I don't buy your claim that your articles on JK Rowling are in any way 'definitive'. They present her view of the argument, and only her view, which is a highly illiberal one.
A lot of hyperventilating has taken place against Rowling's views, which have been strongly and perhaps excessively (and ad feminem) condemned in some quarters. Thi…
I don't buy your claim that your articles on JK Rowling are in any way 'definitive'. They present her view of the argument, and only her view, which is a highly illiberal one.
A lot of hyperventilating has taken place against Rowling's views, which have been strongly and perhaps excessively (and ad feminem) condemned in some quarters. This does not, however, mean that her views are beyond criticism, and cogent criticisms can be made, especially against her more recent and harder-line comments.
For a title that claims honesty, you seem unable to see that Rowling's continual harping about threats to 'Women's Rights', without defining what rights she refers to or what threats actually exist, is intellectually dishonest. You would not let any other commentator get away with that.
Space naturally forbids me to give a nuanced analysis of the debate, but one is possible. (And I'd be happy to write one if you're willing to print it.) The FP in general adheres to praiseworthy standards of objectivity - except where Rowling is concerned. Your readers deserve better.
I don't buy your claim that your articles on JK Rowling are in any way 'definitive'. They present her view of the argument, and only her view, which is a highly illiberal one.
A lot of hyperventilating has taken place against Rowling's views, which have been strongly and perhaps excessively (and ad feminem) condemned in some quarters. This does not, however, mean that her views are beyond criticism, and cogent criticisms can be made, especially against her more recent and harder-line comments.
For a title that claims honesty, you seem unable to see that Rowling's continual harping about threats to 'Women's Rights', without defining what rights she refers to or what threats actually exist, is intellectually dishonest. You would not let any other commentator get away with that.
Space naturally forbids me to give a nuanced analysis of the debate, but one is possible. (And I'd be happy to write one if you're willing to print it.) The FP in general adheres to praiseworthy standards of objectivity - except where Rowling is concerned. Your readers deserve better.