A plea for tolerance?

[mary_j_59]

Not sure quite what to call this - it's a comment I made on an earlier thread, where it was pretty deeply buried. I'm posting it as a separate comment because it's something I feel pretty strongly about.

Yes, I know - this is a sporking community. We are making fun of the Harry Potter books, and, at times, some of us can get quite irate in our

Comments

[kaizopp]

If you're not comfortable discussing the author, then... don't. I don't see why every one else should only discuss what you 'think is fine', though...

Every litt class I've ever had has brought up and analyzed authors personal lives, and even though I'm more of an 'author is dead' person myself, there's no reason for me to expect my teachers to cater only to me myself and I...

I wouldn't like to be called a 'stupid cow' indeed, but that's because it reeks of mysogyny. I someone calls me stupid because of something I write, whatever. And if you really don't want to be psychoanalyzed on something you write... good luck because it's going to happen anyway.

[mary_j_59]

Fair enough. It's true that anyone who enters the public arena and asks for a response (1) May very well get responses and (2) can't expect to control them. Which, really, is part of what I mean when I say the author is dead. I also accept that this is not a moderated community (as far as I know), and that people take all sorts of approaches to literary analysis.

I do think, though, there's a difference in examining the work of a living author and that of someone who's dead. I also think that attempting to diagnose someone by analyzing their writing is more than a little chancy. Finally, I'm absolutely opposed to making personal attacks on an author. That's not criticism. It's just meanness, don't you agree?

Thanks for your comment. I wasn't really trying to control anything, you know; I was merely expressing my own discomfort.

[blamebrampton]

I agree. In fact, your post reminded me how much it irritated me when people do this and that I had been meaning to stop watching this community. I'm leaving on one of the few posts I've thoroughly agreed with.

[mary_j_59]

Thanks! Sorry you're leaving.

[madderbrad]

I understand and sympathise with the sentiment but I'm wary of imposing limits on what can be discussed here

[mary_j_59]

Nice to see you, Brad! And it may be true that Rowling herself invited the level of scrutiny we're engaged in. Even so, IMHO, few professors of literature are also psychologists, and vice versa. I am neither a professor of lit nor a psychologist; I'm a librarian, a fan, and a writer.

So - yes, it's fair to talk about certain aspects of an author's life and how they may have influenced her art. But I do think there is a line we shouldn't cross. And it's simple. We shouldn't make personal attacks on the human being, even when we're attacking the books.

As I said above, I understand this isn't a moderated community, and I don't want to tell anyone what questions they can raise, etc. But I do think we can try to be kind and courteous.

Really, I think we see eye to eye on this, don't we?

[vermouth1991]

I think that a real line that we need to draw here is actually to keep civil in our opinions and in the face of others'. We should be free to call out on what we percieve to be BS from other people on this LJ group, but also be prepared to back our claims with something concrete. I still remember your LJ post on your feelings after watching "The Dark Knight", where you expressed that it made you rather uncomfortable that other people placed so much emphasis on The Joker (i'm paraphrasing here), to be honest I couldn't disagree with you more there, but I didn't reply because 1. It was so long ago and 2. I don't know how to keep it civil without getting all fanboyly over the matter. I mean, to me it felt almost blasphemous (in the fandom-sense at least) to see someone "diss" such an iconic villian that way, but I couldn't form a coherent arguement, and I'm glad I did not actually write anything down.

All in all it's a very fine line to tread, I think.

[mary_j_59]

Well, yes, it is. As to the Joker - are you talking about my post from last summer, "Chesterton, Dickens, and the Dark Knight?" It's true that I could barely watch the Joker when he was onscreen, but that is, if anything, a tribute to Heath Ledger's performance. The Joker is a horribly effective villain, wonderfully written and played, and I don't do villains very well. He is the devil, the prince of this world, and all the cards are his.

But I'm glad you didn't diss me personally because of our disagreement!

And, really, that's all I'm asking for. Just that we keep it to attacking ideas, not people. As I've said, I do realize this is not a moderated community. For the most part, we do manage to be civil to each other. There are a couple of people who are very passionate, very insightful, and whose posts and comments I usually enjoy who have, however, sometimes disturbed me. They have attacked Rowling personally, not just the books. I can understand their frustration; I can understand their questioning her motives. There is a fine

[jana_ch]

I also am a big believer in "criticize the art, not the artist." For all that she's in the public eye, none of us actually knows JKR personally. Speculation on what she's like as a friend, a wife, a mother is--I wouldn't say improper, but rather presumptuous. We all have complete access to the published books, but none of us has access to JKR herself. She's a public figure for her writing alone, not for anything in her private life. Her writing is there for me to shred; her personal concerns are not something about which I can have anything relevant to say.

I'm not about to tell others what they can and cannot discuss. To some extent JKR's life is relevant to her books, but I think there is a point--hard to define but real--at which personal criticism and speculation reflect worse on the critic than on JKR herself. I prefer not to get too close to that line, and I always end up thinking less well of those who cross it.

[mary_j_59]

Exactly. And, really, I'm not trying to tell others what they can discuss. I am just asking that we refrain from attacking the human being even while we have free rein to attack anything we like about her books.

[mary_j_59]

If you don't want anyone to have a negative thought about you and your work, don't publish your work and never step into the footlight.

Oh, people who've visited these comms (mostly Marauders fans!) already have very negative thoughts about me and my work, alas! Too late!

To get back to your comment, you are one of the people I've found very passionate and insightful when discussing these books. I've found a lot of what you have to say illuminating. I cannot, of course, fully understand how much of a trigger these books are to you, but I appreciate that they are a trigger, because they are absolutely ridden with narcissism.

And I'm grateful to you and OneandtheTruth for pointing it out.

But I really do think there is a difference between the morality in the books and the morality of the authorThat's a very, very, fine line, and people will perceive it in different places. There's also a line, not so fine, between discussing an author (and I mean the author, not the books) and simply calling an author names. That line's been