The Tricky Question of Supporting Problematic Creators: An Essay...Ish

LEGO Harry Potter

Introduction

Years 1-4: Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3

Years 5-7: Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3

It’s a topic that’s been going around in my head for a long, and I do mean a LONG time. I never really got to address it in full here, because it’s the sort of topic that I felt would warrant an entire blog post dedicated to it, as just talking about it in the midst of another review wouldn’t suffice. Fair warning, there won’t be much humor to this one. In short, I plan to review something that will be controversial to say the least, so I’m covering my bases here so as to not bog down the articles themselves, which are going to be lengthy.

Part 1: The duality of man

Nobody’s perfect, that’s one of the only certainties in this world. And yet, it’s a harsh reality to live with. From a cynical standpoint, one could accept the statement that “people suck” and expect the worst out of everyone they meet, but that sounds like an utterly depressing way of life. The complete opposite isn’t much better, as thinking of everyone as potentially ‘perfect’ sets one up for disappointment when the people around reveal a darker shade of themselves. I personally favor the old motto “Hope for the best, prepare for the worst”. Even then, I’m not safe from the mindset of hoping people are better than they are.

And it’s always been that way; there’s always been awful people out there. But if you meet them, you can steer clear, and if you’ve never met them, they’re hardly a problem. The situation muddles when we enter the topic of problematic celebrities. Before the advent of the Internet, you would only ever know about what makes a person ‘problematic’ by reading or watching the news. And there were stories. Hundreds of examples of celebrities – musicians, producers, directors, actors – that committed crimes or turned out to be rotten human beings. That aspect of the duality of man is necessary to accept, but that doesn’t make it any less difficult.

It’s particularly difficult to accept if it involves someone that you feel a nostalgic or parasocial connection with. People whose work you’ve enjoyed for a long time, perhaps since childhood. Or, in this day of the Internet and social media, someone you actually got to interact with, to some capacity. Unfortunately, this takes me to the next point…

Part 2: Social media makes everything worse

I once read in a newspaper one of the best pieces of advice: “Never publish to social media what you wouldn’t proudly display on your shirt as you walk down the street”. It helps emphasize that, although we use them in the privacy of our homes and devices, social media are actually public places where your contributions can and will be seen by others. That goes for posts, but also for comments beneath posts made by others. Or Tweets.

Unfortunately, not everyone has heard that piece of advice or adheres to it. The Internet and social media have been like a magnifying glass to the darker facet of humanity. Facebook has often been derided as the place to “discover your aunt's kinda racist”. The less we say about the Hellscape that Twitter frequently is, the better. In fact, I’m a big user of Discord, and even that one has a hidden nasty side due to how easy it is to create servers even to spread reprehensible beliefs/viewpoints.

So what happens when you combine this myopia regarding the public nature of social media, horrible opinions, and celebrities? Well, you get famous people who end up posting their horrible opinions for all to see, who have large fan bases and, therefore, enough reach and influence to sway a lot of people to their viewpoint, however bad it may be. I tend to consider what a celebrity says as just another opinion (unless they’re specifically telling me about something they’ve been shown to excel in, like an economist actually giving advice regarding finances), but not every user of social media has that level of judgment.

Part 3: The JK Rowling situation

In 2020, famous children’s author and creator of the Harry Potter series JK Rowling began tweeting quite openly her views about gender, always referring to women in a way that specifically excludes any male-to-female Trans people. The term used to describe her views is “Trans-exclusionary radical feminist”. Trans women do have their own fights and struggles that differ from cisgendered women’s, but the tenets of feminism should nonetheless apply to them as well. (And while those positions are growing in right-wing circles of the U.S., there’s also a terrifying anti-Trans current in media and papers in the UK that explains why such positions are gaining traction over there at an even quicker rate, peddling the usual hateful arguments against Trans people that won’t be repeated here.)

Coming from Mrs. Rowling, this is a punch. Harry Potter was a formative franchise for many of us, who grew up reading the books and watching the films. It got many kids into reading, and shaped up who they are. Myself included. Having to say goodbye to them is like having to say goodbye to Disney… which isn’t that far off, considering Disney themselves have been drowning in controversy surrounding gay discourse and their momentary support of blatantly anti-gay Florida bills earlier this year. The truth is that a lot of her readers may have discovered their Trans identity long after they became fans of Harry Potter, and many of those fans nowadays are in a crisis where the author of something they love, something deeply rooted in their nostalgia, is speaking out against them.

And unfortunately, the Harry Potter franchise is massive to the point of being inescapable. Everyone knows of the series. It’s got the original seven books, eight movies, additional books providing information about the wizarding world… oh, and Warner Bros. will milk that series as long as they can. There’s the Fantastic Beasts film series, running dry from a constant stream of controversies (with JK’s increasingly toxic social stances only being one of them), to the point where WB only recently pulled the plug on the five-film deal, with the third film released a few months ago in theaters; the fate of the last two films remains uncertain. There’s a lot of video games based on the series as well, with some in production right now. “Hogwarts Legacy”, in particular, tries to go against Rowling’s own beliefs by including a playable Trans option, but to many the harm has already been done.

Rowling’s Twitter account currently has 13.9M followers; as a result, she has a lot of clout and can therefore spread her opinion to many users. That’s not the sole worry, however; a lot of Trans people fear that she is using her wealth, made through the Harry Potter franchise, to lobby those positions in higher spheres. A fear not unfounded, as she wouldn’t be the first author to do so. In a similar vein, Orson Scott Card (whom I’ve mentioned repeatedly because of the role of video games in his novel Ender’s Game) has frequently spoken against homosexuality and same-sex marriage, even supporting bills against the latter’s legalization.

Part 4: Conciliations

How does one conciliate the joy of a work of fiction with the bad actions or beliefs of the people who either created those works of fiction or play a part in them? Should we conciliate, even?

I’ll talk about my own personal experience to bring me to my first point here: This blog wouldn’t exist were it not for a YouTuber who got me into reviewing stuff. This blog began thanks to him. I stopped watching that YouTuber in 2015, when he turned out to be a jerk, which… is bad, but not necessarily a deal-breaker. I learned a few years later just how rotten of a human being he really was, which helped seal the deal. Nowadays, the only times I look back is when I need somebody to make fun of – or if I need some introspection.

This blog – it still exists, in spite of that sour reality. Nine years in. My introspection turned out to be rather simple, now that I think about it: It doesn’t matter how much I despise the person who inspired me, I like what I’m doing and I’m not going to stop. Sure, those memories are somewhat tainted by the knowledge of the person the guy is, and I sure as Hell will never support him financially or otherwise again, but I also cannot deny that he was an inspiration and that, for a few years at least, he was an important part of my life, even if just on a parasocial level.

JK Rowling and Harry Potter are the same thing; in fact, nostalgia-wise, they're a prime example of that dichotomy. You may not like the person behind the work anymore, and you might be struggling to even enjoy said work nowadays, but you cannot deny that, for a certain period of time, you appreciated the person and their work (both or either). Accepting that fact is the first step towards reaching a conclusion about the creator that’s become problematic.

Part 5: The support

But then, should you support them? In my personal example, the answer was a resounding No, and it was a very easy solution to reach; but it’s not going to be that simple for every situation, or for everyone. Especially when it involves a very popular franchise, in which there may be one person as the “main” creator, with a lot of people working on projects related to that franchise.

Once again, the Harry Potter franchise has (or had?) the Fantastic Beasts film series, but it also has the aforementioned Hogwarts Legacy. Avalanche Software had begun working on the game before Rowling went off the rails, and got caught in the crossfire caused by the controversy. By the sound of it, J.K. Rowling isn’t (or is barely) involved with the project, though she will receive royalties from sales. It’s a no-win situation for the studio and its employees, who distanced themselves from the author but who are still making something related to the franchise. So, what do? Should one buy the game to support the people who worked on it, knowing that some of that money will go to Rowling? Should one just not buy the game at all?

I recall a similar situation happening during the #MeToo movement, when John Lasseter, then Chief Creative Officer of both Pixar and Disney Feature Animation, took a sabbatical, then later was basically fired over the controversy. This was shortly before the release of Coco (which is a stunning movie, by the way), and other creative heads of Pixar asked people to go see the film anyway, because so many animators have worked on it.

Anyway, for a lot of these peculiar situations involving highly popular creators, there is no easy answer. There isn’t one single answer, really. Whether you choose to support a project associated with a problematic creator, how you support that project or if you leave it all behind… well…

Part 6: It’s up to you

It’s the most boring answer but it’s the only one that makes sense. Every person has their own experiences and outlook on things, and as a result we all have our own measures. Not all torts are equal, not all victims are equal, not all culprits are equal, Hell, not all circumstances are equal either. That last one about circumstances is especially true when we discuss celebrities and content creators that we become parasocially connected with, through their works or on social media; the longer we’ve been enjoying their content, the harder it may be to cut that link out. But the point about torts is also important: In all seriousness, you likely won’t wish the same thing to someone who's just a jerk and someone else who's commited real, provable crimes.

Every one of us has to come to these conclusions on our own, using our parameters, and that’s for every problematic star. And it’s rarely as easy a choice as “I’ll keep enjoying everything they do” versus “I will ban from my life everything they’ve made or will make and I will never look back”. I’m not necessarily saying you have to spend days thinking about it, either. Sometimes it can be as simple as choosing not to send a single more penny to that artist/creator, but keeping what you already have. Sometimes it can be to purge anything you enjoyed from that creator, but keep only a few pieces of media that you can’t leave behind, due to emotional attachment or nostalgia. Maybe as a reminder of when the artist/creator used to be a decent person, or at least appeared to be one.

Since this particular article focuses on the JK Rowling situation, here’s how I personally deal with the controversy around her: Any money spent on her is already wasted; and it feels awkward to read the books now, but the films are more acceptable – besides, I only really watch them when they air on TV, for free, anyway. I didn’t go see the Fantastic Beasts films in theaters nor do I intend to, I have no plans of seeing The Cursed Child, I’m not getting anything from her aliases (besides, WOW is her 2020 book under her nom de plume Robert Gailbraith insanely transphobic), and… Now, the video games.

I had no intention of buying Hogwarts Legacy, and I stand by that; but I understand that some people would want to support the studio even if that means Rowling gets paid royalties. And, you know, for that hard work, the development team deserves it. Yes, Rowling gets a share, but it feels unfair to deprive so many (what we assume to be decent) people of their paycheck, earned for what's now years of work, because of one shitty person, who may have created the fictional universe they work for but is barely involved in the project outside of being the creative consultant, and who basically gets paid for owning a cash cow franchise.

No Hogwarts Legacy for me, but I do have the two LEGO Harry Potter games in my Steam collection, and I checked; I bought them both in 2019, before Rowling outed herself as a horrible person on social media. And, well, it’s 3 years too late to get a refund, so I might as well play through them and give HP a big last hurrah on this blog and call it done. Yep, that’s my reasoning. This July, my anniversary review will cover both LEGO Harry Potter games, and I'll start these next week.