Am I going to get rid of his works that I own? No, probably not. I love them. Which is why it sucks so much to never recommend them again, but that’s the reality.
People here keep using the term as basically a synonym of “separating art from artist” but I always thought death of the author was a different thing. Analyzing the meaning of a book while ignoring what the author says they meant.
It’s also (i think) separating it from the context of the author and their life/identity (so, for example, m&m using the n word being different from some other rapper doing the same).
So functions well as shorthand for the former. Or in the case of an author like rowling, as a wish.
My 2c tho, the Harry Potter novels legitimately suck. This has been my opinion of them since I was in 8th grade when the first one came out. At the time I described Sorcerer’s / Philosopher’s Stone as a failed attempt at ripping off Roald Dahl (British author who wrote mean-spirited children’s books that stereotyped characters with funny-sounding names based on their physical descriptions). I was frequently urged to and attempted to give the books a second chance, never got more than 20 pages back into any of them before I put them down in exasperation because to me they always felt very petty and derivative. I was not very surprised when JK started to peel off her mask to the public.
Children have less reading comprehension, wizards and magic are cool to kids, and nostalgia appears to be my generation’s (millennials) lead poisoning.
Okay, so why specifically that series among the many other wizards and magic series? I think Rowling is a piece of shit as any sane person should, but let’s not warp reality. The books may not be your cup of tea and of course they’re not perfect, but they’re definitely good books, otherwise they wouldn’t have gained the popularity they did.
Because they became a cultural phenomenon and were lots of kids first novels. If youve never read anything else youre not going to see the massive flaws.
Well, you just replied to the question “why are they popular?” with “because they became popular”. Okay, so why did they become popular? Because despite the flaws they definitely have, they’re simply good stories with good world building that suck people in (not just kids btw, plenty of people got into them as adults).
Older guy told me he read Dahl (Matilda?) to his grandkid & passed the lesson that you gotta be careful who you trust… are his works viewed negatively?
I don’t think universally. Similar to Rowling, his stuff is beloved and can certainly still be enjoyed but contains some totally wack bits. Even as a kid I picked up on how mean-spirited his writing was. But I think that’s also what makes it interesting to some people, it’s got this macabe Grimm’s quality to it.
Because Harry Potter is a marketing juggernaut and recommending people get involved with the franchise keeps the franchise going.
I mean, if you recommend the HP books to somebody, presumably you expect them to enjoy those books - and then they’ll watch the movies, or wear the merchandise, or go to the theme park, or a hundred other marketing tie-ins that ultimately pay JKR royalties.
And then JKR uses that money to spread anti-trans propaganda.
I’m on board with separating the art from the author - there are a ton of shitty people out there, and some of them made good art, and that’s okay. But this is the most famous living author in the world, a woman whose art has given her a tremendous amount of fame and power, and who is actively using her fame and power for evil.
This is a good moral compromise in that it allows you to enjoy the art without the moral complications of commercially supporting a rapist, but I think some people might argue that it doesn’t go far enough and that we should essentially culturally boycott the art as well, that an artist’s reputation rests partially on how their art is perceived, and by continuing to enjoy that art and share it with others, you continue to support the artist in some sense.
Not sure I know how I feel about that argument, but I think it’s an intuition some folks have or an argument they make.
That’s fair. I think because in Gaiman’s case it’s still fresh for me, and really came out of nowhere, so I don’t like to talk about them much.
With JK, it’s so evident in her writing that she had some prejudice that it really didn’t surprise me much, so I internalized that quickly and moved on.
I don’t provide either with my money, and pirate them whenever I want something.
I think my cognitive dissonance was too strong, I got rid of my Gaiman. :-(
But I feel you - his works were important in my life before, I’ve just been downsizing and even though it wasn’t the best, I decided to get rid of mine (not because it’s “right” but just because I don’t like being reminded of him).
I love HP and they were a big part of my life, made me enjoy reading and helped me a lot with English (and British) vocabulary. I still enjoy the books and movies that I already own from time to time but I cannot see myself consuming anything new knowing that it will give money directly to Rowling’s pockets to fund his trans hating organizations
Am I going to get rid of his works that I own? No, probably not. I love them. Which is why it sucks so much to never recommend them again, but that’s the reality.
Shitty people can make good art. Death of the author.
Just never give them money.
People here keep using the term as basically a synonym of “separating art from artist” but I always thought death of the author was a different thing. Analyzing the meaning of a book while ignoring what the author says they meant.
It is the latter, kind of
It’s also (i think) separating it from the context of the author and their life/identity (so, for example, m&m using the n word being different from some other rapper doing the same).
So functions well as shorthand for the former. Or in the case of an author like rowling, as a wish.
My 2c tho, the Harry Potter novels legitimately suck. This has been my opinion of them since I was in 8th grade when the first one came out. At the time I described Sorcerer’s / Philosopher’s Stone as a failed attempt at ripping off Roald Dahl (British author who wrote mean-spirited children’s books that stereotyped characters with funny-sounding names based on their physical descriptions). I was frequently urged to and attempted to give the books a second chance, never got more than 20 pages back into any of them before I put them down in exasperation because to me they always felt very petty and derivative. I was not very surprised when JK started to peel off her mask to the public.
Abolitionism is literally a running gag; the idea that someone might want it.
The stories aren’t good.
Why do you think they’re so popular then?
Children have less reading comprehension, wizards and magic are cool to kids, and nostalgia appears to be my generation’s (millennials) lead poisoning.
Okay, so why specifically that series among the many other wizards and magic series? I think Rowling is a piece of shit as any sane person should, but let’s not warp reality. The books may not be your cup of tea and of course they’re not perfect, but they’re definitely good books, otherwise they wouldn’t have gained the popularity they did.
popular =/= good though.
in fact awful things get popular all the time.
Because they became a cultural phenomenon and were lots of kids first novels. If youve never read anything else youre not going to see the massive flaws.
Well, you just replied to the question “why are they popular?” with “because they became popular”. Okay, so why did they become popular? Because despite the flaws they definitely have, they’re simply good stories with good world building that suck people in (not just kids btw, plenty of people got into them as adults).
Not everyone’s experience mirrors mine? 🤷
Looks like that 🤷
Older guy told me he read Dahl (Matilda?) to his grandkid & passed the lesson that you gotta be careful who you trust… are his works viewed negatively?
I don’t think universally. Similar to Rowling, his stuff is beloved and can certainly still be enjoyed but contains some totally wack bits. Even as a kid I picked up on how mean-spirited his writing was. But I think that’s also what makes it interesting to some people, it’s got this macabe Grimm’s quality to it.
I get what you’re saying, but why not recommend them with the caveat that the other person should pirate them?
Because Harry Potter is a marketing juggernaut and recommending people get involved with the franchise keeps the franchise going.
I mean, if you recommend the HP books to somebody, presumably you expect them to enjoy those books - and then they’ll watch the movies, or wear the merchandise, or go to the theme park, or a hundred other marketing tie-ins that ultimately pay JKR royalties.
And then JKR uses that money to spread anti-trans propaganda.
I’m on board with separating the art from the author - there are a ton of shitty people out there, and some of them made good art, and that’s okay. But this is the most famous living author in the world, a woman whose art has given her a tremendous amount of fame and power, and who is actively using her fame and power for evil.
Don’t be part of that. Walk away. Read one of the dozen better young adult books about schoolkids in magical worlds that she was “inspired” by instead.
And my god, the irony that Neil Gaiman’s “Books of Magic” series was one of the sources JKR ripped off…
This is a good moral compromise in that it allows you to enjoy the art without the moral complications of commercially supporting a rapist, but I think some people might argue that it doesn’t go far enough and that we should essentially culturally boycott the art as well, that an artist’s reputation rests partially on how their art is perceived, and by continuing to enjoy that art and share it with others, you continue to support the artist in some sense.
Not sure I know how I feel about that argument, but I think it’s an intuition some folks have or an argument they make.
That’s fair. I think because in Gaiman’s case it’s still fresh for me, and really came out of nowhere, so I don’t like to talk about them much.
With JK, it’s so evident in her writing that she had some prejudice that it really didn’t surprise me much, so I internalized that quickly and moved on.
I don’t provide either with my money, and pirate them whenever I want something.
I think my cognitive dissonance was too strong, I got rid of my Gaiman. :-(
But I feel you - his works were important in my life before, I’ve just been downsizing and even though it wasn’t the best, I decided to get rid of mine (not because it’s “right” but just because I don’t like being reminded of him).
I love HP and they were a big part of my life, made me enjoy reading and helped me a lot with English (and British) vocabulary. I still enjoy the books and movies that I already own from time to time but I cannot see myself consuming anything new knowing that it will give money directly to Rowling’s pockets to fund his trans hating organizations