whenever folks talk about harry potter and separating artist from art they always have this indignant 'OH SO IM A BAD FOR BUYING THESE BOOKS?' but thats not the real issue. the reality is that many will BELIEVE you are bad, and that is VALID. its not your choice what others think of you

March 25, 2026 - 16:57 UTC

42
63
3118
What I think about is when I was a kid and identifying with the "good guy" - wanting to be the hero. I don't have a lightsaber, I can't use a whip but what I can do is not support fascists and/or fascist behaviour.
0
0
1
If you want to be happy, stop giving a shit what other people think.
1
0
1
I think funding genocides is absolutely objectively badz though. YMMV
0
0
4
Easy solve for that is the library.
1
0
0
bsky.app/profile/shiftercat.bsky.social/post/3mhvry3p2rs2h
1
0
8
I don’t know if a particular person is bad or not, all I know is they did a thing that is bad and harmful when they could have just…chosen to not do that thing. Supporting HP is a pretty easy thing NOT to do. It’s not a high bar but a lot of folks aren’t clearing it, and it’s not a good look.
0
0
2
It is not MY problem, what someone might to "believe", sorry.
1
0
0
It is MY problem if you willingly give money to a bigot who is funding a campaign to kill people like me and I WILL treat you as a problem accordingly.
0
0
2
'AM I BAD?' is a grand and cosmic question that is well beyond our scope. fine. here on the ground, the DAY TO DAY effects are that your actions contribute to hurt and suffering in small or large ways, and those who hurt and suffer because of you are allowed to not like you because of it. SORRY BUD.
3
5
1540
This is a question Rowling's fans are completely unequipped to answer accurately because for her Goodness and Badness are teams you can just join, and whatever follows is in service of the team, regardless of the harm.
1
0
16
I disagree
0
0
0
what is alternative? forcing folks to enjoy the art of those who hurt them? THEY DONT LIKE IT. someone saying 'your choices harm me so i dont like your creations and i dont like you' is not offensive, it is the most basic use of human autonomy and it is SO bizarre when folks argue otherwise
3
3
1501
Well, I am in no way excusing the artist's beliefs, philosophy, or just shitty personality.

But some of us CAN separate the art from the artist.

I love Led Zeppelin. But Jimmy Page was a pedophile who kept a young girl while on tour in the 70's. Many groups did.

Do I approve? No. Grow up.
3
0
0
TL;DR:

I don't need to belong to a team, or tribe, nor am I looking for validation by belonging to a "Cause."
1
0
0
If Jimmy Page were using his royalty checks to pay for sexual access to children in the present day, you would in fact be an immoral monster for not caring enough to not fund his pedo habit by buying yet another album remaster.

Grow up.
0
0
2
People keep framing the question around separating art from artist, but the real issue is you can’t separate this artist from *commerce.*

If you continue to buy her product, knowing what she has expressly stated she does with that money, that is a choice. Rarely is it so direct.
5
3
135
That's it exactly. Keep her separate from your cash, because otherwise you are directly funding a hate movement. There are creators of varying shades of horribleness, but I don't know one who is so blatantly saying, "Give me your money so I can use it to harm people and make their lives worse."
0
0
8
bsky.app/profile/saddestrobots.bsky.social/post/3mhvfgc7ehs2m
0
0
1
This. I find it easier to separate the art from the artist if the artist is dead. If I buy a book by HP Lovecraft, I'm not funding an active racist, but if I buy HP stuff, I'm supporting someone who's made transphobia her whole personality and who's spending a lot of money towards that end.
2
1
55
This. People want permission for a clean conscious for *being a consumer* of a harmful thing.
0
0
10
This!
0
0
0
The court of public opinion is never wrong.
1
0
0
its wrong all the time
1
0
16
I like this take. It's true, you stand to be judged based on your behavior.
0
0
0
You know if I were buying those books for a trans child and they said something about the absence of trans characters I would simply explain it as β€œoh well if someone is trans they just magically change gender and then it’s not an issue. Everyone gets to be the gender they feel they should be.”
5
0
0
Or or .... there are countless other books
0
0
24
How would you explain to that child that you are paying for them to be denied healthcare and driven out of public life?
1
0
1
"And that's why I've given money to someone who will use it to take away your right to be yourself."
1
0
7
And as for not giving Rowling any revenue, that’s what libraries are for
3
0
0
An absence of trans characters is absolutely NOT the problem here.

Funding someone who actively uses that money to torture, diminish, and make transgender people's very existence illegal is.
0
0
4
It is one's choice not to care what others think of one.
We always have the freedom to choose our own reactions.
0
0
0
"Separate the art from the artist" was a call to critics to consider the work of other artists in the same way they deem English art as worthy of analysis and criticism. It wasn't meant to be used to separate an artistic work from the artist whom created it. 😏
2
0
12
It does to an extent mean to separate the creator from the creation, in that it asks the critic or audience to prioritize their interpretation over the artist's intent.
0
0
3
It means "The author of a work does not necessarily have the definitive interpretation of their own work", not "It's fine to keep giving money to someone who uses it for evil ends".
0
0
26
β€œLET THEM.”
0
0
0
It's a fact, not a belief. Paying for Potter gives J K Rowling money to directly spend on trans elimination. That is the real issue.
0
0
1
The important thing to remember is that what others think of you determines your authorization to remain in society.
0
0
0
Also, the occasional dumb idea that 'you're not a bad person if you enjoy this, so long as you do [X] mitigating thing' just encourages people to enjoy it without doing the mitigating thing.

The only way to kill a franchise is to starve it of attention and desire. And this franchise needs to die.
0
0
29
In life, everything you do will piss some people off. The important part is pissing off the right people. If you are more concerned with making groups of people stop being pissed off at your thoughts/behavior than you are at changing yourself so they stop being pissed, maybe it's time for a think.
1
0
7
For example, I will never lose a moment's sleep over MAGA tears at things I do. I will do the things HARDER. But if trans buds are hurt by my behavior? I need to look into it. It might be because trans buds are also maga which sounds ridic. but does happen, or I might be wrong. But they don't change
0
0
6
Let me refer you to my TED Talk on this topic
0
0
1
I think if you already own the books and are attached to them it's fine. If you need to buy them, try going to a secondhand bookstore, right?
0
0
2
Also, the real issue isn’t yo have bought the books 20 years ago, but to continue giving money to a franchise that is now actively furling hate.

Are people bad for enjoying it when younger? Not in my opinion.
Are they bad for staying attached to nostalgia today? Absolutely.
0
0
31
they could buy Gunnerkrigg Court instead but nah
0
0
4
It's always odd to me because your voice is in your art. So if you have funky opinions towards others, it will eventually come out in your work.
1
0
17
and JK’s opinions are aaaaall over those books
1
0
25
thank you Chuck
you are so often the voice of reason
0
0
0
Never read or watched or played anything Harry Potter. It always seemed lame to me.
1
0
0
That's entirely beside the point.
1
0
11
bsky.app/profile/patricklovellpresentsthecleannewdeal.com/post/3mhvcap3iz22w
0
0
0
I don’t think I’d ever read Neil Gaiman or JKR again. But I give not one solitary fuck for what anyone else thinks about what’s in my book collection.
1
0
6
I'm not going to treat books already on my shelf like they're coated in poison, but I'm not giving money to either of those creators again.
3
0
28
Yeah, I mean, did I enjoy HP back when I read it when it first came out? Sure. Did I like watching the movies? Of course. Do I have any interest in anything HP now? Absolutely not, and that is only the fault of one person.
0
0
66
That’s the crux of it right there! They’re already free to make whatever choice they want, they just also want their choice to be free from consequence.
0
0
3
See, the thing is, I was one of the adults with a wizard hat on in the theater for the first movie. I cried while I read the books. Yes, as an adult. And just seeing them now I remember how much the house elves creeped me out, and I feel shame for ignoring the red flag. So yeah, I'll judge a little.
0
0
0
Its pretty easy to live your life not caring what others think though
0
0
1
If you want to support Trans folks then do it because you believe in it, not because your worried that others won't like you one way or another. Theres a lot here I dont or do support that pisses off people left and right. I assure you its better than pandering to the masses.
0
0
4
"its not your choice what others think of you" Thank you. Such a simple idea, such an important one, and one far too many people are unwilling to grasp. Other people have brains too, and you cant force those brains to think, or not think, anything!
0
0
5
Also, yes, those people are bad people.
1
0
36
They certianly are not good people.
0
0
10
The thing that always gets me is the bad faith "you can't say people who support her also support her transphobia. You'll lose support."

JK has said the exact same thing and these people still support her work. We wouldn't have these conversations if they believed what they said.
0
0
32
You can separate the art from the artist but you can't separate the artist from the market or the sociopolitical world.

If you already have HP stuff, what you do with that and how you relate to them are on you.

You can still boycott an artist the same as you would any other business you once used.
0
0
10
Don’t be an angry hobbit, Chuck!
0
0
0
Anne Bancroft was an abusive mother & horrible person but an Oscar winner, Woody Allen a known pedophile, Edgar Allen Poe a heroin addict, Henry Ford a racist and George Washington was a slave holder. People are not just their best or their worst acts. We don't throw away the good w/ the bad./1
6
1
0
That is not to say we forgive the unforgivable. But it would be foolish to ignore the lessons they bring us. The catalyst they have been to our awareness forcing society to confront & discuss uncomfortable issues, to educate & inform, and broaden public empathy & understanding even when presented/1
1
0
0
That about Poe is mythology.
1
0
5
Yeah, but it's YOUR choice to profess YOUR opinion of those people and shame them. That's more fucked up and indignant than people who just want to enjoy something. YOU'RE the gatekeeper here. Same shit happened with SW and various gaming franchises. Bunch 'no true scotsman' arguments.
2
0
0
i yhink you might have missed the point, my dude
0
0
0
When them enjoying it actively funds bigotry there's nothing gatekeepery about it.
0
0
36
Thanks, Chuck. This can apply to so many things right now (art and outside of art). A lot of people need to hear this.
0
0
3