Where do we stand on Harry Potter?

[TheSword]

We’re not able to, and nor should we have an open and honest debate about JK Rowlings views because we’re supposed to avoid politics. So we’re probably best restricting discussion to the books and derivatives.

I did see this specifically about the goblins and JK Rowling.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

My personal stance is that banning art and cultural phenomena, or the public discussion about them, makes for a very scary world that mirror authoritarian and anti-intellectual dystopias. But I will of course respect the moderators decisions, since this is a private forum where I am a guest.

 

[billd91]

We’re not able to, and nor should we have an open and honest debate about JK Rowlings views because we’re supposed to avoid politics. So we’re probably best restricting discussion to the books and derivatives.

I did see this specifically about the goblins and JK Rowling.

It's probably worth noting that statement is prior to Hogwarts Legacy's release. They may have issued it in response to early press about anti-semitic tropes in the game which started circulating in 2022, but it probably doesn't reflect the full content of the game and its implications.

 

[Umbran]

My personal stance is that banning art and cultural phenomena, or the public discussion about them, makes for a very scary world that mirror authoritarian and anti-intellectual dystopias. But I will of course respect the moderators decisions, since this is a private forum where I am a guest.

As usual, we need to be careful about what we call "public".

EN World is privately owned. That owner chooses to allow people to come and go largely as they please, but that owner is not a government. The owner is fully within their rights to say you can't engage in some kinds of speech here, much as he'd be within his rights to say you couldn't toss around ethnic slurs in his living room.

If someone holds a party and tells you that being insulting to other guests is not okay, that' s not authoritarian or anti-intellectual. That's someone who wants his party to be pleasant.

The argument you present is why I pushed it back on all of you. Because, in the end, each of you has a decision to make about how you'd like to treat other people. You can make that decision on your own. You should make that decision on your own. Our not explicitly banning it doesn't mean you can dismiss the need to make the decision for yourself.

How do you want to treat your fellow gamers?

You are always responsible for your own behavior, even if we do not moderate it.

 

[Emoshin]

Wow, I didn't know about the controversy with Hogwarts Legacy!

Since not everyone is on Twitter, etc. I see a benefit to raising awareness around problematic issues that are adjacent to RPGs.

If there's a need to discuss it further beyond flagging the problem, I feel like it's just extra important to be mindful about that.

For Call of Cthulhu specifically, I've noticed that older publications from Chaosim showed an illustration of H.P. Lovecraft at the beginning, and recently I think (but am not certain) they stopped doing so. (Of course, it wouldn't be in their commercial interest to cease publishing anything related to Cthulhu Mythos, so that's probably the most they are going to do, short of some disclaimer about separating the author from the Mythos fiction I suppose, which would help raise awareness to their consumers).

EDIT: For Wagner and Lovecraft, I feel like it's easier for more folks to separate the artist from the art, but not for everyone. For Michael Jackson's songs and Woody Allen films, it's more recent, but doable for some but not for everyone. For Hogwarts Legacy, this thing about the Blood Libel is so recent and fresh and part of what sounds like an ongoing trend, that's probably a taller order to ask?

 

[Gradine]

 

[Gradine]

JK Rowling has taken an anti-trans stance, and stated that she feels the money she continues to take in is implicit agreement with her position.

Bolded this part for emphasis.

Many large properties, even those with a singularly identifiable originator (your Lucas, your Whedon, your Roddenberry) has expanded far beyond the bounds of that single individual's vision.

HP, on the other hand, is Rowling. Every piece of lore runs through her. Every product, every sale of every book, every movie, every dual-chromatic scarf, is a cut that lines her coffers. Every bit of money and influence that she is currently using to campaign to take away the rights of trans people.

 

[billd91]

With Call of Cthulhu, I've noticed that older publications from Chaosim showed an illustration of H.P. Lovecraft at the beginning, and recently I think (but am not certain) they stopped doing so. (Of course, it wouldn't be in their commercial interest to cease publishing anything related to Cthulhu Mythos, so that's probably the best they can do, short of some disclaimer about separating the author from the Mythos fiction I suppose, which would help raise awareness to their consumers).

There are a couple of significant differences between basing some game stuff on Lovecraft's work despite his racism and dealing with someone like JK Rowling.
1. The Cthulhu Mythos isn't just about Lovecraft's work - it's based on a broader base of authors with a broader mix of personal views and failings. So it's not just tied to a pretty extreme racist.
2. Lovecraft is dead. He can't materially benefit from anything done to further the fascinating weirdness of his creation. By comparison, JK Rowling has actually taunted people on twitter about still being enriched by her creation.

Spoiler

And that makes it pretty clear that, at the very least, economic interaction with her creation does benefit her. She gets paid a lot for her creation and will as long as there's a big market for it. And when she wasn't being such an idiot about transgender women, that wasn't a problem. She's one of very few people who donated her way down from billionaire to millionaire status, mostly for health care and poverty/economic equality causes. Her response to opposition to her views has led her to be increasingly mean and extreme. So this isn't a case of someone making a relatively minor blunder - she's going above and beyond on the topic.

(and I see I'm partly ninjaed)

 

[Emoshin]

There are a couple of significant differences between basing some game stuff on Lovecraft's work despite his racism and dealing with someone like JK Rowling.
1. The Cthulhu Mythos isn't just about Lovecraft's work - it's based on a broader base of authors with a broader mix of personal views and failings. So it's not just tied to a pretty extreme racist.
2. Lovecraft is dead. He can't materially benefit from anything done to further the fascinating weirdness of his creation. By comparison, JK Rowling has actually taunted people on twitter about still being enriched by her creation.

Spoiler

And that makes it pretty clear that, at the very least, economic interaction with her creation does benefit her. She gets paid a lot for her creation and will as long as there's a big market for it. And when she wasn't being such an idiot about transgender women, that wasn't a problem. She's one of very few people who donated her way down from billionaire to millionaire status, mostly for health care and poverty/economic equality causes. Her response to opposition to her views has led her to be increasingly mean and extreme. So this isn't a case of someone making a relatively minor blunder - she's going full monty on the topic.

(and I see I'm partly ninjaed)

I agree, but just one request please: because you quoted me specifically, could you please include the entirety of what you quoted or adjust your post further than "and I see I'm partly ninjaed", just in case people who don't read so closely might have a poor reaction about me personally? (I feel particularly sensitive about this, especially on this topic)

It took a few minutes, but the final edit I added was:
"For Wagner and Lovecraft, I feel like it's easier for more folks to separate the artist from the art, but not for everyone. For Michael Jackson's songs and Woody Allen films, it's more recent, but doable for some but not for everyone. For Hogwarts Legacy, this thing about the Blood Libel is so recent and fresh and part of what sounds like an ongoing trend, that's probably a taller order to ask?"

 

[Blue]

For Wagner and Lovecraft, I feel like it's easier for more folks to separate the artist from the art, but not for everyone. For Michael Jackson's songs, it's more recent, but doable for some. For Hogwarts Legacy, this thing about the Blood Libel is so recent and fresh and part of what sounds like an ongoing trend, that's probably a taller order to ask?

One of the points of difference for that helps me differentiate is that if I purchase Call of Cthulhu RPG, Lovecraft doesn't benefit. It makes it easier to separate art and artist, at least for me. When the act of purchasing art is linked to financial gain for the artist, I won't purchase it if I wish to not support the artist.

Same way during the recent OGL debacle I was willing not to purchase new product from WotC/Hasbro even though I enjoy the games they put out and I had been looking forward to the 50th Anniversary books. Because the art and the artist couldn't be separated during a purchase transaction.