zelda_queen | I'm really freaked out, and it has to do with Hogwarts Exposed

Current Mood: anxious

Entry tags:

I'm really freaked out, and it has to do with Hogwarts Exposed

Okay, where to begin with this thing?

First of all, you guys know that I use this journal almost exclusively for ranting in actual reviews. I don't have entries for personal issues or day-to-day matters or most anything that isn't an actual sporking or recap. But I have to talk about this. It's really, really, really got me freaked out.

It's about Hogwarts Exposed.

You all might remember some time ago my mentioning that I made a TV Tropes page dedicated to it. At the time, I figured it was pretty inconsequential. The sporkings were finishing up, it had been literally years since any updates of any kind, and it was my first stab at actually making a page for anything.

Some days ago, someone began seriously editing the page. Specifically, someone began vehemently defending it.

I shall repeat that. Someone, claiming to be a serious fan of Hogwarts Exposed, showed up and has been insisting that the page was clearly biased and needed "correcting".

I don't mean a few small changes either, nor do I mean that they are removing unnecessary natter on the IJBM page (which has happened before, yes, and I do understand why the mods want to down accusations of pedophilia, however justified it may be) or trying to make the page look more professional or moving YMMV tropes to the proper page. No, this person is insisting that Hogwarts Exposed is a piece of fine writing and is seriously defending this thing.

Thus far, here are a number of various claims this person has made, either to me directly in PM, on the entry pages itself, or the IJBM pages:

- Hogwarts Exposed d oes not count as child porn, because "There has to be minors involved for it to be child pornography. Fictional characters do not count as human beings, and therefor, do not count as minors, therefor it is not child pornography". Apparently this person thinks that child porn is porn staring real children and not the sexual exploitation of children, period.

- Hermione was in no way Chickified. He has, as of last editing, put her down as Action Mom ("Hermione, if you fuck with her kids. She will stay up for days to hunt you down"), Badass Bookworm, Badass in Distress, Battle Couple with Harry (refresh my memory, did she ever actually do any fighting with him in the series?), and Mama Bear

- It's unfair to trash the series for being lolicon, because people on TV Tropes defend Kodomo No Jikan. (For those who don't know, Kodomo No Jikan is a manga/anime about a nine-year-old girl who, after dealing with many emotional issues, declares that she's her twenty-three-year-old teacher's girlfriend and starts resorting to sexual harassment and blackmail at times to win his affections. Tellingly, its North American title was planned to be "Nymphet", but it was never actually released, due to the vast controversy over it)

- The various subplots, including Emily's bet with Rosaline, are totally not idiot plots. Even if they are, they ought to be stretched out because if the characters showed sense and solved the problems accordingly, there would be complaints about how conflicts were resolved too quickly

- It's fine that the Mary Sues don't overcome flaws like their idiocy, because some characters like Buffy the Vampire Slayer are meant to not overcome their flaws

- It's impossible to have a non-strawman evil lawyer. Specifically, "The problem with making non-strawman bad guys is the situation. Bullchip, for example, couldn't be physically threatening. All he had was lawyering. It's hard to do anything non-strawman with an evil lawyer. The only way to make them evil is to make them a threat to the characters, but they normally can't be physically imposing (unless they work for an evil law firm, but that idea has been done). So they have to pose a threat by trying to cause other problems for the characters, by attacking their morality. Since we're supposed to agree with the morality of the main characters in this, they come off as strawmen because the only way to make them a threat is for them to be strawmen. You could argue that they should win more often, but that might not be easy to do, especially if you're trying to avoid mentally torturing your characters (an easy thing to do, if you come to think of them as human beings you care about). Plus, if you've plotted out the storyline already, which it seems that Neil has done, then you're not going to want to divert from your plan"

- Harry totally wasn't engaging in child grooming-esque behavior with his little harem. The sexual topics he talked about with the girls were all totally age-appropriate, because "Pre-teens are having sex very often these days, and talk about sex a whole lot. I personally saw R-rated movies with sexual content before I was a teen, and in once case, before I was 10. Puberty is starting earlier than ever in both sexes (I had a friend with b-cups (at least) in third grade, and that was before people started noticing the earlier puberty in kids that's been going on)" (That one seriously squicked me out, because it sounds like the narrator from Lolita talking about his little nymphet stepdaughter)

- It's normal for parents to spoil their children and let them get away with behavior like Harry and Hermione do with their girls. That totally makes their parenting alright

- The series wasn't filled with spelling and grammar errors. Every time this was pointed out, he insisted that he simply didn't notice them or wasn't bothered by them

- He has made pages for Hogwarts Exposed for Crowning Moment of Awesome, Crowning Moment of Heartwarming, and Crowning Moment of Funny. In other words, he put Hogwarts Exposed on the Sugar Wiki

I'm...genuinely freaked out by this guy. I can not, for the life of me, understand why he's defending this thing so badly. I mean, I've stood up for bad stuff I've liked, lord knows, but to go on this much? To say "It's totally not misogynistic and pedo-wank" even after acknowledging Neil's insistence that he intends for everything to be seen as totally innocent.

And to top it all off, I honestly have a sneaking suspicion that he could be Neil. I'm serious.

So yeah. I'm really freaked out and confused by this guy, and I just need to get my head together. This guy astonishes and infuriates me, and I know it's a public wiki and I shouldn't be so bothered, but...Hogwarts Exposed! Who the Hell would go to such lengths to defend that thing???

Soooooo yeah. That's all from me. I've had my rant, I'm tired and I'm going to go to bed and hope things make more sense when I wake up.

And please, don't flame this guy. Just don't. Things are uneasy with the YMMV wars going on, but there hasn't been nuclear warfare yet. Best to keep it that way, no? ^^;;;;

So yeah. Bed. Now. G'night! :D

EDIT: JULY 12, 2011

Well, we can add a few more things to this batshittery.

This actually came before, but I forgot to mention it. This idiot pulled a straw argument (pretty good job of it, considering that he allegedly doesn't know what one is), after I reviewed the series and called it "sick". His reply, quoth I, was "I really don't think we should judge a work on whether or not it's "sick", as if we let things be censored for being "sick", people will start censoring things that they think are "sick", but others don't (like a right wing fundamentalist would censor homosexuality, a hick would censor mixed races, so on and so forth). There's even precedent for it happening. In the 70s, Sesame Street was banned in many southern areas for showing kids of different races playing together. You give people a bit of power and they'll abuse it". Really.

Apparently our friend has a bizarre hatred of lawyers. "As for the lawyer part, yes, that would be a realistic portrayal. However, realistic and entertaining are two very different things. A normal court case is boring most of the time. Need proof? Go watch the Casey Anthony trial. It's on every day, at least here. Worst case scenario, go watch it online. Court cases are boring. Court cases with politically motivated lawyers that would become fast friends with Wolfram & Hart, however, are fun to watch/read about. So having a Moral Guardian try to ruin the lives of the main characters only to be chewed up and spit out is much better. And yes, lawyers are just doing their job. Unfortunately for them, I fucking hate that excuse. Defending obviously evil monsters for money just makes me sick (seriously, what kind of human being can defend most of the people that need lawyers?). ". I'm really tempted to make some nasty statements about why a guy who loves Hogwarts Exposed and may actually be Neil would be so pissed at lawyers, but I won't. All I'll say is that yet again, there's a lovely straw arguement for you, along with him trying to take the higher moral ground. I ain't biting, shiny.

Folks, the group sporkings have been dragged into the arena. After this dude made a Crowning Moment of Awesome page for the series (naming, among other things, Caitlin's duping of Matt), the entire sporking was put up on the page. We ended up with this:

The Das Mervin sporkings of the series are excellent works of humor and riffing that tear this depraved series to the ground. But they topped themselves when several members wrote a series

of Spitefics

that accurately analyses and exploits the plotcanyons of the series

Your Mileage May Vary. I found the sporkings to be poorly written, with cheap parodies not worthy of Seltzer And Friedberg. As for the spitefics? It reminds me of Seltzer And Friedberg again. Cheap parodies and mockeries for easy laughs rather than anything intelligent or witty. And it's fanfic of fanfic of fanfic. This is just getting silly. Or lame. It depends on which one we're talking about. Ironically, the spitefics are often much more Sue-filled, and plot hole filled (complete with random fish thing lawyers from America, who are author inserts). However, the first one of the third page is funny (in the same way that The Best Page In The Universe is).
- You're bitching about AUTHOR INSERTION in Spitefics written about a series that involves copious amounts of Author Inserts(but in the form of UNDERAGED CHILDREN) and Author Filibuster?
- Yes, yes I am.
- Then I'll bitch about you supporting a pedophile's wanking material...
- Personally, I'd say it's a Crowning Moment of Awesome for anyone who managed to read through this junk, and if it weren't for the awesome sporking than I don't think anyone but the uh... fans would make it through this. Plus, you can just admit that you don't like Das Mervin and co. for pointing out the myriad flaws in the fic, not because it's unfunny. Oh yeah, and don't dis the Lurking Runcible. Each one of its appearances was a humongous CMOA, especially when he humiliated Harry for touching girls' privates and when he defended the Moral Guardians (as in, both). Plus, so what if he's from America? The author's from America, and Write What You Know. Not to mention, you know, that Hogwarts Exposed also has a ton of Plot Hole and Mary Sue problems too- far more than any spitefic, in this troper's opinion.
- I don't see nearly as many flaws as you do, and I did not find the sporkings or spitefics to be funny. I have a different sense of humor than you. That is legal. As for Lurking, how does he have any power in a Wizarding Court? He's a baby Murloc (as the writer said himself). Babies from other universes should have no legal power here. In fact, would it even be possible for a non-human creature to become a lawyer? And why would he? I don't see the Plot Holes, and I barely see the Mary Sues.
- At what point did Lurkythespork say his character was a baby Murloc? A murloc, sure, but not a baby. As for his power in the Court, did you not READ the part where he clearly stated that he was Timmy's attorney? You BARELY see the Mary Sues or the plot holes? So Lego Genetics works fine with you because A Wizard Did It? You know who also tried to pull A Wizard Did It? Jose Quesada when he tried to explain how Mephisto could somehow dynamically alter huge world-changing events. And you barely see the Mary Sues? So Jamie's speshulness to the point of semi-molestation by a unicorn doesn't stand out to you? Or Emily's ability to basically make HER point the only point that's true, even when there's gaping holes in her arguments and her inability to understand that some people might just be uncomfortable with a PRETEEN GIRL flashing neatly shaven crotch to the world? Or how about Caitlin, the little wannabe-Woobie that's down on herself all the time despite the fact that she's getting everything handed to her on a silver platter

strong>And yes, I took a screencap of it, so no one can say it didn't happen. so yeah, drink that one in. We get...*scans* this idiot outright saying that he doesn't see any plot holes or Mary Sues, thinks that the convoluted explanation of how the Ministry of magic tracks unbroken hymens or how Amanda figured out that Jamie was a nudist made perfect sense, and claims that the spite fics (which point out exactly how Hogwarts Exposed makes no sense in terms of legality, canon, or REALITY) are nonsensical, Sue-filled, and stupid. And I do so love how he takes the appearance of the Lurking Runcible, which is clearly both meant to be lighthearted and a way for Lurky to point out the contrivances, convoluted logic, and general selfishness and idiocy the main characters show.

Edit: June 23, 2011

The troll formerly known as HG131 has been banned from TV Tropes after the mods were informed of his trolling on

das_sporking. When he bitched about it, the mod's reply stated that this was not the first time he'd been told off for defending pedophilia before. Yippee!

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

I bet the guy defending it is Neal.

Woah. Just...
...
That dude disgusts me.

Me too.

As a troper, I can just say that HOPEFULLY with the number of tropers on the site every day, this will all be quickly fixed.
Justice demands it.

I'm reading the page right now and it is really pissing me off. Not only are they defending the series (using sentences that are sometime incomprehensiale, even if read twice) they keep on pointing out the 'source canon' (if that means what I think it means) moments like they are waving a tiny, tiny flag with all the strength in his emiciated arms(I am sorry to be rude about their physical appearance, but this is really annoying me).
YES editor, fanfics are supposed to have elements of the source material, especially if it is set in the same universe. However, this doesn't make the fic good, it just means that it isn't an AU.

That thought did cross my mind.

Still no response to my breakdown of just how Hermione is in fact chickified on the headscratchers page. Not that I've seen a convincing counterargument from them for anything I've said about HE in the entire time the edit war's been going on.

Yeah, dunno how he'd spin it besides his usual fare of "Well *I* just don't see it!!!"

Honestly, you'd think a guy who's such a fan of Joss Whedon's work would recognize something that so obviously was misogynistic, but no. -_- I suppose not.

Thought so as well. On his Yahoo page, if you called Neil out on anything, he'd just be like "Well that's your opinion, but Emily having sex with Caitlin was perfectly innocent and if you think that one girl eating out on another is perverted, that says more about your mind than my fic". This guy hasn't exactly said that yet, but that feeling's there.

All of the justifying edits of "Just like the source material" were actually by a different troper, who was pointing out that Neil wasn't the one who invented those tropes for the fic alone. ^^; You see, when this person came to the page, he began pimping it with entries like "Abandoned Castle" and so on, to try to detract from the squick by making it look less offensive.

Good sir, I say unto you!

And that's it.

Seriously. That's it. I have zero tolerance for this stuff by this point when it comes to HE. So...that's it. That's ALL I have to say.

*tips hat* Good day.

See, I could understand that attitude when it comes to the technical side of the writing, because some people do overlook bad grammar and style if they're interested enough in the story. Or have a sort of literary tone-deafness thing going on where they don't even register it. (I see both a lot in Twilight fans.) But really, could you imagine Buffy or Willow or any other female Whedon character acting like Hermione does in Hogwarts Exposed?

Exactly!

Incidentally, and this also kind of chills me, apparently our friend over there has an intense hatred of lawyers.

"As for the lawyer part, yes, that would be a realistic portrayal. However, realistic and entertaining are two very different things. A normal court case is boring most of the time. Need proof? Go watch the Casey Anthony trial. It's on every day, at least here. Worst case scenario, go watch it online. Court cases are boring. Court cases with politically motivated lawyers that would become fast friends with Wolfram & Hart, however, are fun to watch/read about. So having a Moral Guardian try to ruin the lives of the main characters only to be chewed up and spit out is much better. And yes, lawyers are just doing their job. Unfortunately for them, I fucking hate that excuse. Defending obviously evil monsters for money just makes me sick (seriously, what kind of human being can defend most of the people that need lawyers?)."

From him to me.

If that is Neil...um...

That's some epic legal system fail there, and rather a disturbing underlying attitude.

The ironic part is that if you subtract all the supernatural stuff from Wolfram & Hart, it's nothing more than a completely average law firm. My friends--who, like me, worked for lawyers--and I used to crack up every time someone cited Wolfram & Hart's corporate backstabbing or willingness to back any client who paid them as a sign that they were OMG THE SPAWN OF HELL.

I did also notice a certain spelling/usage mistake I'd come to associate with Neil, but that doesn't prove anything in itself.

Whoops. I get it now.

What amuses me is they went to all that trouble to add tropes that originated in the Harry Potter books rather than HE itself and missed the most cock-obvious one.

"And yes, lawyers are just doing their job. Unfortunately for them, I fucking hate that excuse. Defending obviously evil monsters for money just makes me sick (seriously, what kind of human being can defend most of the people that need lawyers?)."

But they ARE just doing their jobs! Just because they defend those "sick, evil people" (one of which will probably be Neil one day when someone finally calls him out on his pedo crap) doesn't mean that they agree with what their clients did. And as much as we hate it, the bad guys have a right to be defended, too.

~~I hope what I said made sense.~~

No, you make sense. I haven't yet sent him my response, but in it I pointed out that lawyers are no more responsible for judging those who hire them than a building contractor who ends up taking a bid from someone who intends to build a brothel. I also pointed out that Saints Harry and Hermione of HE had a lawyer, so were they monsters who didn't deserve to be defended? Or Christine Collins, whose lawyer worked pro bono to sue the city of LA on her behalf?

Incidentally, that all came up because he continued to ignore my explicate explanation to him on exactly what a strawman is and how it is, indeed, possible to make a lawyer character who was not one. So yeah, by ignoring my point and going on a rant about how lawyers are all evil and calling moral superiority on them is pretty much a straw argument.

Incidentally, that's not the first straw argument this person has made. When I reviewed the fic series and concluded by saying how I felt the entire thing was sick, he apparently jumped to the conclusion that I was calling for it to be banned (even though the word "banned" NEVER came up anywhere before he used it) and said, and I quote, "I really don't think we should judge a work on whether or not it's "sick", as if we let things be censored for being "sick", people will start censoring things that they think are "sick", but others don't (like a right wing fundamentalist would censor homosexuality, a hick would censor mixed races, so on and so forth). There's even precedent for it happening. In the 70s, Sesame Street was banned in many southern areas for showing kids of different races playing together. You give people a bit of power and they'll abuse it."

In other words, he said "if you think this is sick, you advocate segregation". Lovely! :D

Don't forget the fact that sometimes those "bad guys" aren't bad guys. Does he just assume everyone accused of a crime is just guilty?

I guess from now on we should just lock up everyone who ever gets accused of a crime; no need for "evil" lawyers then.

Yes I know sometimes lawyers do get guilty people off, but they also help a lot of innocent people and undeserving people not get hauled to prison for crimes they didn't commit.

Also Lawyers do more than just bring people to court to be sent to prison, a lot more. People go to law school for more than just learning how to manipulate courts so that criminals can get off...

Oh forgive me; I was using common sense; I should stop that or I'll never comprehend this persons logic...

"Oh forgive me; I was using common sense; I should stop that or I'll never comprehend this persons logic..."

This person's logic is...twisted, to say the least. He's trotted out every argument, from "Emily's brashness is a legitimate character flaw, and just because no one points it out and she never suffers consequences for it doesn't mean it isn't unintentional!" to "if you condemn this fic, you're supporting book-banning and segregation" to "Well it's realistic, because kids are such brats today that the girls are angels!" to "it wasn't unreasonable of Hermione to ask them to wear underwear, they were justified in throwing a fit because she broke her promise to them!" to "I'm sure nudists touch their kids in private areas just like clothed people do". (O_o, I say on that last one)

Okay I'm not even gonna pick those apart those arguments because they are so stupid that one of the only arguments more insane would be the arguments used by the creators of FATAL to defend it.
I checked the page on TVtropes and it's madness...

At this point he is either
1)a troll
2)the creator
3)really stupid and pathetic - with a dash of creepy on the side.

I go with two; which bleeds into three I suppose - oh and I guess that would make him one as well...

Regardless I am quite terrified; both for you and because this person is - well - crazy...

I guess if I have to comment on something -
If banning books theoretically written by him and supporting the segregation of him from the rest of society if what he is referring to - I'm all for it!

It's going pretty slowly. He trolls the page constantly, either sniping back or deleting stuff he doesn't like. I'm giving it not much time before the mods say to hell with it and just lock the page.

I'd go with two and quite a lot of three. After I explicitly spelled out for him what a straw argument was and then pointed out how his segregation comment was one, he back peddled to "Well, I don't see any Mary Sues or pedophilia or straw arguments and you do, so clearly we won't see eye to eye so let's just agree to disagree".

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 3

I'm really freaked out, and it has to do with Hogwarts Exposed

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Callin' down the lightning again!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject