It says in the article that they expect to raise “thousands of pounds”. It’s not clear what they mean by that, but I’m guessing they mean less than 10,000 or they would have said “tens of thousands of pounds”, given that the media likes big numbers.
Thousands of pounds is not a very rich person. It’s a moderately well-off person, or a collector who will later sell them for a profit and has to scrape to buy them, or a museum collecting first editions…
In any case, it doesn’t go very far towards cancer treatment.
This OP is definitely not an original thought. The Pet Shop Boys had the same sentiment back in 1990 on their Behavior album. Their song, “How Can You Expect To Be Taken Seriously?” directly addressed the “problem” with celebrities jumping on causes that they tended to know little about. Lyrical snippet:
So here’s the bigger question re: the OP. Did JK Rowling approach the charity or vice versa? Could it be that this charity asked her for this nominal favor? Of course I"m sure you noticed this from a link of your link:
Of course, I like my charities to affect more than just one person. While I’m sure this one person, Sara, is a worthwhile person, I’d like to spread out the wealth a bit more. Yeah, I’m selfish that way.
If Rowling put out a call to all the people who have bought Harry Potter books to donate £1 (or $1) to this cause and only 10% did so, that would generate quite a lot of money.
There are lots of people who would donate to a cause if their favorite celebrity did.
No, I did not follow that link, and I’m glad to read that. So great, I’m glad that she is spreading the wealth.
I’m sure everyone feels that way, unless it is a person they are affected by directly. If you were the girl’s dad, you might feel differently.
However, my main point was not just to attack JK Rowling, actually I wasn’t trying to attack her at all, but rather wonder why ultra-rich would make nominal, very public donations to a cause rather than large donations, publicly or quietly. Or, keep all their money to themselves.
So good for JK for her charity work. Well done, I’m happy to hear about it and glad she is using her fortune to help others. However I still feel that the “book signing for Sara” is lame. It wouldn’t kill her to help individuals as well as groups.
I am all in favor of celebrities bringing causes to the public’s attention. I certainly am not saying that rich people should pay for every problem that is out there. But in your example above, an author who has become a billionaire out of the pockets of “all of the people who have bought Harry Potter books” would be asking them to spend an additional dollar. How much more impressive and generous would it be if she donated a dollar for every person who has bought one of her books? No, of course she’s not obligated to. But she can certainly afford it without feeling it, whereas her readers may have trouble affording dinner some nights.
All the better. Just look at what Paul Newman has accomplished with his food company. Elton John has donated all the royalties of his songs published in the 80’s(?) to AIDS research.
I’m apparently going to go out on a limb here and agree with the OP. Yes, it’s nice that Ms Rowling signed these books and helped get a sick child several thousand pounds. But let’s maintain a sense of proportion; she signed her name five times. Who wouldn’t do this for a sick child?
I remember when a couple of dozen singers gor together back in the 80’s and sang “We Are The World” to help generate money for Ethiopian hunger victims. It was nice and it did help. But the press was acting like these singers should be canonized. The reality is they got together for an afternoon in a recording studio and enjoyed a complimentary buffet afterword. I’m glad it helped and everything but maybe the press should have thrown a few accolades to the volunteers who were spending months in Ethiopia.
Keep in mind that you don’t know that she didn’t offer her own money as well. But yes, I’d be a lot more impressed if they said they’d match the winning bid or something like that.
I worked for a Chicago charity that was popular with some celebrities and knew the person who handled these things. He told me of one nationally-known Chicago celeb who was quietly very generous; he also told me of another big celebrity whose wife was on our board of directors and did photo ops and auctioned away signed items and suchlike, yet they gave almost no money themselves.
I’ve been looking for any information to support the idea that Rowling has not contributed her own funds to this or other charities, and I just can’t find it. Of course, financial contributions to charity by wealthy people are often anonymous, for reasons having to do with modesty, the idea that charity should always be without expectation of reward or recognition, and simple privacy – the most generous among us might cringe at the idea of becoming a public source of money for the deserving, because they don’t want to spend the rest of their hours on Earth dealing with solicitations for their help, or because it pleases them to find and support causes on their own.
Celebrity support such as this auction is another matter, though. It has to be publicized, because otherwise it wouldn’t generate any money. Which is the point.
Do some people get too much credit, and others too little, for their good works? Probably, but see above. Has Ms. Rowling done anything the slightest bit reprehensible by contributing in a manner that of necessity gets her name in the newspaper? I can’t see how. If her press agent starts sending out lists of all her charitable contributions, that would leave a sour aftertaste, but it would still be preferable to no dinner at all, so to speak.
Yes, Rowling is without a doubt incredibly rich and a little bit of investment and some long-term bank work could keep her descendants from ever wanting anything for the next couple of centuries. And it’s also true that the media tends to make too much of celebrities doing charitable deeds that require little of their time, effort or considerable riches.
STILL, she did something nice (and it’s not the only charitable deed she’s ever done, she wrote a couple of short HP books for charity if I remember right), and she wasn’t even ordered to do it by the courts. And in addition to whatever money she raises, she is bringing free publicity - probably a large amount - to the cause she is supporting, which probably does at least as much good as the money. So while she can give more money, I really can’t see my way to criticizing her for this.
Bill Gates is much, much richer than Rowling is and has done a tremendous amount of work for charity. He gave a billion dollars to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation a few years back. It’s only about 1/40th of his overall worth (although I’m sure much of that is in stocks), but I don’t think it’s something to complain about. Whatever else you think about him, he’s also had the sense to realize that there are more important things than computers, and he’s focused his attention on medicine.
It’s also worth considering that if a personality makes a big song and dance about donating to charity it could also shame/prompt peers to do the same - a good thing.
Rowling helped the girl so at least she did something. True, she could have just written a check with one day’s interest on her bank account and not even felt it. But whether she wrote a check herself or just find some others to come up with the cash is irrelevant. Some celebrities donate of their personal wealth, others don’t. This isn’t much different than a concert for charity where the celeb donates talent, the crowds donate some money in exchange for some music. Whatever works.
You have invented a situation in which you will be displeased no matter what.
If she donates to charity you complain it’s not enough. (even though you do not donate to charity yourself).
If she does not donate you complain as well. (even though you do not donate yourself.)
Also, keep in mind that Ms. Rowling pays, in all likliehood, millions of pounds a year in taxes. This tax money fills up the financial “bucket” of society like a firehose, which allows many, many less fortunate persons to drain the financial bucket though their use of various social programs.
Rather then spend so much time wringing your hands over Ms. Rowling perhaps you could better spend your time educating and improving yourself to potentially be more financially secure.
