character in the book, there are several references to her.
![]() | |
| [The killer] |
Why, you of sound mind may wonder, would a sane person write such a reprehensible scene?
To explain we have to start with the acronym TERF which means trans-exclusionary radical feminists. Those are women who have a twisted sense of entitlement. If you are a regular gay person, they think, you are assimilated by the system, because you have all the rights (and duties) heteros also have.
TERF's are feminists who exclude transgender women in their fight for women’s rights — Rowling is considered by some as a TERF due to some supposedly transphobic tweets she has shared on social media. Rowling is their personal Voldemort.
Felker-Martin's book, whose title will not be named, is set in an apocalyptic world in which people with a sufficient amount of testosterone get turned into monstrous beasts. All that remains of humanity are cisgender women, non-binary people, transgender men, and transgender women.
The story is told from a trans perspective, as characters hunt down feral former humans and try to escape a faction of authoritarian trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) called “The Legion,” who are trying to murder transgender people and anybody else who gets in their way.
![]() |
| [The victim] |
You will understand that the book is utter rubbish. It was only published because the publishers were afraid they would be called racists or whatever phraseology is currently in vogue.
“I have no idea how this even got published. The existence of this book proves once again that misogyny is alright as long as you identify as a member of a certain group,” one reviewer complained. “If you want to read a messed-up individual’s unhinged violent sexual fantasies against women, then this is the book for you!”
[Update Februari 18, 2023] Gretchen Felker-Martin hasn't learned from the backlash of her 'book'. She now want's to slit J.K. Rowlings' troat. See here. Her depravity is beyond words.
J.K. Rowling gets 'doxxed'
On 19 November 2021, the eve of Transgender Day of Remembrance 'comedian' Holly Stars, 'actor' Georgia Frost (just three small parts) and 'drag king' Richard Energy staged a demonstration in front of Rowling's home near Edinburgh, Scotland, in protest against her controversial views on the trans community.
So, you already have a special day, you can safely walk the streets in any guise or disguise you feel comfortable in and still you think it's a good idea to demonstrate your complete stupidity.
In a thread on Twitter, Rowling bashed the trio for 'doxxing' her when they posted a now-deleted photo with her home address clearly visible in the background. 'Doxxing' is the publication of someone's private information online without their consent.
"I have to assume that @IAmGeorgiaFrost, @hollywstars and @Richard_Energy_ thought doxxing me would intimidate me out of speaking up for women’s sex-based rights," Rowling wrote. "They should have reflected on the fact that I’ve now received so many death threats I could paper the house with them, and I haven’t stopped speaking out."
"Perhaps — and I’m just throwing this out there — the best way to prove your movement isn’t a threat to women, is to stop stalking, harassing and threatening us," she added.
Of course, they didn't mind that Rowling continuously gets threatened and feels threatened by their brainless action, but the moment the trio were getting some flak back, they immediately felt victimised. All three activists have now (temporarily, mark my word) taken down their Twitter accounts, claiming online harassment. You reap what you sow.
![]() |
| [Look at the trio of losers] |
The world is getting madder and madder. Where's real magic when you need it.
J.K. Rowling declines to be part of documentary
In November 2021 HBO Max announced it would bring together the cast members from all eight Harry Potter films for a retrospective special entitled 'Harry Potter 20th Anniversary: Return To Hogwarts'.
The press release mentioned the special would feature Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson. One name, however, was conspicuously absent, that of J.K. Rowling, who created the entire wizarding universe. Rowling made Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson famous and wealthy.
So, why does Joanne Rowling not appear in this 'retrospective special', one might ask. Rumours say that 'Rowling will be shown in archival footage from the creation of the first movie, but will not make a new appearance in the special'.
The carefully worded press-release is deliberately vague of why she wasn't invited. I know she declined to be part of this reunion, because of the treacherous behaviour of Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson in Rowling's war of words with the eternally angry woke community.
The facts are here. Rowling is victimised for speaking the truth.
These spoiled brats bit the hand of the very woman who fed them. One had hoped that this trio would have a compassionate heart or had grown a spine, so they would have stood bravely by their friend. By by cowardly choosing the side of woke idiots, Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson betrayed Rowling and everything she stands for.
Look at them now. Radcliffe looks like an alcoholic who has been living rough for years. Grint has a career that seems to be heading to Knockturn Alley, and the talentless Watson seems to have retired from acting altogether. I can therefore quite understand that they gladly took the opportunity to get some much needed publicity (and money).
It's also easy to understand that Joanne Rowling kept her distance from 'Harry Potter 20th Anniversary: Return To Hogwarts'.
J.K. Rowling: The Christmas Pig
'The Christmas Pig' will be simultaneously published on Tuesday 12th October 2021 in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and India by Hachette Children’s Group, in the US and Canada by Scholastic, in over twenty other languages by other publishers and as an audiobook in English, Spanish, German, French, Japanese and Italian by Audible, making it a truly global publication.
'The Christmas Pig' is a heartwarming, page-turning adventure about one child’s love for his most treasured toy, and how far he will go to find it. It’s a standalone story, unrelated to any of J.K. Rowling’s previous work, and is suitable for children 8+: a tale for the whole family to fall in love with.
Jack loves his childhood toy, Dur Pig. DP has always been there for him, through good and bad. Until one Christmas Eve something terrible happens – DP is lost. But Christmas Eve is a night for miracles and lost causes, a night when all things can come to life – even toys… And Jack’s newest toy – the Christmas Pig (DP’s annoying replacement) – has a daring plan: Together they’ll embark on a magical journey to seek something lost, and to save the best friend Jack has ever known…
Ruth Alltimes, Senior Group Publisher at Hachette Children’s Books, describes it as ‘a sparkling gem of a story that is destined to find its way into the hearts of children and families across the world this Christmas, and forever after.’ Ellie Berger, President of Scholastic Trade books, says ‘a gift for children and families alike, this story about the enduring power of love can be read together as a holiday tradition, and as a classic tale to be savoured, any day of the year.’
'The Christmas Pig' is J.K. Rowling’s first children’s novel since Harry Potter, and follows her brilliant return to publishing for children with last year’s fairy tale 'The Ickabog', which was serialised online for free for children in lockdown and then published with all her royalties donated to her charitable trust Volant to help vulnerable groups impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. She looks forward to connecting with her younger readers again this winter.

























