Literally putting words in JKR's mouth.

[Pudmyboy]

https://unherd.com/?post_type=thepost&p=488325
Article in Unheard, JKR being 'interviewed' on her views on her views an Australian trans artist taking the part of JKR with 'cis' person taking the part of the 'trans' interviewer.......I cannot believe this is not slanderous! Or libelous if it's written for all to see......can this really go unchallenged by any legal or ethical avenue?

Absolutely, I get the point you were making and sorry for not making that clear.

But the idea of the staged debate wasn't even like this in the sense that it wouldn't have involved playing real people and attributing fake opinions to them. So already it was worlds apart from this and even then people were worried about it being offensive. Some people may have found it offensive but it wouldn't have been defamatory, which it sounds like this will be

Actually using the script of this and recreating it then freeze-frame critiques with famous characters coming in and out and discussing why they think that is wrong/right/a load of tosh from either side. That could be interesting from all sorts of angles. Call my agent to discuss 🤣.

It's not illegal to put a fictional version of a real person on stage, and the law can't discriminate based on whether that portrayal matches our own politics or not.

i'm not being funny or nuthin', but you'd think, wouldn't you, that if they were going to do this without fear of repercussion, they wouldn't pick on one of the most successful writers of all time. 🙄

One, incidentally, who wouldn't have to invent a single thing if she put on a similar play in response. And could attribute every last word she wrote to a specific person, date and time.

They never, ever learn. It's practically pathological.

I think as a response to this “play”, a play should be put on, comprised entirely of quotes JKR has received from TRAs. One after the other, all evidenced, all vile - wouldn’t that be an interesting contrast? ☀️☀️☀️☀️☀️

Oh that would be perfect, especially if it were preceded by her actual words. The gulf between them would be staggering.

I've actually seen a preview of this. It goes:
TRA: what's your name?
Pretend JKR: JK Rowling
TRA: what colour is the sky?
Pretend JKR: Blue
TRA: what's the opposite of on?
Pretend JKR: off
TRA: JKR blew off!! She said it!! Ewwww blow-offs!

Fin.

So basically this is "wah wah wah, we can't get the real JK Rowling to change her [completely sensible and reasonable] words no matter how much our supporters cry and stamp their feet and wave placards and send her death threats, so we're going to pretend she meant what she would have needed to have said to justify in our eyes the absolute shit-load of unrelenting abuse TRAs have unleashed upon her."

Does anyone remember the absolute melts on Twitter who were saying, 'let's pretend that Daniel Radcliffe wrote the Harry Potter books!'?

Daniel Radcliffe who quit his formal education after AS level because he was going to focus on his very underwhelming acting career? That Daniel Radcliffe?

I mean if you're going to imagine yourself in a parallel universe where the Harry Potter books were actually written by one of the child actors who starred in the film adaptations, at least go for the one with a degree in English literature from Brown University. That would make it marginally less silly. And less sexist than pretending that the books written by the most successful female author in history were actually written by a man.

Basically yes.

Anna should have interviewed Robert Galbraith instead. That would be real fiction.

Hasn't "Natalie" Contrapoints Wynn cornered the market in this type of boring, self-invested cosplay shite?

I would love to know if there's even a moment of understanding that broke through for the author as they wrote it. Did they manage to do that? Writing is supposed to be painful and revelatory for the writer, after all.

I can't imagine it being illegal but I somehow doubt there was any breakthrough of connection. Missed opportunity.

OK having watched a few clips I don't think they're at the level of talent where any kind of breakthrough of understanding would be involved. Just wants to say how much more amazing a person they are than people with real achievements.

Here's a Time Out review by Guy Webster (he/him), a Melbourne Arts faculty academic

https://www.timeout.com/melbourne/theatre/an-evening-with-jk

The only review I could find.

It sounds absolutely dire.

Even a dyed in the wool TRA couldn't quite pull off an enthusiastic review.

It sounds nasty and threatening to incite hatred/ violence to be honest. But it’s difficult without knowing if it’s a neutral review.

Guy Webster, the guy reviewing states: ‘My doctorate theorises the aesthetic function of the fear experience for early 20th century authors associated with the modernist movement.’

So he’s studying the fear experience. It would be interesting for him to study authors’ real fear experiences associated with the trans ideology movement. How many have the very unaesthetic fear of losing their livelihoods as hate and threats are piled on them for the mere mention of women’s rights.

From that review

A once beloved children’s author who is now so ubiquitous with hate that she exists as a kind of shorthand for a worldwide backlash against trans people. What makes her transphobia so insidious is that it’s packaged as something else: feminism, the woes of cancel culture, a personal concern for children

They seriously believe this shit they wrote do they?

Yup, 'concern for children' is actually transphobic hate!

I think they just see everything through the prism of "trans rights".

We see it all the time in the mainstream media. Every time JKR says something about women's rights, it is reported as her "views on trans rights", often with an adjective such as "controversial" even though nothing she says is actually all that controversial.

It's as though they can't understand how someone can take a view on something like women's rights or child safeguarding, which has an impact on some of the things trans people want, without putting what trans people want front and centre, as the primary consideration.

If you say, as I think most people would, if pushed, "Yes I agree that trans people should have equal rights and be protected from transphobic hate, but I don't agree that they are more important than women or children, and when someone's wish to be seen as their preferred gender has a negative impact on women or children I think the women or children's needs should be prioritised", they cannot cope.

If they can't cow you they'll say things about you. And then blame you for it.
Abusers are the same everywhere, its like they have a handbook.

Yup.

I will wait with interest, JK's lawyers must have really entertaining careers and I wonder what new resources she will set up with the compensation when she's sued the arse off this twit?

On the plus side, I think here's our answer. We just all identify as the Labour Party. We'll do all the speeches, we'll deliver the manifesto, and we'll turn Labour sane and electable overnight. Cos if we speak for them, that'll make it all real, right?

And tomorrow I shall be identifying as Stonewall. And sorting out their messaging.

'Jk's gender euphoria while using a male pen name'?

I actually would quite like to see it, just to see if it's as bad as the reviewer makes it sound. It does sound exactly like the pretend conversations I have in my head when I'm imagining I'm Secretary of State for Health and being interviewed on Today. TL:DR - I'm amazing in those interviews and Nick Robinson and indeed the nation falls back in admiration at my powerful intellect.