History and Literature’s Complaint Against a Modern: A J.K Rowling Poem

Bryan O'Nolan

Bryan O'Nolan is the the most highly paid investigative reporter at Ordinary Times. He lives in New Hampshire. He is available for effusive praise on Twitter. He can be contacted with thoughtfully couched criticism via email.

Related Post Roulette

4 Responses

  1. Ben Sears
    Ignored
    says:

    Hehe. I liked that.Report

  2. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    The only thing I will state about J.K. Rowling is that the Harry Potter books obviously mattered to a great number of people because of how much viritual and non-virtual ink get spilled over whatever she says and what she wrote. Some people still ardently defend her, others are disappointed about being let down by an idol (protip: never have role models). I read the books in my twenties and they were fine. I got tired of the British boarding school stuff quickly (and I saw this critiqued long before anyone knew about her anti-Trans views). The WWII analogies seem to bash over the head with obviousness (Syltherin as Nazi seems super obvious as do terms like mudblood and pureblood). The retconning of Dumbedore as gay seems like a cynical profit play.

    But I think that way too much ink is spilled online about the power of the online/twitter. Lots of people still love and adore J.K. Rowling and the super-liberal San Francisco Bay Area had or has a production of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child on performance during the fall and winter. If I had to guess, I would bet money that COVID turned off more people than her alleged or not anti-trans views.

    The whole of on-line dialogue is very surreal to me. You have people on the right-wing who seem able to generate a lot of money for themselves based on “Can you see how horrible left-wing twitter is?” but left-wing twitter does not seem to penetrate into the real world that much and fears of cancel culture are often more heat than light.

    I think J.K. Rowling’s views are tansphobic and people have a right to be disappointed and complain about them but a lot of the OMG canceled stuff is over reaction. I have my own complaints on the many ways in which political twitter is unrealistic but I do not see it as a powerful force in politics.

    Maybe the very online need to be less so. It seems odd to me that substack can be profitable for people.Report

    • CJColucci in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      I pay as little attention as I can to the politics of musicians, artists, writers, and Hollywood hacks and hams. I have heard many awful things about, for example, Eric Clapton’s politics, but I have nearly two dozen albums of his and expect I’ll have more before he hangs up his guitar.
      That said, if individuals want to avoid an artist because of his or her (or their) politics, they have an absolute right to do that. If they want to urge people to follow their example, same. If an artist’s politics offend enough people to make him or her (or they) box office poison, studios and publishers have every right not to lose money, however much I may regret not getting more books or music or movies from some favorite of mine. And if some studio or publisher doesn’t want to work with someone otherwise bankable because they don’t want to, that, too, is their right.
      I do, however, get annoyed when people with their hands on the cultural taps decide collectively and for reasons other than box office or their own principled objections that no one shall produce or promote someone. If, for example, Edward G. Robinson had become box office poison, or, in the unlikely event that all of the studios had principled objections to casting him, well, too bad for EGR and his fans. But that isn’t what happened. And that is annoying.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      “protip: never have role models”

      Great advice. [eyeroll]Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *