Anecdotally, everyone I’ve talked to about it doesn’t care. They don’t like she’s a TERF and some even condemn her for it, but every single person I’ve talked to separates the world of Harry Potter from her. It basically has a life of its own and they couldn’t care less about JKR now, that’s what I’ve been able to surmise of people’s view of it now. It’s like having racist parents but not being labeled as one because you’re a separate entity.

[–] Sage_the_Lawyer@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago

I'm a big gamer, and was a massive HP fan. I did not buy the game, or even consider it, specifically because of JKR's bullshit.

I may be in the minority, but I guarantee I'm not the only one in this boat. So now you've talked to someone who cares, if you count this as talking.

And just to say a little more, no I didn't crusade against the game, nor do I villainize people who bought it and enjoyed it. I do think it's possible to enjoy art without liking the artist. Hell, my favorite book series of all time is the Ender's Game series, and Orson Scott Card is probably just as bad as JKR, though maybe not quite as famous/public about it.

But I can't bring myself to buy it. I'm trans, and her rhetoric, and how public it is, has been specifically harmful to me, directly. But that's just me. I won't tell other people how to live their lives or enjoy their free time, so long as they're not actively hurting others. And no, I don't consider buying a game where one person who is profiting from it might spend a sliver of that profit on anti-trans BS to be actively harming others, especially when she already has enough money to do whatever the hell she wants anyways.

This doesn't make a dent, and ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible anyways. I just hope that some portion of people who bought the game heard about the protests and maybe donated a fraction of what they paid for the game to some pro-LGBTQ groups. I have to believe there's at least a handful of people like that. I do believe that people are mostly good, and want to do good.

Yeesh, I wrote a lot more than I planned to here. I'll stop now lol.

[–] Osa-Eris-Xero512@kbin.social -1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Death of the author only applies if she's dead.

So unless there's been some good news in the last day, those people are just coping

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

So very true.

HP Lovecraft was horribly racist, but his works are in the Public Domain. Neither him, his estate or any causes he supported get any money by engaging with his works. His opinions are still part of his works, but that can be criticized and modified in adaptations and derivative works.

The same can't be said of living creators who still own and profit from those works. Even if some team deliberately tries to gloss over or alter concerning aspects, the money the author gets might still be directed towards concerning movements.

In all fairness there are concerning aspects in many industries and a lot that we consume, and each person has a lot of other issues to worry about, so while disappointing, it's inevitable that people won't care about everything. But I definitely don't feel confortable giving money to someone who's spreading hate about people I care for. I used to be a big HP fan but this situation completely spoiled any interest I had in that world... and also helped me realize it was never that good anyway.

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

(Thought experiment time) So at what point, if ever, does a universe separate from its creator? Think about Star Wars. There have been a large number of derivative works by multiple authors. However if George Lucas came out against gays and trans people, would you taint the entire franchise? At what point are the two separated, if ever?

[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

However if George Lucas came out against gays and trans people, would you taint the entire franchise?

Yes. I would immediately lose ibr interest in Star Wars and go do something else. There's plenty of entertainment out there that's not made by shitty bigots.

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

Fr, why are we acting like this is hard? Or acting like any of these aggressively mid media franchises are so sacred as to be unassailable?

Even if JKR was a literal saint Harry Potter would still be Baby's First Fantasy Series, at best, so the idea that so many people are willing to continually enrich one of the world's most influential TERFs for it honestly blows my fucking mind.

Like just pick and follow literally any other fantasy series folks, jesus.

[–] Devccoon@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Star Wars is an awkward example because it's already pretty well tainted itself with mediocre films.

But yes, unironically I would actively stop looking for the shreds of good among the carnage that is the once-beloved franchise if I knew its creator, whose name is still tied to it and who financially benefits at least from the propagation of successful entries under that IP, would be just a little bit more able to get their awful views out there thanks to that success.

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 9 months ago

When it stops making them rich as fuck

[–] DadVolante@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

This happens a lot more than you think. It isn't just coping.

How many movies were produced by Weinstein? How many comics were published by bigots that still re-sell in droves today?

How many celebrated tv shows were made by pieces of garbage?

Wrestlemania season is here. THAT company is completely vile from the ground up.

Sometimes, people just pick and choose their fiction and legitimately separate the artist from the art. The Harry Potter franchise has outgrown it's original author, just like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, WWE or almost any franchise.

If you think the world truly is so black and white, you haven't gone out and experienced enough of it.

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Thats not death of the author, thats you covering your eyes while handing them money.

Death of the author does not exist while the author makes money off the product.

If you pirated the hogwarts game? Then you have room to speak on death of the author. But jkr has a hefty royalties deal on hp products. If you paid for it, the author is living well.

Im sorry you apparently cant face that truth, but that doesnt change it.

[–] DadVolante@sh.itjust.works -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Bruh, if you are going to try and pretend your consumption under capitalism is better than the other, that's cool.

I'm sure you are the most morally sound person you've ever met 🤣

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The phrase "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" does not mean "therefore, death of the author always exists for all art the second it is made."

For starters, you will not die if you dont experience all art made. Its not food. Its not shelter. You will be okay if you dont watch some movies, dont read some books, and dont play some games. I promise.

But, more specifically, death of the author means to separate an author and their life from the work they create. If your purchase directly funds the author? You didnt separate the author from the work.

Death of the author is when you accept and understand that reading a story written by a shitheel from the 18th century is not supporting their shitheel opinions. That you can study the work and its influence on culture without that study or consumption being explicit or implicit support of the creators thoughts and opinions.

But when you pay an author for their work, you have supported the author. Period, thats what the word means.

Now you can fibble or quibble about morality of putting money into someones pocket all you like, but if the author is literally benefiting from your purchase, they are not dead. There has been no death of author.

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You also don't need an iphone or mac since there are plenty of other smartphones and PCs available, but nobody stopped buying them because foxxcon used slave labor.

Everyone draws the line where they want, this controversy only exists because people were trying to guilty trip streamers and anyone online from playing it, do not try to rewrite what happened.

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You mean you didnt stop buying apple products? Lots of people, myself included, avoid slave labor brands.

(And also most jobs and housing do require a phone, and its better to buy a used phone second hand than a brand new phone every time. Utility devices are far more nuanced and intricate about "ethical" choices than a video game.)

E: also, this thread specifically is about death of the author, which I dont think anyone would apply to iphones at any point regradless

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works -4 points 9 months ago

Lol I said the same thing a bit ago and was down voted for it.