Potterheads and the Death Of Anti-Trans Author
Pottermore now stands at a juncture where they are conflicted about whether to use the excuse of “death of the author” theory (which means separating the art from the artist), or to boycott the entire franchise
Conflict is brewing among Potterheads - the fandom of the Harry Potter series - as reports surface that its author, JK Rowling, is funding anti-trans legal battles using the wealth she earns from the Potterverse. Many are calling for a total boycott of anything related to Rowling, including purchasing her books or any Harry Potter merchandise currently available in the market. The point, as they explain, is not to contribute to the wealth that is aiding in anti-trans activities.
News has it that the author has become a billionaire again. Rowling was “a fixture on the Forbes billionaires list”, as the magazine itself puts it, from 2004 to 2011. The world lauded, and Potterheads gleamed with pride when reports emerged that she lost her billionaire status because of philanthropic activities.
Her regaining the billionaire status isn’t a surprise, owing to countless collaborations, theme parks, movies, book sales, video games, theatre and TV shows. A new Harry Potter series is in the making, for which Rowling herself serves as executive producer.
However, things have changed now. Rowling’s latest ‘philanthropic activity’ is to donate to anti-trans legal battles. The author has been courting controversy for a while now, mainly for her words on the social media platform X, and media statements, the latest being her post in celebration of the U.K. Supreme Court ruling that trans women are not legally women. The author posted a photo of herself on X with a caption: “I love it when a plan comes together. #SupremeCourt #WomensRights”
As usual, the internet was quick to react, but the reactions were mostly not in the author's favour. The Last of Us star - and the internet’s current obsession - Pedro Pascal and Bridgerton actor Nicola Coughlan are the recent celebrities to react to the issue.
When Rowling had initially started to voice her opinions about the transgender community as early as 2020, the lead actors of the Harry Potter franchise, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson had also publicly spoken out against her remarks. Fans also joined in. Many regretted their Harry Potter tattoos and splurging on the expensive Harry Potter merch. Many satisfied themselves by burning the books they owned. However, Rowling doesn’t seem to care.
The Pottermore community, ie, the Harry Potter fandom, is also one of the most active literature/movie fan bases, consistently churning out fanfiction that sometimes goes wildly popular. A good majority of them have also consensually renounced Rowling's last book of the series, a play named Harry Potter and the Cursed Child.
In line with this, the fans now stand at a juncture where they are conflicted about whether to use the excuse of “death of the author” theory (separating the art from the artist) or to boycott the entire franchise. A considerable section is in favour of the boycott, with many suggesting relying on second-hand purchases so that Rowling will not stand to benefit monetarily.
“Rowling’s idea of DEI? One Asian character named after a sneeze. She used a gender ambiguous name to sell books, but trans folks? That's too much, apparently,” says Anwesha Paul, a Hyderabad-based technical writer and owner of first edition hard covers of all seven books.
World over, it is the millennial generation that has been obsessed with Harry Potter and his wizarding world, to the point of being mocked. Many have testified about how emotionally attached they are to the material, in the face of having to commit to a full boycott.
The dilemma is understandable since time and time again, HP symbolisms are evoked to compare whenever a conflict starts between educational institutions and the right-wing government of a country- the recent Trump-Harvard fight included. Dialogues from the movie and books are shared whenever it is deemed fit. Even in India, this rhetoric pops up every now and then.
"She wrote about abuse, bullying, bigotry, blood purity, otherness, and discrimination in a way that made sense to children. It’s honestly wild to see her become everything she wrote against. On the other hand, several pro-right supporters are claiming a newfound interest in HP stories, owing to Rowling's politics, " says Paya Dixit, content marketer and another Harry Potter fan from Hyderabad. She says she was "(an) obsessive Potterhead who got over it because of the author."
Meanwhile, there is another set of followers who are now interested in Harry Potter because they believe Rowling speaks sense.
In the end, the question remains whether the author can actually be removed from the text, and if you wish to remove her, how do you do it? What remains of the text if you take away the kindness and compassion for others that drives the narrative?
