Sure - for the record, I don’t think she actually means to be malicious. LucyInTheSkye summed it up well.

That doesn’t mean she isn’t shitting on people in practice though, when she’s going on about what is, frankly, a made up fear that primarily exists for culture war shit. There’s no horde of rapists calming waiting for their bathroom certificate so they can finally get close to their prey, you know? That’s not a thing. But that can definitely turn out votes if you sell it right, which is why you hear it all the damn time.


And I just have no sympathy because whenever I look into her Twitter drama its always some dumb self-inflicted thing, but perhaps I’m being too uncharitable.

 

I think the problem, @VanRopen, is that as males we don't feel it. Women get threatened everywhere. JKR has been sexually abused in the past: it's hard to not feel sympathetic to someone worried about getting abused again. The point of view is different is all. Something which seems innocuous to one might be the stuff of nightmares for someone else. The idea is to at least think through her points seriously.

 

Rather than join in Taure's argument about what's being argued about, I just wanted to pick up on this point.

There's nothing wrong, in and of itself, with an author including characters whose views or presentation in the book are offensive or incorrect. The problem comes when looking at that authors own views, if it becomes clear that the author doesn't view that characters views or presentation as offensive or inaccurate.

In that situation it becomes more reasonable to criticise the authors decision to write the character that way.

So someone transphobic who believes that trans women are just men who want to rape or assault women who writes a crime novel where there is a serial killer who is a man that wears women's clothing to lure women into a trap is problematic, where a non transphobic person writing that character would not be problematic.

Similarly a side character with far right views who is never explicitly denounced because its never relevant to the plot for them to be denounced. From an author with far right views that reads very differently than if the author has more normal views.

As well as the authors views, you need to consider context. What is going on the world that something in the book might speak to. Events and movements can colour whether the inclusion of an element in a book is OK or valid to be criticised.

 

Sure, I acknowledge that.

If I was someone who actually knew her irl, that would be an important thing to keep in mind when trying to discuss the issue with her, to better empathize with her position and make sure it’s actually a discussion and not a pointless lecture.


But as a random shit on the internet I instead have the privilege of just noting she’s wrong, being disappointed I have to hear about this in the context of a game I want to be good, and moving on :V

 

Has anyone actually read the book?

 

It's not out yet, is it?

 

It came out Tuesday, apparently? I assume more detailed takes haven't been disseminated because people aren't otherwise interested in the Cormoran Strike series anyways.

 

I've not read it, I don't intend to because the first Cormorant Strike book was dogshit so I've not read the rest of them.

I have read a spoilered review whilst looking into the transphobia thing.

Spoiler

Apparently the cross dressing serial killer isn't actually the killer, they just feature as some sort of aside or red herring. Not sure if that makes it better or worse to be honest. Not actually the killer, but could much more easily have been left out without influencing the plot.

 

Another thing is the pseudonym she chose - Robert Galbraith. Robert Galbraith Heath was a psychiatrist who used electroshock therapy in his attempts for gay conversion therapy.

 

Rowling said that she had enjoyed working under a pseudonym.[154] On her Robert Galbraith website, Rowling explained that she took the name from one of her personal heroes, Robert F. Kennedy, and a childhood fantasy name she had invented for herself, Ella Galbraith.[155]

 

To be fair to her, that I think was an unforeseen connection on her part. She's never given any reasons to think she's homophobic, and as Silirt has quoted, she's explained the origin of the name quite reasonably.

 

JKR might have decided to be cheeky.
Perhaps she knew people would chimp out at the thought of a trans(-vestite) serial rapist/torturer+killer?
This way she gets to mantain plausible deniability while tweaking noses.

 

Yeah, I suppose. Now at least everyone knows she's written a new book. Smart idea to garner attention via controversy.

 

I've never felt she was that financially motivated though. Certainly what you suggest is a perfectly solid plan for any celebrity to increase sales of something, but the Galbraith books are a pure vanity project, her attempt to be taken seriously as a novelist by writing (at best) incredibly average crime fiction. She's not been riling up controversy because she needs the attention, its because she believes what she's saying and she's got a bully pulpit from which she's found that she can preach.

She'd probably get as big a boost to her sales just by advertising the book on her twitter page as she does from having a couple of days of divisive headlines. Instead she's not mentioned it once.

 

I’ve read it. It‘s a tome, but actually pretty good. I enjoy her Strike novels more for the characters than their mysteries, but this “case of the week year“ (as the book does actually cover more than a year, taking us from August 2013 all the way into October 2014) is probably JK’s best yet. Mystery and mysticism keep mingling, developments in the characters‘ lives do not stand separate, but are nicely woven into the overall plot. The solution was very nicely done as well. Overall, I found myself smiling, laughing and also getting a bit tearful at one point, but that was more to do with the unfortunate coincidence of a major plot point hitting very close to home right now.

To get back on topic, I bought Troubled Blood having been a casual observer of the outrage train that arrived before its release, but honestly didn‘t find much to object to. I can honestly say that it didn’t really occupy my mind while reading, because the book didn’t give me much reason to. The fact that the main suspect / villain occasionally cross-dressed to lure women to him comes up a couple of times, but only on one or two occasions as slightly more than a passing detail. It‘s much less pronounced that how I remember the Shacklewell Ripper‘s physical transformation was discussed ine third book. Put into context, it’s a tiny red herring in a sea of information, blown out of proportion outside of the narrative because of who the author is.

EDIT for minor typos.