J.K. Rowling uses Harry Potter wealth to fund anti-transgender organization
J.K. Rowling uses Harry Potter wealth to fund anti-transgender organization
www.advocate.com
J.K. Rowling uses Harry Potter wealth to fund anti-transgender organization
You're viewing a single thread.
320 comments
-
Harry Potter defenders: “JK Rowling just said mean words online she hasn’t actually harmed trans people!”
What JK Rowling is doing with the money:
-
Someone dear to me is heartbroken and perennially conflicted because she absolutely loved Harry Potter growing up, and is also keenly aware of how shitty JK Rowling is. Now as an adult the Harry Potter franchise is one of the things that gives her joy in an otherwise very hard life she has had.
I'm not giving any more details about her. All I'm asking is, give these people a break, please. Not everyone is in a position in life to be an activist on everything, and while it might sound silly, things like HP are a big part of some people's childhoods and taking those away from them can be devastating.
-
Ok but harry potter "defenders" and jk Rowling defenders are not the same. You can appreciate the world of HP while not agreeing or supporting their shit creator.
-
Even the original cast don't support hp anymore because they aren't a bunch of assholes and don't have rocks for brains.
-
But by consuming Harry Potter IP, you're actively putting money in her pocket, which she uses for her anti trans cause. Unless you pirate the content
-
I pirate all content, I see no reason to discriminate.
-
Anecdote: As a member of the generation that grew up with HP, no one I know is supporting the IP financially. We grew up with the books and movies and that's it. This is just one of many cultural issues that's dividing the left. Cool I guess?
Edit: typos
-
This is just one of many cultural issues that’s dividing the left. Cool I guess?
We're pretty united against bigotry. Get with the program or stop dividing the left.
-
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
-
-
There hasn't been a new Harry Potter book in decades, and Fantastic Beasts basically took cyanide when Crimes of Grindelwald came out, only thing keeping this franchise alive is fanfics
-
The game was pretty successful financially, although it luckily wasn't at all able to stay culturally relevant and there is a new hbo show coming out soon that was even promoted by german state media.
-
Lots of people still watch the movies on streaming. As little as a few weeks ago, my wife suggested we should watch one of the movies. She has no particular contact with the LGBTQ+ society, and didn't know anything about JK Rowlings behaviour. I've had a few colleagues that are gay, but I never had meaningful exposure to the queer community either, until I stumbled into roller derby a decade ago.
So I assume a lot of people watch HP, not of malice, but unknowingly or with indifference to who JK Rowling is as a person
-
I still have people swearing to me that she "Supports the trans community" and "Donates money to pro-trans causes" and that people are "targetting her unfairly"
Sad thing is, they're being serious and arguing in what they believe is good faith. They legitimately don't realize who she is, they're too smitten by the debunked story of a homeless woman who wrote Harry Potter on old napkins.
-
-
-
-
Honestly, having to listen to people babble about Harry Potter just feels like a slap in the face. Like, I know people who have the best intentions in regard to supporting trans people, but they'll still happily make endless references to this garbage in front of me as though it wouldn't immediately bring to mind someone who is actively engaged in trying to get others to agree that I shouldn't exist. Some of them also buy merch that I guarantee puts money directly in her pocket.
It bothers the shit out of me.
-
I understand why this is so painful, and I really appreciate you sharing how you feel. I grew up with HP, and while it was part of my childhood, I don’t support the author’s views at all. I get why seeing people casually reference the series or buy merchandise can be upsetting when it feels like it’s indirectly supporting someone who actively harms the trans community. That said, I think it's important for people to be able to talk about the series and its impact on them without automatically being labeled a bigot. Acknowledging the harm the author has caused doesn’t mean we can’t still discuss the cultural impact of the books. People should be more mindful, but I don’t think we should shut down conversations about it entirely. Thanks for sharing your perspective—I’ll keep this in mind moving forward.
-
The very first comment is all about actively supporting J K Rowling with money, so this is not just about people talking about HP, but funding someone who is actively using their money and influence to harm us.
As others have mentioned publicity and support in general for HP is also bad, as it makes people more likely to buy HP merchandise. New shows, merch, and games are still being produced and sold. We aren't shitting on HP for fun. We are telling people that this actually really and truly hurts us.
-
I would never call someone a bigot for talking about Harry Potter. It does absolutely reduce my opinion of them, though. I keep it to myself, but I see it as pretty thoughtless.
-
I grew up watching The Cosby Show. Big part of my childhood etc. I’ll leave you to join the dots.
-
No one is. This is an article about how she uses profits from the HP franchise to fund transphobia with people running in to the defend liking the franchise while completely ignoring the context of the post.
Edit: For reference, liking or not liking the franchise isn't what the post is about, so running in to defend it is gonna be read as supporting funding the franchise.
-
-
-
I disagree. Sometimes you can’t separate the art from the artist when they are actively using their wealth and influence to oppress an already marginalized group. Just take a look at what recently happened and is happening to Tesla.
-
yes you can but i will still judge you because it's a terribly written series
-
I found it very fun, interesting and captivating when I read those books (that is, when I was maybe 13-16?). If it was "terribly written" it wouldn't have made the success it did, and also the target audience is generally not made of literary critics.
So I don't think there is much to judge, especially since many people's good opinion on the story is based on their lived experience with it, from when they were younger etc. And you can't erase that from your life because the author turned out to be an asshole 15 years later.
-
"If it was "terribly written" it wouldn't have made the success it did"
Dan Brown's millions beg to differ.
If people like HP stuff they might want to try Dianna Wynne Jones' stuff: earlier, better, and didn't have the same fortunate exposure.
-
The DaVinci code sold 80 millions copies. The first HP book alone sold 120 millions, and the whole series 600 millions, being the most sold series of books.
Not only they are one order of magnitude apart, but I think they sold for different reasons.
I haven't read Dan Brown's stuff, but I also doubt it's terribly written by the way. Books that capture the interest of a population more and more unused to read can be shallow, banal, inconsistent, whatever, but not terribly written. Casual readers can hardly finish a terribly written book. In any case, HP books are children's books. Children or teenagers are not literary critics, it's not about reading "great literature", however you define that.
I also can't help to notice the coincidence that all the HP critiques started appearing in the last years, when the author went bananas. A series this popular, which ended in 2007, and suddenly 15 years later people notice that it's "terribly written"? This smells more to me of a damnatio memoriae than genuine critique.
-
You haven't read it, but that's what you reckon? Okay.
As to the other point: JKR's stuff is trite and derivative, but I do think that some of its "problematic" aspects are likely just because it's regurgitating European fantasy tropes, which themselves may (originally or later on) encode antisemitism and so on.
And when it comes to it, subjecting any popular series to close reading with an eye for affront is likely to show up its flaws. Just think of all the janitors who blew up with the death star.
But Brown's stuff is utter garbage (not to mention just ripping off "the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail", which was pretty awful to begin with) - if you have the chance to pick it up second-hand I'd encourage you to see if you can finish it.
-
I actually disagree that a book is "problematic" because it touches, presents, includes etc. any topic that morally we disagree with. Not every book has to be a manifesto or a depiction for a moral and just society, which is why I find most of the arguments against HP to be weak (some points were listed in a sibling comment thread).
subjecting any popular series to close reading with an eye for affront is likely to show up its flaws
I am quite sure this is true for any book (especially fiction), in fact. Which is why I think it's an activity that makes sense only to justify the pre-existing opinion about the book, rather than having a value in itself.
if you have the chance to pick it up second-hand I'd encourage you to see if you can finish it.
To be clear, I know that Dan Brown stuff is garbage. I just have seen people who I think never read a book in the previous 10 years read that one (in translation though, so who knows...). So the book must at least be interesting and intriguing to keep the attention of people who are not used to read. For me this means not fitting in the "terrible writing" category, but maybe we mean different things by that.
-
-
-
-
she was an asshole back then and you can see it all over her books. i think i was probably lucky enough to be a bit older than the target demo to find HP even remotely interesting but kids at the time were super generous and kind with the books and interpreted them in good ways that jowling kowling rowling clearly never intended. which is why she retconned diversity into her books for example.
i completely believe in the death of the author, but also won't stand for praising a shitty author's shitty books just because people headcanoned a lot of good things into it to make them suck less.
-
Honestly, I read the books translated + I could not and still cannot relate with the issues that I often see raised against the book (like the way diversity is represented). Especially when I was a kid, those issues were so not in my mind that I would never ever flag as issues.
To make an example: for me as a kid, slavery was something that mostly had to do with the roman empire. The whole debacle about house elves etc. is completely disconnected from real societal probelsm, recent history etc. I have always rooted for the elves because that's what I was pushed to do emotionally, but without really ever reflecting on slavery as a whole. I am picking this example because it's one of the most used ones to critique the book.
In general I also believe that authors can build worlds that do not represent their views, I find a lot of the critique I have read a stretch and I am especially suspicious that most of these critiques started appearing recently. I believe people started with the thesis (she is an asshole) and then backtracked the analysis trying to find anything at all in the books that could support the conclusion (rather than viceversa).
Either way, all of this is relatively irrelevant. People can like or dislike books - especially fiction - freely. For me the book is mostly associated with a vibe of being young, thinking about those stories, relating with the characters etc., not with the actual books content. So it's more about thinking back of childhood/past than appreciating the literary value.
-
well the critique is not about the world building. i mean the world building is bad too but that's not about the morality of the world. the critique is about what the books present as good or bad.
there are many examples of this.
body shaming and misogyny/transphobia: bad people are fat, good people are at most "plump". bad women have mannish features, like big physiques, square jaws and mustaches.
slavery is good, actually: the problem with slavery in the books isn't that it's portrayed at all, it's that it's portrayed as good for the house elves except for one weirdo freak who wants to be free for some reason. also house elves even as a term is yikes imo.
zero concern for diversity: it's not that the book just lacks it but the fact that the very few token characters who were put in are just cardboard cutouts with downright disrespectful names. the Asian girl is cho chang because i think the editor may have vetoed the first ch-ch name she came up with. the black guy is called kingsley shacklebolt because "tyrone escapedslave" was too on the nose i guess. the british wizarding school is for some reason more populous than schools that represent much larger populations, and it has a proper name while all others are called "wizard school" or "magic place" very badly translated because she couldn't be fucked to engage with another culture even on a surface level. she also disrespectfully dismissed some regional beliefs about magic because why not.
good people vs bad people, not good deeds vs bad deeds: you can see throughout the book "good" and "bad" people doing the exact same things but represented as good and bad depending on who's doing them, not what they're doing.
status quo above all: challenging systemic problems is never a solution, even slavery, and any change must only involve individuals. whatever you may gather as "challenging authority" for example is always about the people using the authority, and not whether the authority itself should exist at all. the main protagonist becomes a fucking cop at the end. and the books end in literally everything being the same as it started, sans the threat of voldy, and "all is well" despite the same abusive systems, castes and slavery still existing. because status quo is good and systemic change is bad.
it keeps going, and it gets worse if you go beyond the HP books. it's not what's in the world, it's how she presents them.
-
-
-
-
And I can acknowledge that while also having nostalgia for books that I grew up with as a literal child. Judge away.
-
boo former child
-
-
-
-
320 comments