I guess I'm going to do something kinda uncharacteristic
and pop off a hot take
*pop*
without thinking about it for like six months.
So I've been seeing a lot of people on Twitter
a lot of which are in my mentions, um, discussing
"death of the author" and asking how we
should apply this to
um,
our newly out and proud
incredibly transphobic JK Rowling.
The warning signs were there.
It kind of began, as of like a few months ago,
when people were noticing that she was liking some
really hard core, uh,
right wing, uh, TERFY tweets
TERF meaning, Trans Exlusionary Radical Feminist. Like,
I'm not wild about the term, for accuracy reasons but
just so we're clear it is not a slur
So anyway, she was liking some TERFY stuff and then she started
retweeting it. What's the step beyond showing your slip?
It's like, her dress got caught in her
underwear, like
With the most hilarious
oops
of a tweet that, uh, has ever maybe
happened with someone with more than a million followers
And then she just doubled down from there.
And so, like, just within the last 24 hours we have her
comparing providing gender services to young people with
gay conversion therapy? Linking to fringe weirdos
and Medium posts, like its like some authority.
And as is the case with so many transphobes, she is arguing
against a position that nobody actually has.
No one is saying chromosomes
are not real, Joanne.
Now if we wanted to get into that, that is its whole other thing.
But suffice to say that "biological sex"
is, in fact, much more complicated than
the simple X and Y chromosome.
Trans YouTuber Riley Dennis did a video on the subject a few
years ago, so I'll go ahead and link to that.
And I'll let her speak to that issue, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about
"Death of the Author."
So death of the author. When the author, a very
successful and wealthy author outs themselves as a
bigot. Now it is entirely possible
that you do not care
and you genuinely do believe in separating art from
the artist. And if that is the case,
fly free little bird. This video is not for you.
Stop watching now,
Go enjoy "Fanatstic Beasts 5" or whatever.
But here's the
problem with even applying death of the author
to this discussion. Is basically
you're trying to find an academic solution
for an emotional and ethical problem.
As I said on my video on the subject, I personally believe
that you can't really practice death of the author
in its purest, pure form, if for no other reason
than if you're in any kind of, like,
discourse setting, be it academic or Twitter,
other people aren't going to really allow it.
They will bring the author into it and that is going to
introduce subconscious biases which
is of course going to affect your reading of the text.
No matter how hard you try to be "unbiased"
or whatever. So you can try to practice death of the
author, but long as you're
engaged in the community
other people are probably going to bring the author in
whether you want them to or not. So, I think that part
of the reason why there are a lot of
really confused emotions about JK Rowling
going hard TERF is because
so many people have an attachment to "Harry Potter." It was
a part of their childhood. It was a part of their adolescence.
It is deeply, deeply
important to some people. Maybe like, 10 or 20 years ago I would
have been, like, smug about this
um, but I feel for the
Harry Potter fans of the world. Harry Pott- like I didn't hate it but like
Harry Potter was never my thing, obviously. I never talk about it
on this channel. You know, like, I read the books. I even-
I even gave it a shout-out .....
I'm kind of regretting now.
Oops.
I just needed a book that came out in 2007. But Harry Potter was blowing up
around the same times that "Lord of the Rings" was having it's resurgence
in popularity. And the relationship of the
author to that text is a completely
different discussion, and one we're not going to have here.
Tolkien has been dead for 50 years, he's not on Twitter.
But JK Rowling is not only alive,
she's also relatively young and
has tremendous power and influence
and a lot of followers and a lot of money
and a lot of control of her intellectual property.
And I've seen a lot of takes and I don't really
want to address them all but basically you can try to be
rational about the whole thing, and be like,
"don't support her financially."
But the reality is it's
a lot more complicated than that. So while on some level there is a
sort of broader political discussion on how
she wields her influence, really when
people want to talk about death of the author in this instance
they want to reconcile their
personal feelings about Harry Potter with
the author. Like, how do I reconcile the fact
that the author of this series is using her
power to do such incredible harm
all while genuinely believing that she's doing the
right thing, with the fact that the series was so
so formative for so many people. How do you reconcile this?
Um, the answer to that is...
But I have kind of touched on this subject
before, uh, a long time ago. And I think
you can find it on my other channel. Um,
I did a video
that
kind of touched on a similar topic about
Orson Scott Card, who is the author of
"Ender's Game." And it wasn't my, like, Harry Potter or
anything 'cause I was older when I read it.
But it was extremely, well, formative for me
especially as a professional author. In particular the
sequel to Ender's Game, "Speaker for the Dead", was extremely
influential and if you're familiar with it you'll be like,
"Oh. I can see that."
Like even the title of the
"Axioms End" sequel which is called "Truth of the Divine"
is kind of a, a-
it takes some inspiration from Speaker for the Dead. So I remember a
long time ago people would talk about Orson Scott Card on Twitter
and at first I... kind of was
inclined to disbelieve them.
Mostly because I couldn't really
reconcile the fact that the same person
who wrote this work which is fundamentally about
the importance of understanding some--
--one or something that is very different from you
with this incredible homophobic bigot.
And it's not that this guy just has some bad
Twitter opinions, he openly advocates
against gay and trans people and
he uses his not inconsiderable wealth to do so.
And unlike Joanne, he, for the most part, has the
good sense to keep his bullshit off Twitter. But...
He is still mostly on his bullshit and was on
Ben Shapiro's channel as recently as two months ago.
Orson Scott Card is still alive
and there is a difference between a
dead author that maybe has a checkered past
and a living one who is using their
not inconsiderable wealth and power
to advocate against marginalized groups.
This is one of the most insidious aspects of JK Rowling
doing what she's doing. She knows that because
of her wealth and influence she's going to be
believed more than
you know, the lived experienced of trans people
and decades and decades of medical research. And I know there are a lot
of people who are perfectly
willing to compartmentalize
and again, I see
"separate art from the artist" constantly and
you know what? That's fine. You know what, you do you.
Again, this discussion is not for you.
This is for the people who are trying to figure out how to
reconcile having Harry Potter in their past and
in their lives with the way she's wielding her power.
And sort of the way that Orson Scott Card's open bigotry
has influenced the way that I read
the Ender's series, I think people kind of know
that knowing this about the author
is going to affect how they read
and engage with the Harry Potter series.
And if it was formative for them, if it was a big
part of their childhood or adolescence or even if it is
still a big part of your life
That is going to influence the way you
remember it, or the way to experience it.
And while you can absolutely control the way you read
or engage with a text, you cannot control
the way an author uses their money and influence.
Even case in point, even right now I am using my
relative extreme micro influence
to advocate against
what JK Rowling is advocating for.
And if you disagree with me
Bye Felicia...?
See, I normally work off a script
so this is very unnatural for me.
As you can see, like my ring light and my
degree over there.
See, I'm a professional.
I know for a lot of people there would be no forgiveness for them and
I can understand that. I think, on some level,
I would have to agree. But as it stands right now
all signs point to this is where
her train is going, that she's not going to change.
What is probably going to happen is, she
and her social circle is going to become more and more
insular. And she's going to distance herself from people
that she used to work with, like
the entire cast of the Harry Potter movies.
And she's going to get love-bombed by not only people who agree with her but people
who probably have much more...
far right beliefs about trans people than even Rowling does.
I have seen people argue that
once a text is in the world, regardless of
how much the author tries to
influence the people's reading of it, once it's out there
Umm..
The text no longer belongs to them.
And on a certain level I do agree with that.
However, there are few creators that are as deeply
entrenched in the world they created as JK Rowling.
Like...for instance, let's say that George Lucas
goes off the deep end and like chains some stuff
to a confederate statue that is slated for removal.
Umm, he's...not
really got anything to do with Star Wars anymore but
JK Rowling "is" Harry Potter.
She has made sure of that.
And this is sort of a unique franchise
in that you can't really consume and advocate
for it, without indirectly doing the same
for the author.
And she knows this, which is why she's
kind of decided that this is
the hill that she's going to die on.
She has a lot of power and influence, especially in
the UK, where shameless TERF-ery is a
lot more normalized than it is here in the US.
It's like the one thing that we're slightly less shitty about.
Winning..?
So here's the thing, so if you, like, I don't know
never watch another Harry Potter movie again or
sell your books to a used bookstore or something,
that isn't really going to change anything.
Like, the number of consumers who are going to change their habits
because of this thing is vanishingly small.
But whenever you take the concept of death of the author
and basically proclaim that
the text belongs to the reader now,
this is a way to reconcile
your own personal emotional attachment to this text.
And that's fine.
However, you can't really cry "death of the author" and
keep consuming Harry Potter stuff without supporting
her wealth and influence.
And honestly, what she's doing does scare me
you know, like such to the point that I would, you know
make a YouTube video in my pyjamas.
reacting to
the discussion of "death of the author" as it pertains
to JK Rowling. I think we're at a
important crossroads where trans visibility
is concerned. And...
We could either go forward or
we could see the loss of what
gains we have made.
And...I dont want to think about what going backward
might look like.
And, like, TERF-ery is a spectrum.
There are a lot of "gender-critical" people.
That's what they call themselves.
That, um, are- they know they are transphobic
They have, you know, terrible terminologies that they use.
They actively try to do harm for pe-
They know what they're doing. But Rowling is
in this camp where, sh--I don't
think she believes she's transphobic
I think she genuinely believes
that she's doing the right thing, which is why
I don't think she's going to change.
So again with this discussion we're dealing with two separate issues.
How do you personally reconcile
you relationship to this text?
And how do we, as consumers, interact with JK Rowling's intellectual property?
Obviously, if Harry Potter never meant anything to you
you keep doing you, boo. Advocate against
her positions. You can try to reason with her on Twitter.
Good luck.
But if you cry "death of the author"
and decide to ignore the author, yet you
continue to consume her product...
that is a form of empowerment.
Rowling only has this massive platform because of
her influence, which comes from her creative output.
And the only way her influence is reduced is if businesses
decide that she's too toxic to be associated with.
Now, I think in a weird way the
case of JK Rowling, you know,
suddenly making this heel-turn is a
pretty extreme case.
'Cause there are very, very few authors in this world with
the kind of influence that she has.
So if Harry Potter means so much to you, that you genuinely can't let it go,
and you desire to compartmentalize the author
with the text,
then go ahead.
But, like, don't try
to morally justify it, if you understand
that Joanne's position and influence comes from
the fact that so many people consume her text.
So normally I might advocate for a sort of wishy-washy
it's-your-own-personal-relationship-to-the-text thing.
But in this case, I don't think that 'death of the author' can apply.
The fact that she's so deeply entwined in the world she created
is why she has so much power.
So from an academic standpoint, it's fine. That's why
death of the author exists. It's supposed to be this,
you know,
emotionless, manly way of
engaging with text.
But from an ethical standpoint, if you really
don't want to support the author
you might just need to let Harry Potter go.
And I l feel like what I'm seeing is a lot of people
who are not ready to do that.
Again, to draw the point of comparison with me and Orson Scott Card,
I can accept that
Orson Scott Card was very formative
and influential to me.
But I'm past the point where I'm willing to
consume or enjoy his work.
And I cannot encourage others, in good conscience, to do the same.
So, I know that this kinda comes off like I'm saying,
"boycott Harry Potter because the author has some bad Twitter opinions."
But I think that if this is an issue that you really care about
you kinda have to.
To be clear, I don't want to insinuate that it's
"either/or"
Either the author has a spotless past
and is completely unproblematic and therefore it's okay to consume their work.
Or cancel JK Rowling.
That is not what I'm saying because, again, JK Rowling
is a pretty extreme case because she's so famous.
And I don't think I can overstate the amount of harm
she's doing right now by
Tweeting this dangerous crap to her 14 million followers.
She is normalizing misinformation,
and making it genuinely dangerous
for trans people to exist.
And that makes me mad.
I don't like it.
People in the last video asking "Do you really drink that much Canada Dry?"
Diet Canada Dry?
So again, I think we're kind of dealing with a strange and unique case
of author doing real harm
who thinks she's doing good.
But is the owner of a text that is
arguably the most
popular franchise that has happened
in the last 30 years.
That is what the issue is here, and that is why I felt
it was important enough to even talk about.
To wield my power and influe--
I, an author who am not even published yet.
*limp celebration*
Actually, 'cause, here's the thing. I actually, honestly,
and I don't--again, I don't like talking about my personal feelings
'cause I like to pretend that I don't have any--
but I honestly, uhm
I kinda was waffling on
whether or not I should even say something because
I have a book coming out in, like, two weeks and
as a debut author it maybe isn't the best
idea to publicly advocate
one of the most successful living authors.
And I don't want it to sound like this moral hoity-toity thing.
But it's kind of just---
--was the right thing to do. And I know it is.
I had so much coffee today, my hands are shaking.
And I think in a situation like this
it isn't just about "death of the author."
It is about advocacy. And what she's doing right now
is...normalizing some really insidious stuff.
So yeah, I don't really know how to end this. Obviously, I kind of put this together on the fly.
And she's still trending on Twitter. She's been trending all day.
I don't know *sigh* stop buying Harry Potter stuff.
Donkey Kong says trans rights.
Good night.