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

[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.