Still profiting off JK Rowling i see

[JustcameoutGC]

So, the Hogwarts turncoats are getting back together, sans Rowling.

They have a brass neck, that's for sure.

Happy to ring every last penny they can out of the franchise whilst continuing to sell Rowling down the river.

Zero moral compass between them. Either they back Rowling, and thank her for the fact anyone other than their mum knows they exist, or they renounce and walk away. You dont get to have it both ways.

www.theguardian.com/film/2021/nov/17/harry-potter-cast-return-to-hogwarts-to-mark-20th-anniversary-of-first-film

Precipice - I think you are spot on with this:
*
The reason they don't want to point to these quotes from the essay to back up their points is that they're aware that these are normal statements with which most members of society will agree with and not find objectionable.*
Better to hide under a stone than be found to be talking nonsense.

In what way Is JKR a horrific person? That's a really strong statement.

Surely it can't just be that you disagree with her on one or two issues?

^"I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe”^ - J. K. Rowling

Just incase you have heard she is horribly transphobic without actually reading her long, thoughtful piece on this issue. Here it is in full ( www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ )

It's okay if you don't agree with her and think she's drawn the wrong conclusions from her research. But I don't think her actual words and actions deserve to be called "horrific" or transphobic.

It's okay to disagree with someone and still think they are a compassionate person sincerely engaging with the issue and trying to be thoughtful about how they respond.

When you say she is horrific and people read her freely available words... I think like me, they will struggle to understand your point of view.

Yes, they're all factual and reasonable statements - but not to trans activists! Because they go against the idea that anyone can identify as anything and that is paramount and fully who they are and there are no problems with this whatsoever, which is the foundation of the TRA argument. If you say you can't change sex, obviously that's not in line with "TWAW" and you're saying "trans women" are actually men, you terrible bigot! Same with not being able to identify as a woman, same with single-sex services because you're having something for women that doesn't include males (who call themselves women). That's what's so "hateful": not agreeing that all society and language should be rearranged as they suggest.

@Yourstupidityexhaustsme

I loved the books as a child/teenager and they were a huge part of my adolescence.

However I've never really understood the whole obsession with the 'universe' and the subsequent expansions of it. How many times can you flog a dead horse?

I personally lost support of JKR when she received flack for supporting the business that produced anti-bisexual memorabilia and anti-queerism. It was just a bit icky, read the room.

Of all the small businesses she could have supported it had to be one that promoted criticism of a very well established sexuality. That and get the 'L' out of LGBT was just too much.

It felt as though lesbianism was being fetishised over any other sexuality.

at instructing jk to "read the room" when on a mn feminism thread you've posted about how "icky", anti queer, and fetishising lesbians Get the L out is.

Read the room- why did you post here?
we all know it's not true. We know what get the l out is and that jk is not a transphobe nor is she icky for supporting charities who support women. The women here are not for turning.

When you refer to “Ms K”, do you actually mean Ms R, eg JK Rowling?

Whatever she calls herself. Apparently she's also "Robert" for some reason.

btw, just thinking out loud here, how come she doesn't believe a man can turn into a woman but she's perfectly happy for a white person to turn black? (ie Hermione)

A race change is ok for JK Robert, but not sex.

@MargaritaPie

When you refer to “Ms K”, do you actually mean Ms R, eg JK Rowling?

Whatever she calls herself. Apparently she's also "Robert" for some reason.

btw, just thinking out loud here, how come she doesn't believe a man can turn into a woman but she's perfectly happy for a white person to turn black? (ie Hermione)

A race change is ok for JK Robert, but not sex.

Oh Maggie, you are priceless

Thanks for the laughs

Sometimes posts are just so stupid all you can do is laugh.

I'm not sure how the change of a fictional character within the casting of a play to represent a wider fan base is a bad thing. Whilst it's clear that the books have predominantly white portrayals, that Rowling chose a black actress for the cursed child is reflective of her acknowledgment that all people should have representation of their skin colour in the characters they admire. The important characteristics of the hermione character are not changed or altered in any way by her skin colour, but many of her fans will benefit from her portrayal as black.

She used to moniker Robert Galbraith (as many authors have historically) to pen different books which she wanted to be appraised upon their worth and not her popularity as creator of hp. There's also I think an element of jk Rowling being a children's author whilst the Robert Galbraith books are certainly not. It would have been easy for parents during the real craze hp years to innocently buy a jkr book assuming it for children.

Thirdly- I don't think that jk thinks that changing gender isn't okay at all . She supports it. She will not deadname or misgender Trans women and wants them to retain their current human rights. What she doesn't want is for women's rights to be sidelined -run roughshod over- for that.

So the principle is that people shouldn’t be able to criticise anyone to whom they owe financial or career success, Not sure about that to be honest.

@NadiaVulvokov

So the principle is that people shouldn’t be able to criticise anyone to whom they owe financial or career success, Not sure about that to be honest.

I don’t agree with that at all either, but in this case the criticisms are based on piss all bar bandwagon jumping so do come across as quite rude at least.

Are some posters here on the already?

No, someone should be absolutely free to criticise someone to whom they owe their success. However, they should have the integrity to stop piggybacking on that person's creativity if they truly believe she is a horrible bigot. Whatever happened to having principles that actually cost you something?

@Vanishun

Are some posters here on the already?

I wondered that myself. What a truly odd post!

So the principle is that people shouldn’t be able to criticise anyone to whom they owe financial or career success, Not sure about that to be honest.

In this instance it is more that they are continuing to cash in on the connection to her work. Very hypocritical to keep doing that if you genuinely believe she is hateful. Particularly as JKR herself is likely to get more money from the sales of the documentary itself, and the boosting of publicity surrounding the 20year anniversary may further the popularity of the whole franchise.

@EsmaCannonball “What happened to principles that actually cost you something?”. True.

But it should also be possible to have a critical opinion of one aspect of a person/entity (or just a different view) without that meaning all aspects of the relationship having to be severed.

It should be possible to publically voice critical or differing views without that being wholly destructive of any ties.

@NadiaVulvokov

So the principle is that people shouldn’t be able to criticise anyone to whom they owe financial or career success, Not sure about that to be honest.

I took part in boycotting South African products, and anything that had connections to the ruling regime during apartheid. Even if it was foodI liked, a bank that gave great deals, a fabulous rugby team...I refused to support apartheid. I spoke out, attended demonstrations and in general was open about my opinion. So if I’d been offered an all-expenses paid holiday, with pool and servants in SA, it would have been hypocritical beyond belief to accept it. By all means have an opinion, however erroneous. But the brat pack are still willing to profit from a woman whose views they oppose. That’s hypocrisy.

I'd love to see the 3 actors who turned on her in a room with J K Rowling simply to witness their faces as they try and look her in the eye.

It's never going to happen as I believe they are nothing but self-serving cowards who will do or say anything to make their own lives easier, with no moral resilience at all. The polar opposite of the characters they played, written by Jo.

They know they shit on her and they know its wrong, but they clearly don't care. But they care enough not to be put in the uncomfortable position of being face to face with the person to whom they owe everything yet betrayed.

Whilst I wouldn't be surprised if they refused to be involved if Jo was, I would also not be surprised if Jo chose to be the bigger person and let it go so as not to disappoint the HP fans who want to celebrate the 20 year anniversary. She knows how important these things are to the fanbase.

@NadiaVulvokov

So the principle is that people shouldn’t be able to criticise anyone to whom they owe financial or career success, Not sure about that to be honest.

They can say what they like without fear of cancelling by the media and liberal establishment. Too bad they can't stop us saying what stupid, dishonest, selfish arse holes they are. Yet....

Goodness JKR really does live rent free in some people's heads.

It should be possible to publicly voice critical or differing views without that being wholly destructive of any ties.
It should be possible to voice critical or differing views without being cancelled or threatened with rape or death. Wouldn't that be a lovely world.

@MargaritaPie

When you refer to “Ms K”, do you actually mean Ms R, eg JK Rowling?

Whatever she calls herself. Apparently she's also "Robert" for some reason.

btw, just thinking out loud here, how come she doesn't believe a man can turn into a woman but she's perfectly happy for a white person to turn black? (ie Hermione)

A race change is ok for JK Robert, but not sex.

Sometimes a writer uses a 'pseudonym'. It's quite common. This can be for various reasons, maybe to separate one genre (type of writing) from another - so JKR has used Rowling for her children's writing, and Robert Galbraith as her crime fiction pseudonym.

@senua

It should be possible to publicly voice critical or differing views without that being wholly destructive of any ties. It should be possible to voice critical or differing views without being cancelled or threatened with rape or death. Wouldn't that be a lovely world.

Yes, that is exactly my point.

Similarly Iain Banks and Iain M. Banks. I'm surprised that this has to be explained.

@NovemberWitch And I was involved with AAM. With all due respect to JK Rowling, this situation is not the equivalent of aparthied era SA.

@Abhannmor “Too bad they can't stop us saying what stupid, dishonest, selfish arse holes they are. “

And you can’t stop me from saying that doing so is, in my opinion, ill considered. And so on ad infinitum.