I'm going to be following this series with great interest, not because I've read these books or think "Rowling is a hero" (lmao, sure Mike), but because I'm kind of curious whether JKR's turn towards anti-trans mania is reflected by these novels, or whether it was *caused* by these novels.
I know that's kind of a crazy thesis! But: crime fiction is a genre built around spectacular man-bites-dog violence rather than realistic, "boring" violence; even in the specific niche of "violence against women" you're way more likely to see a fictional detective apprehend the serial killer behind a grisly string of stripper murders than, e.g., a wife-beater in suburban Jersey, even though domestic abuse is the most common form of sex crime by far. The perverse comfort of this sort of fiction is that it lets you believe that sexual violence is explosive and extraordinary and carried out by a tiny coterie of deranged freaks, rather than in houses like yours and to/by people like you. Is it any wonder, then, that shortly after she became a prolific writer of police procedurals, Rowling became very, very fixated on trans sex criminals in women's shelters -- all two of them?
IDK, probably your dislike of the police procedural is not rooted in highfalutin' feminist objections. But I'll be interested to see whether the novels get more "deranged" (for lack of a better world) in this respect...
I would say the series really has little, if anything, to do with her anti-trans activism, which is why the average reader probably has no idea that she has a public opinion about trans people.
Some people, including Contrapoints, has tied a direct line from one of the books to anti-trans bigotry but now that I've read these books, I think she's really reaching after something that just isn't there.
But I do think one of the books is very much a direct response to her fans who have turned on her. There's nothing about being trans in that book (it's actually much more about incels) but it does depict someone whose fandom turns on them.
Also, I am curious to hear what you make of the compressed timeline of the books — the way she has chosen to let the world of the stories lag behind real life history, so that the most recent book only takes place around 2016, I believe. It’s a strange and clearly deliberate choice, and I haven’t decided yet what it means.
Ha, I found that interesting too. It actually led to some confusion during one of the books because they mention that Robin and Strike have known each other for X years, and I thought that some of the books happen much closer together. But I guess each book is roughly a year apart.
I hadn't really thought to cover this angle, but I think some of the later books will open up a better way to talk about it, like when Brexit comes up in the novels or the election of Trump.
I think that’s a great summary of the running theme of the books, even though some of what I like most about them has nothing to do with the constraining of women (at least superficially). But that’s undoubtedly the deep wellspring that feeds the overall work.
(And while the books are nominally the “Cormoran Strike” series, and Strike is undoubtedly the hero and the moral center, there’s a strong case to be made that Robin, the long-suffering Chief O’Brien of this world, is really the main character.)
I think there's a very strong case to be made that Robin is the main character! I think that becomes clearer in Career of Evil and especially Troubled Blood. But it's probably cleanest to just say they're both the main character who go through very different kinds of main characterness (Robin is on a bit of a bildungsroman while Strike is almost on an Orphic trajectory).
I think much of what makes the novels work and succeed has nothing to do with constraining women, but I also think the theme is so baked into the series, and especially Robin as a character, that it does feel like the foundation of the series, even if most people never notice the stonework down there.
If an artist were one dimensional they would not be interesting or exceptional
Oh, P.S.: how does "The Casual Vacancy" fit into her bibliography, if at all?
Good question! Haven't read it though.
I suspect it's a growing pains kind of book, transitioning from children author to adult author.
I'll probably read it eventually but I haven't felt any real draw to it yet.
I'm going to be following this series with great interest, not because I've read these books or think "Rowling is a hero" (lmao, sure Mike), but because I'm kind of curious whether JKR's turn towards anti-trans mania is reflected by these novels, or whether it was *caused* by these novels.
I know that's kind of a crazy thesis! But: crime fiction is a genre built around spectacular man-bites-dog violence rather than realistic, "boring" violence; even in the specific niche of "violence against women" you're way more likely to see a fictional detective apprehend the serial killer behind a grisly string of stripper murders than, e.g., a wife-beater in suburban Jersey, even though domestic abuse is the most common form of sex crime by far. The perverse comfort of this sort of fiction is that it lets you believe that sexual violence is explosive and extraordinary and carried out by a tiny coterie of deranged freaks, rather than in houses like yours and to/by people like you. Is it any wonder, then, that shortly after she became a prolific writer of police procedurals, Rowling became very, very fixated on trans sex criminals in women's shelters -- all two of them?
IDK, probably your dislike of the police procedural is not rooted in highfalutin' feminist objections. But I'll be interested to see whether the novels get more "deranged" (for lack of a better world) in this respect...
I would say the series really has little, if anything, to do with her anti-trans activism, which is why the average reader probably has no idea that she has a public opinion about trans people.
Some people, including Contrapoints, has tied a direct line from one of the books to anti-trans bigotry but now that I've read these books, I think she's really reaching after something that just isn't there.
But I do think one of the books is very much a direct response to her fans who have turned on her. There's nothing about being trans in that book (it's actually much more about incels) but it does depict someone whose fandom turns on them.
Rowling is a hero. You're wise to read and review. You'll gain more solid subscribers.
Also, I am curious to hear what you make of the compressed timeline of the books — the way she has chosen to let the world of the stories lag behind real life history, so that the most recent book only takes place around 2016, I believe. It’s a strange and clearly deliberate choice, and I haven’t decided yet what it means.
Ha, I found that interesting too. It actually led to some confusion during one of the books because they mention that Robin and Strike have known each other for X years, and I thought that some of the books happen much closer together. But I guess each book is roughly a year apart.
I hadn't really thought to cover this angle, but I think some of the later books will open up a better way to talk about it, like when Brexit comes up in the novels or the election of Trump.
I think that’s a great summary of the running theme of the books, even though some of what I like most about them has nothing to do with the constraining of women (at least superficially). But that’s undoubtedly the deep wellspring that feeds the overall work.
(And while the books are nominally the “Cormoran Strike” series, and Strike is undoubtedly the hero and the moral center, there’s a strong case to be made that Robin, the long-suffering Chief O’Brien of this world, is really the main character.)
Really looking forward to this read-through.
I think there's a very strong case to be made that Robin is the main character! I think that becomes clearer in Career of Evil and especially Troubled Blood. But it's probably cleanest to just say they're both the main character who go through very different kinds of main characterness (Robin is on a bit of a bildungsroman while Strike is almost on an Orphic trajectory).
I think much of what makes the novels work and succeed has nothing to do with constraining women, but I also think the theme is so baked into the series, and especially Robin as a character, that it does feel like the foundation of the series, even if most people never notice the stonework down there.