10 thoughts on “That NYT Ad About J.K. Rowling”

  1. Why doesn’t is just say: “Lianna is imagining a world without Harry Potter.” Because without Its creator, the world of Harry Potter doesn’t exist.

    How about “Lianna is imagining Lord of the Rings without its creator”? Or “Lianna is imagining the James Bond without its creator.” Or “Lianna is imagining the Marvel Universe without its creator.” Or “Lianna is imagining Huckleberry Finn without its creator.” Would the world be a better place without any of these? (Then again, I could support the idea that only Huck needs to survive.)

    1. Imagine if Lianna is not only imagining NYT works without their creators, but actively violating IP on those works – say by scraping the website and setting up her own website with copy/pasted content right up to the NYT trademarks. Exciting blowback opportunities are possible here.

  2. In the grand scheme of things, Harry Potter, and JK Rowling, is far more significant than Liana, the subway, or the NYTimes..

    1. In twenty years or so there will be Harry Potter remakes and spin-offs. At the same time the NYT editorials will be forgotten* at the bottom of a landfill.

      *Assuming there is a NYT then…

  3. “Joanna Rowling chose to be “JK” because everyone knew her books would sell better if people thought she was a man. ”

    In the 1990’s? That’s bullshit. There were countless popular female authors back then. But maybe she had the perception because of the stupid stereotypes the left have for everything.

    What does it mean if she did choose to appear male? Is that celebrated for sticking it to men? But what about someone choosing a pen name to appeal to the industry’s preferred ethnicity? Its a real Dolezal or Whoopie Goldberg situation.

    Prior to her current drama, Rowling frequently participated in these frenzied targetings of the enemies of the left. Has she changed?

    Why do people on the right stick up for Rowling when she wouldn’t return the favor?

  4. ‘Why do people on the right stick up for Rowling when she wouldn’t return the favor?’

    Because it is the right thing to do; principles.

  5. William is imagining editors forced to choose from anonymous submissions. If you weren’t a science fiction writer under the ancien regime, you don’t know how really droll that is. (Hint, John Campbell stopped buying from a popular writer because said writer fucked his wife. I could go on ad infinitum…)

Comments are closed.