When creators of beloved stories become problematic it can cause problems in fandoms. Folks, it really isn’t that complicated.
Today, the UK Supreme Court came down with a unanimous decision on a case that’s been going on for years regarding the 2010 Equality Act; ruling that the word “woman” refers to someone’s biological sex. Which means trans people are excluded.
The court trying to say the ruling isn’t meant to discount the discrimination trans people face, but “It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010.” Despite this caveat (which won’t help) transphobes the world over are celebrating the “victory” including well-documented, and unrepentant, hater: J.K. Rowling.
Worse, the case was brought to the Supreme Court and long fought by the For Women Scotland group, which is heavily funded by Rowling. So yeah, this is what your Harry Potter dollars are going to support at this point. The news of the ruling has once again spurred discussions among fans about being able to separate the “art from the artist.”
Frankly, it’s an exhausting topic at this point, largely because it’s far more straight forward than the arguments would lead you to believe. To be honest, this is an article I’ve started a number of times over the years (because Rowling can’t seem to help herself, and more recently with the Neil Gaiman allegations, etc). The recent court decision—and Rowling’s specific involvement—has tipped me over the edge for it.
Here’s the truth about separating the art from the artist, it’s impossible when one specific factor is involved:
1) They’re alive.
That’s it. There’s really no caveats to this and I’m not talking about it on some philosophical level about how art is inherently tied to whoever makes it. The reality is, if an artist is alive they will continue to benefit from people supporting/consuming their art.
It’s an idea many people struggle with. I know I’m sounding glib here, but believe when I tell you, I’m not saying these things lightly. It’s not an easy thing to divest yourself from something that had a profound impact on you (at any point in your life). But when a person chimes in with the “we gotta separate art from the artist” excuse…it’s exactly that. An excuse. A justification to continue supporting something even when you know a person is wrong.
The problem, in my opinion, fans are having is an inability to grasp the concept of a key phrase: continual support. Too often, they look at it as a zero sum game, in which they view fandom/enjoyment as a singular thing. You either like it, or you don’t. And thus, feel like they can’t denounce current stuff without retroactively doing it to the stuff they loved previously.
That’s not how these things work; especially when you’re talking about franchises that have existed for decades. These things evolve, as do we. The person you were when you first encountered Batman is not the same person 20 years—and countless iterations—later.
And yet, the first thing defensive thing you hear is, “well, it had a huge impact on me as a kid.” No one is saying your love of a thing, or how it positively impacted you, is a bad thing. In fact, there are a great number of LGBTQ+ people who found solace and acceptance in the story of a boy locked away in a closet coming to understand his true worth. That’s a valid and understandable viewpoint shared by a great many people.
Having a meaningful connection to the “art” before you knew the “artist” was a piece of shit is not a bad thing. What you do after the understanding is a different matter. You don’t have to toss the books you’ve held onto since you were a kid, or trash the blu-ray copies you’ve had for years and watch on the regular. Such actions are largely performative, as those purchasing decisions were made so long ago they have no impact on current stuff.
Here’s a personal exampled. One of my all time favorite films is M. Night Shyamalan’s Signs. Everything from its messaging to execution resonated with me and is among the films that ultimately spurred me to attend college for film instead of something else. My physical copy of it is pretty well worn, and I still enjoy watching it to this day.
Obviously, it’s main star is Mel Gibson. He’s a problem. From his racist/anti-Semitic rants (captured on tape no less), to pleading guilty to assaulting his then-girlfriend while she was holding their infant, and other heinous stuff. He’s a big ‘ol shitbag.
These are things we didn’t know about when Signs first came out, and it was disheartening to see someone so hateful be a crucial part of a film I love. Moreso, the original Mad Max trilogy was a big favorite of mine as a kid (I was a weird kid, yes). From the MOMENT those allegations came out, however, I wasn’t willing to support anything Gibson did.
I can’t go back in time and change the impact his films had on me when I was younger, but I could stop showing him support for anything new coming out. I could make the decision to make sure my money didn’t help line his pockets once I knew the person he was.
That’s really all it boils down to. It’s essentially a form of the old adage, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
Artists who are ALIVE will benefit from you consuming their stuff. That’s just how it works, unless said artist sells off the entirety of their rights and no longer get royalties from new stuff (like Lucas and Star Wars). Continuing to give financial support to one of these disgraced artists is extending a form of tacit approval. You’re telling others that in spite of everything, none of that person’s actions are a deal-breaker for you.
In very simple terms:
Your old copy of Harry Potter sitting on the shelf = cool beans.
Buying an all new version because you think it looks neat = a problem.
Again, I know it’s tough. Trust me, as a person immersed within various nerdy fandoms (even Harry Potter at one point) for decades, I get how hard making these choices can be. But they are choices. If you choose to keep supporting bad people despite their actions, that’s 100% your choice. There’s no excuse that alters the fact you are still supporting them.
This is especially true in the case of J.K. Rowling, who has bragged about how she uses her Harry Potter royalties to specifically support her anti-trans campaign. Her actions are causing tangible, easy to document harm to a minority community. It’s not theoretical stuff. Just look at when she wrongfully attacked Imane Khelif during the Olympics, and the subsequent harassment Imane endured (for which Rowling is still part of a lawsuit).
Bad people can make some incredible stuff, and sometimes get to keep making stuff long after their masks have come off (David O. Russell has a new film in the works!). There’s not a whole lot we can do about that. But it’s on each of us, individually, to decide if that cool stuff is more important than the people who’ve been hurt when said artist still benefits from you buying their stuff.
Maybe the answer for you is yes. If that’s the case, so be it. Accept it. Just don’t make excuses or try to invoke some philosophical debate about art versus artists to rationalize it all.
Before I wrap up here, I want to make it abundantly clear…this is not meant as a slam against the Harry Potter fandom, or any fandom in general. Trust me, the Star Wars fandom has a ridiculous amount of problems to deal with. The Wizarding World is in a more unique place, however, as fans (and former fans) have to contend with this dilemma fairly regularly because of Rowling’s direct/explicit control of the brand.
As people within a fandom, we should be the first to call out things that are wrong…even if it’s coming from the creator themselves. I am far from perfect and this isn’t meant to be a high-horse situation. I’ll fuck things up, be called out on it, and try to learn from the experience. It’s what happens when you’re human, but you have to be willing to reassess things and your own connections to things honestly.
