The Art and the Artist: Why Harry Potter can be Cherished Apart from JK Rowling

With her history of controversial tweets affirming her stance on Trans identity, the debate of whether an audience can morally support an author’s creation separate from their personal views remains a lingering question. As in the past, two camps reiterated their respective positions on this question: one answered in the negative, while the other in the affirmative. Taking all arguments into consideration, here’s why you can still morally support an author’s creations despite any controversial opinions they may have on sensitive topics.

With emphasis on JK Rowling’s controversial stance on trans identity and rights, a sizable camp of people believe that to continue to support the Harry Potter franchise is to vicariously support JK’s views on trans identity. However, there are a few problems with their rationale. First, is this camp’s concern that to continue to hold any enthusiasm for the Harry Potter Universe is by extension an endorsement of JK Rowling herself. However, this is a distorted conception. This view furthers the dangerous idea that every creation from artist is wrapped in said artist’s views. For millions worldwide, JK Rowling’s creation of “the boy who lived” has been a lens which her audience has examined their own discovery of compassion, humanity, and bonds of friendship. It has served as some of their first lessons in accepting their own flaws, their insecurities, and self-love. Regardless of your perception of the author’s stance on Trans rights and identity, the HPU stands as an example of community that countless have found refuge in. The idea that to embrace one’s love for Harry Potter endorses Rowling’s views in any way overlooks all the good it has done. It casts a shadow over the testimonials of thousands, if not millions of fans, who’ve attested this creation’s impact on their lives. Is the film and acclaimed book series perfect? Of course not. Works that have graced the film and literature industries rarely are. But to equate supporter’s continued love for a creation that has altered their lives for the better is an argument sorely lacking in merit. Sometimes an artist’s creation is just that - a creation.

Another contention offered by the first camp is the unethical financial gain JK Rowling benefits from her continued works within the HPU. This is certainly a stronger argument, however, I would offer a counterargument. While it’s true Rowling financially benefits from the ongoing Fantastic Beasts film series along with HPU products produced by Warner Studios, that is not the objective for the vast majority of fans whenever they make one of these purchases. The criticism in financially contributing to an artist by way of film or merchandise sales assumes those funds further contribute to the artist’s personal views. Unfortunately for this camp’s position, there has been no link between Rowling’s continued earnings and her position on Trans identity. Rowling is not appropriating her HPU earnings towards any mechanism to advocate for her controversial views such as: podcasts, show appearances, rallies, etc. In fact, this position is irrelevant; whether or not Rowling had ever made her remarks dating back to 2020, she would have financially benefitted from her rights in the HPU regardless. Financially contributing to something when a controversial artist benefits fiscally can be questionable. But to subject those who do so to this absolutist, black and white logic is a polarized rationality that cannot stand on its own two feet. It needs some reasoning that’s more tangible if you want to condemn those supporters as the first camp attempts to do. Pigeonholing HPU fans into a binary of moral and immoral simply won’t do. After all, is that not the same mechanism employed by the same controversial artist when she contemplates Trans identity?

An additional argument, one similar to the first, is the belief that continued fan support of the HPU empowers Rowling to continue to spread her controversial views. However, continued fan support is irrelevant to Rowling’s developing views on Trans identity. The HPU’s fan support is not the kindle from which Rowling ignites her heated take on Trans identity. The source of her views originates from her own radicalized form of feminism. It’s one that seeks the exclusion of Trans women. It’s selective, only casting protection to those who were biologically born female. Whether or not there existed today’s sizable opposition to her views, Rowling would still likely boast her controversial talking points. It’s a fact that’s exists completely apart from fan’s support of the HPU. This is what the first camp’s position overlooks, and many of them seem unbothered to correct it. This demonstrates that they are more concerned with the brand of their opposition than sincerely attempting to persuade the second camp of their perspective. Regardless, there exists a serious branding problem with the first camp’s perspective on fans who continue to exercise their love for the HPU.

None of this to say those who believe continued support for the HPU is wrong lack meaningful arguments, but their arguments are misaligned with Rowling’s take on Trans identity. It is a sad fact of life that she will persist in benefitting from the enormous Harry Potter fanbase. However, remember who the victims are of this unfortunate debate: your friends, your colleagues, for many, their family members. What matters is not whether we believe it’s right to buy something of the shelf of the Harry Potter flagship store in NYC, but that we firmly and openly support the women whose identity in unfairly questioned. They are the ones we are here for. Don’t forget about them whilst contemplating the morality of persistent HPU fans.

Finally, to quote one of the wisest men of our time…“Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open.” - Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore

And I’ll leave it at that.