How Do You Solve a Problem Like J.K. Rowling?
Have you ever heard the writing advice, "Murder your darlings?"
Is this in reference to the title of this post. It's not that precious is it?
It's a little precious.
Well, it's too late to change it.
No, it isn't.
It will be by the time this has been posted.
No, it won't. You can edit your posts whenever you want.
Whatever, I just wanted to talk about the way an author's toxic views can intrude on your enjoyment of their work.
Specifically J.K. Rowling's?
Yeah. You may recall that earlier this summer J.K. Rowling decided that she'd had enough of being called a TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) just because she had previously liked transphobic social media posts, and had previously posted statements to her social media accounts using transphobic talking points. So she did what anyone who wanted to prove that she wasn't a bigot would do: she posted a diatribe to her website that doubled down on her previous sentiments and generally repeated the talking points used by people who are opposed to the expansion of trans rights and a broader acceptance of transgender and non-binary people. And I don't want to get bogged down in a point-by-point refutation of her essay because other people have done that already (I mean, it has been two months since she posted it), but one of the more frustrating aspects of the essay is the fact that she claims to empathize with transgender people but undercuts this by framing them in ways that deny the validity of their identity and ends the piece by calling on readers to empathize with her. And that just doesn't pass the smell test.
Is this in reference to the title of this post. It's not that precious is it?
It's a little precious.
Well, it's too late to change it.
No, it isn't.
It will be by the time this has been posted.
No, it won't. You can edit your posts whenever you want.
Whatever, I just wanted to talk about the way an author's toxic views can intrude on your enjoyment of their work.
Specifically J.K. Rowling's?
Yeah. You may recall that earlier this summer J.K. Rowling decided that she'd had enough of being called a TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) just because she had previously liked transphobic social media posts, and had previously posted statements to her social media accounts using transphobic talking points. So she did what anyone who wanted to prove that she wasn't a bigot would do: she posted a diatribe to her website that doubled down on her previous sentiments and generally repeated the talking points used by people who are opposed to the expansion of trans rights and a broader acceptance of transgender and non-binary people. And I don't want to get bogged down in a point-by-point refutation of her essay because other people have done that already (I mean, it has been two months since she posted it), but one of the more frustrating aspects of the essay is the fact that she claims to empathize with transgender people but undercuts this by framing them in ways that deny the validity of their identity and ends the piece by calling on readers to empathize with her. And that just doesn't pass the smell test.
And it doesn't seem in keeping with the spirit of inclusiveness that the Harry Potter books are meant to foster.
It does not. In fact, it seems entirely out of keeping with the series' themes. We've talked about the lack of LGBTQ+ visibility in the actual text of Harry Potter, but at the time I downplayed it as being a product of Rowling not feeling like she could get away with writing a gay character into a children's book in the 90s. But in a world where Lilly Wachowski has stated that she and her sister Lana (both of whom are trans) intentionally wrote The Matrix as a trans metaphor (And although I'm not particularly interested in authorial intent, this interpretation holds up, especially given that once Neo escapes from the Matrix to the real world he's able to self-actualize and become his true self, and that Agent Smith continues to dead name him throughout the film), it's hard to ignore the way that Harry Potter can also support a similar reading (Harry does literally escape from a closet into a world that accepts him for who he is, a world where people can use magic to transform themselves and where there's even a character who is able to change her appearance to match her self-image). And while this doesn't preclude other readings (Harry Potter pretty clearly uses Voldemort and the Death Eaters, who are obsessed with blood purity, to condemn racism), it feels pretty gross for an author who wrote seven books preaching tolerance, acceptance, and empathy, to come out and say, "Tolerance is great and everything, but what about these debunked, bad faith, slippery slope arguments?"
At the risk of sounding like an improv student: Yes, and . . . what do we do about that?
Well, J.K. Rowling does mention that someone claimed to have composted her books.
Be serious.
I guess I just don't want to claim the moral authority to tell anyone else how they should react to this. The reality is that as much as Rowling seems to relish complaining about her "cancellation" Harry Potter remains a marketing juggernaut. Even if everyone in the world were to stop buying Wizarding World branded products, she still has her enormous wealth, a massive online presence, and the influence those things carry with them. That said, the only Harry Potter merch I own are the books and a couple of the movies, and I don't think destroying my own property is a meaningful form of protest. However, I'm definitely not going to check out anything else she's involved in, I won't even hate watch any of the future Fantastic Beasts movies (and honestly, those don't even break into so bad it's good territory, so I'm not exactly making a big sacrifice there). But at the same time, as someone whom J.K. Rowling has made cry with her books, I understand the emotional attachment people feel to them and their world. I guess for me, it comes down to the fact that J.K. Rowling has a massive cultural footprint and she's using it spread harmful misinformation about an already stigmatized minority group, so maybe it's just time to leave J.K. Rowling behind. In fact, I feel weirdly conflicted about writing this, because even though I doubt she'll ever see it, the fact that I'm out here saying, "We don't need J.K. Rowling anymore!" just plays into her persecuted martyr narrative.
So . . . what are you going to do about the stuff you've already posted about Harry Potter? Take it down?
No. It's staying up, but I'm definitely updating the Simplified Series entries with a new reason not to read Harry Potter (it's because of this). And this'll probably be the last time I pay Rowling any attention. I mean, I've stopped consuming art for less.
Ah, yes, your solemn vow to never again watch a Zack Snyder movie.
I feel like we're veering too joke-y. Let's cut this off here.
Links:
Comments