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]

No, but it certainly makes it a valid and eligible candidate for consideration as an appropriate or relevant point for an issue under discussion. I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. In a debate, if you can prove something is NOT technically factual, then you can throw it out. If you prove it IS factual then (a) you've helped your opposition and (b) you still have to make an effort to prove that it's not applicable.

No. It is not the duty of the defense to prove applicability of every tiny detail.. A woman factually wearing black lace panties instead of white cotton ones has no relevance to the question of whether or not she was raped. Likewise, the number of boys a woman has dated and how long she waited between ending one relationship and starting another has no relevance to her good character(ization) or lack thereof.


I guess you should tell Ron Weasley that. And Harry. And Hermione, who kept track of Ginny's romantic dalliances. I'm just a reader. They were the characters keeping tabs on Ginny's dating.

You are the human (I am assuming) commenter who continuously denigrates Ginny as The Girl Who Dates. They are fictional characters who do not, in reality, have control over their actions, nor do they in any case reduce a girl to a one dimensional pejorative, which in this matter makes their behavior more moral than yours. Further, it is human to be aware of the relationships of people around us who we care about, such as a friend, a sister, or a crush. One is especially aware of and talks about others' relationships when they affect one's own prospects (Harry), is worried about their affect on the person in question (Ron), or are serving as a friend and sounding-board to the person in question (Hermione). (And before you even bring it up, yes, Ron's comments suggesting the student body might be justified in calling Ginny a Scarlet Woman are also sexist and furthering of rape culture. This is something else to be criticized in his character, not an excuse to behave similarly.)


There's no 'attack on female sexuality' in my noting that Ginny is a girl who largely defines her existence on dating boys. There's nothing sexist - I'd do the same if Harriet Potter was the Girl Who Lived and Gerald Weasley was his destined romantic partner.

...

I, personally, don't think dating for the sake of dating is an admirable quality or pursuit. In Ginny's case it's much worse, as you've noted, because of her 'using' the boys in her ultimate quest to snare Harry.

The problem is that it doesn't matter whether you personally consider a quality admirable. The problem is that you are attacking someone, anyone, for a behavior which harms no one and is no-one's business. Worse, you are encouraging others to attack her as well by insisting that shame and reproach is the minimum acceptable response.

Name one piece of concrete harm that came from Ginny dating multiple boys as she did. Not your offended sensibilities, but concrete, defined harm to the characters in the world in which Ginny exists. Name one piece of concrete harm that came from Ginny moving on to a new relationship after her old one ended in the time frame she did. Name one. And no, you can't point to her using her the boys as tools as your example. That's a separate issue, as it would be wrong of her to use someone like that if she had only ever dated a single boy or had never dated anyone at all.

Besides, as your own writing has made clear it's not the emotional abuse that's important to you: you don't even mention it as an issue unless someone else brings it up first. Your attack is always, consistently, nigh monotonously on the fact that Ginny dated multiple boys and moved on too quickly. It's the only logical meaning of your shorthand “The Girl Who Dates.” If you want to continue to attack her dating habits, provide evidence for why they deserve to be attacked besides “I don't like it.”