As a trans person, I will say, PLEASE do not harass people who still like Harry Potter. Especially fans who are kids or on the spectrum.
I also don’t like how people are writing sexist and death threats about JK Rowling. I would prefer just unfollowing and ignoring her. This lady has dealt with harsh critics, I remember when conservative groups would burn her books. Harassing her is not going to change her mind.
I don't think this is how people are taking it though. Most people I've seen use death of the author in this sort of case are saying "well yes, looking back in this new light maybe some of these things are more concerning but I choose to continue reading the meaning I always meant". Many people have applied this sort of thinking to Enders Game. Or any book that they took as teaching us about acceptance, or having a message or tolerance, or even a more LGBT+ theme only for the author to reveal themselves as a bigot ect. Apparently the author didn't mean this to mean what I took from it, but I'm going to take that away from it anyway.
Lots of people are saying "I'm going to take the message of tolerance and acceptance I first read in HP rather than letting the author's views taint that" and that's pretty Death of the Author to me, aka the reader's interpretation is the only interpretation that matters.
There are videos on it all over the place breaking it down. But she also has a history of retweeting and liking racist, transphobic and generally vile tweets and then claiming it was a mistake and suing anyone who reports it, as I mentioned above.
And most notable for me isn't just her being "misinformed" or "having a different opinion" but the lies. Like about Maya who "was fired for saying biological sex is real". No. Her contract wasn't renewed when it ran out because she was making her work place hostile and being rude in public about clients. She took it to employment tribunal and was told (I'm paraphrasing) "your opinions aside, we cannot force a company to renew your contract at the end of its term". But JK insists "she was fired for saying biological sex is real".
This whole thing reminds me of the thing with Orson Scott Card, who wrote a very important sci-fi book but who's also a raging homophobe. And the book, Ender's Game, has important things to say about war and violence and so on. And the homophobia is what it is.
This is what I mean about nuanced views. In this hyper-informed era you're going to have a bad time unless you accept that people can be very wise and very stupid and that you can love them and hate them at the same time.
It does. It's in the video explaining everything she has said and breaking down each point of her giantass essay on transpeople and tweets.
I think that claiming an author's works should no longer be read or appreciated because of unrelated statements is a bit silly.
If someone's a serial killer (and this is a veeery extreme comparison, she's no murderer) then that serial killer should be in jail, but if that serial killer writes a ten part epic about a magic goose. you have every right to enjoy that ten part epic (and you might get some social/cultural understandings reading it, knowing that the writer's a killer, since that's probably reflected in their writing, or surprisingly unnoticable)
As for the Death of the Author thing, I think it's fair to say Rowling was actively preaching tolerance. Heck, even the biggest self centered morons will still try to preach good values, because they rarely realise they're breaking those morals themselves. If anything, it's interesting to read a work from an author whilst trying to understand how their world view is slanted. People with bad ideas get those ideas from somewhere after all.
People still enjoy Lovecraft's works, and he is very openly racist and idiotic in those, but it's interesting to see how this sad reclusive man from the days of old would look at the world and see fear in every corner.
So regardless of what you think of Rowling herself, there can still be value in reading what she wrote (unless you're bored by what she writes, or just too uncomfortable to enjoy it)
I've seen Rowling say some dumb things, but nobody should have their writing license revoked for being ignorant or bad at arguing.
I mean, just to be clear, her writing license has clearly not been revoked since she literally just released a new, pretty explicitly transphobic (especially in conjunction with her very recent tweets and rants) book under her awfully chosen pen name with terrible history of its own (and has many people have said, with her thing for meaningful names the chances of her not having looked it up are slim). So, she's not cancelled in any way, shape or form.
I would agree with you, but was it said somewhere previously in the thread that a recent book of hers, and some of the harry potter books, had problematic coding for trans people, jewish people, etc. It would be great if JK Rowling's problematic beliefs were completely separate from her fiction, but they aren't. And it's really hard for authors in general to not unconsciously weave their prejudices into their art, regardless of how open minded they are.
Well, we definitely can't look at them in the same old light. We can't just think of them as harmless kid's stories if the author has started using her fame to promote an agenda of hate. We can't continue to buy her books, not if it gives her validation and possibly money to spend on disagreeable causes. We can't send the message to publishers that this behavior of hers is okay and doesn't affect their bottom lines at all.
I'm not saying she is cancelled, but rather arguing why I don't think it would be better if she were.
I hadn't caught the thing where she wrote an openly transphobic book. I don't think it's right to say she doesn't have the right to make or sell it, but it's definitely more complicated than that and sellers have every right to refuse selling such a book.
And that's where my wording was rather terrible. The first statement and the second one don't go together very well.
But I do stand by it that there is value in the writings of the fool. It's important to try and understand the world from the point of view of someone who doesn't understand you. Because the more we understand how people consider reality, the better we can be at catching when people are wandering in the wrong direction and at helping them understand our own views.
Ah, that's a complicated issue.
As in the previous comment, I do think there's value in the writings of the fool, but when it comes to children, we do need extra caution.
I wouldn't throw Oodolf Hootler's book Moin Kompf on a fire for its historical/psychological value, but I wouldn't want the kids to be reading it, since it preaches all the wrong things. (and that's perhaps a rather extreme comparison again)
I don't think JK Rowling shouldn't be allowed to write or publish, or that people are wrong for continuing to read her work, but I do agree that we need to take care with these things since just letting people do whatever can get out of hand real fast.
Huurgh. I don't like not having a clear answer. Your earlier comment is pretty spot on, when you mentioned Orson Scott Card.
Sure, but I disagree with other parts of that statement too.
It's so disingenuous to preach tolerance while simultaneously being intolerant. It muddles the message, and brings into question who that person really thinks is worthy of tolerant behavior. I'm not going to listen to a bigot about tolerance, not especially if they put that message into their literature. Not because I can't separate the art from the artist, but because on top of being bigoted, I realize the person in question is willfully ignorant or a liar. And in this case, she's all three. Ah, allegedly. . .
They did answer your question, with a video. There is also google, if you're actually feeling particularly curious. Or, the radfem tweets from the source. Either way, there are resources.
At the end of the day, JK Rowling had to say nothing. She could have just sat back on her billion dollar wizard empire, she could have shut up forever, but she didn't. She actively chose her role as a vocal TERF, and I think we all need to remember that.
But there's the thing. If that person preaches tolerance, it must be because they believe that tolerance is good. If they are themselves intolerant, it must be because they don't understand they are being intolerant. There is value in trying to understand why they think the way they think.
You don't need to learn tolerance from her books. If anything, the value of reading it comes from trying to understand how or why she misses the mark.
People aren't bigots just because, and the most effective way to reduce bigotry is to try and understand the people we think are wrong, rather than brushing them off as not worth trying to comprehend. If we can't do that, then we have no hope of improving things or getting people to understand.
Of course, that doesn't mean you should read the books, just that it isn't inherently wrong to do so.
Just a quick interjection here: It's often a waste of time to truly try to convert the utterly bigoted to your side. While some will change their minds, it takes years and years of dedicated effort. Much likes cults, deradicalising someone from an extremely bigoted belief takes the person realising for themselves that the rabbit hole has taken them to a place they don't want to be. The issue that comes is that a lot of people in these rabbit holes believe that they are right and it's everyone else that is wrong. The way that bigoted groups work as well is to lovebomb people and then isolate them to keep them locked off from rational people who oppose the group.
So understanding how people fall into these holes is super interesting and helpful as a method of prevention and healing once they come out. But actually getting people out? That often takes a lot of work by a skilled therapist who specialises in deradicalisation work.
