No, Neville Longbottom is Not a Murderer

No, Neville Longbottom is Not a Murderer

No, Neville Longbottom is Not a Murderer

Every time JK Rowling makes a new revelation about the characters in her Harry Potter books, a certain subset of social justice cretins howls in indignation about some perceived grievance or other. A few years ago, offended American Indians took to Twitter to screech their indignation about Rowling’s fictional portrayal of American wizards being cultural appropriation. Some on the conservative side of the aisle were offended because she “all of a sudden” declared Albus Dumbledore was gay (although anyone who carefully read the description of Dumbledore’s relationship with the dark wizard Grindelwald already suspected as much). And now, some harpy is sniveling about Neville Longbottom being retroactively cast as a murderer.

At first, I merely scrolled past this story, shaking my head in disbelief, but given the left’s penchant for redefining words and ideas to fit their social and political views (see: “sympathetic witness” means “credible“), I had a hard time letting this one go.

You see, according to Sarner, JK Rowling has redefined the character of Lord Voldemort’s snake – if you can even call it a character (I prefer to call it a tool) – for the purpose of the “Fantastic Beasts” movie sequel as a human woman who suffers from a “blood curse” that enables her to turn into a snake at will. The condition, according to Rowling, eventually becomes permanent, and this doesn’t sit well with some shrew named Lauren Sarner, who complains in the New York Post that this makes Neville Longbottom a murderer.

In the final “Potter” installment, Neville helps Harry defeat Voldemort by slaying the snake with the Sword of Gryffindor. It’s a moment of triumph — or at least it was — as it shows the former geek turning into a big hero.

Nagini’s new back story means that Neville actually killed a person suffering from a tragic ailment. Hardly applause-worthy.

Someone please make the stupid stop!

Unfortunately this is par for the course for the left. Liberals love redefining words to suit their purposes and recasting people to support their grievance of the day.

Remember, how criticizing Barack Obama’s policies all of a sudden made you a racist?

Remember how being a patriot and loving your country all of a sudden transformed you into a racist, homophobic, transphobic troglodyte?

Remember how the heroes of yesterday are no longer heroic because they owned slaves – a vile practice that was common and legal at one point in our nation’s history?

This is no different.

Voldemort’s snake Nagini is actually a witch from Asia (played by South Korean actress Claudia Kim in the movie), and this doesn’t sit well with idiots who believe that white, British, male Neville Longbottom killing this creature in the last installment of the Potter series is problematic. (They also squeal about the casting of Kim in the role as perpetuating stereotypes about Asian women being submissive, but I can’t even wrap my head around that stupidity given that Nagini makes the choice to serve Voldemort freely.)

By claiming that killing an evil creature is apparently murder, these derp potatoes are redefining the word to recast heroic Neville Longbottom as a criminal rather than a hero.

The definition of “murder,” is “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”

This means that to have murdered Nagini, Neville Longbottom needed to have actually planned to kill the snake, and that he had to have actually known that the snake was a human being.

Second degree murder, requires no premeditation, but still requires malice and the reckless lack of concern for others.

This is still not the case here.

Neville couldn’t have possibly known that Nagini was decades ago a human being.

Nagini had ceased being human long before the Battle of Hogwarts took place.

Nagini had killed several people at Voldemort’s command – willingly – and therefore was a murderer herself.

Nagini was the vessel for Voldemort’s perpetual evil, allowing him to live indefinitely.

This was war, and she was the weapon by which every innocent man, woman, and child was gravely threatened because she was what allowed Voldemort to live and at times carried out his murderous deeds.

By killing the snake, Neville Longbottom heroically acted to defend innocent people.

And by redefining the ultimate courage and effort to defend others from evil as “murder,” Sarner seeks to diminish Neville’s heroism, while lionizing the true murderer. I don’t think it’s coincidental that Neville happens to be the white male in Sarner’s scenario, while the “victim” happens to be an Asian female.

I read the Potter books with my kids when they were in school. Rowling’s work helped their critical thinking, vocabulary, and imaginations. The books inspired and educated them. I will never forget my son comparing the ban on wand use for self defense at Hogwarts in Book 5 to DC gun control (pre-Heller) and my daughter railing against government control of education in the same book. They also had to look up the word “soporific.”

I love the Potter universe and the messages about friendship, loyalty, freedom, and basic concepts of good versus evil.

I knew there would be a time when leftists would try to take a dump on those ideals and would try to rewrite the books to fit their sick, evil twisted views of “justice.”

And that’s why I chose to write this post. I couldn’t let this travesty stand.

Featured image courtesy of:

Written by

Marta Hernandez is an immigrant, writer, editor, science fiction fan (especially military sci-fi), and a lover of freedom, her children, her husband and her pets. She loves to shoot, and range time is sacred, as is her hiking obsession, especially if we’re talking the European Alps. She is an avid caffeine and TWD addict, and wants to own otters, sloths, wallabies, koalas, and wombats when she grows up.

  • Cameron says:

    I love the books but I also read other series. They should learn how to do that.

  • Andrew Clayborne Jones says:

    How is this not solved with, “she was murderously evil”?

  • GWB says:

    These people have some serious issues.
    At least they can save money by using their enemas as a simultaneous ear wash.

  • Beans says:

    So, all those evil/bad wizards, witches, warlocks, various nasty boojums and etal slayed by the ‘good’ people in the movie are actually good and worthy people and thus that makes all the deaths now murders and the good guys are now bad guys for murdering the murderers?

    Gaaaaahhhhhhhhh! My head is about to explode! Stop the stupidity, just Stop!

  • Jeff mccabe. says:

    Read the books, saw the movie. Whatever backstory the snake has now, it was killed while it was actively trying to kill children. Morally, legally and sanely (making up words) this was clearly self defense and in the defense of others. That lady is a wack job.

    • DavidD says:

      No, you don’t get it. If someone is actively trying to kill you and your friends, you don’t get to kill them, you need to *understand* them. Then you can all live together in peace.

      Well, they can live in peace. You’ll be dead. But still, you’ll be at peace.

  • David says:

    “[A]lthough anyone who carefully read the description of Dumbledore’s relationship with the dark wizard Grindelwald already suspected as much.”

    And his relationship with Harry. Pederasty, anyone? If we’re going to go there with this idiocy, let’s go all the way,

  • Whitney says:

    The key word is she. They would not have cared if the snake was a he

  • Maioranae says:

    To be fair self defense is considered murder in England these days.

  • C. Moss says:

    “Sometimes a snake is just a snake.”
    Dr. S. Freud
    “So how long have you thought you were a snake?”
    Dr. G. Marx

  • C. Moss says:

    “Sometimes a snake is just a snake.”
    Dr. S. Freud
    “So how long have you thought you were a snake?”
    Dr. G. Marx

  • Dub says:

    They’ll stretch to this length to define a murder, but recoil in horror at the idea that abortion is manifestly murder. Just sayin’…

  • Cloudbuster says:

    By that standard, all the brave men defending their home during the Battle of Britain, and many other battles and wars, were all murderers. I don’t think that implication is accidental.

  • David Krishan says:

    Killing an enemy combatant on the field of battle in a time of war isn’t murder.

    Killing in self-defense or the defense of others, in your home, isn’t murder (in rational locales).

    Either one of these points should be the end-all of this conversation. He’s not a murderer. Idiots.

    • Russ Wood says:

      Oh, but the Lefties of the current UK are trying to make it so, by treating battlefield actions as if they were civil crimes. And the UK Ministry of Defence isn’t doing anything to stop the legal attacks on the ‘squaddies’ who were doing their job. (Under fire, in many cases).

  • Don says:

    Blame it on Derrida. If you deconstruct a piece of literature long enough you will find what you are looking for.

  • ZZMike says:

    There seems to be some confusion among the populace as to the difference between reality and fiction. These are the people who believe that the doctors they see on daytime TV dramas and telenovelas are really doctors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner