Rowling Reconsidered: Part 1

[angua9]

J.K. Rowling ‏@jk_rowling 10h ago
All I've done so far this week is change three characters' genders and I still don't know whether their current genitalia are permanent.
This is a post I've been meaning to write for a little while and J.K. Rowling's tweet today is too good of a lead-in to miss. I'm using my Lockhart icon not to indicate that I'm

Comments

[divinemum]

I think someone could make a good argument regarding Rowling's feminist bona fides that the Strike novels are about how a woman operates/lives/survives in a world that is still very much controlled by men. Unlike the HP books with only Harry's POV, we get to see into the head both Cormoran *and* Robin. We can see how they grow, progress, regress, etc.

I think an author who wasn't a feminist writer would be disinclined to go to the trouble of exploring what and how Robin feels because, as you say, these are "Cormoran Strike Novels".

[angua9]

Yes, I agree. I'm glad she finally has a POV character who is female (of course Casual Vacancy has several female POV characters but that's not the same as a whole book or series of books).

Maybe someday, she'll have a story come to her with a girl or woman at the center. In the meantime, I'm greatly looking forward to more Robin.

[soupytwist]

I think Robin is not only a good POV character, I think she's specifically an examination of feminist perspectives in relation to the kind of murder mystery novel Robin lives in. There's specifically a bunch of books where the Robin character IS a secretary (or might as well be), where there are dead women by the score and their sexiness is discussed in exactly the same way their death is. (I have read at least one of those written by a woman, too.) Robin thinks about those issues. She explicitly understands the misogyny of the killer in 'Career of Evil', and she equally explicitly doesn't want any of those things to prevent her from doing what she wants to do.

It's not the most subtle take on the topic, but it does read to me very much like the take of a writer who is wrestling with a topic and trying to express their thinking about it. I think we're going to get more in that direction. It's not the sort of thing you tend to stop thinking about, once you've started. :)

[angua9]

Yes, I agree and I hope you're right. I think you probably are. And feminism is *definitely* applicable to the problems in the Robin/Matthew relationship. But Matthew too, like Cormoran, is trying to be less sexist. And he's made progress!

[soupytwist]

I definitely want to read more of your posts about this!

I'd be especially interested to hear your take on Strike/Robin, because I don't know many people who've read those books, let alone people with your expertise in shipping arguments! The scene with the Christmas presents alone deserves at least a hundred posts analysing everything about it. :D

[angua9]

Well, I have promised to discuss whether the new works shed any light on whether Rowling is bad at writing romance, so...

[tartanboxers]

I don't know how helpful this comment is going to be, because I can only offer my own perspective as (now) an author. All writers have a very personal process, and I can guarantee you mine differs from JKR's. As evidenced by that complicated plot chart we have from her notes, she actually plots a book before she writes it, where I do not. OTOH, she's on record as having Harry walk fully formed into her head, which is closer to my experience, where the characters tell me what they want and not the other way around

[angua9]

Oh, I strongly agree. If it's a choice between her telling the stories that come to her (with male protagonists) or not telling stories at all, please, Jo, tell the stories!

I also agree romance novels are a feminist expression, and THEY (except for male/male stories) have female protagonists and always have. :)