A plea for tolerance?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Not sure quite what to call this - it's a comment I made on an earlier thread, where it was pretty deeply buried. I'm posting it as a separate comment because it's something I feel pretty strongly about.

Yes, I know - this is a sporking community. We are making fun of the Harry Potter books, and, at times, some of us can get quite irate in our discussions. But - please, please, can we refrain from getting irate towards J.K. Rowling?

Here's what I mean: I'm really not comfortable discussing the character of an actual human being just because I find her books frustrating. I'm a bit of a structuralist. The author is dead once a book has been published, and that cuts two ways. The author is no more privileged in his/her interpretation than any other reader, because the work belongs to the readers now. And there are limits to what we can extrapolate about an author's belief, personality, etc, based on the work s/he has written.

As angry as I get at the awful, mixed messages in these books, I think we must never forget that a real, vulnerable human being wrote them. It isn't right or fair to trash her while trashing the books. (Though I like to think we're not trashing them, but subjecting them to rigorous criticism!) And I'm really not comfortable with speculating about her family life and personality based on the words she's written. Though I do believe all real art is "true" in a deep sense, and reveals the heart of its creator, I still think the art has, and must have, its own validity. You see what I mean?

I hope to be a published author one day. Though I neither want nor expect Rowling's level of fame, I wouldn't like it if anyone psycho-analyzed me on the basis of my stories. I don't think any of us would - and many of us do some type of creative work. Would we like to be called "stupid cows" because a reader found our work stupid? The person is not the work.

So I think it's fine to discuss the image of God in Rowling's stories. I think it's fine to question the heavy use of Christian symbolism given the non-Christian content of the stories. Heck, I've done this myself, repeatedly! It's fine to discuss the mixed messages about race, bullying, authority figures, and so much more. But I'd rather not discuss the psychology and personal life of the woman who wrote the stories. J.K. Rowling is a woman trying to write, and raise a family, and live, in this real world. We shouldn't forget that, no matter how angry her books make us.

Comments

[kaizopp.livejournal.com]

If you're not comfortable discussing the author, then... don't. I don't see why every one else should only discuss what you 'think is fine', though...

Every litt class I've ever had has brought up and analyzed authors personal lives, and even though I'm more of an 'author is dead' person myself, there's no reason for me to expect my teachers to cater only to me myself and I...

I wouldn't like to be called a 'stupid cow' indeed, but that's because it reeks of mysogyny. I someone calls me stupid because of something I write, whatever. And if you really don't want to be psychoanalyzed on something you write... good luck because it's going to happen anyway.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. It's true that anyone who enters the public arena and asks for a response (1) May very well get responses and (2) can't expect to control them. Which, really, is part of what I mean when I say the author is dead. I also accept that this is not a moderated community (as far as I know), and that people take all sorts of approaches to literary analysis.

I do think, though, there's a difference in examining the work of a living author and that of someone who's dead. I also think that attempting to diagnose someone by analyzing their writing is more than a little chancy. Finally, I'm absolutely opposed to making personal attacks on an author. That's not criticism. It's just meanness, don't you agree?

Thanks for your comment. I wasn't really trying to control anything, you know; I was merely expressing my own discomfort.

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

I agree. In fact, your post reminded me how much it irritated me when people do this and that I had been meaning to stop watching this community. I'm leaving on one of the few posts I've thoroughly agreed with.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks! Sorry you're leaving.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I understand and sympathise with the sentiment but I'm wary of imposing limits on what can be discussed here.

You agree that it's fine to discuss Rowling's work, its content, as closely as necessary - "the mixed messages about race, bullying, authority figures, and so much more". Good-oh.

But a significant portion of HP/literary analysis can't help but be attached to the person who wrote the work. For example, looking at all the Mary Sue characters, the authorial inserts. Hermione is Rowling as a child. Snape the chemistry teacher from her school years. Ron the ex-husband. And so forth.

Furthermore - with Rowling like no other author - we are *invited* to talk about Rowling the woman. She voluntarily gave us all of this personal information! And also invited fans to be cozy with her - "call me Jo".

I've never stepped into the gutter in attacking Rowling (except maybe in mocking her 'wardrobe malfunctions', which were just so funny. And unsuitable for her child audience in the first place) but I think it's quite appropriate to ponder on the authorial abilities - or lack of same - which resulted in the flawed prose we read. Which encroaches on the 'psychology ... of the woman who wrote the stories' proscription you'd like to enforce. But I think that's a legitimate avenue to explore in analysing the HP flaws and why they are so proliferate.

As kaizopp has said, literature classes examine the people behind the authors all the time. Rowling's voluntarily stepped into the limelight ever so much more than most; she's a public figure like no other author. On both scores - author and public figure - she's fair game for any reasonable scrutiny.

I understand where you're coming from. I've seen attacks on Rowling here, lately, with a level of viciousness exceeded only by the sheer silliness, exaggeration and bias needed to float them. I think that's the trick in reading those sort of attacks, Mary; roll your eyes, laugh and then move on. Rather than trying to blanket the community with a policy that would block the more logical and reasoned analyses of how Rowling-the-woman wrote her books along with the silly/malicious stuff.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Nice to see you, Brad! And it may be true that Rowling herself invited the level of scrutiny we're engaged in. Even so, IMHO, few professors of literature are also psychologists, and vice versa. I am neither a professor of lit nor a psychologist; I'm a librarian, a fan, and a writer.

So - yes, it's fair to talk about certain aspects of an author's life and how they may have influenced her art. But I do think there is a line we shouldn't cross. And it's simple. We shouldn't make personal attacks on the human being, even when we're attacking the books.

As I said above, I understand this isn't a moderated community, and I don't want to tell anyone what questions they can raise, etc. But I do think we can try to be kind and courteous.

Really, I think we see eye to eye on this, don't we?

[vermouth1991.livejournal.com]

I think that a real line that we need to draw here is actually to keep civil in our opinions and in the face of others'. We should be free to call out on what we percieve to be BS from other people on this LJ group, but also be prepared to back our claims with something concrete. I still remember your LJ post on your feelings after watching "The Dark Knight", where you expressed that it made you rather uncomfortable that other people placed so much emphasis on The Joker (i'm paraphrasing here), to be honest I couldn't disagree with you more there, but I didn't reply because 1. It was so long ago and 2. I don't know how to keep it civil without getting all fanboyly over the matter. I mean, to me it felt almost blasphemous (in the fandom-sense at least) to see someone "diss" such an iconic villian that way, but I couldn't form a coherent arguement, and I'm glad I did not actually write anything down.

All in all it's a very fine line to tread, I think.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, it is. As to the Joker - are you talking about my post from last summer, "Chesterton, Dickens, and the Dark Knight?" It's true that I could barely watch the Joker when he was onscreen, but that is, if anything, a tribute to Heath Ledger's performance. The Joker is a horribly effective villain, wonderfully written and played, and I don't do villains very well. He is the devil, the prince of this world, and all the cards are his.

But I'm glad you didn't diss me personally because of our disagreement!

And, really, that's all I'm asking for. Just that we keep it to attacking ideas, not people. As I've said, I do realize this is not a moderated community. For the most part, we do manage to be civil to each other. There are a couple of people who are very passionate, very insightful, and whose posts and comments I usually enjoy who have, however, sometimes disturbed me. They have attacked Rowling personally, not just the books. I can understand their frustration; I can understand their questioning her motives. There is a fine line. I would hope we could refrain from attacking the creator when discussing her books, but perhaps we can't. Perhaps all I can do in such a case is to bow out of the discussion, as you and Brad have both suggested.

[vermouth1991.livejournal.com]

Hey, I'm glad we're okay on this! :)

I have my personal squicks and fandoms/books that I can't stand (while other people cannot shut up about), so I try my best to stay humble. You know, despite TDK being a PG-13 movie, Heath Ledger's take on the character was regarded by many to be the most brutal one seen on any media of the source material. It's perfectly normal to be spooked by it.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

But I do think there is a line we shouldn't cross. And it's simple. We shouldn't make personal attacks on the human being, even when we're attacking the books.

I do understand, and pretty much agree. I've certainly criticised Rowling, and denigrated her work and her abilities as a writer, without crossing what I think is your line and launching an all-out personal attack on her across the spectrum.

So -

Really, I think we see eye to eye on this, don't we?

I honestly think so, yes.

But this (*largely* unmoderated) forum has a mixture of all types of folk. There are a couple here who are pretty feral ... I think I've seen their personal attacks on Rowling, and occasionally there have been personal insults launched at me too! (I know, unbelievable, right? :-)) These attacks (on both targets) being motivated by a variable mix of nastiness, meanness and intellectual cowardice. Just a reminder that one comes across people on the internet that one would normally cross the road to avoid in real life. :-) The internet analogue to such an action being to simply choose not to participate in the relevant discussion, as has been mentioned here.

I think ... in internet forums one has to bear in mind that we're all from different cultures, brought up in different ways. One or two people here took offence at my designation of Ginny Weasley as 'The Girl Who Dates' (I still have to go back and make some (final?) replies there). I was using the material that her own author wrote for her characterisation and behaviour, but nonetheless it made a couple of folk uncomfortable. You've defined your own line that we shouldn't cross - "We shouldn't make personal attacks on the human being ...". I largely agree with that. But for some people here that 'line' also extended beyond your 'human being' to cover a fictional character! A definition I don't believe I need to honour and protection that I don't believe Ginny Weasley deserves. :-)

I think it's rather amusing that your line covers real human beings, but for others it also encompasses characters of make-believe. :-) And for some there's no line at all holding back their aggression.

We all have different shades of 'lines' and comfort zones. Absolutely nothing wrong with trying to coach the community to fall into line with one's own preferences, but ultimately the only sure-fire way to avoid friction is to steer clear of those who make one uncomfortable.

[annoni-no.livejournal.com]

I can't speak for anyone else, but since you've brought up the Ginny Weasley debacle yourself, this is my issue: calling her The Girl Who Dates is sexist, full stop. It's a form of slut-shaming and I cannot in good conscience allow it to pass without calling it out for the inappropriate attack on female sexuality it is.

This stuff matters. Whenever a girl or woman comes forward with an accusation of rape, it's almost inevitable that people will drag her past relationships into the issue to discredit and attack her. Did she have sex with her rapist before? Did she have sex with anyone before? With how many other people? How many can she have sex with before we can just call her out as the slut she is? Yeah, she says she'd never gone all the way before this, but she'd gone out with guys before and ******* always lie about it the next day, yo.

Holding up a woman's sexuality or sexual or romantic desire as a point of derision reinforces that dynamic. It feeds into the cultural belief that woman can't legitimately have such desires of their own. If they do, and if they dare to assert that they do, then they're considered free game to be attacked, verbally and physically. She was asking for it, after all.

Yes, Ginny dated three boys in canon. One of those boys was black. There is, in fact, a technical term for that: miscegenation. But if you were to start calling her Ginny Weasley, The Miscegenist, I'd call you out for the racism of that statement, too. A statement being technically factual doesn't make it appropriate - or relevant.

As long as all parties are fully informed and freely consenting, it is no one's business who is going out with whom. It's not even anyone's business if someone, regardless of gender, goes out and has orgies every night with different partners as long as everyone involved understands and consents to the situation.

If you want to criticize Ginny for lying to her boyfriends by pretending to be interested when she only ever wanted Harry, fine. I'm right with you. That's a form of emotional abuse and it's unacceptable whether the perpetrator is male or female. If you want to criticize Rowling's writing and shallow characterization, by all means, carry on. There are many, many problems with the character of Ginny Weasley and Rowling's abilities and choices as an author. You don't need to lean on Rape Culture to justify a dislike of either.

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

I also am a big believer in "criticize the art, not the artist." For all that she's in the public eye, none of us actually knows JKR personally. Speculation on what she's like as a friend, a wife, a mother is--I wouldn't say improper, but rather presumptuous. We all have complete access to the published books, but none of us has access to JKR herself. She's a public figure for her writing alone, not for anything in her private life. Her writing is there for me to shred; her personal concerns are not something about which I can have anything relevant to say.

I'm not about to tell others what they can and cannot discuss. To some extent JKR's life is relevant to her books, but I think there is a point--hard to define but real--at which personal criticism and speculation reflect worse on the critic than on JKR herself. I prefer not to get too close to that line, and I always end up thinking less well of those who cross it.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Exactly. And, really, I'm not trying to tell others what they can discuss. I am just asking that we refrain from attacking the human being even while we have free rein to attack anything we like about her books.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

If you don't want anyone to have a negative thought about you and your work, don't publish your work and never step into the footlight.

Oh, people who've visited these comms (mostly Marauders fans!) already have very negative thoughts about me and my work, alas! Too late!

To get back to your comment, you are one of the people I've found very passionate and insightful when discussing these books. I've found a lot of what you have to say illuminating. I cannot, of course, fully understand how much of a trigger these books are to you, but I appreciate that they are a trigger, because they are absolutely ridden with narcissism.

And I'm grateful to you and OneandtheTruth for pointing it out.

But I really do think there is a difference between the morality in the books and the morality of the author.
That's a very, very, fine line, and people will perceive it in different places. There's also a line, not so fine, between discussing an author (and I mean the author, not the books) and simply calling an author names. That line's been crossed a few times, and it does make me uncomfortable. Thus this post.

I expect we're going to have to agree to differ on all these things. I repeat that I've been grateful for your posts and your comments, though we have many differences. And I'm not trying to control anything or anyone. I'm just asking that we have some mercy in how we treat the author. The author, not the books. We can be as merciless as we like toward them; many of us would think they deserve it!

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

Well, by saying that Snape was based on her old chemistry teacher, JKR publicly identified the poor man and turned his life upside down, to the point that he's even been psychoanalyzed in web forums. That is a profoundly horrible thing to do to someone, and as far as I know, she's never expressed any regret about it. For that, I consider her a to be a truly horrible person, and there is much in her writing to support that opinion.

Ordinarily I'd have a problem with people making personal attacks, but I'll make an exception for JKR. For opening that poor man up to that sort of thing, she has invited anything that anyone wants to throw at her.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Um - yes, the chemistry teacher. I think I actually saw and participated in one of those conversations you're talking about, and yes, it was weird. Some people seemed to have a really poor sense of boundaries.

But what I remember reading about this man:
1. He was really helpful to the Rowling family.
2. When he was "outed" as Snape, he was distressed to be seen as a bad guy, though he eventually became more comfortable with the character and the fandom. But still - this caused him distress initially.
3. And Rowling saying "He deserved it" at that author interview. I didn't like that at all. I think we can objectively say that that was nasty, immature behavior.

So I do see where you're coming from. But I'd add that, precisely because I don't approve of what she did, I don't want to go and do likewise.

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, he became more reconciled to his alter ego after Whitehound and some other fans began corresponding with him, telling him how much they admired Snape. He came to refer to them as "The Sisterhood."

Hooray for Snape fangirls!

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

Hooray indeed! And I hope that the Snapefen did give him some comfort.

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

You're right - we shouldn't do likewise, and I try not to. However, I'm not upset by people who attack her, like I would be for almost any other author.

"He deserved it"? For trying to teach her something that she didn't want to learn? No one deserves that!

In any event, I felt it necessary to point out her deplorable behaviour.

[darth-eldritch.livejournal.com]

I kind of agree with you but I have problems with Rowling.

Her views on issues are transparent in her writings. This is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but it does open the writer to analysis and criticism, especially if those views are controversial or perceived as hurtful in some way. Her blatant favoritism. Harry Can Do No Wrong, for one. On the other hand, she is sympathetic at times.

On social issues, authors are always analyzed in that context, both in historical and personal education and viewpoints. If you are an author of any note, this cannot and should not be avoided.

I think these things have been covered in this comm with Rowling, and very well, too.

Now, if she had written the books with more detachment and objectivism, it might be different, because we'd know she was simply portraying a cast of characters in a magical school that generally doesn't reflect so much on her own private life. But that may not have worked and her story would not have been so vivid and her characters might not have been that much liked or hated. Some writers need to write this way to effectively tell their stories.

It's a trade off. It's one she's made combined with her public statements that have caused controversy. She's made herself open to the public for better or for worse, therefore she's fair game for criticism. For all the problems with fortune and fame, she's well paid for it, too.

But civility, yeah. I agree on that. There are those out there who seek to take out all of their frustrations on someone online in personal attacks and sometimes that target is an author. But to be brutally honest, so long as it isn't slurs, or so grossly demeaning to be offensive or hurtful to others, I don't really care. Authors know what they are in for- it's part of the territory. Generally they are getting nicely compensated for it, too. And they tend to learn to ignore and filter out a lot of stuff out there- it's not like they don't have loyal fans who counter attack (Anne Rice, I'm looking at you). I think it's more important to maintain civility among others in a comm discussing writings and authors. It's also important to maintain a objective viewpoint of a favorite author and not be offended if someone makes a unfavorable and well thought out assessment of that author.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

But see annoni_no's post below. I do understand that Rowling has, by making sweeping statements in interviews, rendered herself open to certain types of attack. But there is a difference between criticizing what she says or what she writes and criticizing her. To give one example, you can state firmly that Rowling glorifies narcissism in these books. It's crossing a line, though a very fine one, to accuse her of being a narcissist herself. That might be acceptable, but it makes me uneasy. It's crossing yet another line to call her a stupid cow. I don't find that acceptable at all.

And, when you say, Authors know what they are in for- it's part of the territory. Generally they are getting nicely compensated for it, too. - I have to say I don't agree. I don't think accepting personal attacks is, or should be, the price one pays for seeking publication! And the vast majority of authors make less than 30K a year from their writing, as I remember. It's a rare published author who becomes a megastar.

[darth-eldritch.livejournal.com]

Biographers and historians speculate all the time on the private lives of the people whom they write about. And to a certain lesser degree I don't think this should be stopped, but critiqued. People aren't going to stop doing this anyways, regardless of our own personal comfort or opinions on the matter.

Being that I've worked in publishing and have friends who are published, I know that most authors aren't the megastars. What I said, so long as it isn't slurs, or so grossly demeaning to be offensive or hurtful to others pretty much covers personal attacks (i.e. stupid cow, which is grossly demeaning even if it wasn't sexist, imo), so I am not saying that authors who are looking to be published have to accept personal attacks, rudeness, or problematic behavior from others. However you aren't going to be immune to general satire, observations, jokes, criticism or speculation. People have a right to free speech and you have to be prepared for it. And, yes, getting paid even a few thousand a year for writing is a nice compensation. At least I think so.

[annoni-no.livejournal.com]

Chiming in to say that I agree. People have every right to discuss interviews she's participated in and written works she's published. What she hasn't put out, though, should be left alone. None of us know her. Her personal life isn't our business.
Everyone brings their own preconceptions and prejudices to the table when speculating about anything. People who already dislike what facts they do know about something are likely to assume the absolute worst about areas they know nothing about, regardless of relevance or degree of connection.

Rowling has given us plenty of material to critique. The words she has put out in her books and interviews should stand or fall on their own. As none of us is Ms. Rowling's personal psychiatrist, we have no business speculating about psychology or personal relationships. There is more than enough published material for us to be getting on with.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thank you! This, exactly.