Skip to content

Christine Kelley

Christine Kelley writes about speculative fiction and radical politics from a queer revolutionary perspective. Currently her main project is Nowhere and Back Again, a psychogeography of J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth. Her first project was the now semi-retired blog Dreams of Orgonon, a song-by-song study of Kate Bush.Support Christine on Patreon.

14 Comments

  1. jsd
    July 27, 2019 @ 2:06 am

    I never liked this song when I heard it back in the 80s and I like it even less now that I know about Harper’s crimes.

    As you say it’s a shame this has to be the first time we talk about B&G together, but they have some thrilling highs yet to come…

    Reply

  2. Finn
    July 27, 2019 @ 5:35 pm

    He was acquitted. Is it fair to write as if he were convicted?

    Reply

    • Christine
      July 27, 2019 @ 10:45 pm

      Given that acquittal is in no way a mark of innocence (an atrocious claim to make in the Kavanaugh era) and I literally said that Harper wasn’t convicted, this question is in terrible faith. Fuck off.

      Reply

      • Karl
        August 6, 2019 @ 11:26 pm

        He was acquitted. Is it fair to write as if he were convicted. I think the word you are looking for is “allegedly”.

        Reply

      • John
        December 27, 2021 @ 2:45 pm

        He probably did it. Keep all your opinions as is and just add “allegedly” to save any of your integrity. Amateurish and illegal.

        Reply

        • Christine Kelley
          December 27, 2021 @ 2:52 pm

          When I wrote this, I was 20. Cut me some fucking slack.

          Reply

          • Mark Taliss
            March 9, 2022 @ 8:27 am

            Sorry? You were 20 when you wrote this? I presumed it was the ill-advised polemic of a minor. Roy Harper was acquitted by a jury who considered all sides of the case and the evidence presented. On what grounds do you deem them wrong or misguided? Do you have access to the evidence and witness statements? Were you in the courtroom, able to assess the nuances of spoken delivery, eye contact and body language? The personal allegations you state as fact throughout your article could get you into serious trouble, and once you’re over the age of 18 claiming naivety won’t cut it. If you’re older and wiser now, I suggest you remove or qualify your allegations quickly. You certainly can’t say you haven’t been warned.

          • Elizabeth Sandifer
            March 11, 2022 @ 8:29 am

            Pro tip Mark: if you want to leave multiple comments under different usernames to give the impression of widespread criticism you need to change your IP address between comments.

    • Joe S. Walker
      July 29, 2019 @ 2:32 pm

      Not in the least. I think this is actually libellous.

      Reply

  3. Seelecta
    July 29, 2019 @ 12:59 pm

    @Finn Acquittal is in no way a mark of innocence, just as conviction is in no way a mark of guilt (c.f. Stefan Kiszko among many others).

    But given the description of R.E.M. as “probably not child abusers”, what do you expect?

    Reply

    • Christine
      July 30, 2019 @ 6:29 pm

      That phrasing about REM was meant to be tongue-in-cheek (mostly a joke about “well fuck who is innocent these days”), but given that it doesn’t seem to have landed I will take the criticism in stride.

      Reply

      • Seelecta
        August 1, 2019 @ 11:34 am

        “mostly a joke about “well fuck who is innocent these days””

        Seems a tasteless subject about which to joke. And a reasonable answer might be “the vast, overwhelming majority of people, but for legal purposes, most especially people who, having been charged and tried, were found not guilty”.

        After all, we’re not talking about people like Michael Jackson or Jimmy Savile, about whom it’s safe to speculate because they (a) never faced a jury (b) are dead and (c) had lots and lots of alleged victims come forward, most after they were safely in the ground. You’re talking, in print, in the most defamatory terms imaginable, about a still-living person who was, at trial, cleared of the accusations of two people. /shrug/ Your blog, your rules.

        Reply

        • Harrison
          August 1, 2019 @ 6:27 pm

          Accusations are in no way a mark of truth (an atrocious claim to make in the Carl Beech era).

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.