Sure!
There are lots of things that are well known that not everyone knows.
That you have managed to keep yourself from being aware of what Rowling has been announcing to the world for years has nothing to do with whether or not her views are well known.
There are some people who have never heard of Harry Potter at all, does that mean that it’s not well known?
I think there’s a pretty big difference between being aware of the best-selling novels/films and being aware of her stances which I’ve only seen addressed on social media and some articles (which I was mostly aware of because of social media). Although I was aware of the whole TERF thing, I wouldn’t be at all surprised that most people are not since most people probably don’t think about Rowling much at all.
I don’t think it’s a “should or shouldn’t” issue. I think people have to do what is most comfortable for them. They must decide whether or not they can divorce the art/product from the beliefs/actions of the provider.
I guess we are splitting hairs on what the definition of “well-known” is.
As you said, it’s on social media and in articles. Anyone who follows Rowling is going to be aware of her stance. Anyone who follows the subject of the struggles that trans people face is aware of her stance.
So, sure, someone who isn’t interested in either of those subjects probably doesn’t know. But the point is that it’s not like she’s hiding her position. She intentionally makes sure that her views are seen by as many as she can. She’s not subtle about it at all.
Now, @Isamu seems to believe that everyone has to know something in order for it to be considered to be widely known, and I find that to be a ridiculous standard.
If someone has managed to keep themselves unaware of Rowling’s hatred towards the trans community, then I would agree that they are probably not allies.
I only once literally threw a book in the garbage. It was a collection of short stories by a famous crime writer that was gifted to me by a guy in my writer’s group. The book contains a story that seems ripped out of penthouse with an incredibly deranged twist. (possibly triggering spoiler to follow.) Two men make a bet over who will deflower their “exotic” immigrant maid when she turns 16. The woman is forced to undergo a pelvic exam to prove her virginity. The “twist” at the end is that one of the men had her vagina surgically altered after screwing her to make the other guy believe he was first. They laugh about it over a bottle of whiskey. I can’t even believe I wrote that, and I can’t believe an editor signed off on the reprint of that in 2010. And it wasn’t meant to be a tale of horrific evil, it was clearly just a playful short story. Just absolutely bowled over. Right in the trash. The guy who gave it to me was a real misogynist, too. I have since terminated our relationship.
The author was Lawrence Block. Supposedly one of the best. I’ll never know.
She’s already gotten her cut of the original sale, so that really accomplishes nothing in terms of punishing her. If it makes you feel better, though, that’s good. My brother bought the first two back in the nineties, but I’ve never gotten any since. They’re still put away somewhere.
They’re talking about Isaac Asimov, not JK Rowling.
Oops! LOL
And even though Asimov is long gone, I don’t have to spread his legacy by passing my copies of his books on to anyone.
I certainly won’t deny others the right to read or own his works, but I can control the destiny of my own Asimov bookshelf.
Back to the main topic of the OP, whenever I find that a recording artist is an unkind self-serving arrogant snot, I cannot enjoy their music. There are many excellent songs by terrible people, and I find it difficult to listen to the songs without thinking of the person singing them.
And on the flip side, when I find out good things about an artist, it makes me smile whenever I hear their music. I always smile when I hear Harry Chapin singing.
So here’s a related question:
I teach elementary kids, and one of the things I do is talk about story structure. I use a very simplified version of the Hero’s Journey, an academically-discredited story structure formulated by noted racist, misogynist, and antisemite Joseph Campbell. I tell the kids that it’s not actually the “monomyth” that Campbell thought it was, but that it’s a pretty common story structure and helpful for creating their own fantasy/superhero/science fiction stories. I don’t talk about his bigotry at all, because it’s not about Campbell. Anyone see a problem with that?
Anyway, part of teaching them this simplified structure is looking at how it applies to fantasy stories they’re already familiar with. Inevitably Harry Potter comes up, and it follows the structure reasonably well (“normal” person starts off in a mundane setting, is called to adventure and threatened by a great danger, enters a world of supernatural wonder, faces challenges and gains allies, wisdom, treasure, and power, confronts the great danger and is victorious, and returns home a changed person).
I certainly don’t tell kids, “Stay away from Harry, his author is a goddamned transphobe”. Instead, I enthusiastically go along with their mention of Harry Potter and help them map the story according to the Hero’s Journey.
Anyone see a problem with this?
Does it make a difference if I do this (as I did last week) in a class with a child who’s either nonbinary or trans?
I feel a bit torn on using both Campbell and Rowling. Campbell is academically nonsense and personally repellent, but the structure is really useful for teaching kids to write such stories; and Rowling is a hot mess of a person and frankly not all that as a writer, but almost all the kids know the stories and they’re a useful touchstone.
I’m biased, but the Hero’s Journey is so critical to understanding story structure (not all stories, natch, but it’s a great start) I don’t see what else you can do. It’s not like there are many alternatives. Most subsequent philosophies are derivative. (I didn’t know he was an awful person.) You’re not even obligated to mention Campbell as an individual.
Seriously, bless you for talking about story structure at all. I know people with MAs who were never instructed on it. I was 35 before I learned about it and I’ve been writing since I was a kid.
If the kid talks about Harry Potter, what are you gonna do? Do you live in a state where you can get fired for talking about trans issues? I’m not sure it’s the hill to die on in that context. Schools are kind of a tricky business. Personally I think it’s harmless just to talk about a story that has already been written, you’re not even consuming the content in that moment, just talking about it.
…I’d probably do the same.
I don’t think so, although I hope at the same time, you’re not suggesting that those who don’t notice the stereotypes are always racists, either.
ISTM that that’s one of the inherent risks anyone runs when they decide to consume art. People who consider the art or the artist to be immoral will lose some faith in the trustworthiness of the consumer’s moral judgement.
I mean, I think one would have to be a pretty fragile snowflake to get upset about that natural consequence of differing viewpoints. You do something somebody else considers morally objectionable, and so they have less trust in you as a result. Well, duh?
Calling that “perilously close to saying if you are not on my side you are the enemy” is a fairly drama-llama take on the situation, IMHO. What it’s actually saying is more like “if you are not as fully on my side as I thought you were, then I trust your allyship somewhat less than I used to”.
No, the degree of closeness between that and saying “you are the enemy” is nowhere near “perilous”, IMHO.
No I was just saying please don’t assume everyone knows. I support trans people but I don’t have any trans people in my life.
So, question for those who cannot enjoy art by an artist they dislike or disapprove of, even when the qualities you disapprove of do not come through in the art:
Do you wish you didn’t know what you know about the artist, so that you could enjoy their work?
Do you feel obligated to let other people know about the dark side of the artist, with the result that they may no longer consume their art? Or would you try to avoid letting them know so that you won’t spoil their enjoyment?
No. There’s enough good music in the world; I don’t regret knowing what a jerk some artist is. Why should I fawn over someone who is a total jerk?
No. I make no special effort to tell the world. If it comes up in discussion I wouldn’t avoid it, but I also wouldn’t mention it otherwise.
Thanks to this thread, the works of Mr. Asimov have left my home for good.
I just heard the trash truck go by, and a glance outside confirms that everything is gone.
This has freed up some much-needed space on the bookshelf for me to store some rolls of 3D printing filament.
To me, that sounds like a bit of a non sequitur: enjoying art doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with “fawning over” the people who made it. But that may depend on how easily you can separate the art from the artist, or whether consuming art feels to you like having a relationship of sorts with its creator.
Certainly, there has been music that I have really enjoyed without knowing anything at all about the artists, good or bad. And if it were bad, I wouldn’t want to know.
Or take Bill Cosby. I kind of wish I didn’t know what I know about him, so I’d still feel comfortable enjoying his stand-up routines and recommending them to others. Of course, what I really wish is that he never did the things he did, and that he really was the person we all thought he was many years ago. And I don’t wish that his actions had stayed covered up and his victims didn’t get justice. But I’m not sure whether I, personally, would be better off knowing or not knowing.