Graham Norton in the Times

[Igneococcus]

Happy to talk to people, such as JKR, with "problematic" views but only about other topics not the "problematic" views. Not that he tells us what he finds problematic about these views.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/820fb7a6-3384-11ed-906e-b1c0a42b1514?shareToken=3cf96c791ac7750edbdc52683964321e

This is rather telling:

"What can we glean from the novel about its author? I mention Killian, a gay character who marries his partner and proclaims that gay marriage is great because it shows that the nation doesn’t hate all homosexuals. Congratulations are in order: Norton married his partner, Jonothan, in the spring and I suggest Killian sounds like Norton.

He muses: “At my age there’s a nostalgia for when [being gay] was worse. When clubs were down weird alleys. But that’s ridiculous because it was shit. You were beaten up, but it felt special. The two givens were that you weren’t getting married or having children. Being clandestine was exciting and fun.”"

Really?? The days he's referring to are the Section 28 days if I'm not much mistaken. Those days were "exciting and fun"??!

He comes across as simply another male who's either not bothered to engage with the issues or who maybe has and knows what we know but is pretending he doesn't see it. He seems OK with pulling up the ladder behind him, unfussed about what happens to fellow homosexuals - lesbians.

Why doesn't the journalist quiz him on 'problematic'???
This perpetuates the idea that JR'S views are problematic

The comments are brilliant - nobody's going along with his idea of "problematic".

I can't see the comments unfortunately. Is that because they only show with a subscription?

wow hes a bit of a cunt isn’t he? Basically saying that JKR enjoys the twitter rows. Yes Graham I’m sure she delights in receiving thousands and thousands of abusive messages, rape & death threats on twitter. That fact is she continues in spite of those not because of those

I also note his salute to his own bravery in interviewing because it would be easier not too - well arent you the hero???

And beaten up is 'special' ????
Plenty of women would disagree.

You should be able to see comments with a sharetoken. The Times stopped that for a while but I thought it had been reinstated.

This is the most recommended at the moment @DameMaud Lots and lots of comments asking what these problematic views are.

Chris Hudson
9 HOURS AGO
JK Rowling does not have 'problematic' views. Stop letting people like Norton spout this unfounded nonsense without challenge.
Reply
Recommend (375)

I actually have a Times subscription at the moment (a cheap £1 for three months job) and I can't see the comments at the moment. I find they tend to come and go. I think they shut them down when there are too many coming in on one side. Glad to hear that they opened them, at least briefly, on this.

Funny how JKR gets all.the vitriol

Ricky 'lose the cocks ladies ' Gervais gets a cree pass

He muses: “At my age there’s a nostalgia for when [being gay] was worse. When clubs were down weird alleys. But that’s ridiculous because it was shit. You were beaten up, but it felt special. The two givens were that you weren’t getting married or having children. Being clandestine was exciting and fun.”"

I don't think this is that rare a view. I've met gay men who really enjoyed the danger of being found out, cottaging etc and feel that being able to marry has ruined it, kind of turning their exciting sexy lives into something boring that the straights do.

I’ll always remember his cruelty to Jade Goody, wearing a fat suit in imitation and calling her a pig.

I've never really had an opinion on him before, don't watch much TV, don't really know him.

But he comes across as unpleasant in this. Really unpleasant.

Last month, for instance, he had JK Rowling on the radio despite the author, as he says, having “problematic” views. Although he has not talked to her about the transgender issue, he imagines that they would disagree. “So I wouldn’t have her on to air her views,” he says. “But she has the right to still wang on about her crime novel. The easiest thing would be to not have her on, but that didn’t seem right.
“We should talk to people that we disagree with and I would not further any cause by not having her on. She will still sell a gazillion books. Also, I got an insight into her when she talked about enjoying the pub brawl aspect of Twitter. I thought, ‘Oh, now I get it — you enjoy this.’”

It’s not Rowling that was telling on herself here…

Funny how a man who’s just started writing thinks a woman with years of experience as a bestselling author talking about her work is “wanging on”. And he really rates himself so highly as to think that her not appearing on his show would be seen as significant? I think interviewing all those famous people over the years has given him notions.

As for asserting Rowling gets some kind of a kick out of receiving death threats, however - that is inexcusable.

Oh Graham, you little arsehole Shame on you.
I used to quite like him.

"I disagree with her but I'd still have her on my show and talk to her" - that seems quite reasonable.

Come on people, let's not start our own purity cycle. we'll be saying 'no debate' next.

@ControversialOpening whilst that little quote sounds entirely sensible, the rest of demonstrates a different approach and a context that is less reflective of that sentiment tbh.

Having her on but misrepresenting her, being sure you'd disagree so not even having an open discussion, belittling her achievements and accusing her of "wangjng on" ...it all comes across as sneery.

Yeah that's fair Seagull.

I just think we could spend out energy on better targets. Norton seems to me like someone who hasn't thought about it much, and what he's saying seems thoughtless rather than nasty.

I am enjoying the comments under the article. I hope he reads them.

I think his conclusion and assertion that through talking to her, he's managed to surmise she's really getting a kick out of being hounded, vilified and misrepresented/lied about on Twitter (and elsewhere like this article) comes across as a bit weird/creepy/unpleasant

But yes, completely agree with you. We have other fish to fry and he doesn't seem to be open to critical analysis on this.

Thanks @Igneococcus. Will keep checking to see if they show up.
That's a great comment.

He's obviously too scared of being cancelled to address her views.

And whilst I understand that, why did he need to mention her at all?

Seems snidey.

I'm team JK. Nothing she said is problematic. She's protecting the rights of biological girls and women.

Yes, Norton does himself no favours - not least because the whole Times interview only exists so that he can "wang on" about his latest book FFS.

So he thinks he would disagree with JKR, but won't discuss the issue with her - even though he could have chatted with her off-air as he admits to doing with other guests. Duplicitous idiot.

I think he was trying to step back from the controversy and The Times focused on that quote to stoke it. Although the 'wanging on' comment jarred.
JKR's views aren't problematic. The issue is why did the journalist ask about them and her rather than Irvine Welsh or Ricky Gervais or Stephen Fry? They've expressed gc views or written trans characters and been interviewed by Graham Norton.
The Times is mainly good on gc issues but they should stop pretending JKR is the only famous person or author who is gc. They're actually feeding the perception that her views are unique rather than widespread.

Oh no, this hurts because JK seems to really enjoy promoting her books on Norton's radio shows. She's done it a few times now when she rarely speaks to other interviewers.

He did come across as a right curmudgeon on the most recent one, though, and I'm reminded of the time he was going to have those numpties from Six on before they kicked up a huge anti-JKR fuss.

Just doesn't get it. Another man speaking from a position of male privilege.