Rowling, Blow & Co. - Does Buying Someone's Game Mean You Endorse Their Bullshit? - The Bear and Badger

acemuzzy

Back on this, I don't think it's hypocritical to say
- there are loads of things individuals can do that make marginal improvements to the world
- some of those are more important than others, and people's ability to do them will vary wildly
- no individual, very much myself included, has done anywhere near all of them

Me posting stuff here is less about this example in particular, and more against the defeatist stance of "well me not buying this game won't make any difference so what's the point", cos that's the road that leads to not bothering voting, nobody trying to improve anything anywhere, doing nothing good in the world, and basically the world not being as good as it might be (even if in a very minor way).

But yeah when there are so many things you could do, there's all sorts of individual choices, and the ease/ability to make them is far from consistent. Childhood memories of potter, having kids, needing escapism, belief in the cause, annoyance with those trumpeting it, awareness of details, those are all (IMO) valid reasons for this to maybe but be one of the causes you get behind. That's kinda fine?

Like for me there's loads of imperfect shit I do. I eat meat. Including beef. I flew last year, I'll fly again this. My kids went to Harry Potter Studios less than a week ago. But I think having an awareness that yeah I could done better on those things, I should eat less meat, maybe I should have an awkward conversation with my wife about Rowling, that's no bad thing? Even if I only take a tiny minority of those things I might do, that's still better than nothing. Plus it feels sightly more positive than doing nothing.

And I guess that's also important - I think the folk who have bought the game will be doing other shit. If I don't buy it, am I better or worse than a vegan who does? Any thing in isolation will be too narrow.

And yes, equally, thinking about what individuals can do too name systemic changes not likely, eg voting sensibly, unions, activism with specific goals in that area, are more powerful than not having a burger one day. But they're not mutually exclusive either. The more we each do, the better? Surely?

Paul the sparky

acemuzzy wrote:

Me posting stuff here is less about this example in particular, and more against the defeatist stance of "well me not buying this game won't make any difference so what's the point", cos that's the road that leads to not bothering voting, nobody trying to improve anything anywhere, doing nothing good in the world, and basically the world not being as good as it might be (even if in a very minor way).

That's not the case at all. You're just extrapolating one decision out into a binary mindset for everything. In reality you have to understand what you can and can't change. What's in your power to control. You make that decision on a case by case basis, nobody is set to do nothing never mode for everything. Defeatist my arse, it's delusional to think you're going to have any effect on trans issues based on buying this game or not. Absolutely laughable notion.

acemuzzy wrote:

Plus it feels sightly more positive than doing nothing.

There. That's the crux of it. And it's ok. Do stuff that makes you feel good. Knock yourself out, nowt wrong with that.

But again, labeling people as defeatist for coming to a different conclusion strays into you being an arsehole about it, and invites them to point out how fucking daft your take actually is, which won't make you feel quite as good, will it?

SpaceGazelle

I don't personally care what someone's political views are unless they're a politician. If I like a book or a game or some music I don't actively seek out if their views align with mine. Is it good? Do I like it?

If JKR wrote a book on trans related things I might buy it just understand their viewpoint on that, but probably not because my inclanation would be to assume its probably shit.

GurtTractor

Relevant to the thread -

hylian_elf

Wow. Didn’t know a single thing about Atomic Heart before that. Looks quite good from the vid.

Vela

Raiziel wrote:

And here’s the thing. It’s fine if you hold these views. But leave the people alone that just want to enjoy a video game that just so happens to take place in Rowling’s intellectual universe.

Objection!

It's not intellectual.

Brooks

If JKR wrote a book on trans related things I might buy it just understand their viewpoint on that, but probably not because my inclanation would be to assume its probably shit.

Isn't one of her crime fiction books literally about a cartoonishly evil crossdresser?

SpaceGazelle

Possibly. Sounds awful.

Vela

But more seriously, I think these are my main points

* Liking something doesn't mean you agree with the creator's worldview

* Boycotting something because of a creator's worldview is fine

* Just because there are a lot of evil actors in the world (eg BP, Nestle, Facebook) does not mean people must avoid their products. Some people have no choice.

JKR isn't innocent in this. Her essay on empathy towards trans people seemed a lot like the kind of "Christian love" that evangelical types profess towards LGBTI+. I guess the focus in the discussions should be which of these views can lead to harm, and which are protective?

SpaceGazelle

Although I do like Psycho so maybe its alright.

RedDave2

I've found this thread quite interesting because I often wonder where I stand on all this.

In answer to the question the thread is asking - no, I dont think you are endorsing someones Bullshit if you buy their game.

I guess its a personal choice and you have to accept that not everyone will feel the same and for the most part thats fine.

I find myself it depends on how personal the connection to the work is. I recently found that Panteras lead singer was verging into white sumprecist bullshit. I'd never claim to be a huge fan but I did enjoy 2 of their albums and know, I'm not sure I want to listen to Phil Anselmo anymore. Love Michael Jacksons music but.... I no longer reach for his albums. Loved Lost Prophets but now? Cant do it.

I think I might also find a book written by someone with views I object to hard to enjoy. It still feels too close. Movies and Videogames I feel I can put a small divide - I may not like what Kevin Spacey has become but he isnt the only part of those creative processes.

Certainly wouldnt object to someone else taking a stand. I'm still free to agree or disagree with them. Or just nod and move on. But those also taking a stand need to recognise that. Objecting to JKR is fine, objecting to someone who reads her books is hitting the wrong target.

DrewMerson

LivDiv

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Although I do like Psycho so maybe its alright.

I'd never really thought about Bates as a crossdresser. Probably because he was dressed specifically as his mother, or more accurately in his mind was his mother in those moments.

DrewMerson

RedDave2

DrewMerson wrote:

Yeah, Buffalo Bill is probably the more problematic fictional serial killer.

How so?

Dark Soldier

Buffalo Bill is based on multiple real life killers and his character has traits of all their MOs, including Brudos who would kill women then crossdress in their clothes. I struggle to see how real life traits attributed is problematic.

Heidnik the pit, Gein the skinning etc.

DrewMerson

Paul the sparky

Bates and Buffalo Bill were both based on a real life eccentric, Ed Gein

Paul the sparky

DS got in while I was trying to remember the name of that summer camp slasher which has a cross dressing killer. Something Camp? It's just out of reach

Dark Soldier

Sleepaway Camp, with the most terrifying end shot in cinema.

Paul the sparky

I feel bad for spoiling that for anyone, but I don't know how to spoiler that information to be honest. Cats sort of out of the bag by bringing it up

LivDiv

Absolutely horrifying!

SpaceGazelle

LivDiv wrote:

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Although I do like Psycho so maybe its alright.

I'd never really thought about Bates as a crossdresser. Probably because he was dressed specifically as his mother, or more accurately in his mind was his mother in those moments.

I think the crossdressing of his Mum was the least of his antics. But then again he was made up.

DrewMerson

GurtTractor

I think as far as actual content in a work being 'problematic' it really comes down to the beholder (individuals within a society), forming or reinforcing conclusions from it that might be harmful. The work itself is not inherently a source or a cause of harm, see violence in videogames.

Media is a reflection as much as a teacher so progressive changes in media overall are certainly a good thing, but I don't necessarily think that we should be insisting/dictating that art and artists must take an active part in this process.

If a work is created and is inherently progressive and counters prevailing harmful stereotypes that's great. If a work contains characterisation or something that could be seen as harmful, that's also probably ok and we shouldn't try to state that the whole thing is rotten or something.

If we're thinking reasoning adults we should be able to contextualise material and take away what's good/useful. And of course if it's really extensive and over the top and doesn't sit well with you then sure call it out and don't support it, as long as there's discourse and solid criticism abound everyone can make up their own mind.

None of this is particularly a response to anyone here btw, just putting my train of thought into words.

RedDave2

DrewMerson wrote:

Dark Soldier wrote:

I struggle to see how real life traits attributed is problematic.

Paul the sparky wrote:

Bates and Buffalo Bill were both based on a real life eccentric, Ed Gein

My post was meant as something of a joke, but if we’re going to get into it… I think there’s a difference between detailing a specific killer’s behaviour in a work of art/entertainment specifically about them, and cherry-picking aspects for a fictional character. I also understand why people are more interested in sexually motivated murders, and why making it about more unusual aspects is, again, more interesting/entertaining, but it leads to imbalance. I can only think of one example of a trans person being portrayed with humanity in the films and TV I saw when I was younger (John Lithgow in The World According to Garp). Elsewhere, they were depicted as creepy perverts, and pejoratively called ‘gender benders’. Cross-dressing was shorthand for weirdos who make your skin crawl. So, yes, you could say that it’s fine to show something in film that happened in real life. After all, you’re not making it up, are you? But there are also lots of trans people out there who aren’t sexually motivated serial killers. Their representation in fiction tends to be a bit skewed, and that doesn’t help the feeling that the world doesn’t accept you. Do you know who commits lots of sexual, violent, and sexually violent crimes? Straight white guys. And, yes, straight white guys are bad guys in films, but they’re also massively over represented as heroes. Straight white guys have constant positive reinforcement about how fucking great they are.

I think thats quite a fair point overall. Buffalo Bill may be based on something to real life but if the trans community is only presented in this type of life, it certainly feels unfair. Much like the Gay stereotype (although this does get reinforced by some gay writers and actors so maybe not much of a sterotype - watched uncoupled and its full of stereotypes but would seem to be not trying to piss take? )

tigersgogrrr

Dark Soldier wrote:

Also hope the little un is alright tiger

Thanks for these, everyone.

JonB

In terms of whether choosing not to buy Hogwarts has any effect, obviously it doesn't as far as reducing Rowling's fortune or stopping the game from becoming a success. But the conversation around that act is a way of showing solidarity, and that you're willing to make small sacrifices to support people. As part of a collective act, it widens the reach of the conversation, helping to raise awareness. Or, at worst it's neutral, so there's no harm in trying.

JonB

Re cross-dressing serial killers. I think there's a big difference between a Buffalo Bill, which might be seen as ignorantly feeding negative stereotypes, and Rowling's book, which is part of her ongoing campaign to paint trans women as predatory men in dresses.

acemuzzy

Jon managing to say things rather more succinctly tab me.

Also, it's delusional to think you're going to break a camel's back by putting a single piece of straw in it. Absolutely laughable notion.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories