In grown-up reality, however, there are occasional aberrations that result in some uppity creative type going against the grain. Obviously it's a terrible thing. After all, where would we be if so-called thinkers such as Gore Vidal, James Baldwin, Margaret Atwood and Harlan Ellison had had opinions and thoughts of their own? They were wise enough to know better and conducted themselves like proper extensions of their readers' wills and desires. I shudder to think of a mouthy Harlan Ellison or a scathing Vidal. What about a Baldwin or Atwood who actually decided to shine a light on the inequities of society? Yikes!
If writing is exclusively for comfort zones and turn-off-your-brains entertainment, and it is, then obviously the writer's thoughts are, too.
Sadly, this particular author forgot their station in life as "the entertainment" and shared opinions that upset tons of readers to the point where they began feeling traumatized. Their childhoods had been ruined, you see. This author's books were a way of life for them, as evidenced by their shared desire to reenact them, dress like the characters, and make obnoxious references to them as if everyone knew what the hell they were talking about. This presumptuous author ruined all that with comments that forced these readers to re-examine the very foundation of their fandom. And then, the inevitable calls for censorship started.
I too was brainwashed at one time into thinking the free expression of ideas was a positive. I readily embraced those insipid words sung by Andy Partridge of XTC:
I believe the printed word is more than sacred
Beyond the gauge of good or bad
The human right to let your soul fly free and naked
Above the violence of the fearful and sad
Beyond the gauge of good or bad
The human right to let your soul fly free and naked
Above the violence of the fearful and sad
What ridiculous tripe. Everybody knows words are supposed to comfort us, make us feel good about ourselves and never, ever, laugh at us when they see us naked. And because I now understand an opinion-free life is a life lived well, the very notion of someone discussing issues I am passionate about in any way that isn't how I like to hear them discussed makes me projectile vomit like a malfunctioning lawn sprinkler.
In addition to my more enlightened understanding regarding opinions, I have also come around to understanding that anything I object to on philosophical grounds deserves swift and merciless action. For famous authors, that can only mean one thing. Boycotting. Censure is the key to silencing those who drain the precious fluids from our sacred cows and nothing hurts them more than encouraging a total halt to all purchasing of books, movies and anything else the author has created. That'll learn 'em to mess with us morally superior types.
But, wait. There's more.
You might think it's only philosophically and ethically consistent if the aforementioned censorship occurs by completely cutting off all connection to the author's material, no matter how meaningful or impactful it was for you. Maybe you've even let Big Fiction convince you that it's unethical to still embroil yourself in the fandom of an author you now find repulsive. Don't listen to that nonsense. Listen instead to the group that says it's okay to enjoy the work as long as you never pay for it. And it's even more better-er if you take that person's work for your own and rewrite it to better match your sensibilities. It doesn't matter if the author is the only reason for you being able to do that. They shouldn't have opined. It's not hypocritical! Shut up! It is not!
No, you're acting like a child! You!
Is there a spot, or a room of some kind where I can go inside and feel safe from all these contrary ideas? While there, I will work on my magnum opus, a novel that doesn't offend anyone, never makes the reader think or question anything, and agrees with whoever is reading it at the time. And if I fail, have no fear. You can feel justified in taking my hard work, changing it to something else, and never paying me a dime.
Just like Buddha...
And probably Jesus.
10 comments:
She's not being censored. She's a high-profile millionaire that lives in a literal mansion and has more Twitter followers then live in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales combined.
She's not comparable to Vidal or Atwood or Baldwin in any way. They are intelligent individuals that broke new ground, thought deeply, tried to improve the world. Rowling is a bigoted trashfire that - in the midst of protests against police violence which are among the largest ever seen, and a pandemic which will leave millions dead - is spending her time punching down on an oppressed, silenced, marginalized community which has zero mainstream media access.
Criticizing her for her "opinions" is not an attack on her free speech. It's not censorship. Her opinions and "concerns" are lies. They are demonstrable lies. (https://twitter.com/Carter_AndrewJ/status/1270787941275762689 This thread debunks her "concerns," point by point, linking to its sources the whole way through.) They are views that, in the hands of a high-profile figure with 14 million Twitter followers, are actively vile and dangerous, and contribute to making the world unsafe for trans people.
Like it or not, she is, and has been, an icon, for millions of people. Millions of young people, specifically. Imagine, if you will, a young trans person learning that Rowling thinks of them as mentally disturbed sexual deviants. Is this nothing but a matter of being traumatized because the entertainment shared a controversial opinion?
Also, your own post isn't even consistent! At one point you're saying "oh no, the entertainment stepped out of its role and a bunch of traumatized babies have their childhood ruined" and then at the end it's "now you must step away, no matter how meaningful or impactful it was to you." Which is it? Is it a silly book series that should've been left behind in childhood, or is it a work which had a tangible, meaningful impact?
Firstly, I never mentioned JK Rowling. Secondly, your tone is extremely self-righteous and bordering on condescending, and thirdly, you clearly missed the target of the satire so I'll attempt to clarify.
To your first point, Rowling was never mentioned in this piece, nor was she in any way compared to the other authors I mentioned. Those authors were used as an example of thinking people whose opinions would most likely draw ire these days...as if they didn't in their day also. The point of mentioning them at all was to show how strongly opinionated writers these days are dismissed much the same way as performers with the "shut up and sing" reaction. Gore Vidal, for example, expressed some attitudes that nowadays would make him the target of severe rightwing backlash and while you might not see their viewpoints as being as valid as yours, they are a huge and influential group of people.
You might think those authors were/are "intelligent individuals that broke new ground, thought deeply, tried to improve the world" but I can find you tons of people who would vehemently disagree with you and who probably find them as abhorrent as you find Rowling, regardless of how superior you consider your point of view.
Also, please don't bombard my blog with arguments against Rowling's comments. I never mentioned her or what she said so that's just all white noise as far as I'm concerned. I didn't care what Rowling thought when she was the toast of the town and I definitely don't care now.
I can assure you, however, that if George Lucas suddenly started making comments I found objectionable to the point where he somehow ruined my ability to enjoy Star Wars, I would divest myself of the franchise despite how difficult that would be. I for sure would not advocate taking his creation, his hard work, and turning it into my own thing so I could have my cake and eat it, too. It's impossible to take someone seriosuly when they advocate doing that.
As far as post consistency is concerned, this is where you missed the satire. Again, since Rowling and her books were never mentioned, my response will be as general as the original post. I never wrote that the entertainment stepped out of its role, I wrote that the creator did. Yuge difference. You might not see it but it is. People do not want their authors to think and say things that make them angry or uncomfortable. In fact, the post asserts in a satirical fashion that the solution to being upset with the author is to boycott them, take their work and make it your own, and balk at any perceived disagreeable commentary from them. Never once do I mention Freedom of Speech in this post.You tend to infer a lot that isn't there.
I think there is a sad immaturity that has creeped into Western society that began with my generation as some of us became parents and got worse with each subsequent generation. I'm a huge proponent of separating the creator from the creation until the former becomes so repugnant that it's impossible. To still try to hold onto the creation at that point weakens whatever stand the person is supposedly taking.
"A successful author made comments about a controversial topic..." After reading that, I could only conclude that Rowling was being referred to. Unless there is some other successful author making comments about a controversial topic.
By mentioning Vidal et. al. as having opinions and thoughts of their own directly after - however implicitly - talking about Rowling, that seemed to me to implicitly place Rowling in the same grouping. I see your point, however, and retract that.
Yes, perhaps I did miss the satire. I can't quite tell what's being satirized here. What she said? What people are saying as a result of what she said? The fans of her work? The right-wing backlash? All of the above? The post may be general, but it's plain as day that it's referring to Rowling and HP fans.
You don't mention freedom of speech, you do, however, mention censorship: "Censure is the key to silencing those who drain the precious fluids from our sacred cows and nothing hurts them more than encouraging a total halt to all purchasing of books, movies and anything else the author has created." The words "freedom of speech" may not be present, but with a nod and a wink, they hang like a specter over what you've said.
The most sense I could make of it is that it's a satire of the way HP fans have reacted. From my perspective, it's a satire that looks at the clash between Rowling and trans people and picks fandom as the target for mockery and Rowling as the person that needs to be defended. Even if HP and Rowling are never mentioned, it's impossible not to conclude that this satire is referring to them, however implicitly. (Or is this satire context-free, written before this latest controversy, posted coincidentally in the midst of all this?)
I am sorry that my comment came off as self-righteous and condescending. The way I read the post, it was a satire that ran to the defense of Rowling, ignored the trans community completely, and picked fandom as the problem, whereas thinking about fandom would not even occur to me when a famous author is kicking an oppressed minority. So, naturally, I focused primarily on the way the satire seemed to be defending Rowling's right to transphobia - and, by extension, defended transphobia, and so I wrote in the defense of trans people, and so evidently missed the satire entirely.
I think you have Rowling Tunnel Vision. That line is in reference to something I have been mentally cataloging for a few years now. Rowling might be the most prominent case because of the rabid fanbase for Harry Potter, but she's certainly not alone.
As far as censure, granted the Freedom of Speech issue is present, but I'm a big proponent of the "Marketplace of Ideas" concept. Don't like what someone says? Don't give them money. I'm not saying you can't speak out or criticize, but once you've done that, you cannot then turn around and still absorb that person's creation without looking like a hypocrite. I see it with Potter fans as well as rightwing Star Wars fans that have an issue with Kathleen Kennedy.
So, my satire was aimed at a broader target, namely hypocrites claiming moral superiority while still being fanboys and girls. When Clint Eastwood pulled his stunt at the RNC in 2012, I vowed to never watch another movie of his again. I slipped up once. I was a big fan but he crossed a line for me.
Rowling was, of course, in the news when I was writing this. When isn't she these days? But the idea for this post was already being worked on well before that.
Fair enough, I'm not familiar with any other examples, but I have no doubt that it's happened many times. I disagree with both the marketplace of ideas concept and with not enjoying a creation just because you've criticized the creator, but that's neither here nor there.
So then let me ask you. Do you find it morally and ethically defensible to oppose Chick Fil A for its anti-homosexual stance and still eat their food if someone gives it to you for free? Because this very thing happened to me the other day and I refused.
I'm not entirely sure. I admire that you did not. I would not eat it, even if it were free. I myself did not pay for it, but presumably the person giving it to me did, and am I therefore indirectly supporting Chick-Fil-A, because I have accepted its food from someone who does? I take it back. I don't think it defensible unless the person accepting the gift were starving. (That's not to say I find it horrifically evil, either. There's an immense difference between eating free food which comes from a deplorable source and, say, calling for a white ethnostate.)
There is a difference, though, between a food product and an artistic product. An artistic product has a life outside of its creator. There is no consuming a food product and reinterpreting its meaning. With an artistic product, that happens - arguably - every single time that product is consumed. There is also the matter that the food product can be consumed once, the artistic product numerous times. The food product is not freely available through, say, libraries, the way that artistic products are.
Further, there is no separating Chick-Fil-A's food from Chick-Fil-A, whereas there's a certain measure of separation between an artist and their art. The food product is simply a food product, it says nothing. The work of art may say many different things, some of them completely unintended by its author, some of them completely against what the author thought they were saying. Once the artwork is out, the creator's interpretation simply becomes one of thousands or millions of interpretations - as an example, despite Orson Card being anti-gay, it's been observed that Ender's Game has themes that could be interpreted as gay or queer. The work of art can be reinterpreted and criticized; there is no reinterpreting a chicken wing, there is no criticizing a biscuit (unless of course it is dense and chewy).
For sure, it's a difficult question, and I would never say that disconnecting artist and artwork should be absolute. I don't know where the line of "not only should I not support the creator financially, I shouldn't consume their work at all" should be drawn.
I take your point as far as one being a consumable and the other being more than just words on a page. It's not the best comparison but the hearts of the founders of a chicken sammitch company and a fantasy author are what concern me. If the food is little more than a resource, are not the company and its core values similar to the author's views? We can reinterpret books, yes, but we can also reinterpret and reexamine corporations and the individuals behind them. A hundred years ago, Henry Ford was seen as a great man. Nowadays he's seen as a fascist whose desire to control individual lives made him a real bastard.
I agree that disconnecting art and artist should never be absolute, but at what point does one become a hypocrite for casting aspersions on the creator while still reveling in his or her creation?
I'm inspired to write a followup post!
That is a good point. (It makes me wonder, out of idle curiosity, if there was anyone criticizing Ford and his fascist inclinations and his anti-Semitism in his own time. There surely must be someone. Nevertheless, though, I see what you're saying - whatever criticisms he may have faced in his own time didn't make it into the public image of him, and his anti-Semitism and fascist inclinations were forgotten for a long time in favor of the myth of the all-American industrialist.)
I think - this is just my opinion - that the hypocrite is the fan who sees nothing to criticize in the work, only in the artist. The fan that criticizes the artist, but consumes the art uncritically. To use the example of Ender's Game again, queer undertones can be read into it. But Card's homophobia is also present, in that the evil aliens are literally called "buggers."
The fan that criticizes Card himself for homophobia, and then disregards the homophobia within the text in favor of the queer reading - that is hypocrisy. To acknowledge that Card's homophobia informs Card's writing, and that there is homophobia within the book that sits beside the queer reading, acknowledging that both are present, that would not be hypocritical.
(Original comment deleted due to typo.)
Post a Comment