JKR "An Update to My Essay of June 2020"

🔥

"Oh, if we're going to conduct an unforgiving forensic examination of Rowling's movement, I suspect we can do considerably better than her failure to disavow every vile and abusive man who happens to share her contempt for anything remotely resembling "woke". There is a perfectly legitimate criticism buried in your observation, although I'd approach it differently. Our Most Blessed of Joannes is frequently moved to righteous indignation by the treatment of women in Iran and Afghanistan. Yet her public advocacy seems considerably less animated by the suffering of women in Palestine, Saudi Arabia and numerous other countries where women endure appalling violence, coercion and discrimination. Forced marriage, FGM, honour killings and religious fanaticism present ample opportunities for someone professing such an uncompromising commitment to women's liberation. One might reasonably ask what determines the geographical boundaries of her compassion. However, this brings me back to my original point, which is that Rowling has unquestionably done genuine good with her considerable wealth. Through charitable giving, funding organisations and establishing services for survivors of sexual violence, she has made material contributions to the welfare of women whose lives have been devastated by abuse. That is a matter of record. It would be intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise simply because I find much of her contemporary political commentary objectionable. But we must distinguish between the good Rowling can accomplish with her money and the intellectual authority she apparently believes that money confers upon her. And that raises an interesting question. Take away the billions, and what exactly qualifies Rowling as one of the great intellectual authorities on women's rights? She is an immensely successful children's author. An extraordinary commercial phenomenon. She created a fictional universe that captivated generations of readers and generated a merchandising empire of almost unimaginable proportions. Good for her. But she is hardly the intellectual or literary equivalent of Jane Austen, Mary Shelley or the Brontës. Nor would I put her alongside Maya Angelou, Audre Lorde or Alice Walker. Even within speculative fiction, I'd struggle to place her in the company of Ursula K. Le Guin or Margaret Atwood. These are, naturally, literary judgements, and others are welcome to disagree. What interests me is the extraordinary tendency to confuse the financial rewards of creative success with evidence of superior intelligence, analytical ability or moral insight. Commercial success is an astonishingly unreliable measure of artistic merit. Talent matters, certainly, but timing, circumstance, marketing and sheer dumb luck play enormous roles in determining who becomes wealthy and who remains obscure. If box-office receipts were a reliable indication of cultural and intellectual importance, we'd be canonising Fast & Furious alongside the works of Henry James, Ernest Hemingway and James Joyce. Vin Diesel would be pulling up outside Trinity College Dublin to deliver the annual lecture on modernist literature. 1/2

There is nothing inherently wrong with writing entertaining books for children. The Harry Potter novels have genuine imaginative qualities, and their contribution to popular reading culture is considerable. But writing an enormously successful fantasy series does not magically endow its creator with the intellectual equipment of a political philosopher, social historian, legal scholar or feminist theorist. And this, ultimately, is what I find so revealing about her latest essay. She has written herself into the grand narrative of women's emancipation, apparently convinced that she occupies a position of historical significance comparable to the great figures whose intellectual and political achievements helped transform society. Yet virtually every practical advantage she brings to this struggle derives from the colossal fortune generated by a series of children's books. That fortune can finance lawyers, establish charities, support survivors and change lives. Those contributions deserve to be judged on their actual merits. What it cannot purchase is intellectual authority. And it certainly cannot transform a billionaire's personal convictions into incontrovertible truths merely because she has the means to broadcast them to millions. Rowling's money gives her an extraordinarily powerful voice. The tragedy is how increasingly little intellectual discipline she appears to exercise when using it. 2/2"

Reader’s note:

the cut and paste is from Twitter.

Un Etrange En Terre Etrange (loindutribu)

https://x.com/loindutribu/status/2113742145962262612?s=46

and to connect the above quote to the one that proceeded it, here is that one too:

x.com/loindutribu/status/2113577263593578832?s=46

“What strikes me about J.K. Rowling’s essay, published on 21 October, is the sheer scale of the moral and historical importance she has assigned herself.

She has effectively cast herself as a latter-day Orwell, defending objective reality against an authoritarian orthodoxy, protecting the working classes from their intellectual overlords, and rescuing feminism from people who have supposedly betrayed it.

And the extraordinary thing is that she appears to regard this interpretation of events as so self-evident that it barely requires defending.

There is something profoundly self-aggrandising about a billionaire presenting herself as the authentic voice of working-class women while dismissing those who disagree with her as fashionable, privileged ideologues.

But the deeper problem is intellectual. Her essay constructs an entire theory of contemporary political power around a single controversy, with Rowling herself occupying the morally indispensable position at its centre.

Her treatment of trade unions is particularly revealing. She cites genuine government statistics showing that graduates and higher earners are more likely to belong to unions, then leaps to the conclusion that union leadership has been captured by privileged believers in gender ideology. Those statistics establish a demographic pattern. They tell us nothing about members' views on trans rights.

Her account of history is similarly selective. She describes twentieth-century civil rights movements as authentic grassroots struggles, while characterising contemporary trans activism as an elite project imposed from above. Yet feminism, gay liberation and civil rights all drew on academics, lawyers, political organisations and institutional support. She has simply written these complexities out of her historical narrative.

Then there is the Orwell quotation. She invokes 1984 to suggest that disagreement over the meaning of woman is equivalent to denying elementary arithmetic. The Supreme Court's 2025 decision did establish the meaning of sex within the Equality Act, while expressly recognising continuing discrimination protections for trans people. That is a legal ruling with specific consequences, rather than the philosophical revelation she makes it out to be.

And there is a distinction worth preserving. Rowling has genuinely supported survivors of sexual violence, and her charitable contributions deserve recognition. Threats and harassment directed at her are indefensible. There are legitimate arguments about privacy, safeguarding and how competing rights should be accommodated.

What makes the essay so grandiose is the way she converts those questions into a struggle for civilisation itself. Anyone who shares her interpretation is defending objective reality. Anyone who challenges it is participating in an authoritarian campaign against women, whether knowingly or through ideological capture.

She has constructed a political universe in which almost every institution is compromised, almost every disagreement confirms her suspicions, and her own extraordinary wealth and influence somehow reinforce her credentials as the champion of the powerless.

It reads increasingly like someone who has mistaken the intensity of her personal convictions for the historical importance of her role in defending them.

And that final declaration, “I remain on their side,” is particularly revealing.

She has appointed herself the representative of millions of women, decided what their interests are, and assumed the authority to pronounce upon everyone else's feminism.

That's quite a position for one person to confer upon herself.”

I hadn’t noticed there was a part two. We’re going to need a bigger screen for that projection.

I hadn’t noticed there was a part two. We’re going to need a bigger screen for that projection.

What’s so funny is the way these inadequates just cannot stand JKR.

Female / older/ intelligent/ clear eyed / truth teller / unapologetically prioritises women /not in need of money or praise. Their absolute worst nightmare. Love it!

Reader’s note:

the cut and paste is from Twitter.

Un Etrange En Terre Etrange (loindutribu)

https://x.com/loindutribu/status/2113742145962262612?s=46

and to connect the above quote to the one that proceeded it, here is that one too:

x.com/loindutribu/status/2113577263593578832?s=46

“What strikes me about J.K. Rowling’s essay, published on 21 October, is the sheer scale of the moral and historical importance she has assigned herself.

She has effectively cast herself as a latter-day Orwell, defending objective reality against an authoritarian orthodoxy, protecting the working classes from their intellectual overlords, and rescuing feminism from people who have supposedly betrayed it.

And the extraordinary thing is that she appears to regard this interpretation of events as so self-evident that it barely requires defending.

There is something profoundly self-aggrandising about a billionaire presenting herself as the authentic voice of working-class women while dismissing those who disagree with her as fashionable, privileged ideologues.

But the deeper problem is intellectual. Her essay constructs an entire theory of contemporary political power around a single controversy, with Rowling herself occupying the morally indispensable position at its centre.

Her treatment of trade unions is particularly revealing. She cites genuine government statistics showing that graduates and higher earners are more likely to belong to unions, then leaps to the conclusion that union leadership has been captured by privileged believers in gender ideology. Those statistics establish a demographic pattern. They tell us nothing about members' views on trans rights.

Her account of history is similarly selective. She describes twentieth-century civil rights movements as authentic grassroots struggles, while characterising contemporary trans activism as an elite project imposed from above. Yet feminism, gay liberation and civil rights all drew on academics, lawyers, political organisations and institutional support. She has simply written these complexities out of her historical narrative.

Then there is the Orwell quotation. She invokes 1984 to suggest that disagreement over the meaning of woman is equivalent to denying elementary arithmetic. The Supreme Court's 2025 decision did establish the meaning of sex within the Equality Act, while expressly recognising continuing discrimination protections for trans people. That is a legal ruling with specific consequences, rather than the philosophical revelation she makes it out to be.

And there is a distinction worth preserving. Rowling has genuinely supported survivors of sexual violence, and her charitable contributions deserve recognition. Threats and harassment directed at her are indefensible. There are legitimate arguments about privacy, safeguarding and how competing rights should be accommodated.

What makes the essay so grandiose is the way she converts those questions into a struggle for civilisation itself. Anyone who shares her interpretation is defending objective reality. Anyone who challenges it is participating in an authoritarian campaign against women, whether knowingly or through ideological capture.

She has constructed a political universe in which almost every institution is compromised, almost every disagreement confirms her suspicions, and her own extraordinary wealth and influence somehow reinforce her credentials as the champion of the powerless.

It reads increasingly like someone who has mistaken the intensity of her personal convictions for the historical importance of her role in defending them.

And that final declaration, “I remain on their side,” is particularly revealing.

She has appointed herself the representative of millions of women, decided what their interests are, and assumed the authority to pronounce upon everyone else's feminism.

That's quite a position for one person to confer upon herself.”

So the gist of that sourceless diatribe is: she hasn’t done something about every possible cause and/or the causes that the author considers more important, and she isn’t Homer*.

(*thank fuck for that because The Odyssey is tedious)

Several companies who have paid for her work are now asking for reimbursements, and talking to lawyers to cancel contracts.

Two people on Reddit have asked the poster of this ^ comment for more details. I cannot wait to see what the poster comes up with as evidence.

Now now, the Iliad is tedious. The Odyssey is quite fun. well the book is, I haven't seen the film in case I exploded with rage.

Nope, got half way through and abandoned it. All those heroics. It was like Lord of the Rings* but with boats.

(*Couldn’t read that either, much as I loved The Hobbit)

She has constructed a political universe in which almost every institution is compromised, almost every disagreement confirms her suspicions, and her own extraordinary wealth and influence somehow reinforce her credentials as the champion of the powerless.

It's* *almost like this man just doesn't grasp the significance ofFor Women Scotland, or the fact they had to trek through the courts for years in order to get to the highest court in the land just to reiterate what the fucking law is. Because no one was obeying it. And they still aren't.

Has he not heard of the Darlington nurses, or Sandy Peggie, or all the government schools guidance having to undo the indoctrination of a generation of children??

The fucking arrogance just because he's oblivious.

Spraying around the "cognitive dissonance" label to all and sundry makes you look totally inept.

It’s almost like someone has only just learned this term and is trying to shoehorn it into everything to sound clever or hope that it wins an argument, while not quite understanding what it means.

None of it affects him. It's just women whinging about trivia, as usual. He's the sort of man who secretly thinks we should never have been given the Vote.

I’ve just listened to loads of similar fuckwit men droning on about it on Reddit. I don’t normally post but I did. I need to come off social media today!

Excusing the death and rape threats she gets, claiming that she’s done much worse to the “trans community” 🙄

I enjoyed heroics and magic more than sulking in a tent and a catalogue of ships. Even in Greek.

She has constructed a political universe in which almost every institution is compromised, almost every disagreement confirms her suspicions, and her own extraordinary wealth and influence somehow reinforce her credentials as the champion of the powerless.

It's* *almost like this man just doesn't grasp the significance ofFor Women Scotland, or the fact they had to trek through the courts for years in order to get to the highest court in the land just to reiterate what the fucking law is. Because no one was obeying it. And they still aren't.

Has he not heard of the Darlington nurses, or Sandy Peggie, or all the government schools guidance having to undo the indoctrination of a generation of children??

The fucking arrogance just because he's oblivious.