 Let's start by getting one thing straight. J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books and nothing else of note, is a reactionary. For years she's tried to hide it by retroactively adding gay and black characters to her books, which was funny at first. After all, she only made Dumbledore gay to piss off the Catholic Church because they were calling her books satanic witchcraft. It got old when she started claiming things like her mining was always meant to be black, but most people just rolled their eyes or turned it into a meme. After that though, she started acting like more and more of a, well, social media platforms tend to reeeeeee at certain words in the first minute of the video, so let's say Rowling is a word that starts with T and rhymes with surf. She's not a fan of transgender people, and for a long time she kept that low key. Only people who paid attention to her and had an understanding of trans issues realized what she was doing. She tried to hide behind politeness and coded language, which works on most people, just not those who are more knowledgeable. Things have escalated from there and culminated with Rowling publishing a manifesto, I mean, blog post, where she purposefully misinterprets a recent court case and uses it as a springboard to broadcast her beliefs about how trans people don't deserve recognition or equal rights. But like before, she hid behind coded language and folks' sympathy. Basically, she acts as though she's still being respectful because she doesn't want them outright murdered, and besides, she's just concerned about women's rights. She doesn't hate anyone, except for the legions of men that she thinks are pretending to be trans in order to do... something, I guess. Other people have gone into her comments in much more depth. I don't feel like repeating their points here. If you're curious, I'll link some other videos. Suffice to say, most of what she has to say about trans folks, particularly trans women, is both hateful and wrong. As much as the facts over feelings crowd pretends that gender and sex are the same thing, the science is rather clear that they're not. But hey, why do research when you can simply claim that all your previously held beliefs are common sense and just the way it is? That way you're never wrong. And when Rowling was faced with backlash, she's doubled down and fully sided with the reactionaries. While I was writing this script, she went on another Twitter rant about how she thinks kids are being indoctrinated or forced into hormone therapy by evil psychiatrists instead of working through their problems. She also seems to imply that taking any medication for mental issues is lazy and unhealthy. Guess I'll just throw out all my antidepressants. Our brains aren't filled with a series of chemical reactions that can sometimes be out of whack. They're magic. We just need to think really hard to fix everything. We should all solve our mental problems the way she did by making a billion dollars and spending the rest of our lives finding reasons to be oppressed. The claim that evil doctors are forcing kids to transition also contrast with her previous claims that she thinks men are pretending to be trans in order to assault women in locker rooms. She keeps switching between calling trans people insidious predators and claiming that they're innocent victims. That way she's always able to pretend that she's coming from a place of concern. Obviously, this has upset a lot of people, particularly fans of Harry Potter who were disappointed that the creator of something they love would turn out to be such a shitty person. It also shown a spotlight on some aspects of Harry Potter that seem odd looking back. First, there's the sorting hat, which puts kids into different groups based on personality. Groups that dictate the social circles they have to stay in for the rest of their lives and have no choice in leaving. On its own, it doesn't seem that odd, but when combined with her recent comments, it seems to hint at her determinist mindset. Whatever group you're born into or put into by other people is what defines your life, not your personality and experiences. Then there's the sketchy race stuff. Rowling wrote in a Chinese character named Cho Chang, like, Jesus Christ, dude. Although that's still less racist than the fans who were angry that an Asian girl was cast to play her in the movies. Internet forums were wild places in 2005. As for the goblins, a race of greedy, hook-nosed bankers... Do I even need to say anything else about that? I don't think there's much value in psychoanalyzing someone based on their work, especially something they created decades ago, since people change over time. I wouldn't want someone to judge my values based on the shit I wrote as a teenager. Rowling wrote Harry Potter as a fun fantasy adventure, not as a manifesto. That said, Harry Potter is all about fighting Wizard Hitler and his army of people obsessed with blood purity and social hierarchies. Harry and the heroes oppose them, but they don't seem to actually stand for anything. The wizarding world is full of problems, racism, a corrupt and bureaucracy-choked government, a complete lack of any innovation, no respect for human rights such as fair criminal trials, and chattel slavery. Harry and company are only bothered by the racism, and even then they're only bothered when it applies to muggle-borns and half-blood wizards. Kind of makes sense when you remember that Harry inherited his wealth, giving him a minor role in the ruling class, whether he acknowledges it or not. When they defeat Voldemort, things go back to how they were before. No reforms are made in the government to prevent another fascist takeover, no steps are made to improve the conditions of muggle-borns or other sentient magical races, the soil is still ripe for the next Voldemort to rise. And yes, I'm aware that I said something different in my Percy Jackson video last year, but after some discussion and revisiting of the series, I've changed my mind on its themes. You ARE allowed to do that. It almost seems like Joanna supports leaving things exactly as they are and not wanting to improve anything, and when you consider that she's a billionaire status quo blairite, it's hard to believe otherwise. Was this intended as the message to the story? Probably not. Is this the only possible interpretation? No. Would most people have considered this in a vacuum? No. Is it in line with Rowling's publicly stated opinions? Yep. The idea of authorial intent and death of the author is extremely interesting to me. Everyone has different interpretations of any given work, at least they do if they engage with it. Plenty of people don't try to read into it, and that's usually fine. If your interpretation is different than what the author intended, is it still valid? For that matter, how can you tell what the author intended to say? Rowling was clearly intending to be anti-racist with her books, making the villains thinly veiled Nazi ex-bees. There are plenty of references to racism against magical creatures like centaurs, goblins, and elves, though they're treated less seriously than racism against muggle-borns. If you wanted to read into this, you could compare it to how certain ethnic groups like the Poles and the Irish used to be harshly discriminated against before being brought into the fold as white. That didn't end racism against other groups, though. White supremacy is still very much a thing. Is this what Rowling intended? Probably not. In fact, the message seems to be that members of privileged groups should protect members of vulnerable groups. It just doesn't count for a group that are at extreme risk for violence, sexual assault, and suicide for some reason. If someone came along who sincerely believed that the message was something else, would their interpretation be any more or less valid? What if they believed that Rowling was trying to say that Voldemort and the Death Eaters were actually the good guys? That's stupid, but is it invalid? The answer is, unfortunately, it depends. I talked about this sort of thing back in my sick lit video in 2019 where I explained how someone who is already depressed can see things like the Fault in Our Stars as romanticizing a pretty death, which in turn romanticizes suicide. That definitely wasn't the intent of anyone who wrote a story about sick teenagers dying, not even close. That's just how someone with a certain mindset can see it. Can you say that they're wrong for thinking that? No, because that's just how your mind works with depression. In Wheel of Time, magic is split into male and female halves, and each sex can only use their own, except for a few minor characters who have their souls put into a body of the opposite sex, and they still use the magic that corresponds to their soul's sex, e.g. their gender. Robert Jordan probably wasn't saying trans rights with this, however if a transgender person saw that as support, who am I to correct them? It's not like this contradicts anything Jordan wrote, and I've already made several videos about how you can accidentally send messages with your work. This particular example happens to be positive. Back in my fascism of military sci-fi video, I pointed out a few examples of books that push authoritarian ideals and justify it by claiming those who disagree are not just wrong, they're evil. If you dropped Robert Heinlein off in Chile under the Pinochet regime, would he suddenly be supportive of it? Probably, yeah, Heinlein was a piece of shit. For others, like David Weber, it's a more difficult question. He most likely doesn't consciously think that fascism is awesome, he just writes stuff that kinda sorta says fascism is awesome. Recently, the creators of Brooklyn Nine-Nine have publicly stated that they're having trouble figuring out how to continue the show, since it portrays police as goofy, fun-loving good guys and now a lot more people have seen them as the thugs that they are. Andy Samberg probably never wanted to give off the impression that police are infallible nice dudes, but his show 100% launders law enforcement's reputation in the public consciousness. It's hard to see it any other way, even if it is really funny. And for that matter, sometimes creators will change what they claim their work represents after the fact. Rowling is a perfect example of this too. She's become a meme for constantly retconning, claiming that X-character is gay or that Nagini was always meant to be a human in the form of a snake. Was Nagini really always meant to be a sapient slave of Voldemorts? Another victim of his totalitarian madness? Or was she just a loyal pet? Were Dumbledore and Grindelwald really romantically involved, or were they just friends? In that case, which interpretation do you believe? The motivations and personalities of characters are completely different depending on which one you go with, and the author's word can't be trusted here because it's inconsistent. For that matter, what if a character does something without explicitly stating why? Many people were upset about Daenerys destroying King's Landing because she didn't monologue about how her early conquest caused her to see herself as a liberator no matter what she did, and everyone who opposed her is irredeemably evil. They missed the subtext there, so their interpretation is built on incomplete information. But isn't the same true for all of us? If you can't remember every single line of dialogue and frame of film, you're working on incomplete information too. Obviously, some bits of data are more important than others, but humans put more emphasis in certain areas based on experience, biases, and sometimes preconceived ideas they refuse to let go of. Does that sometimes result in stupid conclusions? Of course. Are they wrong though? Well, interpretation is basically an opinion, meaning it can't be wrong. So in the end, I have to come down on the side of interpretation, not that of intent. Sometimes the two line up, other times there's a disconnect. In the end, you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. Complicated, but that's life. Your interpretation is valid as long as it's based on factual information. If it's based on incorrect assumptions or blatant misunderstandings, that's the only time I'd feel comfortable calling it wrong. Now, back to JK Rowling the Turf. Fans of the series have recently been trying to reconcile their love of the books with their dislike of the creator, which is understandable. Can you justify giving money and fame to someone this hateful? Can you talk about how great Harry Potter is knowing the author's values are completely at odds with your own? Those are difficult to give concrete answers to. But this video isn't just focusing on Rowling. The question has been around forever and has applied to actors, writers, directors, musicians, artists of all kind. And I know it's in vogue to whine about cancel culture or whatever, but that's not a real thing. If people like Chris Brown, Roman Polansky and Jon Tron can continue working with few restrictions despite having large public outcries directed at them, then maybe this amorphous blob of cancel warriors that can magically end any career doesn't exist. Maybe it's just a good look at what kind of fan-based people have and what they're willing to forgive. And if anything illegal was done that they face consequences for, looking at you, Weinstein, then that's just the law doing its job. Nobuhiro Watsky is the creator of the Ruroni Kenshin manga, widely regarded as one of the greatest shonen manga ever written. It's a fun story with amazing action and shockingly deep characters. He also created a few other manga that never reached the same level of popularity or respect, but still have dedicated fan bases. Watsky even mentored other mangaka who went on to create classics of their own, like One Piece and Shaman King. And he inspired countless others. If you're a fan of series like Naruto, Gamoran, Black Clover, One Punch Man, or Bleach, you owe a debt to Watsky and his work. He's also a pedophile. That's not an accusation, it's a fact. He was arrested in November 2017 for possession of child pornography, to which he pled guilty and later admitted that he's attracted to elementary school age girls, though he did get off with a light sentence. As an aside, he kept the porn DVDs at his office, which is possibly the dumbest possible place to store child pornography. That's like keeping a brick of heroin in your locker at school. What the shit, dude? Even if Watsky didn't abuse children himself, he gave money to those who did, money he obtained from us supporting his work, making us complicit in a very small way. Now, once your money is out there, it's impossible to track or control. We've probably all contributed to something unsavory against our will at some point. That's just how our economy works. In this case, is it ethical to keep buying Watsky's manga? Is it okay to still enjoy the adventures of Hitokiri Batosai knowing that the author is a diddler? Sort of. If you've already consumed and enjoyed the man's work, then you can still look at it fondly. There's nothing in Kenshin itself that condones pedophilia. The closest it gets is a 28-year-old man marrying a 17-year-old, which was normal in the time period the series takes place. It's a fun action series all about making up for past wrongs and breaking the cycle of violence. Plus, if you already own the books or pirate them online, he's not getting anything when you read them. However, if you want to keep buying his stuff, then I'll have to strongly disagree with your actions. By continuing to support him, you're tacitly saying that child abuse isn't a deal-breaker and that you're okay with your money going to it. What about other shit-heels that make something beloved? Orson Scott Card wrote Ender's Game while absolutely HAAATING gay people and not just in private. Louis C.K. is a hilarious comedian who also sexually preyed on women and blacklisted them from comedy if they tried to speak up. Kevin Spacey has given amazing performances in things like House of Cards and Seven. He's also sexually assaulted several men and boys. What level of separation between art and artist is needed here? In my mind, the line is drawn at financial and career support. Just like with Nobuhiro Watski, if you continue to give them money, I'll have to assume that you see their activities as acceptable. Rationalization is often a defense mechanism. When you look up to someone, it's hard to accept that they were different than you thought. If you want to just shrug and say that you only enjoy what they create, then I disagree with you in many cases. In the end, though, I can't force anyone to think differently. All I can do is remind you that you're supposed to care about other people. Keep in mind that most of the people I've brought up so far have denied wrongdoing and haven't even apologized. It seems I can't write one of these without bringing up Brandon Sanderson in some capacity, so let's talk about his old homophobic blog post. Yeah, back in 2007, when Rowling announced that Dumbledore was gay and people were freaking out about it, he wrote a post defending her actions. In fact, the whole thing isn't that bad. Sanderson specifically says that gay book characters should be normalized because gay people exist in real life and they deserve representation. He's criticizing the religious right for their overreaction. It's just that he also says that homosexuality is a sin and compares attraction to people of the same sex to cheating on your wife. Generally, he takes a hate the sin, love the sinner stance. So that's bad, but it could be so, so much worse. And in the years since, he's gone through some changes and apologized for his previous words. His personal morality struggled with what his religious leaders were telling him to believe and his personal morality won out. He's now gone on record saying that he wants to properly represent queer people in his works and he's followed through on that. He's changed, but he doesn't deserve hate for what he used to think. Most people seem to understand this, but I fear one day someone might get angry about this without acknowledging the context and then people will yell at each other online. Again, because, you know, that happens literally every day. And I'm certain many of us have stuff in our past we're embarrassed or ashamed of. That's just a part of getting older. I had my own edge lord phase, complete with taking a weird pride in offensive humor and disregarding other people's feelings. But as the years went on, I got over myself, stopped looking down on others quite so much, and spent more time with my real world friends. When it all came together, I left my old self behind and now I'm a normal dude. At least I like to think so. If you're going to be angry at people who made ignorant, inconsiderate comments online when they were young, then throw me on there too, because I guess I'm not allowed to grow up and cringe at my past self. My overall point is that you're never going to find a blanket answer to this sort of thing. There is no one-size-fits-all because context is key. If you're going to decide that someone should no longer be supported because of their actions, it's something you should think through before committing. As for Rowling, fuck her. She's already a billionaire living in a Scottish castle. Her old fans all hate her. She can go cry into a pile of money while servants rub her feet. You don't get to spread hate against a vulnerable minority to your massive audience and expect everyone else to shrug it off. I'm not advocating harassment or anything. I just don't think that you should stay silent if you see something that bothers you. I would say to stop buying Potter merch, but it doesn't matter at this point. She has more money than she could ever possibly spend. If she wants to learn and to grow and become a better person, then I'd encourage everyone to accept her. And if she stops tweeting about how wizards used to shit on the floor. Until then... Fuck you, bitch! That's where I have to leave you for now. There's always more to be said, but this isn't meant to be a hard set of rules to follow. Just a template to consider when the creator of something you love does something you hate. We're all going to disappoint you eventually. How you respond is all on your end. Can't wait for a deluge of comments berating me for putting politics into inherently political topics. Special thanks to all of my patrons, including the long list of the $10 up guys, Apo Savilainen, Andrew Dixon, Ashley Watson, Ava Tumor, B Quinn, Brother Santotys, Christopher Quinten, Emily Miller, Joel, Johnny St. Clair, Madison Lewis Bennett, Ronnie, Taylor Briggs, Tobacco Crow, Tom Beanie, Topher Wheeler, Vacuous Silas, and Vaivictus, as well as all of the other names you see here. Yeah, it's getting to be a long list. I appreciate all of you guys, because without you I don't think I'd be able to do stuff like this. And obviously don't go off and harass people that I bring up in here. Criticism and harassment are two different things. Please just leave them alone unless they come after you for the most part. Or just, you know what? Just don't be a dick. Anyways, see you next time, and trans rights. Bye.