R4 Front Row - Eric Gill + JK Rowling

[lanadelgrey]

Did anyone else hear tonight’s edition?
Tom Surcliffe discussing a book about morality and art - Drawing the Line by Erich Hatala Matthes, US philosopher. Really poor as a bit of discussion about can you listen to R Kelley, then Sutcliffe mentioned Eric Gill who the interviewee clearly knew nothing about nor had apparently heard of and after that she who should not be named and her views in trans issues plus mention of Daniel Radcliffe saying you can still love the message.
It was a v poor interview but worse was Sutcliffe completely mischaracterising JKR as being concerned about trans issues rather than women’s rights and stating I’m not quite so many words that she is transphobic. Interviewee obvs happy with this. It is being presented as accepted fact, not matter if debate and rolling JKR in with Kelley, convicted, Gill accepted pardophile and Hitler who also got a mention for his art.
Worth complaining about? Especially in the light of WORIADs?

Side note I don't understand how Polanski has escaped criticism. His behaviour was far worse than the unproven allegations against Spacey.

It baffles me too and I've pondered it many times. I think part of the answer is that a successful director (who creates jobs for the rest of Hollywood through his films) is granted "artistic licence", especially if he has experienced huge personal tragedy before that. Spacey is mostly just a very successful, fellow actor, so if he becomes unemployable, someone else (maybe you or a friend) can be cast instead of him?

The other factor I've identified is that Spacey's downfall began when Anthony Rapp came forward. Polanski vs a 13-year old model with little social power? Hollywood and public side with Polanski.

But Rapp made his allegations as an established actor in his 40s, with his own fanbase, when he'd attained as much credibility as he was realistically going to get.

Coincidentally I am reading Highsmith's Diaries and Notebooks just at the moment; it is possible that she considered herself a psychopath and she certainly was a tormented, clinically depressed person with severe mental health (and other health) issues. She was also, by all accounts, sometimes an extremely unpleasant person. Extremely unpleasant, however, is by no means identical to immoral. So far as I can tell, apart from being someone you really wouldn't want to invite to a dinner party, she wasn't actually Tom Ripley. Towards the end of her life, particularly, she was racist and antisemitic. But socially unacceptable behaviour, self-hatred and misanthropy is not the same as grooming and raping stables of underage girls, or raping your own daughters.

JKR is, as we all know, an absolute saint amongst women. But just because Highsmith was a horrifically damaged and damaging individual does not qualify her, either, to be tarred with the same brush as Kelly and Gill, and only extremely sloppy scholarship would lump them together in this deliberately misleading fashion.

I cannot believe, cannot believe this, but I just went and listened and yes, they went there. Disgraceful.

And yes - Patricia Highsmith? WTAF?

(A reminder that it wasn't just paedophile rapist/commiter of incest and bestiality Gill and convicted sex offender R Kelly they were weighing up in the same breath as JKR and Highsmith, it was mass murdering dictator and one-time dabbler in art A. Hitler. I mean.........WHAT?????)

It reminds me of when MRAs shout about "not all men are rapists" and then follow it up with "women can be rapists too" and then have to scratch around to find an example (Hint: it's always Rose West or Myra Hindley). If the worst examples you can find of immorality in female artists are JKR and Highsmith (and you can't then cite any instances of them actually, you know, doing something immoral), it should tell you something about how flawed your basic premise (i.e. women are as bad as men) actually is..

The Beeb should do a better job of discerning the difference between FACT and OPINION.

Stop demonising a Woman who has withstood an incredible amount of vitriol and harassment for voicing her opinion on Women discussing their current legal protections under the existing law

Utterly ridiculous and worth a complaint. It's clear the programme set out to attack JK Rowling personally and undermine her credibility, by inferring that viewers should boycott her work and shame her into changing her behaviour, because of her legitimate views on a complex issue involving competing rights by two separate demographics.

Offensive and wrong comparisons of JK Rowling, a celebrated children's author and a dedicated philanthropist, to people such as Eric Gill (serial rapist including of his daughters), R Kelly (child abuser) and Hitler - a genocidal maniac, who was praised by the Nazis for his antisemitic and racist views. FFS!

Glad I saw this as I'd thought I was listening to the media show but it was Front Row.
I also didn't know who Eric Gill was - OMG a paediophile to his own daughters - here being compared to JKR.
Unbelievable.
Emailing now.
They give a contact of www.twitter.com/bbcfrontrow
Unfortunately I'm not on twitter.
Will email here instead [email protected]

I emailed them the day it was aired. Had a holding email - we’ll see.

Ok here it is.

Thank you getting in touch about last week’s discussion of cancel culture on Front Row which I appreciate you were not happy with.

As you know, Tom Sutcliffe was interviewing a philosopher of art called Erich Hatala Matthes who has written a book on this subject. We chose three examples to discuss, one that isn’t in the book but relates directly to the BBC and an ongoing news story (Eric Gill) and two who are cited in the book (R Kelly and JK Rowling).

It is a matter of public record that JK Rowling has been the subject of criticism from some quarters over her views on the trans debate. Tom pointed this out with no agenda.

Tom specifically drew the distinction between people who have committed crimes (Gill and Kelly) and people whose views some people find objectionable, and questioned whether those two groups should receive the same treatment. The conclusion was that they shouldn’t. When it came to describing the reaction to JK Rowling’s opinions, Tom was impartially reporting the views of some others, rather than expressing a view he himself or the BBC holds. However we acknowledge that some of the language Tom used on this point could have been clearer in this nuanced conversation. (my bold)

Finally thank you again for taking the trouble to get in touch. Maintaining a dialogue with our listeners is important to us and I do hope you will continue to give your valued attention to the programme.

So basically they acknowledge that Tom's language inferred that JKR was morally objectionable for discussing Women's current rights under existing law?

How's that going for BBC's famous "impartiality"?

Are you going to respond @KittenKong, and force them to escalate further? I hear the writer has written previously that he finds JKR objectionable and wouldn't let his kids read her books, so this wasn't some random philosophical discussion.

Seems targeted.

I’m going to respond when I have time to write something ‘properly’

I really don't see the issue.

There is a group of people who have really felt that they want to keep JKRs works even though they object to her views. They have been really public about this, enough so that a fair number of people are aware of the controversy.

You don't have to agree with them to use it as an example in a discussion of the topic about artists vs their works. In some ways it could be especially useful to mention because most people don't actually think JKR is wrong, whereas they are likely to have more of an emotional response to someone like Gill who really was quite awful.

@MangyInseam

I really don't see the issue.

There is a group of people who have really felt that they want to keep JKRs works even though they object to her views. They have been really public about this, enough so that a fair number of people are aware of the controversy.

You don't have to agree with them to use it as an example in a discussion of the topic about artists vs their works. In some ways it could be especially useful to mention because most people don't actually think JKR is wrong, whereas they are likely to have more of an emotional response to someone like Gill who really was quite awful.

Have you listen to the radio programme? The presenter could have picked many examples of people with “ dubious “ reputations, but they chose to include a woman who has stated the biological fact that men can’t be women. What JKR said should not be compared to R. Kelly, and Gill who are/ were perverts and Hitler who was psychopath. Can’t you see the issue here?

What those men did was criminal, disgusting and appalling. What JKR has said is truthful and factual.

Tom Sutcliffe is going to be interviewed about his comments on Feedback this afternoon on Radio 4 at 16.30.

@nauticant

Tom Sutcliffe is going to be interviewed about his comments on Feedback this afternoon on Radio 4 at 16.30.

Was just going to post this too but you were there already nauticant! Should be interesting.

If Sutcliffe's response is anything other than high-handed I'll be very surprised.

Yes, high handed is his automatic mode! At least he has agreed to appear though. Well done to Kittenkong and Polyanthus2 for complaining.

I hope that JKR's lawyers are listening closely to see exactly how he justifies comparing her to R Kelly, Gill and Hitler.

These are excellent comments on now

Yes you bloody did bracket JKR with Gill! What an arse

Get a bloody map all right duck head

Hope JKR is listening to this

RB: Did you bracket JKR with Gill and Kelly?
TS: No, it was all about a spectrum from crimes to unpopular.

TS gave ground, realising that giving the impression that this was a consensus view, and that he didn't challenge what was the echo chamber view, ie the one from a college in Massachusetts. He said it was a mistake not to give a voice to a counter view. I'm surprised, but good on TS for not being a weasel.

Nice to hear Sutcliffe admit to getting it wrong.

The comments they aired were great, and good to hear some from men too. The ‘apology’ was better than nothing, but a basic challenge to the comparison between thought/opinion ‘crimes’ and actual assault/ abuse would have been great, as would some acknowledgment of the points made that it is the MISREPRESENTATION of her views that most anti-JKRers dislike.

And as for Roger’s ‘men in particular feel very anxious’ talking about this stuff, are they all kept in a bunker somewhere? Have they not heard of Maya, or Allison or Kathleen?