This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It is a reach, but I disagree that she "wasn't trying to pass as a member of the opposite sex." I think that her publisher and marketers definitely tried to pass her off as a male author (at least in the minds of the 8-12 yr old boys who were the main sales demographic). It was a different time, when the only thing we knew about authors was the book jacket, not like today when we can whip out our phones and instantly look the author, their personal life, and their political views.
Not saying she was transgender, no one thought that. It was just a simpler time when boys wanted to read boys about boys written by men. Or at least, that's what publishers thought.
Counterpoint: several first edition copies of Philosopher's Stone clearly display the name "Joanne Rowling", either on the cover, in the front matter, or in the copyright declaration. At least one author bio on an American first edition refers to her with female pronouns, the honorific "Ms." and identifies her as a "struggling single mother".
If publishers were trying to pass her off as a male writer, they clearly weren't being especially diligent about it.
Who reads the copyright declaration?
My point is, if they were fully committed to the bit and determined to have everyone believe that JK Rowling was a man, the name "Joanne" would not have appeared anywhere in the book (and it wouldn't have been any more difficult for the copyright declaration to list "JK Rowling" rather than "Joanne"). The fact that the name does appear in the book indicates that it was not an elaborate gender-swapping obfuscation à la George Eliot, but a simple gender-neutral pen name.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The source of the claim that "J.K." was due to publisher's influence is Rowling herself. But they probably weren't trying to actually pass her off as a male writer, just to avoid 10-year-old boys seeing "Joanne" on the cover and saying "eww, a girl". (The publisher of the German translation obviously made a different choice)
By the time it became obvious that Harry Potter was attracting readers above its target age range (which was shortly after book 2 came out in the UK and before book 1 came out in the US) "JK Rowling wrote this as a broke single mother" was part of the sales story. So I don't think there was ever a serious attempt to pass.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link