The Ethics of Enjoying Harry Potter in the Twitter Age
I’m not going to lie, that title’s a bit sensationalist, and quite frankly, I don’t think of myself as the supreme judge of what’s right and wrong (unless it’s a pizza topping), so I’m in murky waters here. With that in mind, I’ve been thinking about this a lot and needed to put it out there somewhere.
Like many people growing up in or around the turn of the millennium, Harry Potter was a huge part of my childhood. Book Four had just come out when my mom started reading the series to me. We quickly caught up, and those became some of my favorite childhood memories. I used to reread the entire series every year in high school. I think my record was ten days for all seven books, and I kept doing it because it was comforting and fun.
So like many people who grew up with Harry Potter in their life, I was dismayed, to say the least, at JK Rowling’s remarks on Twitter and in the press that attempted to dehumanize, erase, and vilify trans-women. It just didn’t make sense: how could someone who wrote a series about love, courage, and the importance of treating everyone with decency unapologetically spout the beliefs she’s been advocating? We want to believe that this is some Polyjuiced impostor kidnapping the architect of some of our most beloved childhood stories. But it’s not that easy.
Nor is it easy to ignore. Video essayist and all-around smart person Lindsay Ellis posted a video discussing the problems with trying to ignore Rowling’s politics to protect our image of the books. In short, if you’re still paying for her content, you are helping her build a platform to spread beliefs that harm people. And that is not a dilemma one should have to face when trying to enjoy or share a story with a positive message that they love. Ellis suggests that trying to compartmentalize is understandable, but still wrong, stating: “from an ethical standpoint, if you don’t want to support the author, you might just need to let Harry Potter go.” Her point is more in regards to the “death of the author” critical theory than a mandate to fans, but still, she leaves us a hard choice.
And I very much see the issue of paying someone money that they will use to support harmful policies (although that’s a web we’re caught in all the time; it’s hard to buy only products and services that don’t cause harm somewhere.) But I don’t think allowing one woman’s beliefs to destroy a cultural touchstone is the right path either, even if that woman is the creator of that cultural work.
And I can’t believe I’m writing this, but I think Pete Davidson has a better take on the situation than Lindsay Ellis (with apologies to both Lindsay Ellis and Pete Davidson). Back in 2019 on SNL Davidson discussed the problem of enjoying music by R. Kelly in light of his predatory behavior to minors. He suggested that if you can’t stop enjoying that music, you should consider donating a dollar to charities for survivals of sexual assault afterwards.
And especially for Harry Potter, which, again, espouses themes of acceptance, kindness, and love, I think the policy is particularly apt. To start with, it challenges us to practice the kind of values the stories taught us growing up by taking action to defend people who need it from those who refuse to understand them. And really, the entire point of Neville Longbottom is that anyone can do something heroic, so I think we should relish the chance to do something good by putting our money where our mouths are. What’s more, since most HP fans already own the books and movies, we can enjoy them without supporting causes we don’t believe in. And while you can’t control what Rowling thinks or tweets, you can and should have a say in what the series stands for.
If you agree with me and Pete Davidson, I’m going to go ahead and suggest the Trevor Project as a great place to donate to the next time you get nostalgic for Hogwarts, whether it’s for a friend you know and care about, or for Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, or any of the characters you know would do the same.