JK Rowling and Joanne Harris’s camps in free speech showdown - Times

[WandaWomblesaurus]

archive.ph/pt13i

Harris is beyond unprofessional at this point. And a crybully.

Has anyone who has bothered to read Chocolate noticed any racial stereotypes in it?

I read that book when it first came out: utter dross with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. The film was even worse. Twee representation of provincial France for a readership who likes to have racial stereotypes confirmed (all French people wear berets and dip their flaky warm croissants into hot chocolate at breakfast etc).

Another great article - thank you for the link.

Does the main character have a fear of what she calls a "Black Man" and obsesses over this fear all through the novel?

Sounds a bit RACIST to me.

I found Chocolat very disturbing on many levels in particular the positive portrayal of a kidnapper, subjecting the child victim of her kidnapping to being endlessly on the run isolated without friends. I couldn’t stop thinking of the bereft mother. It isn’t possible to square that circle. The main character must be a psychopath or narcissist entirely without empathy it is so sinister.

Is it necessary to attack someone's work because you disagree with their position on this issue? This is becoming really unedifying now.

The point being that Harris, an author, like the authors she is attacking is capable of writing stereotypes herself which she could be held accountable for by her own shifting rules.

In attempting to constantly police the expression of others she must expect her own biases and stereotyping to be laid bare.

Thanks for the link! I'm glad to discover other people who hated Chocolat as much as I did, but agree it is not really relevant here.

Yes, as ever 'she started it' means everyone ends up looking like a dickhead.

This thread is childish. The issues are serious but the way they are discussed is embarrassing.

It's embarrassing for an author to behave the way she has and implies she's above the parapet of criticism.

Ultimately most of us will read books as a product of their time. Would I want Chocolat cancelled because she is using symbolism of black as shadowy? Not at all.

Would she attack another writer for doing the same?

I wonder.

I didn't realise Harris had a child who identifies as trans. That explains a lot.

The fury of the other side has been stoked by Harris’s nomination for the committee of Professor Sunny Singh, a novelist and academic who wrote on Twitter in 2020: “I get regular invites to debate on various platforms. I always say no. Because debate is an imperialist capitalist white supremacist cis heteropatriarchal technique that transforms a potential exchange of knowledge into a tool of exclusion & oppression.”

I'd like this prof to explain where free speech is in Afghanistan. Or Iran. Neither of which are imperialist, capitalist or white supremacist. Or name a place that isn't heteropatriarchal. As for gender identity being a part of this, again, where's she going to go, or what is she proposing? I've lived in a proper dictatorship and the lack of idea exchange doesn't lead to anything beneficial for society.

Also, putting lots of big words together doesn't mean you sound clever. And with a professor title, wouldn't assume that she's passed the point where she has to try to prove that she's actually clever?

What's the idea though? No debate because when someone disagrees with you they're excluding you? My brain is going to break at this level of stupidity being supported by our literary greats.

I suggest the society breaks in two. One for writers who want to write. The other for writers who want to share the same world view, using the same words, and have no dissent. I'm sure their books will be riveting.

Pullman and Anthony Beevor write "Novelists are already facing heavy criticism for creating characters outside their own lived experience. Historians, meanwhile, find themselves having to deal with a new belief that the values and morals of today should be imposed on earlier periods without any attempt to understand the context of the time.”

Will any book survive this kind of censorship? Surely Harris and others, in order to keep writing, will have to try and future proof ALL writing to make sure that any words used will not be claimed by any groups in the future as being offensive.

That's going to be exhausting. What if the word Chocolate becomes a colonial hate word? What if the word vase or tray as suddenly claimed as gender identities?
What if the word person is suddenly deemed to be offensive and exclusionary to furries?!!!!!

Go on then Iannistunut, add something mature and edifying!

FWIW, I think it is relevant to consider Harris's own writing. Her attack on Kate Clanchy for clumsy racial stereotyping has been merciless, and delivered from a position of 'do better' piety. It would have been more helpful for the chair of the SoA to adopt the public line that writing is difficult, all writers have their own biases and blind spots and don't always get it right, but there is room for respectful discussion. Instead, like Damian Barr (he of the appalling historic tweet abut a TW attempting suicide who got Baroness Nicholson removed from the Booker panel) she has orchestrated the social media hounding of another author for getting things wrong in an area where she herself has a bit of form.

It's like a modern day retelling of 1984. Do it to Julia. Or Kate.

I fecking hated chocolat. Sugary sweet bollocks, drenched in horrendous stereotypes. Put me off the whole magical reality genre.

Purity spirals dont work, for anyone. They eventually become purity blackholes sucking anyone in the vicinity into the abyss, regardless of what side they are on.

Totally agree that in her position as chair of the SoA, the most appropriate response for her to the criticism of Kate Clanchy would have been as @WinterTrees suggested. But she went in knives drawn. She cannot complain if she is subject to the same standards.

I could never understand the success of her books, seems she largely got lucky based on sheep/herd/bandwagon mentality of everyone buying Chocolat at that time because everybody else was.

the role of chair on any organisation whether it’s the local food bank, the WI, the BBC & yes even the SoA is to 1. Hold the organisation to its own stated mission, aims & objectives 2. Be neutral & above I fighting as often in complaints it’s the chair who acts as arbiter and has final say.

harris is a fucking abysmal chair. Parisian, vindictive, childish & unprofessional. She can’t only support the authors she agrees with & she should have the self awareness ti understavd that her judgement is completely clouded on this issue by having a trans child

Was Joanne Harris the one who put the appalling Twitter survey up after Salman Rushdie was stabbed?

Yes that was her Asda

I found Chocolat very disturbing on many levels in particular the positive portrayal of a kidnapper, subjecting the child victim of her kidnapping to being endlessly on the run isolated without friends. I couldn’t stop thinking of the bereft mother. It isn’t possible to square that circle. The main character must be a psychopath or narcissist entirely without empathy it is so sinister.

It's been a while since I read Chocolat but wasn't the main character(Vianne) the one who was kidnapped, not the kidnapper?

It's interesting though how much JH is behaving exactly like the priest in Chocolat in the pursuit of her own superstitious beliefs.

Eh? I don't remember this bit at all! Was it all so literary that it went over my head?

the role of chair on any organisation whether it’s the local food bank, the WI, the BBC & yes even the SoA is to 1. Hold the organisation to its own stated mission, aims & objectives 2. Be neutral & above I fighting as often in complaints it’s the chair who acts as arbiter and has final say.

This is how I feel about it, Harris appears to be the wrong person for the position due to their personal approach to this role - irrespective of which 'side' they are on in various debates.

This entirely. She's being disingenuous when she says that people will realise she's tweeting in her own personal capacity. No. She's chair of the SoA, and people read her tweets and think they express the society's view.

So so often you find out that someone with very strong trans views has a child or other family member who identifies as trans. It's not a reasoned or thought-out position; they just want to defend their dc.

_Eh? I don't remember this bit at all! Was it all so literary that it went over my head?

It was heavily implied that the main character, Vianne was not actually her "Mother's" biological child but was a highly publicised missing child who had been abducted from a car as a toddler by said "Mother"

Agree that Harris having a “trans” child means that her judgment is very clouded. She will stick to her guns because she doesn’t want to allow a shred of doubt to enter her mind that she’s done the right thing as a mother.

Wow. I'll take your word for it because I'm certainly not going to read it again to check

Actually I think I might re-read 'Chocolat' with a view to critiquing it through the lens of what we now know about Joanne Harris.

I think it would be most illuminating.

I know I've read Chocolat, but it's left very little impression on me. Is there a bit where white flowers are put in water with black ink? I liked that.

The picture of juliette binoche, she looks like she's been beheaded!

For me Harris tweeting in a personal rather than professional capacity hold no more water than the statement from the bigwigs at Caius College issued by Pippa and...the bloke. You can't step aside from your role when it suits you. She should use an anonymous twitter account that doesn't have the public platform of her position.