#27: Is Ethical Harry Potter Consumption Possible in 2023?

Would love to hear your thoughts in the replies below, my loves.

Hello my loves,

I hope you are having a lovely April thusfar.

I posted this as a thread on Substack Notes, but figured it might be logical to also share it here in its entirety. So curious to hear people’s thoughts on this! Please feel free to comment below and share your thoughts.

Sending love to all. 💖

Alex

#27: Is Ethical Harry Potter Consumption Possible in 2023?

Serious inquiry: I’d love to start a conversation here in the comments about something that has been on my mind for the past few months.

Image ID: Tweet from @DiscussingFilm depicts the Harry Potter logo and silhouette of Hogwarts castle. Apr 2023.

Do you think it is possible to separate the art from the artist? It is an age-old question that has likely been debated for as long as art and artists have been around.

But I wonder, what do you think? Is it possible for someone to consume something like Harry Potter content in 2023, for example, without being complicit in JK Rowling's transphobia?

I am a proud trans ally and have been an LGBTQIA+ rights advocate and defender since I could talk, long before I came out myself, both online and in the real world as a political organizer and activist working for the ACLU, countless political campaigns, the HRC, etc.

That being said, HP was one of the most fundamental educational portions of my childhood, and it was my primary literary connection to my mother. These are the books that quite literally taught me how to read. And as a child who struggled with a learning disability, finally overcoming that hurdle was monumental.

My mother, who was abroad much of my childhood, would come home from her work trips, and I would lay in her lap while we held the books together, and she would teach me words, their meanings, how to sound them out, what the book’s core messages conveyed and what the scenes meant to signify, which were, as many of us will remember, messages of tolerance, fairness, never assuming the worst in others, loving everyone for exactly who they are, even if that was exceptionally different from yourself. They were steeped in anti-authoritarianism that I found extremely comforting growing up in the Bible Belt as a closeted gay child, who was bullied for my queerness, the sound of my voice, the way I walked, and my fatness.

As an adult, I can now see a new dimension to the books, which are more complicated than I realized as a child, especially with regards to the fatphobia in the text, which I did not fully understand then, and which, as a fat person, is obviously upsetting.

However, despite this, these books are very much how I fell in love with language and reading and what initially inspired me to dedicate my life to reading and writing.

As you can imagine, it’s more heartbreaking than I can say that such a safe and heartwarming space from childhood has been completely muddied by JK’s awful rhetoric which, I should mention, I totally condemn. I agree 100% with her detractors. Her rhetoric is violent and terrible and is causing real-world harm and putting trans lives at risk. It’s unacceptable.

My question, though, is a bit more complex, essentially: Is there still an ethical way to engage with works that for so long were not tainted in this way?

For example, a trans creator recently came to fame on the clock app for re-binding the books and selling them without JK’s name, an assertion of clear disagreement with her stance, while a recognition that the books hold a sacred place in the hearts of millions globally.

For those who grew up with stories and with JK, it is especially distressing, as she was always said to be and always seemed to be a radical activist, an advocate with her money and time for the poor, for lesbians and gays, for so many marginalized groups.

It is, of course, then quite fitting that she would be labeled as a TERF, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism. I’ve never understood activists whose goodwill and hard work have a hard line, that still excludes, that doesn’t extend to all. It seems so contrary to what I would imagine her self-described moral fiber and convictions would otherwise indicate.

To me, being a radical feminist means supporting and protecting all women’s lives, especially trans women, as they are at the greatest risk for violence.

Her arguments about same-sex spaces are very offensive and reek of the same hysteria and fears around gays in popular media and political discourse during much of the 20th century.

I agree that she should know better; there is no excuse. Being from a different generation is never an excuse to be a bigot.

I also understand why she would be particularly sensitive to some of the fears she has, given her own experiences with abuse and violence. Still, it is no excuse to marginalize and put the lives of trans people at risk. Although I can conceptualize how a middle-aged white woman who is a domestic abuse survivor and grew up during the 2nd wave Feminist moment in Britain could’ve arrived at her clearly wrong conclusions.

Even after listening to the seven-part podcast series by the Free Press called “The Witch Trials of JK Rowling,” which aimed to argue a more nuanced defense of her, I still feel she is clearly in the wrong.

The podcast, while well-produced, only engaged with TWO trans people and spent much of the episodes likening her perceived persecution to the religious hysteria around the Potter books in the '90s, which seems a clever and unsettling distraction tactic to avert eyes away from her harmful rhetoric in the here and now.

Likening trans rights activists to religious bigots is also deeply unsettling to me.

However, regardless of my thoughts on this, I genuinely just want to start a conversation, and I am quite curious as to where people's stances land on this. Where people's head-spaces are, especially given the recent announcements.

It is quite jarring to have your comfort books suddenly shrouded in transphobia after nearly 20 years of existing in your life as a relatively peaceful and safe space.

I've read countless Reddit threads detailing similar feelings - millennials around my age, queer millennials especially - who feel so deeply betrayed by a woman that for so long they felt to be a mother-like figure.

I know for many queer people, these books were our safe haven from an unkind and often exclusionary and violent world. So to have the woman who created the series become the violence she herself warned against is particularly distressing.

It was easy to see ourselves in Neville, Harry, Luna, Hermione - these characters who were persecuted by an intolerant and judgmental world but who at their cores were full of so much magic, kindness, and beautiful weirdness and passionate possibility.

With the conversations around the ethics of playing/purchasing the new video game and now the new TV show, I'm curious - what do you think about divorcing the art from the artist? Can it be done? Or is it a fool's errand?

I’ve often had complicated feelings about boycotting art. I also have complicated feelings around trigger warnings, which are disproportionately applied to queer and BIPOC works and can sometimes be an excuse for fragile cis-het white people to avoid engaging critically with the trauma that they are often the chief arbiters of. How can you expect a queer person to write without speaking of their trauma? How can you expect a person of color not to write of the discrimination they’ve faced? The violence? That being said, I am a huge fan of the queer joy & black joy literary moments. This is also another conversation entirely. I also obviously see the clear benefits of TWs. As a survivor of rape and violence myself, I often appreciate warnings of when it might come up in a text, so I can mentally prepare myself. TWs are a topic I still feel very complicated about, and again, not what we’re primarily here to discuss right now. However, I would welcome any thoughts on this, as I am in the process of writing an essay for submission and would love more perspectives.

I’ve often felt that even if a text is harmful, I would argue it should still be read and studied, as knowing one’s enemy/oppressor is the only true way to prepare to fight for one’s rights. Obviously, this HP convo is a different context, but I think some of the general sentiment applies as long as the intent is aligned with outcomes.

However, I’d love to hear about this in a larger sense too, when it comes to any harmful creator and their works that were beloved prior to the knowledge of their wrongdoings. Or even a creator who we know is objectively a harmful person but creates compelling and interesting art. Should that art be ignored? Boycotted? What is the third option? What does an ethical society do in a case like this?

How do we move forward here? I’m genuinely asking.

I’m followed by thousands of academics, published novelists, publishing houses, writers, and readers. I’m curious what people think, and I’d be grateful to dialogue with you in the replies.

I am also trying to get acclimated to Substack’s new “Notes” feature, so I would be grateful if you could reply directly on my Substack Notes Thread. Download the Substack app for the best user experience.

With love,

Alex