Time article

[Wellthatsit]

Has anyone seen this article by AJ Sass in Time (I am assuming that is THE 'Time' magazine.) Several sweeping inaccuracies in it, and ridiculous insinuations (like the fact that there is a Robert Galbraith who was a conversion therapist). This is truly how young people think, isn't it? I am depressed by that.
time.com/5855633/jk-rowling-gender-identity/

Hello, @Wellthatsit - as requested, we've now moved this over to the correct topic. Hope that helps but give us a shout if we can do anything else.

Thanks.

This is the bit I don't get, this sort of sense of ownership over art one consumes and belief that, having consumed and enjoyed it, its author is then obligated to continue providing one with nurturing and comfort.

Problematic? Yes. And personally hurtful, considering her Harry Potter series was a source of comfort to me during the stresses of graduate school.

I'm seeing this a lot from trans identified young people. Is it just immaturity? Something related to the trans identification that's causing the immaturity, or the immaturity causing the trans identification? It's just odd and striking how many people in that demographic seem to have that relationship to creative work that they consume.

Belief in magic and imaginary worlds seems very popular amongst the trans and NB young folk.

Who are all these grown ups who still lean on Harry Potter in graduate school?

I'm sorry if that sounds rude and unsympathetic but I just don't get it. I mean I'm still very fond of Mallory Towers and The Chalet School and Sue Barton but I don't expect comfort or sustenance from them and haven't since I was about 12.

It's interesting that they don't seem to think that the person who spent time and effort writing books which promoted ideals they value and provided comfort to them may not have had a personality transplant and turned into a raging bigot and that instead her recent opinion may be an extension of her earlier stance on life and love and respect for others and that ...she may have a point?

Who are all these grown ups who still lean on Harry Potter in graduate school?

floisme

It's utterly baffling. And deeply infantile.

it’s my hope that my phone will ping with fewer problematic opinions and instead be filled with kid-lit recommendations

I have a book recommendation for the author of this article. 1984.

Why are adults looking for recommendations for new children's books to read anyway?

I would be disappointed if Terry Pratchett had drunk the Koolaid had he lived. So I do vaguely get it. It's the ownership they seem to feel that is troubling.

Basically they are suffering extreme cognitive dissonance which is causing them distress. Either resolved by pillorying JK and 'noticing' racism and homophobia they'd previous overlooked (we have always been at war with Eastasia) or by agreeing with JK eventually.

Not in anyway to compare JK Rowling to paedophiles or anti-semites, but this is part of the huge 'separate the art from the artist' discussion that encompasses Richard Wagner, Michael Jackson, Woody Allen... and more recently, Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein. I admit I feel slightly queasy knowing I am watching a MiraMax film, even if the cast/writer/director are utterly blameless.

The difference here is that a) Rowling's views aren't hateful, they are wilfully being misinterpreted and b) possibly because of the shaky moral ground this writer is on, they can't examine both sides dispassionately.

I would also point on that none of my previous examples are, erm, women....

I'd also point out that even if you agreed that Rowling's views are bad (they're not) there would still be a big difference between "I don't like this person's views" and "this person raped someone".

Play the ball, not the man

mobile.twitter.com/matokah/status/1272571472632938501

It's this person who wrote that article. And again, it feels as though a few American people are failing to realise that America isn't the world. That JKR's essay comes in the context of the UK situation.
It amazes me how many people thought that Karen White thing Jameela Jamil posted was a fake when in the UK that was big news. It's so arrogant.

Slightly off topic but, although I feel that discomfort too about Miramax, I still watch the films and would never advocate cancelling one. I think it's not only foolish but also dangerous to try and pretend that criminals cannot produce good art or be good entertainers.
I think it's an important lesson - which we need to teach our children - that villains don't all wear capes and twirly moustaches, but that they can be brilliant, charming and charismatic, support worthy causes and share our political views. Not that this has anything to do with JK Rowling!

As an aside, why had the word 'problematic' become so fashionable? I find it irritating and problematic.

Read Harry Potter as a young adult as this is when they were released. They were lovely books but very much children’s books. Read them all to one of my kids when they were 9. It was lovely to read these children’s books to her, just as I loved reading Dahl and others. But I’ve never reached for them as a relatable tale for my adult life.

Sorry I disappeared. I posted it this mornig in the wrong thread so just checked back in now. The thing that bothers me the most is the inability to reason fully with the argument and the points raised by JKR, instead just falling back on a black and white characterisation of her. The fact this writer is an author with influence over young people makes it worse.

And relying on Harry POtter for comfort while in graduate school was also what leapt out at me, too.

As an aside, why had the word 'problematic' become so fashionable? I find it irritating and problematic.

Also the phrase "doubled down." I don't think I've seen a single anti JKR article that didn't use those words when they meant was she wrote an article explaining her views.

As another aside I just searched for Time magazine on Twitter to look at the comments to see what the non-mumsnet view of it was.

Is it wrong to feel a bit heartened that in over 24 hours it has only 36 retweets and 96 likes, when Time has a following of 17.2 million? (For context an article about Beyonce tweeted less than 20 minutes ago when I looked already had over 50 retweets and well over 200 likes.) Is this a sign that the majority don't agree with AJ Sass? Or is it just a sign that no one's interested in the story anymore?

I'd also point out that even if you agreed that Rowling's views are bad (they're not) there would still be a big difference between "I don't like this person's views" and "this person raped someone".

I think that possibly a better comparison to JKR in terms of separating the art from the artist may be Joss Whedon. I loved Buffy, loved a lot of his comics, really enjoyed what we got of Firefly (though by all accounts his plans for the show were a dumpster fire). But since I've read his ex-wife's descriptions of their marriage and read about his treatment of Charisma Carpenter I find it hard to enjoy them like I used to. Whedon isn't a rapist/alleged rapist but his behaviour is just horrible to me and really counter to the man he presented himself to be. So I think that's a closer comparison for someone who is horrified by JKR's opinions on transpeople. (Not that I find them comparable personally, he appears to be a contemptible creep out for his own gratification, she made a measured statement about something she believes in, knowing it would draw abuse on her.)

@TheIncredibleBookEatingManchot

I have never properly understood 'doubled down'. It makes me think of the position I'm in when resuing my last hula hoop from under the sofa.

@Floisme

Who are all these grown ups who still lean on Harry Potter in graduate school?

I'm sorry if that sounds rude and unsympathetic but I just don't get it. I mean I'm still very fond of Mallory Towers and The Chalet School and Sue Barton but I don't expect comfort or sustenance from them and haven't since I was about 12.

Yes it is odd coming from what are actually young adults. I wonder if it is because the young are sheltered from growing up into adulthood these days and still cling to their childhood passions. I read Harry Potter and enjoyed the films but they don't define my life. I can't think of anything in my childhood / teenage years that il liked that i still cling to now. That would be very strange way to live life

@MrsTerryPratchett

I would be disappointed if Terry Pratchett had drunk the Koolaid had he lived. So I do vaguely get it. It's the ownership they seem to feel that is troubling.

Basically they are suffering extreme cognitive dissonance which is causing them distress. Either resolved by pillorying JK and 'noticing' racism and homophobia they'd previous overlooked (we have always been at war with Eastasia) or by agreeing with JK eventually.

Yes you could be right. It is the sense of ownership The thing is Harry Potter wil be read by kids for ever. Generations from now will still read Harry potter long after jk is in hogwarts in the sky. They are a childrens classic like wind in the willows lion witch and wardrobe etc. Jk does not need her obsessive fans in fact if i was her i would be pleased if they moved on with their lives. It must bd so tiring for authors, actors etc to have obsessive fans. You are in hock to them after a while. Same with star wars fans, sherlock fans, one direction fans. You become a prisoner to them Jk is hopefully now free! She'll have plenty of future fans

She already dealt with HogwartsGate when the films came out. I think her reply was "it might not be the Hogwarts in your head but it is mine" or something. Same weird ownership issue.

Some elements of the Discworld put on screen haven't matched the Discworld in my head. Oh well!