The inability to distinguish between creation and creator. It is completely fine to like Harry Potter and still think that J.K.Rowling is nuts. You can dislike Dolly Partonâs songs and still appreciate her for the awesome human being she is.
The vast majority of people obviously canât do that for some reason. Itâs either âboth creation and creator are shitâ or âboth are awesomeâ and nothing inbetween, to the point that some folks automatically assume youâre a climate change denier because you listen to Meatloaf, or do a 180° turn about liking/disliking movies, arts, novels etc. depending on what their authors did IRL. And donât get me started on Nintendo fanboys ⊠if you tell them you love the Zelda franchise but dislike Nintendo as a company, theyâll rip you apart because youâre obviously not allowed to have anything else but a single-track blanket opinion about literally everything they ever did.
If you like someone, you are not obligated to support each and every one of their actions, decisions or world views, and if you dislike someone you can (and should IMHO) still appreciate it if they do something good.
I donât think you should be upset with someone for liking an artistâs work despite their personal life but Iâve definitely stopped listening to artists for theirs. Iâll be half way through the opening verse and remember âoh yeah, this dudeâs a rapistâ and donât want to continue.
On the flip side, I know Jackie Chan has had his fair share of controversyâŠbut I still love his films and on-screen persona.
but Iâve definitely stopped listening to artists for theirs.
Thatâs a personal choice, and Iâm completely fine with that. If you canât help but dislike a work of art because it always reminds you of the bad thing its creator did/said, there is no shame in no longer engaging with said art as it wonât bring you happiness anymore.
What I donât get are people who go âwaaah noo, how DARE you like that song! The singer is an asshole, you have to hate their music now!â ⊠no, I donât have to. And that does not automatically mean I am okay with what the singer did - it just means that their actions havenât ruined the song for me.
If you pirate their art, I suppose you have a point.
But if youâre financially supporting folks who are actively opposed to your existence or the existence of people you care about, thatâs pretty foolish.
Harry Potter is the only reason folks care about J.K. Rowling. However, her words outside of her books have influenced politics and have hurt marginalized folks.
Because sheâs making money, she doesnât care.
Until JK doesnât make a dime from Harry Potter, your fandom of the IP will financially support her hateful views.
Pretty sure sheâd still have those views, even if she was poor. I understand and respect people who decide to boycott certain creators for their political views and statementsâI stopped buying Orson Scott Cardâs books after finding out things heâd said about homosexuality among other thingsâbut I donât think people who oppose a creatorâs views, but still choose to pay for their work should be shamed for it. When you pay for a product, youâre paying for that product and are thus supporting only what went into that product. I think thereâs more of an issue of hypocrisy in people who have problems with Appleâs labor practices in China or their anti-consumer practices, but still buy their products, as those issues are directly linked to said products and therefore their money is inherently rewarding them (but, full disclosure: Iâm one of those people, as I own an iPhone). If the Harry Potter books had some anti-trans message in them, thatâd be one thing, but I donât think thatâs the case, is it (I honestly donât know, as I havenât read them)? I think people can still enjoy and financially support the HP IP without tacitly supporting JK Rowlingâs politics, just as Tesla owners can enjoy their cars without supporting Elonâs whacky political views.
âI stopped buying Orson Scott Cardâs books after finding out things heâd said
I stopped buying new copies of his stuff.
But to my mind, buying used doesnât add support to him nor add to his wealth.
On the other hand, I stopped reading Dilbert because it became unfunny, not because Adams turned out to be a shitty person.
.
I am reminded of people in my parents generation who stopped listening to certain musicians because they were rumored to be gayâŠ
(I honestly donât know, as I havenât read them)
No anti-LGBTIQ content in those books whatsoever. If they did have such a message, then I could understand people hating the author and the books, but as it is, the books do not reflect the world view of the author about this particular topic.
âŠand on the topic of supporting the author by buying the books (from a different comment); you can buy them secondhand. That way Rowling makes one less sale as secondhand shops, private sellers etc. donât have to pay royalties to her.
Ok? So what If you already bought and read the books, does that mean youâll have to throw them away, burn them, and youâre never ever allowed to enjoy the fictional story of Harry Potter ever again because the author is an assâŠ? Or that by liking the fictional story you automatically support her world view as well, finances aside?
Itâs the exact thing I described. Yes J.K. Rowling is nuts but that does not mean that you have to hate the Harry Potter books / movies. You can hate the author for what she did and said independendly from the stories she wrote.
I always hated those books when I was a kid before any of the shit about JK came to light - and its cause sheâs a fucking hack.
Troll, the film from 1986 is a story about Harry Potter and the Potter family where he ends up training along side a witch to defeat evil.
Sheâs a hack and her story blows.
Keep the books, cherish 'em. I donât care.
Iâm just saying knowingly giving money to hateful people is where folks tend to draw the line. Some folks can still enjoy the art, some folks have their perception of the art tainted by the hateful ideologies of the artist.
Youâre free to do as you wish, but some folks have trouble separating the art from the artist, and have valid concerns around consuming of art from hateful artists.
No offense, but just no. If you donât like the art, but the artist thatâs fine, absolutely no problem here, but supporting a person like J. K. Rowling financially by consuming their creation is actually a problem and should be opposed.
This view is enabling horrible people and not okay.
supporting a person like J. K. Rowling financially
If I already own the books, Iâm not going to toss them away just because the author is an ass. It doesnât hurt her anyway. And you can buy books, movies etc. secondhand, as secondhand stores, private sellers and the like donât have to pay royalties to the author. There are plenty of ways to consume their creations without supporting the creator.
Thatâs fine. The problem lies in talking about their works which might encourage others to buy the books or merchandise etc. Unfortunately the best result would be if the work and the author would be forgotten, but thatâs unlikely to happen. So at least when talking about the works it should never be omitted that the author is a horrible person who abuses her influence to hurt other people.
Hence I disagree with the take. This way around the work should not be separated from the creator, because popularizing it is enabling even if you wonât consume any more than what you already have, others might.
Someone else more less touched on this but I think youâre missing the point.
I donât know a single person who thinks you canât like someoneâs art because you dislike the artist. Using your example, I have plenty of friends who grew up with Harry Potter and still absolutely love the series in many ways. However they also think JK Rowling is a piece of shit.
The problem lies in giving a platform to people who, at the very least outspokenly, espouse harmful views, and/or engage in harmful activities. So generally speaking, they tend to take some amount of issue (how much varies person to person) with people continuing to support works from them without some demonstration of change or betterment. In turn, most of us stop consuming their content wholesale, as we donât want to support their actions or views by contributing to their platform and would prefer others do the same.
People like what youâre talking about exist, sure. I also think that demographic is nearly exclusively terminally online people, who tend to be quite a bit louder than your average person. Which in turn can skew how commonly held of an opinion something can seem to be.
terminally online
Mind if I steal that description? Itâs perfect â„
As for your comment; I am completely fine with people deciding for themselves that they no longer wish to engage with some creation because its creator sucks - thatâs a personal choice and I can respect that decision easily.
What I donât get are people who try to force that decision onto others, like going ââŠbut the author is shit, so you HAVE to now hate literally everything they ever did, and if you donât then youâre just as bad as themâ. No, I donât have to do anything of the sort - and that does not mean that I support the world views of the author. It only means that the world view of the creator hasnât ruined the creation for me.
Oh I certainly did not coin that term, so steal away lol
But yeah I definitely get your point. I suppose my only real contention is that I donât personally feel itâs as ubiquitous of an opinion as it sounds like you do.
That said, in the case of someone like Jk Rowling I will absolutely bring up the topic should she come up. I have quite a few trans friends, and she has and continues to actively take steps to attack and harm the trans community. Liking the art she has created is one thing, but supporting someone who seeks to invalidate the existence of people, particularly those I care about, and take away essential care is another. I probably wonât start a fight about it, unless youâre a real shit head, but I take no qualms with standing up about it either.
Quick edit to note thatâs not directed at you, to be clear. More just continuing to make the distinction I was before.