A VERY IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT.

[wemyss]

I ought to make a housekeeping post w/r/t Bapton Books, and our new titles, and all that, but you can get all that here and here and elsewhereInstead, it is my duty here and now to say this. I have never agreed with La Rowling on politics (I mean, really, Gordon Bloody Brown?). I have seen, in the fandom she spawned - and that is the mot juste -

Comments

[germankitty]

It's of course your decision, and you have every right to make it any way you see fit, but may I nevertheless express my regret over it?

You've created such a wonderful world of your own based on Harry Potter's stories, a world in which I feel not everything has been told and explained and laid out for us to see ... it's a crying shame (in my humble, insignificant opinion) that the real-life politics of Harry's creator compel you towards this step.

For myself, I've managed in the past (and hopefully will be able to continue to do so) to separate the author as a person from their creation; after all, one doesn't have to transfer one's personal views onto one's characters

I also regret the necessity.

[wemyss]

And am unfeignedly thankful for your too kind words

Re: I also regret the necessity.

[germankitty]

Well, it's certainly a relief to know that you're not dropping people along with the fandom. :-) I shall enjoy reading of your further exploits in Village Life.

(Although I'd harboured a faint hope that I might get your opinion on my entry to the (last-ever) 2015 Beltane fest ... given that I ventured into the Plantagenet era of the Black Prince with H/D, the writing of which was exceedingly helped, if only by immersion in the approximate time period, through Channel 4's comprehensive coverage of the exhumation and re-interment of Richard III's remains. Oh well, can't have everything, I suppose. :P)

Have a peaceful Halloween weekend, and enjoy Bonfire Night!

[being_here]

That is a real shame. I have always loved your take on Harry and his world.

It's unfortunate and vexing.

[wemyss]

Conscience, however, dictates my choice. Others may well reach different conclusions; and everyone is of course answerable to his own conscience, not to mine. I shall regret the loss of plashing about in this particular pool, but it certainly doesn't mean I shall abandon my friends who do; and I have always other writing to divert me.

Thank you for your very kind words.

[steepholm]

Speaking as a good friend of the woman who translated HP into Hebrew, I too regret your decision. I don't see anything "objectively anti-Jewish" in what she's said - at least as I've been able to find out what it was. But of course it's your decision.

I am obliged to you.

[wemyss]

Everyone must of course consult his own conscience and reach her own conclusions.

[froganon]

I did not realize that Rowling or Rickman are anti-Israel and I certainly respect your decision.

Meanwhile, by all means it is my preference to stay on as your mutual friend as I get much out of your writing about the real world.

With much respect and thanks,
froganon.

Thank you.

[wemyss]

I must stress that when I say, 'all who sail in her', I refer to the fandom qua fandom, and not to those who choose to remain in it, whose friendship I should be sorry to lose and which I cherish.

[blamebrampton]

Rowling hasn't resiled from a boycott, she has never supported one. She came out this week very publicly stating her reasoning for not supporting the boycott that was put forward in February.

Criticising Netanyahu is not an anti-Semitic position, it's one that is shared by a great many Israelis. It is entirely possible to be against the treatment of the Palestinian people without being against the state of Israel, just as it is possible to be against the treatment of Palestinian citizens without supporting the appalling actions of Palestinian individuals and some elements of Palestinian governments. It is exactly the same as you, me, and Jo Rowling supporting the State of Israel while condemning the bombing of the King David Hotel. These are not mutually exclusive positions.

My dear Brammers...

[wemyss]

I am aware, precisely as you are, of what she said and tweeted, and parsed it carefully. I regard her views as being more than mere criticism of the current government in Israel; I regard them as being objectively anti-Israel. This is a matter on which persons may in good faith disagree, as we evidently do; I do wish to insist that I do not consider your reading of her to be in bad faith, and shall be obliged and gratified not to have my conclusions treated as being in bad faith

Re: My dear Brammers...

[blamebrampton]

I don't think you are acting in bad faith, as I know you to be an honourable person. But I do believe you to be simply wrong.

There is nothing she has said or written that can be read as objectively anti-Israel. Anti-Netanyahu, yes, absolutely, and in a month when he has advocated and then resiled from Holocaust denial, I have every sympathy with anyone who thinks the man is part of the problem. But if it has come to a point where we must support political leadership to have respect for a state, then Rowling and I are both doomed as both of my home nations are currently under governments doing appalling things, yet I love them still. A state that cannot abide criticsim is no longer a modern democratic state, and that is far more of a problem than the criticism.

[shezan]

Rickman has made that abominable play on Rachel Currie. Not so Rowling, whose name on the open letter condemning BDS was the best piece of news in this area in a LONG time. I haven't seen the statement you allude to; as for the letter, I know the signatories, George Weidenfeld and all, were delighted to have her on board. I think you are mistaken in dropping all things JKR. For one thing, she reaches the parts other slebs don't. And she's entitled to have divergences of views with the Israeli government.