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

It's interesting that he acknowledges his past cruelty and nastiness, and he decries the abuse on social media. And yet, with his comments and misrepresentation of JKR here, he's inviting the pile ones and almost justifying then as understandable and inevitable

I don't know about Graham Norton, he can be very funny but I've noticed how he is sneery towards ordinary people whilst sucking up to big stars (I hate the 'red chair' bit at the end of his shows.)

So I suppose it's similar with his attitude to JKR (although she is in fact a big star). He's decided that she doesn't fit the prevailing narrative, and he's too cowardly /lazy to investigate this properly. Shan't be buying any of his books! I bet they're ghostwritten anyway.

I decided I wouldn't buy his books on the basis of this article too (I was unlikely to anyway tbf)

What's the red chair?

Another man who turned out to be a fucking disappointment. He either doesn't get it, because he doesn't think women have the right to define ourselves, or he just doesn't care enough.
I wonder how he would feel if he was expected to date a biological woman and called a bigot for objecting. But then, men like him are never expected to think about this, they are protected from the nonsense.

Didn't Norton get his big break appearing on Father Ted?

Mentioning JKR is now a go-to way of signalling you're one of the "good 'uns" and will doubtless increase your social clout amongst the gentry Left who make up the vast majority of folk in the arts/culture - what's not to like for a professional celebrity stroker like GN?

He did, the scurrilous little shitebag.

@SeagullSausage The red chair is a section at the end of his BBC chatshow where an audience member sits in a special chair, not on the main set and gets the opportunity to tell an anecdote which hopefully might amuse the celebs. If they find the anecdote boring/distasteful /too slow then Graham or sometimes a guest pulls a lever and the chair flips backwards. Laughter ensues. If there's time then they get another pleb in to try. Graham is generally quite sarcastic and impatient with these lowly non-celebs. Sometimes he flips them even before they can start talking, just decides he doesn't like the look of them.
If the anecdote pleases their overlords they have the honour of walking away instead of being flipped. People are eager to do this, apparently!

That sounds horrible. Thanks for explaining.

Yes, DH and DD think it's just fun and I'm being over sensitive, but I think the 'red chair' is very indicative of GN's attitude to others. I'm always happy when the talk overruns and 'no time for the big red chair tonight'.

I was going to say the same thing about the red chair. I used to find myself watching his show almost by default on a Friday evening with my brain switched off, but the self-satisfied, snidey digs at the start directed at whoever had found themselves in the news, followed by the medieval stocks aspect of the red chair (where far more women than men seemed to get flipped) made me stop watching years ago.

It's a term I don't like and never use, but the word that springs to mind to describe him is bitchy. He's cultivated a cosy, friendly facade but it conceals a deeply unpleasant streak just beneath the surface.

"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.

I agree with this. I disagree with Graham obviously, but he's entitled to his views on the matter. I'm trying very hard not to take against people who disagree with me on the trans issue, as long as they're vaguely reasonable about it. Yes he's a bit offhand about JKR, but I think we all are about people we strongly disagree with. There's enough of it on here - as soon as someone says they're on the gender ideology side of the argument, the rest of their life/work etc is trounced on here. I think it's a natural human reaction so I do get it.

But I think all of us could do with practising "agreeing to disagree" a bit more, including me. I think this is easier in person than on the internet though.

(Sorry for preaching ... preparing to be flamed!!)

I do get that but when he's been a given a platform and he/The Times have used it to really hammer home a point about JKR that comes across badly, I think it's ok to discuss that?

twitter.com/timesculture/status/1571404512224493570?t=c9MitSWFDXqKi4meXYdkXA&s=19

He is entitled to his views. What he's saying is, if he deigned to invite her on his show, she'd be told what she can and can't say. That's not agreeing to disagree is it? Sounds more like someone worried he couldn't hold his own under the - erm - harsh scrutiny of a sofa chat show

He's entitled to his views but it would be useful if he outlined rather than hinted at them!

I hope he does invite JKR back.

I hope she chooses to attend.

And I’ll gladly watch him answer the question she could put to him. “Do, tell me GN - can you explain exactly what I’ve said that is so wrong please”

He is of course entitled to an opinion. I daresay his opinion is not based on what she actually said.

That is what is problematic.

"Bitter to the balls" as my old granny would say.
He's got a book coming out that I'm sure he will be wanging on about and that no one will read.

“And anyway, who am I?” he continues, a little flustered. “Am I suddenly the f*ing moral arbiter of the world who says who can be on TV or can’t? No.
Although he has not talked to her (JKR) about the transgender issue, he imagines that they would disagree. “So I wouldn’t have her on to air her views,” he says. “

Graham "imagines" and that's that, ladies.
No "airing of problematic views" on his fucking watch.
Oh, no.
Imaginary or not - they're still "problematic"
which is a problem for someone who's not "the fucking
moral arbiter of the world" and hosts a TV talk show
where the general idea is that the guests invited, err,
talk. By and large about their views and opinions.

Yes, I agree it’s sad because she was so nice and interesting in those interviews. GN is entitled to his opinions of course and I’m glad he has her on the show anyway, but her actual views (not what people imagine her views are) aren’t problematic to 90% of the public. He won’t have read her essay.

Nasty odious little bore! Like to see how long he would last in the red chair. So charmless!

Yes, I did eyeroll a bit about her supposedly 'wanging on' about her book - surely that's exactly what he is doing when he does these interviews - promoting himself.

I don't think he has any views though. I don't think he knows what she actually said, or cares. He lives in his rich gay old white man bubble, he doesn't give a shit about women or JKR or any of it. He just trots out the rigt vague buzzwords to the journo so he doesn't get any third hand hate.

I hate it when someone declares something “problematic” without explaining what their problem is.

I read Norton's first novel for a book club (must have been a good 4 years ago). It was utter shite. I just couldn't understand why it had received such rave reviews. It made me realise that TV celebs, with all the benefits of their status, nepotism and fawning from people in peripheries of the media based industries, are able to publish and get great sales for their shit novels; and with none of the problems unknown authors encounter in trying to garner either a publisher, publicity or a decent review, never mind sales.

Norton's lack of respect - "wanging on" - is for a woman who became the world's biggest author whilst single parenting, recovering from DV and writing whist trying to stay warm in a cafe, and who is prepared to put that status to the test for womenkind, when she could very easily have stayed silent. Her experience is so far removed from his own (IMO) inexplicable celebrity and the nepotistic fawning afforded to him by the literary and media world. The man's modus operandi is bullying and bitching with a cheeky smile, lapped up by people just like him.

I actually read this completely the other way. I read it as the behaviour of someone who, because of their profile, has to say something woke and ‘right on’ about JKR but wanted to say the very minimum. He had her on his show, he said he ‘thinks he’d disagree’ with her views, he said ‘wanging on’ whilst rolling his eyes. That’s it. Compared to some of the piss taking he does I think it’s quite tame. He pretended. Like some of us have to do at work.