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

[annoni-no.livejournal.com]

I just thought it was a bit amusing, how some people foamed at the mouth for daring to insult (in their eyes) a fictitious character while others cast slurs on the real-life author without a qualm.

Are you implying people are being hypocritical? Who? It's only hypocrisy if it's the same people doing both things. If some commenters are doing so, call them out as you feel is appropriate. Otherwise this is not germane to the discussion we're having.


Now, as an overall qualifier covering all of this serial-dater stuff I want to make it clear that I personally never thought that Harry, Ginny, Ron and Hermione were having sex. I happily read in accordance with the overall intent, customised to Rowling's child readership, that kissing was as far as romantic relations went. Unlike some fans I didn't go looking in the white space between the lines for adult themes in the HP books.

I mention this because I think you, and others, go overboard in your attacks/reactions because you're extrapolating beyond what Rowling wrote. With at least two exaggerations that *I'm* not comfortable with in just your comment here:

* a think calling a girl a 'slut' for merely dating/kissing a series of boys is going too far. 'Slut' is more appropriate for a girl who sleeps with a series of boys; at least that's how I see it;

* miscegenation, according to dictionary dot com, concerns 'marriage or cohabitation between two people of different races'. Which is beyond my own impression of what Ginny and Dean were getting up to.

So I think you have to understand from the start that I'm not looking at this with quite your fervour, because I'm not taking Rowling's books and writing as far beyond what was written as what you are doing. Which is part of your problem with what I *am* saying.

My problem with the Girl Who Dates issue has nothing whatsoever to do with Rowling's writing. It is entirely with you and your continued insistence on using offensive and sexist language and arguments.

If Ginny's “serial” dating is the G-rated version of being a slut, then her dating a black boy while white is the G-rated version of miscegenation. The comparison stands. As I don't believe you would consider it appropriate to call her Ginny Weasley, The Miscegenist (or whatever cutesy nickname you might come up with to refer to a mixed-race relationship, sexual or otherwise) under any circumstances, even if they technically were sleeping together, I would hope you would understand why others are saying that it is equally wrong in principle to condemn her for being 'slut-like,' if not a full-on slut, just because she (under your interpretation of the character) hasn't actually slept with anyone.

Also, refer again to the fact that however you personally might use the word “slut,” we live in a culture that does NOT confine its use to only those women who have willingly and enthusiastically slept with multiple partners (which use in itself is sexist and inappropriate). It is used to shame and denigrate women who dare to dance in public, who discuss having any kind of sex that's not pure vanilla (or even sex that is pure vanilla). It is used to erase and justify the victimization of children who are gang-raped or otherwise violated.

You are not using this word in a vacuum and it is neither your right nor within your power to dictate how the larger community uses the word nor to deny the reality of how others use it. Your usage of it in turn is, by necessity, interpreted in light of that larger cultural context. To deny that interconnectivity is either willful ignorance or delusion.