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

[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.