I’m a fan of yours and want to politely suggest you’re being slightly galaxy-brained about this
Default assumption in a sane world:
The magic of art is that its content is separate from its author, its environment, and most other contexts, and what actually matters about it is the subjective effect it has on us
Default assumption as many people work to perpetuate it in our actually existing world:
All art must be rigorously scrutinized against the inseparable umbilical link it has to its author, and their political views, and their personal behavior. The work of a just society involves either invalidating the work if the author is found wanting, or, if the work is unignorable, consuming it while *loudly and consciously pretending you’re ignoring the author* after having done that intellectual work
You’ve taken a straight-up propaganda piece for the second assumption, and applied the world view of the first assumption to it, in a way that doesn’t address the ad’s actual goal. It’s not that we should all enjoy art the way most of us usually enjoy it (without necessarily having the artist in mind.) It’s that we should interpret all art with the artist so constantly in mind that there are big, specific cases like this one, in which we must discredit her when bringing up her work.
(I mean this as no commentary on Harry Potter, Rowling, et al.)
You are right that I'm not addressing the ad's actual goal -- or, rather, I mention it in passing only to dismiss it as not very interesting to me, because I want to make a point about what the ad actually says.
Here's a way of putting my point in your terms. Posit that we live in your World #2. Both artists and their work are rigorously scrutinized. If the art offends, we're supposed to condemn the artist; if the artist offends, we're supposed to condemn the work. The two are inseparable, and are both judged by brutal (if confusing and changeable) moral criteria.
Now, you encounter a work that not only can't be ignored (because it is so influential) but that *you don't want to disown* (because you love it). The author is someone you are offended by, so you're supposed to condemn the work. But you don't want to.
It seems to me that deciding to imagine the work as authorless is a step towards sanity, not away from it, a step towards acknowledging that this perfect unity of author and work that can be judged together is generally unworkable. Maybe a small step -- maybe a step that the person making it wouldn't even want to acknowledge as such -- but a step nonetheless. And I think it's more productive to point that out, in the hopes of encouraging further steps, than to attack.
But, you know, that's just my opinion man. Maybe you're right and I should be outraged. I'm undoubtedly deluding myself if I think I'm going to change things by engaging on my terms. But I kind of think that the partisans of outrage are even more clearly deluded if they think they're going to change things their way.
I appreciate the reply. I think we’re both just reiterating our positions at this point, but my fear is that even a charitable read of the ad (“yes, we can and should separate art from artists, this is normal”) reinforces the ad’s pernicious message (“we are trying to create a society where all art is judged by its artist, but in this case, we have to admit defeat and throw our hands up because the art is just too popular.”) I think we’re both operating in good faith here and hope you’re well.
It sort of feels like you’re deliberately misunderstanding why people are annoyed.
To me, it’s clear that NYT used this line (instead of using whatever else Lianna told them about herself, or choosing some other subscriber to feature) because JK Rowling is hated by woke progressives.
They’re not talking about “what we all do when reading.” It wouldn’t even make sense if they replaced JKR with some non-controversial author.
It’s about actively pretending JKR didn’t write HP because you hate her that much.
I’m not crying about it or anything…but you’ve taken pains to interpret this in the most generous possible way, and I don’t think people are wrong to see it as wanting to erase her from her own books because she’s so terrible.
I think you're completely correct about what the New York Times ad is trying to do -- it's catering to people who don't like J.K. Rowling's views. I don't think I'm interpreting their intent charitably, because I'm not really interested in their intent, which I believe I described as "pathetic" (while also suggesting that advertising, in general, caters to fairly pathetic sentiments).
I'm pointing out that what they are literally talking about -- imagining away the author of a work -- is, actually, a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and something we do all the time as readers.
You could say, I suppose, that I'm doing exactly what Lianna is doing: imagining away The New York Times as the author and just talking about the text.
There is ZERO chance that the Times or any other publication would mention Bill Cosby or Woody Allen in a similar vein. It would just be silly, and you know it.
The notion that Rowling's case should be considered similar to Cosby's is laughably absurd.
I'm afraid you have misunderstood me rather badly. I never compared Rowling's case to Cosby's in the sense of comparing their respective transgressions (assuming anything Rowling has done even constitutes a transgression, which I do not believe is the case). In fact, I never expressed the slightest opinion about Rowling on any subject *except* her approach to her own intellectual property rights. I do have opinions about her views, but they were not the subject of this piece, and so I did not air them here.
If you were looking for me to either condemn or defend Rowling with respect to her views on transgenderism, in other words, you were bound to be disappointed, since the piece wasn't about that. It was about the nature of reading.
But of course, that's just my view as the author. You, as the reader, are free to make of it what you will.
You wrote "Well, one of the things Lianna is into is “Imagining Harry Potter without its Creator.” That is why the ad is attracting criticism. Apparently, this is now the equivalent of erasure or cancelation, which, if more evidence were needed, is the final proof that those concepts have no meaning anymore whatsoever."
I believe that ad IS the equivalent of erasure, IS the equivalent of cancelation, and that these concepts are perfectly meaningful.
The Times definitely did not intend this ad to mean that fanfic should be allowed. It meant that they endorsed removing an author from her creation because of her later alleged Thought Crimes. That she should be erased from her creation.
I'm really quite shocked that you think this is OK. I profoundly disagree.
I’m a fan of yours and want to politely suggest you’re being slightly galaxy-brained about this
Default assumption in a sane world:
The magic of art is that its content is separate from its author, its environment, and most other contexts, and what actually matters about it is the subjective effect it has on us
Default assumption as many people work to perpetuate it in our actually existing world:
All art must be rigorously scrutinized against the inseparable umbilical link it has to its author, and their political views, and their personal behavior. The work of a just society involves either invalidating the work if the author is found wanting, or, if the work is unignorable, consuming it while *loudly and consciously pretending you’re ignoring the author* after having done that intellectual work
You’ve taken a straight-up propaganda piece for the second assumption, and applied the world view of the first assumption to it, in a way that doesn’t address the ad’s actual goal. It’s not that we should all enjoy art the way most of us usually enjoy it (without necessarily having the artist in mind.) It’s that we should interpret all art with the artist so constantly in mind that there are big, specific cases like this one, in which we must discredit her when bringing up her work.
(I mean this as no commentary on Harry Potter, Rowling, et al.)
You are right that I'm not addressing the ad's actual goal -- or, rather, I mention it in passing only to dismiss it as not very interesting to me, because I want to make a point about what the ad actually says.
Here's a way of putting my point in your terms. Posit that we live in your World #2. Both artists and their work are rigorously scrutinized. If the art offends, we're supposed to condemn the artist; if the artist offends, we're supposed to condemn the work. The two are inseparable, and are both judged by brutal (if confusing and changeable) moral criteria.
Now, you encounter a work that not only can't be ignored (because it is so influential) but that *you don't want to disown* (because you love it). The author is someone you are offended by, so you're supposed to condemn the work. But you don't want to.
It seems to me that deciding to imagine the work as authorless is a step towards sanity, not away from it, a step towards acknowledging that this perfect unity of author and work that can be judged together is generally unworkable. Maybe a small step -- maybe a step that the person making it wouldn't even want to acknowledge as such -- but a step nonetheless. And I think it's more productive to point that out, in the hopes of encouraging further steps, than to attack.
But, you know, that's just my opinion man. Maybe you're right and I should be outraged. I'm undoubtedly deluding myself if I think I'm going to change things by engaging on my terms. But I kind of think that the partisans of outrage are even more clearly deluded if they think they're going to change things their way.
I appreciate the reply. I think we’re both just reiterating our positions at this point, but my fear is that even a charitable read of the ad (“yes, we can and should separate art from artists, this is normal”) reinforces the ad’s pernicious message (“we are trying to create a society where all art is judged by its artist, but in this case, we have to admit defeat and throw our hands up because the art is just too popular.”) I think we’re both operating in good faith here and hope you’re well.
It sort of feels like you’re deliberately misunderstanding why people are annoyed.
To me, it’s clear that NYT used this line (instead of using whatever else Lianna told them about herself, or choosing some other subscriber to feature) because JK Rowling is hated by woke progressives.
They’re not talking about “what we all do when reading.” It wouldn’t even make sense if they replaced JKR with some non-controversial author.
It’s about actively pretending JKR didn’t write HP because you hate her that much.
I’m not crying about it or anything…but you’ve taken pains to interpret this in the most generous possible way, and I don’t think people are wrong to see it as wanting to erase her from her own books because she’s so terrible.
I think you're completely correct about what the New York Times ad is trying to do -- it's catering to people who don't like J.K. Rowling's views. I don't think I'm interpreting their intent charitably, because I'm not really interested in their intent, which I believe I described as "pathetic" (while also suggesting that advertising, in general, caters to fairly pathetic sentiments).
I'm pointing out that what they are literally talking about -- imagining away the author of a work -- is, actually, a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and something we do all the time as readers.
You could say, I suppose, that I'm doing exactly what Lianna is doing: imagining away The New York Times as the author and just talking about the text.
I flatly disagree.
There is ZERO chance that the Times or any other publication would mention Bill Cosby or Woody Allen in a similar vein. It would just be silly, and you know it.
The notion that Rowling's case should be considered similar to Cosby's is laughably absurd.
Here, read this. Because I know you haven't.
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
I'm afraid you have misunderstood me rather badly. I never compared Rowling's case to Cosby's in the sense of comparing their respective transgressions (assuming anything Rowling has done even constitutes a transgression, which I do not believe is the case). In fact, I never expressed the slightest opinion about Rowling on any subject *except* her approach to her own intellectual property rights. I do have opinions about her views, but they were not the subject of this piece, and so I did not air them here.
If you were looking for me to either condemn or defend Rowling with respect to her views on transgenderism, in other words, you were bound to be disappointed, since the piece wasn't about that. It was about the nature of reading.
But of course, that's just my view as the author. You, as the reader, are free to make of it what you will.
You wrote "Well, one of the things Lianna is into is “Imagining Harry Potter without its Creator.” That is why the ad is attracting criticism. Apparently, this is now the equivalent of erasure or cancelation, which, if more evidence were needed, is the final proof that those concepts have no meaning anymore whatsoever."
I believe that ad IS the equivalent of erasure, IS the equivalent of cancelation, and that these concepts are perfectly meaningful.
The Times definitely did not intend this ad to mean that fanfic should be allowed. It meant that they endorsed removing an author from her creation because of her later alleged Thought Crimes. That she should be erased from her creation.
I'm really quite shocked that you think this is OK. I profoundly disagree.