I don't see it that way. Her crime novels will never reach the same size of audience. She will forever approach publishers and be seen artistically as the Harry Potter author. That's the only brand she can bank on.

@shindig: Isn’t that just what Ry_Ry said? Rowling’s work post the original HP novels and movies have not near the cultural relevance. This game could be the first piece of media that breaks through to the mainstream since that last Deathly Hallows movie. So it’s particularly awful if it succeeds so she can get richer and continue her bigotry campaign.

Of course, she’s already a billionaire so what’s one more ivory backscratcher to her. There are no “winning” options here!

I'm just not the kind of person to stop liking something just because the creator turns out to be a random human (as in full of flaws or opinions I completely disagree with, morally or intellectually), unless their shit opinions are manifesting in their work I suppose. But then I wouldn't be enjoying it anymore anyway. Especially not when the thing I enjoy has more or less become it's own thing. In fact, I would argue the best thing JK Rowling did was invent the wizarding world of Harry Potter because reading the books there is so much untapped potential that is just lost in adverbs. So I'm excited to see what a bunch of people on a dev team can do with that universe.

I don't see it all as a dilemma because I can disagree with a creator or even actively work against their point of view in the real world. But if I am really enjoying what they put out, that just adds to my enjoyment of life. I mean, I am sure we can collectively come up with a monster of a human that literally kills children and small animals with every dollar they get with the receipt to prove it, but reasonable levels of "they are part shit but the fraction of a dollar they get from my stream of their audio book isn't an endorsment of their opinion".

@justin258: I agree on the idea of being critical. it's important, even, to read and engage with problematic things so you can understand and dissect them. Like I mentioned in my post, they're impactful books for a lot of people and it's fine even to like them now, but there are aspects of the text as it is presented that hold really ass-backwards and harmful ideas and stereotypes that need to be acknowledged.

@sethmode: Fair enough. That said, I don't think it's stretching to say there is blind irony is using anti-capitalist memes on a site that has improbably survived, and then thrived against all odds due to the fervent admiration and support of a relatively small group of premium members who pay a monthly fee for years on end. I couldn't dream up a better advertisement for capitalism if I tried... unless I'm supposed to feel guilty or unethical about a premium sub to Giant Bomb.com?

Would love to know how this model would work under any sort of non-capitalist society, or if we'd even have video games... or computers. Or food.

In any case, I agree with one thing, fuck J.K. Rowling.

@north6: this post has strong "you criticize society yet are a part of society" vibes.

@north6: I mean, some of the earliest computers were literally joint projects between governments and corporations. So...yes.

Funny how no one ate food before capitalism.

Criticize the current state of capitalism all you want, there's lots wrong. Boeing exists because of some ridiculous form of capitalist corporate welfare, banks that are too big to fail, etc. That meme is bone headed in that it speaks in absolutes and / or reeks of nihilism, and it rings especially foolish on a premium sub supported video game website.

Why is a sonic meme being treated this seriously.

@sethmode: I just have questions.

(also: Aww, tyty)

Rowling doesnt strike me as a hateful person. Misinformed, yes. But she doesnt seem completelty reprehensible based on her tweets alone. At its core, wasnt the messaging that the expierences of a person with an xx chromosome and female genitalia inherently different than variations from that norm?

If she were simply misinformed and then willing to listen and learn from people who know what they're on about it would be an entirely different matter.

Her attitude instead is to consistently dig deeper and deeper.

I'm not posting it here but there are plenty of searchable images of pretty much anyone you could consider hateful living the hell out of their life and being normalized by friends at parties. Hateful can offer me a cheese plate when it's sunny and an umbrella when it rains - unless my reasons for feeling this way are to do with being previously deprived of those items then it's all to do with who you are to them and who is watching at the time.

I say this to anyone who is indifferent; This may not affect you because you are not Trans and do not know anyone who is. You may not know anyone on social media who is Trans, you might have lived this far in your life without even knowing the name of a person who is Trans. So think for a moment about how you identify. Think of the Venn diagram of the things you are and be, and the group or groups you identify as being a part of(Even if the middle of the overlapping circles only leaves you with a membership count of 1). Think of how you'd feel if someone famous in the world decided to brief everyone on how someone of that group being in a room with her, meant she thought the person from your group was a threat and might attack her. Maybe it's a large group and you feel a smirk right now amid the forming thought of "We would simply ignore her". Maybe that group is not large, and is made up of individuals who have to deal in varying degrees with their own issues of identity and human nature amidst the oppressive hegemony of humans of other interests. Can you see that?

I suppose the heart of it is that in order to be in the group Joanne is afraid of, people would need to be female gendered who had transitioned from male gendered meaning Joanne refuses to accept both the transitioned part and that it is truly harder to spot people who mean you harm than with sweeping generalizations. I know people who are incredibly moved by the stories of Hogwarts and Diagon Alley. There are people who work at this site who have spoken of their fondness for the books and I've written this not wanting to hurt them(Or anyone) by demanding they burn the books(I am very much not calling on anyone to address this thread and am very much not calling for people to dispose of their childhood, either memories or property). This matter is vexing to me and imma try to not hog this one. But make a choice. Refusing to make a choice is still a choice. Sincere advice tho - regardless of your choice, maybe take a pass at how to explain your choice to someone else. See how it tastes to say it.

Trans allies and Trans people - apologies if I mess up anything in the wording, I accept suggestions and corrections with sources. I am not Trans but hope I am eloquent enough for people to see the discrimination and at least ask questions.

(edited to make it more clear that I do not want people to get rid of the books or films or anything they already own. you already own that. destroying something you once held dear only means you feel dumb if you feel like going back later because you have to pay again)

I myself immediately thought of Card when I first opened this thread, as it was probably the time that I had to think hardest about this question, since I really love Ender's Game, but hate Card's views on a lot of things. FWIW John Scalzi--famed sci-fi author and President of the Science Fiction Writers of America for three years--wrote a blog about the boycott of the Ender's Game movie back in 2013, which isn't a bad read. But it was easy for me to not see the movie because I objected to a lot of the changes from the book anyway. The harder question was the book, which remains a masterpiece.

For better or worse, my conclusion in that case ended up being that the book was simply too good not to keep recommending to people just because the guy who wrote it sucks. I mean, there's no homophobia or any of Card's other nonsense in it. The book itself is an innocent bystander in a certain sense. There's that whole baby and bathwater thing to think about.

But I get that it's harder with new properties where a scummy artist is still getting a cut. It's easy enough to find a used copy of Ender's Game somewhere for which Card will not see a dime. But when you're talking about a brand new video game, outside of waiting to find a used disc copy, there's no getting around that you're filling Rowling's coffers when you purchase it.

It's a thorny question that I will probably continue to decide on a case-by-case basis.

Her newest crime book is about a man who dresses up as a woman in order to gain access and murder women, the exact boogeyman that right wingers have been using for ages now. She's all in.

It's not meant to be taken as a nuanced statement on economics. It's a meme with a picture of Sonic the Hedgehog.

I also dismiss the notion that we can't be critical of capitalism on this website simply because people spend money on video games and subscriptions. Even if people hope to change society, they still have to live in it.

Yo, the phrase has already been explained to North6. He is having a case of selective memory about its meaning. And making the lazy argument that because we participate in capitalism we somehow cannot be critical of it. Because people who work in tech cannot be critical of the tech industry. Lawyers can’t be critical of the justice system.

Edit: On the topic at hand, Rowling’s pen name for her mystery books happens to be Robert Galbraith, the man who invented conversion therapy. The woman has google and has to google a pen name to make sure it’s isn’t a real author, so I refuse to believe she didn’t know or wasn’t told.

In the last couple years the heteronormativity of the Harry Potter books really has started to seem less like a product of the time and more of a product of the author. She doesn’t dislike gay characters, they just don’t seem to have a place in her stories(except when she says a character is gay outside of the text).

There's not a single thing I can think of that's "too sacred" to drop or criticize if I found out a principle person involved is mega shitty. What I really care about is how the people around reacted. We're encouraged to separate the art from the artist more because of alienation of labor more than anything. And that holding people to account for the shit they make stops the commerce from happening.

Everyone involved in that Harry Potter game wanted to keep their heads down and ignore the problem that's been there for years. No thanks. We should be loud about the artist sucking and never let it slide. Whether that pushes individuals to make the choice is sort of moot. Of course some people will draw the line and others won't. But it's crucial to pay attention to how they and others continue.

And again to remind people, the devs got paid this round regardless of how it does. They're not getting royalties or even guaranteed employment if the game does well.

Whoop, there it is

As someone who grew up in the 80s and 90s there was a good episode of Growing Pains about this. For the life of me can't find it on youtube. Basically it was about liking rock music but not the drugs and everything that went with it.

At some point you have to disconnect the thing from the people making it. That line varies all the time and different people have to make that decision and it's a different line for different people. This part has already been said a few times in the thread. Just wanted to shout out Growing Pains.

Edit: Found it! "Feet of Clay" Season 4 Episode 14

And less than a week after this thread was created and that Hogwarts game was announced, there’s been yet another instance where Rowling is prompting transphobia.

Just...Yeah enough of this bullshit.

@clagnaught: Well, she kind does it every week at this point now, it's never a surprise.

@chaser324: Oof this is a tired argument, but here we are again. Who said you can't be critical of capitalism? I'm critical of capitalism. That meme is saying something else.

It's pretty simple. That meme says all consumption under capitalism is unethical. I'm critical of that line of thought, and most that speak in absolutes. I understand that *you* don't understand why that is a line of thought that either means "I don't care if I am unethical, so I'll continue to buy/consume things." or "Nobody should buy/consume anything because it is all unethical." Both are ridiculous statements, either nihilistic or apocalyptic, if you don't believe so, I'm a little terrified of you. It probably actually means something else to you, but you're just misreading what it is clearly saying.

@plan6: You explained your interpretation of it, which didn't align with what it says, basically that you're hedging (get it?) and "not all capitalism is good or bad"... bold. I was a little confused as to how a sonic meme that speaks in clear absolutes requires interpretation that lands in the middle, but we've been through this.

Hypothetically, if this game (or other media with problematic authors) would tell a strong pro LGBTQ story, not a side quest or two, but a real tale with a diverse cast of characters that head on confronts beliefs and actions of an original author, would that be an acceptable way of dealing with things?

Or would it actually just make things worse?

I feel like stories and strong narrative in pop culture have more of a long-term impact on society than rich people with awful ideas. So maybe this is one way (out of many) to combat this issue.

But maybe I’m just naive.

To be clear I’m not pretending to know an answer to this obviously complicated matter.

And I’m not going to spend money on this game, because at the moment this is one of the ways that I feel I can show my support and solidarity.

Just wondered if this though in my head had any merit?

@gornogorno: JKR has had two mainstream opportunities to showcase her queer characters being openly queer and she refused to do so. It's not like she's dead. If she wanted queer representation she'd do it. Putting that responsibility onto a 3rd party doesn't help.

I'd trust a third-party to tell diverse stories in the Harry Potter universe a hell of a lot more than JK fucking Rowling.

@ry_ry: Well sure, I don't think we can expect JK to change her mind, but she wasn't born with those ideas. She heard them, read them and so on.

And as big as her platform is, it's nowhere near as big as Harry Potter's platform. So maybe there's a way to use that.

I don't know, maybe not.

It does feel wrong-ish too

@whitegreyblack: I don't doubt that a 3rd party could tell a better story than JKR. I don't want that responsibility shifted to make this IP seem more inclusive when the creator of said IP refuses to do so. Mini rant:

@gornogorno: Harry Potter was very important to me growing up and I was very invested in it. Invested to the point that I was overlooking issues with it that people around me were acknowledging. It was one of the things that my partner and I enjoyed reading/watching together. It's okay to acknowledge that a formative thing/person/idea/place is problematic/harmful and move on. If you need any inspiration just look at the amazing work currently being made in graphic novels for kids and young adults. There's no reason to continue to carry this millstone around our necks when today's kids have better stories to engage with.

@ry_ry: I definitely agree that if the creator does not give a rat's ass and is actually hugely harmful, maybe the effort should go into showing other worlds and stories and have them gain prominence.

But as @gornogorno mentioned, Harry Potter is huge and influential and is a part of so many lives already, so if other storytellers are able to tell excellently crafted inclusive stories both in new worlds and in the world of Harry Potter there might be a larger net benefit to more people (even if it serves to further enrich someone as low as JKR).

It's a conundrum for sure and I'm glad the Harry Potter universe has always existed somewhere somewhere fairly far off in my periphery so I can tell those I know who love it why JKR is a terf shithead.

I think "in spite of the author" can be nice but... not when the author is still making money off the brand and said work is strengthening it

For example: WWE have their Ultimate Warrior (?) award that they give to a sick kid every year that they can market it. It actively goes against what Hellwig wanted (he wanted to honor the behind the scenes folk and roadies) but it is something that seems to mean a lot to the people who win it and is some great awareness for cancer. Does it suck that it is honoring a hateful fuckwit? You bet it does. Does it feel nice that it would actively make that hateful cumstain angry? You bet it does.

of course, that, like with this, misses part of the point. Yeah, you are making an asshole annoyed that their work is being used for something they actively oppose. But just like Rowling still makes money off of Harry Potter so too does WWE, a company that has a long history of coming down closer to Hellwig than not on many social issues.

Stuff like using Lovecraft's work to tell LGBTQ and POC stories is awesome because they are both fascinating AND would make Howie, a guy who was racist and hateful even by the standards of his day, scream in anger. But that is also because neither he (well, his estate) nor any other hate groups (to my knowledge).

Time to be the asshole here. I could not give a fuck. I love Michael Jackson, Rick James is great, R. Kelly is one of the best R'nB singers ever. Hell even Gary Glitter is great. What I am trying to say is wheter the artist is reprehensible or not doesn't matter to me. I firmly beleive that our society now a days is too sensitive. Someones thoughts can't hurt anyone. It use to be that you had to actually incite violence aginst someone or attack them for it to be called harassment but now a days it has gone too far. Mos def I'm gonna buy this game and support the people making the game.

To the mods please let me have another opinion than everyone else without being banned. In this post I haven't attacked anyone. I have just stated my opinion. That has to be allowed. Right?

@pnutz83: You are allowed whatever opinion you want but do really consider whether “thoughts” are the issue people have with all of those people.

@pnutz83: While your opinion is valid, it's funny that you say people's "thoughts" are being policed when every person you mentioned still loving did some real fucked up stuff that goes so far beyond "thoughts" as to make most people sick to their stomachs.

JKR's harm arguably goes beyond "thoughts" as well. Something to consider.

@pnutz83: Also.. what do you think it means to incite violence?

Do you suppose rhetoric like JKRs begins and ends with being rude on Twitter?

Have you ever wondered how you would have behaved in the not too distant past if you were present when a woman was being burned or drowned, having been accused of being a witch? Would you interject, knowing the crowd could turn on you, or just keep quiet and enjoy the heat?

It is what I have kept coming back to while mulling over if I should get involved in this thread.

I am sure this won't go well for me, but I just can't sit here and watch a human being be turned into an object of hate any longer without saying something.

I have read all of JK Rowling's so-called hate tweets. I've read her "Terf Wars" essay. I have engaged with several trans individuals in the UK who are horrified that this situation is turning the spotlight on them when they just want to live a quiet life the way they want to live it.

I implore you to read what JK Rowling has actually written, not what has been projected onto it.

She has bent over backwards to be polite, measured and considered.

In return she has been openly and repeatedly threatened with death and rape. It seems that even here, people are perfectly fine with ripping her reputation to shreds without giving any specific examples of what she has done wrong.

I think plenty of examples have been given, should you choose to actually listen.

@cyberbloke: Congrats, you earned this:

https://twitter.com/austin_walker/status/806390745330499586?s=20

I stand by my original post that thoughts (except Professor X:s thoughts) can't hurt anyone. When you explicitly tell people to go and attack someone then they hurt and then they aren't just thoughts. What I meant with all the artists comparisons is that even though you might not like JKR you shouldn't punish the game makers. Try to separate the art from the artist. I mean "Mary Jane" is a good song even though Rick James sucks as a human being. "Feelin on your boooty" is great even though R. Kelly seems dispicable and The Hogwarts game can be great even though you might not agree with JKR.

@cyberbloke: You're asking for outright, irrefutable proof that JKR is a transphobe. Here's the thing. A lot of racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. people are "just asking questions." They often hide behind their "concerns."

Very few of them will literally say that they are those things. Instead, they use what are referred to as "dog whistles." Oxford defines this as "a subtly aimed political message which is intended for, and can only be understood by, a particular group."

JKR has not literally come out and openly stated that she has a problem with trans people. But she sure has used a lot of language that suggests that she does. Most recently, she promoted a piece of clothing she got from a small "feminist" store. The piece of clothing she showed off was not offensive. However, that store sells a bunch of explicitly anti-trans merchandise. JKR can pretend she didn't know that. The dogs know what she really means.

But we don't know her. I hate this "judge people you don't know society" we now live in. Myself I like to judge people I have actually had an interactíon with and talked to. Not some stranger I never met. If you sat down and talked to JKR I think she would be able to explain her thoughts to you much more clearly.

@pnutz83: Probably. Of course, she's a writer by profession, so I assume she is capable of writing clearly. If she felt she wasn't getting it across through the written word, she has the means to appear on a radio show or podcast or whatever, where she can take as long as she wants to explain herself verbally.

People are going to judge you for what you say publicly. That's just the way it works. It is perhaps unfortunate for some people that what they say is particularly public because of the internet and how famous they are. But I'm not judging a celebrity with a verified Twitter account more than I'm judging my shitty people on Facebook for writing racist bullshit. I'm judging them based on what they are presenting to the world.

Makes sense.

@pnutz83: I edited my previous post to say this, but I'll put it here instead: I mean, let's continue this "not judging people you haven't met thing." You recently judged most of the GB crew to be tired or uninterested in games. Have you sat down to talk to them?

(That's not the same type of judgment, of course. But it's judging people based on how they present themselves. Everyone has judgments of other people, is my point here.)

No that is true. My bad I shouldn't have done that. Though I have listened to their podcasts for 6 years and they have been this way (cynical and negative) for at least about three years. That is more than JKR has talked about trans. The amount of evidence on the GB staff is, lets say 2-3 hours times 150 podcasts. That is more than the 3700 word essay and tweets that JKR has produced. So I think I make a better case judging Brad, Vinny, Jeff and Alex than someone judging JKR on a few tweets and the stuff I mentioned above.

The point I am trying to make is that I actually only try to judge people I have talked to and no one else. That is just how I live my life. People like Hitler, Stalin and such are exempt though but that is understandable I guess. Hope some of you aren't comparing JKR to Hitler at least.

@pnutz83: A few tweets..

Out of curiosity what do you make of say the rather transphobic book she's recently released.

Or from just days ago encouraging her followers to buy from a blatantly transphobic online store?

She may not have 6 years of evidence, but she's tryin real hard to do a lot in a short period of time it seems.

We seriously can't be at the "well is she really that bad?" point still, I mean for fucks sake people her most recent book features a man who dresses as a woman in order to kill women(IE the right wing boogeymen version of transpeople) under her pen name that was named after a psychiatrist that infamously practiced "gay conversion therapy". What more do you need at this point?

I don't really have the time to get to know the soul and interworkings of every person I suspect might be a bigot. I give everyone the benefit out the doubt right up until they are given the chance to explain themselves and double down on their bigoted bullshit. JKR has had years to walk back or tone down her bigoted terf bullshit. But she has doubled down over and over.

Also, from one of my posts earlier in the thread.

@plan6 said: