(Content warning) So it turns out that David Eddings was a convicted and jailed child abuser

[HexMachina]

On 5/5/2020 at 12:07 PM, Heartofice said:

I’m always amused at how hated JK is by people these days, given how outspoken she has been in the past on a number of issues that put her firmly in the left leaning category. Now she is evil of course and her books should be burnt.

Yes, people change their opinions as new information comes to light. Shocking

[Darth Richard II]

1 hour ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Yes, people change their opinions as new information comes to light. Shocking

I know. I’m so shocked I can hardly blink.

[alguien]

The only time I ever read Tolkien swearing in his letters was when he wrote about his hatred of Hitler and Nazi eugenics as an utter evil. I doubt he had any fascist leanings; most likely he was misinformed, as was a lot of Britain at the time. 

I mean, Gandhi has a letter admiring Hitler. 

I find these some of these comparisons a bit odd compared to the actual horrific crimes of Eddings and Bradley. 

(and I say this as someone who loved Silk in the Belgariad and was once on a shortlist to be published in a MZB Swords & Sorceress anthology)

My view on this subject is nuanced. One can separate the art from the artist. Don't feel guilty for enjoying something produced by someone who did something horrible or has a problematic view (that is, unless their story very definitely has the view as well). It may be the art came from what few redeeming qualities they had. Stories are not the people who made them. 

I also think it's fine to vote with one's dollars and not support a living artist whose views you find horrific. And it's absolutely necessary to question and interrogate a public figure and the views they hold/held. People aren't deities and paragons, and the sooner we as a society learn that, the better off we'll be.  

It's also fine to separate art from creator and enjoy something that brought you joy free of guilt. I can still look back on the fight between Silk and the assassin villain with a childish glee. I can also find Eddings actions horrific and believe him and his wife to be a morally bankrupt people. 

 

[Inkdaub]

5 hours ago, alguien said:

The only time I ever read Tolkien swearing in his letters was when he wrote about his hatred of Hitler and Nazi eugenics as an utter evil. I doubt he had any fascist leanings; most likely he was misinformed, as was a lot of Britain at the time. 

I mean, Gandhi has a letter admiring Hitler. 

I find these some of these comparisons a bit odd compared to the actual horrific crimes of Eddings and Bradley. 

(and I say this as someone who loved Silk in the Belgariad and was once on a shortlist to be published in a MZB Swords & Sorceress anthology)

My view on this subject is nuanced. One can separate the art from the artist. Don't feel guilty for enjoying something produced by someone who did something horrible or has a problematic view (that is, unless their story very definitely has the view as well). It may be the art came from what few redeeming qualities they had. Stories are not the people who made them. 

I also think it's fine to vote with one's dollars and not support a living artist whose views you find horrific. And it's absolutely necessary to question and interrogate a public figure and the views they hold/held. People aren't deities and paragons, and the sooner we as a society learn that, the better off we'll be.  

It's also fine to separate art from creator and enjoy something that brought you joy free of guilt. I can still look back on the fight between Silk and the assassin villain with a childish glee. I can also find Eddings actions horrific and believe him and his wife to be a morally bankrupt people. 

 

I will probably always love Chinatown.

[Liffguard]

JK Rowling just posted a faily long statement on her personal website. It pretty much torpedoes any benefit of the doubt that might have remained about her not being a TERF. She's definitely a TERF. Understandably, a lot of people are angry and upset.

It's a shame to me because her books were such an important part of my childhood (though obviously this is very minor compared to people who are more directly harmed by transphobia). Yes, the art can still be separated from the artist to an extent. But those memories I used to cherish unreservedly are now going to have a permanent asterisk attached. This might not be on the same scale as Orson Scott Card, but it's a similar feeling.

[Conflicting Thought]

35 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

JK Rowling just posted a faily long statement on her personal website. It pretty much torpedoes any benefit of the doubt that might have remained about her not being a TERF. She's definitely a TERF. Understandably, a lot of people are angry and upset.

It's a shame to me because her books were such an important part of my childhood (though obviously this is very minor compared to people who are more directly harmed by transphobia). Yes, the art can still be separated from the artist to an extent. But those memories I used to cherish unreservedly are now going to have a permanent asterisk attached. This might not be on the same scale as Orson Scott Card, but it's a similar feeling.

Yeah, J. K Rowling is a horrible transphobic person. Its a good thing that Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson both came out with statements in support of trans people. 

[Valandil]

 

3 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Yeah, J. K Rowling is a horrible transphobic person. Its a good thing that Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson both came out with statements in support of trans people. 

If she holds an opinion which you don’t agree with, does that make her a horrible person? Even if she’s wrong on this, it doesn’t make everything she did wrong, or worthless. We should accept honest disagreement, you can still enjoy HP. JK is clearly a nice person. 
The eddings stuff is criminal, evil and shocking beyond belief, reading the papers linked to on wert’s site. Monstrous.

[ants]

4 hours ago, Valandil said:

If she holds an opinion which you don’t agree with, does that make her a horrible person? Even if she’s wrong on this, it doesn’t make everything she did wrong, or worthless. We should accept honest disagreement, you can still enjoy HP. JK is clearly a nice person. 
The eddings stuff is criminal, evil and shocking beyond belief, reading the papers linked to on wert’s site. Monstrous.

Reading her post just now, she certainly doesn't come across as horrible.  I think she's wrong on a few areas, but it's hard to say she hasn't put together a nuanced view that reflects some reasonable philosophies and some of the studies.  I can certainly understand people disagreeing with her, but the vitriol she seems to be receiving (if she is to be believed, and I assume its public in her twitter account) would make a number of her accusers far bigger bigots than she appears to be.  

But that all probably should be taken to its own thread in general chatter.

[Conflicting Thought]

18 hours ago, ants said:

Reading her post just now, she certainly doesn't come across as horrible.  I think she's wrong on a few areas, but it's hard to say she hasn't put together a nuanced view that reflects some reasonable philosophies and some of the studies.  I can certainly understand people disagreeing with her, but the vitriol she seems to be receiving (if she is to be believed, and I assume its public in her twitter account) would make a number of her accusers far bigger bigots than she appears to be.  

But that all probably should be taken to its own thread in general chatter.

What are, in your opinion, her nuanced views and reasonable philosophies?, every thing i know about gender and sex, and in the views of many trans peopleis  that she doesnt know wtf she is talking about, and that her point of view is incredibly damaging to trans people. 

She is a terf, she erases trans people, she is horrible. 

I would recommend seeking out the views of trans people on this subject. 

Kate Blaque on jk rowling transphobia.

(Edited to add link)

[Raja]

20 hours ago, ants said:

Reading her post just now, she certainly doesn't come across as horrible.

I went with an open mind when I started reading it -  & I was totally ready to read her thoughts as to everything that's gone on since she was was called a terf- but there were so many of the usual trans-phobic dog whistles throughout the piece that I couldn't quite believe what I was reading - it is *filled* with half truths about trans people, falsehoods regarding the statistics she provides & makes me think that she has not seriously looked into the subject of talked to people that are trans.

I don't want people to get abuse, and the Sun headline stuff is particularly gross, but she's consistently being trans-phobic. Us cis people should be listening to trans people and their experiences, but I don't actually think she has done any of that.

I think saying that she put forth a 'nuanced view that reflects certain philosophies' is not accurate *at all* - it is bigotry & blatant trans-phobia.

[john]

The whole thing doesn’t really scan. The language she was objecting to in her tweet - people who menstruate - does not seem to apply to her stated objection to trans rights, which is predatory trans women infiltrating womens’ safe spaces.

Even if you remove the issue of inclusionary language, there’s a lot of women who don’t menstruate, so it’s an odd thing to complain about. It just seems like she was trying to pick a fight.

The statement she made about her abusive relationship, I suspect might have just been done because she had warning of the Sun interview with her former partner. That has some nuance to it, it’s a point of view with reasoning behind it, although like most people I think her views on gender and biology are wrong.

As to whether she’s “nice” or “horrible” though, well most other things she’s said or done are quite nice, I suppose. Not sure there’s any point to having that debate.

[Andrew Gilfellon]

Eh....I kind of had the opinion that she only mentioned her past abuse to deflect from the transphobic argument, and that the sun article only came out because of her revelations. 

[fionwe1987]

I don't think we need or can get a definitive answer on whether she's nice or awful. She's neither.

This stance of hers is nasty. It is hurtful. And give how big a platform she has, meaningfully damaging to one of the most vulnerable and misunderstood parts of our society. 

I think it is fair to call her out on that vigorously, and without crossing the line into sexism or trollish behavior.

And by and large, that's what seems to be happening. It's been good to see the main stars of the movies come out and directly disagree with her. I hope it makes her look to sources and voices outside her echo chamber, and especially pay attention to trans and non-binary voices.

[Liffguard]

Here's a good video going into detail about exactly why what Rowling wrote was bad. She used superficially reasonable sounding language to make arguments that were at best deeply misinformed and at worst actively malicious.

Edit: removed timestamp from link

[Conflicting Thought]

3 hours ago, Liffguard said:

Here is a good video going into detail about exactlywhy what Rowling wrote was bad. She used superficially reasonable sounding language to make arguments that were at best deeply misinformed and at worst actively malicious.

Yeees, i almost posted the same video xd. But the link has a time stamp, i would recommend watching all of it. Or at the least, start when she talks and debunks the "nuanced philosophies"  of her justifications post tweets. 

[HexMachina]

4 hours ago, Liffguard said:

Here's a good video going into detail about exactly why what Rowling wrote was bad. She used superficially reasonable sounding language to make arguments that were at best deeply misinformed and at worst actively malicious.

Edit: removed timestamp from link

I might have been more open to the "deeply misinformed" perception if this was the first ocassion, but she has doubled and tripled down on her views now for years, despite ample vocalisation of how her views are harmful and hateful to the trans community. So I would lean toward actively malicious here.

(Edit - oh and thanks for the video, very nicely put)

[The Marquis de Leech]

On 6/14/2020 at 4:25 AM, Liffguard said:

Here's a good video going into detail about exactly why what Rowling wrote was bad. She used superficially reasonable sounding language to make arguments that were at best deeply misinformed and at worst actively malicious.

Edit: removed timestamp from link

Yep, very good video.

Personally, I adhere very strongly to Death of the Author, so I have ignored Rowling's shenanigans for years. I also think that one should avoid reading an authorial biography/agenda into any text, because I feel interpretation of the text belongs to the reader, not the writer. Rowling's goblins are unfortunate enough without needing to draw connections with her potential views of George Soros.

[Raja]

I wish I could separate stuff, when I was a little younger I could but I basically can't do it anymore.

I also really liked this statement by Mermaids, which is a LGBTQ+ charity from the UK. I think it really hones in on why her statement is harmful whilst still being empathetic to the abuse Rowling gets

 

[dog-days]

26 minutes ago, Raja said:

I wish I could separate stuff, when I was a little younger I could but I basically can't do it anymore.

I also really liked this statement by Mermaids, which is a LGBTQ+ charity from the UK. I think it really hones in on why her statement is harmful whilst still being empathetic to the abuse Rowling gets

Thank you for sharing that. It's a very measured article written in the kind of style that can reach people who aren't already in the choir. 

 

[dog-days]

I really like this article too. I hope there will be more written in a similar manner.