Mailwatch(ed) Forum

davidjay wrote: ↑Thu Jun 12, 2025 6:08 pm And yet again I wonder what it is about this subject that arouses such strong feelings from people on whom it's impact is, at best, minimal.

It seems to be a huge (the only?) issue in town for a small minority whilst simultaneously lacking salience for the vast majority of the electorate.

Imagine being responsible for things which gave so much pleasure, which had such cultural resonance. and going out of your way to be known chiefly for hanging out with bigotry.

davidjay wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 9:04 am Imagine being responsible for things which gave so much pleasure, which had such cultural resonance. and going out of your way to be known chiefly for hanging out with bigotry.

Who’s done that then ?

Linehan and Rowling.

Considering that the latest Harry Potter Video Game, Hogwarts Legacy, was a huge success, I'm not sure how Rowling has torched her legacy.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 3:43 pm Considering that the latest Harry Potter Video Game, Hogwarts Legacy, was a huge success, I'm not sure how Rowling has torched her legacy.

I'm not saying that, but there are a lot of people who would say she's now better known for her Twitter works than for her literary ones.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 12:20 am

davidjay wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 9:04 am Imagine being responsible for things which gave so much pleasure, which had such cultural resonance. and going out of your way to be known chiefly for hanging out with bigotry.

Who’s done that then ?

Really ? Really ?

going out of your way to be known chiefly for hanging out with bigotry.

Rowling is “going out of her way” ?

Catch yourself on.

She wants “to be known chiefly for hanging out with bigotry”. ?

That is the most ridiculous assertion I’ve heard since Nigel Farage last tugged Trump’s tadger.

Yes, really. It's called having an opinion. Yours may differ although I doubt I'd call it ridiculous.

The opinion that you apparently have is that Joanne Rowling "wants to" be known as a bigot.

That is objectively ridiculous.

davidjay wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 6:35 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 3:43 pm Considering that the latest Harry Potter Video Game, Hogwarts Legacy, was a huge success, I'm not sure how Rowling has torched her legacy.

I'm not saying that, but there are a lot of people who would say she's now better known for her Twitter works than for her literary ones.

And people who make such ludicrous statements deserve to be laughed at.
Never having read any of her books or seen any of the Harry Potter films I can't judge her writing, but her success (to borrow James O'Brien's phrase) isn't a matter of opinion, it's just counting.
To assert that the most successful author in world history is better known for her views on women's rights and Trans rights than for her books is Trumpian levels of arrogance and absurdity.

Here's wiki to throw some numbers at you:
"Having sold more than 600 million copies worldwide,[14] Harry Potter by J. K. Rowling is the best-selling book series in history. The first novel in the series, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, has sold in excess of 120 million copies,[15] making it one of the best-selling books of all time. As of June 2017, the series has been translated into 85 languages,[16] placing Harry Potter among history's most translated literary works. The last four books in the series consecutively set records as the fastest-selling books of all time, and the final instalment, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, sold roughly fifteen million copies worldwide within twenty-four hours of its release.[17][18] With twelve million books printed in the first US run, it also holds the record for the highest initial print run for any book in history.[19][20]

And Twitter is not the world.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 2:29 pm And Twitter is not the world.

Exactly. Most people haven't got a clue what she writes on Twitter, whereas millions (billions?) are at least aware of what she writes in books (even if, like me, they've never read one).

davidjay wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 9:04 am Imagine being responsible for things which gave so much pleasure, which had such cultural resonance. and going out of your way to be known chiefly for hanging out with bigotry.

I think this is distinctly possible. I think she has exactly the sort of associations that can taint a legacy. Look at what happened to Ron Atkinson. Obviously. nobody's forgotten he was a good manager of Villa, but he's certainly got an asterisk next to that.

Do I think society is going to go all in on trans rights? I don't. But I think it's more than likely that a consensus forms that trans people exist and the issues that arise (which I don't play down) need to be discussed in rather better faith than she and some of her associates have. That could date very badly indeed.

davidjay wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 6:35 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 3:43 pm Considering that the latest Harry Potter Video Game, Hogwarts Legacy, was a huge success, I'm not sure how Rowling has torched her legacy.

I'm not saying that, but there are a lot of people who would say she's now better known for her Twitter works than for her literary ones.

Mostly people who spend too much time online.

I suspect in 20 years time Rowling will be viewed much like Roald Dahl - an author who brought delight to many children and adults, but with an unfortunate footnote. For Dahl, his rampant antisemitism and stereotypes of race and sex. For Rowling, her unpleasant attitude to anyone not fitting in with her idea of what a woman is (and I don’t just mean trans people here - she’s well documented for starting beef with cis women who she believes “are men”), and her decision to actively fund an organisation to empower people to start legal cases against others to enforce single sex issues, or sustain ones they would otherwise be unable to fund.

She hasn’t torched her legacy. She’s been extraordinarily generous with her money in terms of altruism, she has encouraged and inspired generations of children to read, and her work (and works based upon them) have entertained millions. All commendable. But she’s also been a bully, instigated pile-ons, and been unnecessarily cruel and rude to an already oppressed minority, both to individuals (often unprompted) and the group as a whole - and she could have kept her views exactly as they are and not done any of the unpleasant things she has done.

So not torched. But definitely tainted. There will always be that footnote next to her name.