Unfortunately, Death of the Author does not apply here. Engaging with her media keeps her relevant and continues to introduce her and her beliefs to new people. Plus, the media itself (especially the books) has its own issues. Her bigotry is not a new thing.
As a bisexual trans woman living in the US, my daily life is dictated by the laws bigots like her have enacted and my ability to keep myself safe by spotting red flags. There are parts of this country - entire states - that I would never visit without an M249 SAW loaded and ready.
Being able to continue to engage with a piece of media without the problematic parts of it and the opinion of the author about those who do engage with her media as supporters of her politics bothering you doesn’t make someone a bigot, but it is a red flag. And much like those who say they support trans rights and continue to vote for people like Trump anyways, I’m not gonna trust you to have my back. Because you’ve shown which of the two you value more.
not the person you were answering to (I specify as someone already got confused).
I think I see your point but I personally disagree with some of the premises.
Engaging with her media keeps her relevant and continues to introduce her and her beliefs to new people
I think this is at least partially inaccurate. Private conversations with people who already read the books/watched the movie have virtually no effect whatsoever. Introducing it to new people may have an effect, but I think it’s marginal to the point of being irrelevant. I still agree that an impact exists though.
Plus, the media itself (especially the books) has its own issues.
Here I am not sure what exactly you imply, but I believe that it’s perfectly fine to engage with media that has ideas, or language, we don’t agree with (a point beautifully conveyed in the movie American Fiction). Regarding the “problematic” parts, they are all pretty much related to abstract analysis that are simply irrelevant for the target audience. It doesn’t even matter if globins are actually inspired by Jewish stereotypes or not, even if it was the case and if it was done with bad intentions, none in the target audience will actually understand any of it or be conditioned by it.
And much like those who say they support trans rights and continue to vote for people like Trump anyways
I think this is a very unbalanced comparison. Voting has direct impact on policies, engaging with HP does not, and when it does (money to J.K.R., donation to parties, policy) is very indirect. If we need to apply the same standard for any indirect relationship, we fallback to the “As soon as you buy anything you are guilty” (doesn’t even matter what you buy if you do with a card, for example).
Obviously you are free to consider what you want a red flag, but personally I consider support of certain ideas, and concrete actions to provide that support, something to judge people on.
It may not be marginal so I have to think about that one…
Can take away private discussions with past readers who don’t & won’t [financially] support JK over my dead body though :p (that one is super hard to argue against IMO)
i think 2 things when i see a HP tattoo: 1) that IP was created by a bigot; and 2) i would have made it a pretty high priority to get that tattoo covered or redone into something else, out of respect for the trans people i know
Gonna be honest, if someone is making snap judgements because another person enjoys of the most popular stories of all time, im not sure theyre worth anyones time.
Guess ill go tell my trans friend with a deathly hallows tat they are bigoted.
Enjoying Harry Potter doesn’t mean they have to engage with JK Rowling.
It can mean talking about it with fans, getting a tattoo, cosplaying, or just rereading a book.
If you see a harry potter tattoo and the first thing you think is “bigot”, youre just a prejudiced dickface.
Unfortunately, Death of the Author does not apply here. Engaging with her media keeps her relevant and continues to introduce her and her beliefs to new people. Plus, the media itself (especially the books) has its own issues. Her bigotry is not a new thing.
As a bisexual trans woman living in the US, my daily life is dictated by the laws bigots like her have enacted and my ability to keep myself safe by spotting red flags. There are parts of this country - entire states - that I would never visit without an M249 SAW loaded and ready.
Being able to continue to engage with a piece of media without the problematic parts of it and the opinion of the author about those who do engage with her media as supporters of her politics bothering you doesn’t make someone a bigot, but it is a red flag. And much like those who say they support trans rights and continue to vote for people like Trump anyways, I’m not gonna trust you to have my back. Because you’ve shown which of the two you value more.
not the person you were answering to (I specify as someone already got confused).
I think I see your point but I personally disagree with some of the premises.
I think this is at least partially inaccurate. Private conversations with people who already read the books/watched the movie have virtually no effect whatsoever. Introducing it to new people may have an effect, but I think it’s marginal to the point of being irrelevant. I still agree that an impact exists though.
Here I am not sure what exactly you imply, but I believe that it’s perfectly fine to engage with media that has ideas, or language, we don’t agree with (a point beautifully conveyed in the movie American Fiction). Regarding the “problematic” parts, they are all pretty much related to abstract analysis that are simply irrelevant for the target audience. It doesn’t even matter if globins are actually inspired by Jewish stereotypes or not, even if it was the case and if it was done with bad intentions, none in the target audience will actually understand any of it or be conditioned by it.
I think this is a very unbalanced comparison. Voting has direct impact on policies, engaging with HP does not, and when it does (money to J.K.R., donation to parties, policy) is very indirect. If we need to apply the same standard for any indirect relationship, we fallback to the “As soon as you buy anything you are guilty” (doesn’t even matter what you buy if you do with a card, for example). Obviously you are free to consider what you want a red flag, but personally I consider support of certain ideas, and concrete actions to provide that support, something to judge people on.
It may not be marginal so I have to think about that one…
Can take away private discussions with past readers who don’t & won’t [financially] support JK over my dead body though :p (that one is super hard to argue against IMO)
LOL
If someone got a tattoo before rowling “came out” as a giant dickface, does that make the person with the tattoo a bigot?
Just try thinking for a moment. There is a pretty simple conclusion here.
i think 2 things when i see a HP tattoo: 1) that IP was created by a bigot; and 2) i would have made it a pretty high priority to get that tattoo covered or redone into something else, out of respect for the trans people i know
Gonna be honest, if someone is making snap judgements because another person enjoys of the most popular stories of all time, im not sure theyre worth anyones time.
Guess ill go tell my trans friend with a deathly hallows tat they are bigoted.
They are definitely interesting at least. Do they just not connect the two in their mind? Or maybe its just a great tattoo.