What did JK Rowling do wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

Serious question, her new book coming out seems to have stirred up the online hornet's nest against her, but all I can ever find is some extremely anodyne comments she made to the effect of "women are women, transwomen are transwomen", is that really it? I've been seeing some truly impressive mental gymnastics all over Twitter about her, but no receipts as they say these days, so I'd be curious if anyone has any opinions or knows anything I don't.

Dont how to do links these days. So look for the site of "NPR WAMU 88.5". Thats the source that came up for me that explained it. My own local chapter of National Public Radio.

Not another Harry Potter, but another book in another series of... "thrillers" that she pens under a male pen name.

In this novel a "popular cartoonist" is found dead after being murdered...and they suspect that angry woke types did this cartoonist in. Critics say that the books mirror's Rowlings recent real life a little too much.

I haven't read the book but from what I gather, after her spat with the trans community and after trying to reconcile with them, the main villain of the book she released shortly thereafter was basically Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs. It's probably an exaggeration but I did still laugh.

Years ago, she stepped into a quagmire of an activist twitter fight... and the mud sticks till today.

I'm pretty sure that's not the first time when she lets off steam from her real life in her books. The whole character of Rita Skeeter can be easily interpreted that way.

She has the right to be BOTH an as*hole AND to be an idiot. That seems to be the lesson.

There is a lot to unpack here.

If Rowlings wants to make fun of hyperwok language vigilantes who demand that we use the phrase "people who mensturate" then its easy for me to laugh along with her.

But if Rowlings wants to just bully the trans community then...I dont agree with her...but I will fight to the death for her right to be an as*hole and to do that. Though freedom of speech cuts both ways, and I would have to also defend the right of those who call out her bullying to do that too.

But in this new book she not only excercises her right to free speech, she also exercises her right to speech impediment because according to the NPR article I read the book is an embarrassingly long 1000 page tome- and a literary dud/deadweight that will likely forever be an albatross around the author's neck.


So...let that be a lesson kids. Never write novels inspired solely by revenge against folks you get into Twitter fights with, lest you end up hurting yourself worse than you injure the party whom you're trying to avenge yourself against!

This really annoys me. Books are books. Stories are stories. If people are going to go through books pointing out how the characters resemble themselves or their beliefs or something, what is the point of authors writing books? There will always be some people somewhere who can see themselves in someone else's stories.

Writing has always been a way of letting off steam without hurting anyone. If authors went round stabbing and killing those who had hurt them, THAT would be a cause for major concern. But authors get their feelings out by writing stories and often model their characters on people they know (write what you know, is the first advice given to authors). But these stories are FICTION. They do not use the real names, that would be libel.

There was a fashion a few years ago (might still be happening) where readers wouldn't read a book if it contained the merest hint of cheating or adultery. They seemed to think it would corrupt them, or it showed they approved of cheating if they read a book about it. Why they thought that, I don't know.

Again, books are FICTION. People cheat in life so they do in stories. It is possible to read a book without approving of the actions of the characters.

Indeed....just because somebody writes about a misogynist....doesn't mean the WRITER is a misogynist.

People do have to learn to make the distinction.

I think the question is “what did JK Rowling do now?”, rather than “what did JK Rowling do in the first place?”

The answer to the first question is that her latest detective book, for the third book in a row, has trans-related content. Specifically, one of the characters is an author who has received death threats from trans activists.

The reaction I have seen has mostly been pointing and laughing at the self-insert, rather than “she should face consequences for this”. But I obviously haven’t seen it all.

If the question is “what was wrong with JK Rowling’s statements wrt Maya Forstater etc.?” then I can address that separately, but I don’t think it was.

What was her original offense? I can't find anything remotely offensive in any of her statements on the issue, just common sense stuff.