A continuation of her Death of the Author video but the emphasis on JKR's transphobic and hateful content.
Lindsay Ellis - Death of the Author 2: Rowling Boogaloo
- Thread starter theme park joe
- Start date
A continuation of her Death of the Author video but the emphasis on JKR's transphobic and hateful content.
But has she apologized to the NB people she tarred as GamerGate adjacent?
Because it seems to me like you can't exactly champion Trans rights on one hand, and throw NB's (and trans people who called it out) under the bus in another.
Would like to see some clarification on the subject, tbh.
Because it seems to me like you can't exactly champion Trans rights on one hand, and throw NB's (and trans people who called it out) under the bus in another.
Would like to see some clarification on the subject, tbh.
This is weird. I'm not used to Lindsay releasing a video when the subject at hand is still relevant.
This too.
Well some of these things (Rowling's whole schtick) is pretty old.
OP
OP
I'm now imagining George Lucas chained to a Confederate monument claiming they had midichlorians or something.
That OSC call out.
I too have always been baffled how the author of Speaker for the Dead - whose themes of empathy for those different from you, could have been written by such a bigoted piece of shit.
I too have always been baffled how the author of Speaker for the Dead - whose themes of empathy for those different from you, could have been written by such a bigoted piece of shit.
Just skipped through this, and her main point is something I agree with 100%. You can separate the art from the artist, but if you give money for the art then that money is still helping the artist be an asshole/bigot/detriment to society. I own the books and movies and won't be spending more that goes to her. Same reason I won't give The Smiths Spotify plays and if I felt like it I'd drag out the CDs. (But really, Morrissey's views are so gross I'm turned off from even doing that.)
I kinda hate how popular use of "death of the author" has deviated from its original meaning, but that's just my lit crit degree talking.
I kinda hate how popular use of "death of the author" has deviated from its original meaning, but that's just my lit crit degree talking.
Speaker for the Dead is so beautiful, and it is so puzzling it came from such a hateful man.
It's funny how in a different context, I would have thought Rowling maintaining such control of her IP was a triumph, but Harry Potter is such a massive and influential franchise that it's like a whole segment of modern culture is just spoiled by her shitty views.
Agreed 100%. It's fucking baffling. But then Dave Sim created some really well-rounded and fascinating women characters in comics but turned out to be a huge misogynist, so I guess I have a precedent.
People also feel the same way about the writer of Altered Carbon. Like... the stances he takes are decidedly against what cyberpunk (and even his own work) stands for.
She's absolutely right when she says that Rowling/HP are uniquely intertwined in a way that is impossible to separate. She isn't going to sell her ownership of it nor step down from it anytime soon so if you're prepared to buy her books, watch her films or yes even her games (she won't actually make anything to do with the rumoured RPG but you're honestly kidding yourself if you believe she had absolutely no influence on it whatsoever or that she will just ignore it entirely) then you are playing into her hands, regardless of whether you agree with her transphobia or not. Just don't. Buy something, anything, else.
No, this is just her version of a hottake video relevant to a topic she did an actual essay on already. That's why it's titled that way.
I thought the first was good though when I watched it a ways back.
No. It helps with the Ender's Game reference but that's about it
This video is largely a response to people trying to apply that original video's thesis to Rowling, which here she says does not effectively apply on ethical grounds.
Well I finally made up my mind on that upcoming Harry Potter RPG, that's a big no go for me.
I am so sad about not seeing movie 2 and 3 in The Fantastic Beasts series. Kidding about that, I found the first to be so meh I skipped 2.
I am so sad about not seeing movie 2 and 3 in The Fantastic Beasts series. Kidding about that, I found the first to be so meh I skipped 2.
As someone whose very pro-death of the author, her use of it is kind of utterly alien to me. I use it as a means to argue that the strongest interpretation of a text is based on the text itself, not the author. As in, if George RR Martin were to say that ASoIaF was a story about how true love conquers all, my response to that would be "Uh, that's not what the thing you wrote says here, GRRM. Like, no part of it implies that at all." It's effectively the idea that, like Lindsay said, once the work of art is out in the world, it belongs to the world. It has nothing to do with 'manly, emotionlessly interpretting the text', because...fuck, I am ALL about subjectivity and emotional responses, dude. It's THE reason I'm for Death of the Author, because when the author is alive, it's mostly just used as a rhetorical "I win" button by people who would rather appeal to authority to win an argument than actually do the work of interpreting and deriving personal meaning out of a text. Death of the Author demands you do the work of finding meaning by yourself. And I consider when people claim "death of the author" just as a way to absolve themselves of supporting toxic people to be a fundamental misuse of it.
But with regards to her actual point about Harry Potter and how Rowling wields the power she has with her fanbase, I am mostly in agreement. There is a wide gap of difference between the artistic meaning you find within Harry Potter as a story and willfully disregarding that to financially support the Harry Potter intellectual property, you are in effect supporting JK Rowling financially, which she in turn uses to materially hurt a marginalized community. You can still love Harry Potter the story of a young boy who discovers a magical world that accepts him, but you can't buy the new Harry Potter video game coming out without giving Rowling fuel to oppress trans people.
And I should note that this isn't simply about money, because Rowling's already a billionaire and set for life, but the cultural influence that kind of money signifies. Like, you can't take Rowling's billions without changing the country's laws, but if you want to stop Rowling's Transphobia, then not buying Harry Potter stuff as a result will mean that the companies who make Harry Potter material will be forced in some way to disavow her, which means Harry Potter can continue to live on, but Rowling's cultural influence will be limited.
But with regards to her actual point about Harry Potter and how Rowling wields the power she has with her fanbase, I am mostly in agreement. There is a wide gap of difference between the artistic meaning you find within Harry Potter as a story and willfully disregarding that to financially support the Harry Potter intellectual property, you are in effect supporting JK Rowling financially, which she in turn uses to materially hurt a marginalized community. You can still love Harry Potter the story of a young boy who discovers a magical world that accepts him, but you can't buy the new Harry Potter video game coming out without giving Rowling fuel to oppress trans people.
And I should note that this isn't simply about money, because Rowling's already a billionaire and set for life, but the cultural influence that kind of money signifies. Like, you can't take Rowling's billions without changing the country's laws, but if you want to stop Rowling's Transphobia, then not buying Harry Potter stuff as a result will mean that the companies who make Harry Potter material will be forced in some way to disavow her, which means Harry Potter can continue to live on, but Rowling's cultural influence will be limited.
Here point is also, that "Death of the Author" can work, if the author is long dead, not relevant and powerful enough to make a difference or has no control over the future of the work. That's why Rowling is such a special case. She still has all of her resources intact and full control of the Harry Potter franchise. She does a lot of harm right know and any purchased product helps her, creating even more harm. Boycotting and fight her in the open may take a long time, since she has a lot of resources and fame ... but it is still the only way forward.
Changing Rowling will not work, since, like Lindsey says, she believes to be the "good guy" in this story. Villains always believe to be in the right, because they believe, that we just don't understand the "bigger picture" ...
Changing Rowling will not work, since, like Lindsey says, she believes to be the "good guy" in this story. Villains always believe to be in the right, because they believe, that we just don't understand the "bigger picture" ...
I made my peace with "separating the art from the artist" really early with Ender's Game.
Yeah, but I think she knows that. She's responding to the popular meaning that the term as taken on, which is just "separate the art from the artist."
I don't wholly buy into New Criticism (where the notion comes from) but it's an important angle to looking at work and the shifted popular meaning muddies it.
None of this is as important as calling out a TERF and publicly showing a lack of support for them.
Same. Barthes would be disgusted.
Seems like people just want to wash their hands of any guilt about financially supporting disgusting people, which is important... but the better way to do this is to not buy products that financially support them.
The problem is, that if you know her problematic views, you can't just forget that aspect of her, while reading her stories. You will have them in the back of your mind and may find elements, which will may give the text a different understanding. Even know, you make thing back on the story and think, that you may have overlooked some hints, she left about her true agenda.
Maybe a future generation will have the blessing of ignorance, but right know, the text is spoiled.
N. K. Jemisin on H. P. Lovecraft, and a Tumultuous Week in Impeachment
The science-fiction author grapples with the racism at the foundation of the genre; and a Washington correspondent considers the impact of John Bolton.
I do agree that it's complicated... I personally liked N.K. Jemisin's take on how to deal with shitty authors' views while evaluating their work expressed in this podcast about Lovecraft. There are things to be learned from reading the work of bad people.
Lovecraft being dead and his work being in public domain makes it easier to deal with, in terms of real world impact, though.
I would never financially support Rowling in the future, personally.
Spot on. Aiming this @ people gleefully falling over themselves to tell us how hyped they are about the new HP game. Clowns.
Yeah, same here.
Thankfully I'm pretty sure I haven't spent any money on anything HP related since she started spreading her Trans bigotry, maybe Fantastic Beasts 2 on sale for like $5, but never watched it and don't have any intention to.
It helps that I haven't enjoyed anything HP related since she finished the books. Wasn't a fan of the movies, and the only game thing I liked was Lego Harry Potter.
MAYBE in a few years I'll get a bargain bin used copy if it's good and completely free of any TERF shit.
But even then there are already more games I can play that I DO want to play and I don't need to worry about this shit with.
I have a mixed response to that. Because on one hand, 'having it in the back of your mind' is not a problem for me.
I don't believe in objective evaluation of art, I don't even bother trying to seek it. As I said in the post your quoting, I'm all about subjectivity and don't shy away from things 'influencing' me. So, knowing Rowling is a transphobic bigot, in terms of me evaluating Harry Potter would be no different than if I read Harry Potter while I was high, or if I read it after the death of a parent, or a harsh breakup, or having been in a car crash, or even if I was just in an irritated mode from a shitty co-worker, or whatever. All these things will 'influence' my reading of any text I read at the time I'm aware of and feeling these things, and I embrace it. I think it's important to know that you are being influenced by outside forces, but that's not the same as resisting them. Objectivity is for people in denial of human experience. As long as I can get into the story, it's basically all fine for me.
That said, I have experienced what your describing. I have had one recent experience that genuinely influenced my immersion of a work in a negative way. Whats unique about it is that I haven't read the work of this author before, but I bought the book based on premise, which appealed to me. Only later did I realize he excessively conservative. Not necessarily alt-right, but definitely had some opinions I side eyed on his twitter. As a result, I had difficulty separating his character's voice from the author's voice, all the more so because the book was written from first person where the character espouses his personal philosophy at the reader once every 20 pages. In this case, I went into it being unable to see the character as anything but a self-insert, which made meant I was never immersed in the story.
But this is literally the one work in which I've been unable to put the author out of my mind as I read it. Everything else, I've been able to do. So my current theory is, atleast for me personally, I can usually reread established works by authors that turn out to be shitty, like Rowling, but I might not be able to do that for authors that I haven't read before. Alternatively, it might be because the story was from such a personal point of view, whereas if he wrote something more plot-based, it'd be easier to ignroe.
Last edited:
To be fair, Dave Sim's mental health deteriorated in later years, and that's when his...outbursts started occurring
I'm never going to buy an OSC book, but then you have things where he's only one small contributor like The Secret of Monkey Island, and it gets more complicated. How that translates to things like theme parks and the Harry Potter RPG I'm not pretending to know.
If you feel conflicted, I'd come down on the side of avoiding whatever it is. I've gone as far as throwing out movies I owned and love because James Woods is in them.
If you feel conflicted, I'd come down on the side of avoiding whatever it is. I've gone as far as throwing out movies I owned and love because James Woods is in them.
As somebody who works in film, I could never abide throwing out films because of the actions of one person.
Movies are made from the blood, sweat and tears of countless people.
With your example, imagine not experiencing the beauty and soul of Ennio Morricone on display in Once Upon a Time in America because fuckstick James Woods is in it.
I've never really thought of applying Death of the Author in this way, interesting. I normally just use it when people like Ridley Scott start huffing their own farts and saying outlandish things about their own texts.
And what of Deniro's work? Leone's work? Delli Colli's work? The work of hundreds of others?
I mean, just read harry potter and see how heteronormative it is. She said later "Dumbledore is gay" for press.
Reads wasn't that far removed from Jaka's Story, time wise. He did get even worse later.
The essence of her point is not using an academic framework to absolve you of any guilt you may be feeling in supporting a bigots work.
I think this is important.
I think this is important.
Not that I've seen, the last I saw her even reference the stuff with Contra was making a joke in her protest music video that youtubers can't collab anymore because one of them might get cancelled and the other has to apologize for knowing them.
Basically turned me off her videos forever.
I feel like I don't even need to separate the art from the artist in this case. I can read Speaker for the Dead, actively remind myself of OSC's bigoted views, and it's still incomprehensible. There's nothing there. The big climax of the story is an elaborate refutation of the bigotry and intolerance of those who refuse to accept any lifestyle but their own as valid.
Like... has OSC read his own books?
I don't like to delve into conspiracy and wild speculation, but I genuinely wonder if that stroke OSC had ~10 years ago fucked with his brain.
What about the transphobic jokes Lindsay Ellis made, has she apologised or done better from that incident, is that discussed in this video?
