These properties rely on popular / universal awareness to achieve network effects and cement themselves within modern culture. When this happens, the memes and concepts from the property worm their way into everyday language (“he who cannot be named”, “10 points for Gryffindor”, etc) and help keep everyone else buying.
The only answer is to treat people talking about Harry Potter as you would someone who keeps talking about the greatness of R Kelly’s music or Bill Cosby’s comedy.
Thank you! It’s been super disheartening to see people get excited about Harry Potter all over again, just as it was to see friends buy the video game a few years back. Many people who want to ostensibly call themselves allies are more than happy to engage in Nostalgia over Solidarity.
I read the Harry Potter books as a child. I enjoyed them a normal amount. I think I dressed up as HP for Halloween one year. But then I grew older and I “graduated” to other fantasy, as I would generally expect someone to do.
Now when I think about Harry Potter, I always think of Ursula K Le Guin’s comments:
Q: Nicholas Lezard has written ‘Rowling can type, but Le Guin can write.’ What do you make of this comment in the light of the phenomenal success of the Potter books? I’d like to hear your opinion of JK Rowling’s writing style
UKL: I have no great opinion of it. When so many adult critics were carrying on about the “incredible originality” of the first Harry Potter book, I read it to find out what the fuss was about, and remained somewhat puzzled; it seemed a lively kid’s fantasy crossed with a “school novel”, good fare for its age group, but stylistically ordinary, imaginatively derivative, and ethically rather mean-spirited.
I’ve been reading across her catalogue, interspersed with books from Isaac Asimov. I like both but the style is so different and Le Guin is just amazing at the cultural world building parts. Her books on the Ekumen and all the challenges at contacting a different culture, aside from language, are a fantastic read.
I actually got bored at the later Foundation books from Asimov where the main characters are so above everyone else in their abilities, its almost like a teenager wrote it. The first ones are really great though, up to the Gaia revelation.
What makes you think they’re not holding the author accountable?
And the fans should be held accountable. Without the money and the cultural clout you give her, she would be nothing. She would be unable to act upon her genocidal fantasies against trans people. You enable her not only with every cent you spend on her franchise, but with every comment like this you post
That’s really not what they’re saying at all; I get the feeling that you may be taking this too personaly. It’s a reasonable argument that engaging with the cultural phenomenon, even if not financially supporting it directly, still signals support or at least tolerance of the controversies so closely associated with it these days. You may disagree of course but I think calling it “a demonization of everyone who ever enjoyed the series as a child” is a gross misrepresentation of their position. It is, at most, a condemnation of those who would continue engaging with it since then. (And, ironically, likening them to Dolores Umbridge is engaging in the very type of cultural normalization that they were arguing against. Although if you disagree with them I don’t suppose you’d feel that matters anyway.) Anyhow, that’s enough arguing on someone else’s behalf for me today. I just can’t stand seeing arguments misrepresented like that.
Remember: Even piracy doesn’t offer absolution.
These properties rely on popular / universal awareness to achieve network effects and cement themselves within modern culture. When this happens, the memes and concepts from the property worm their way into everyday language (“he who cannot be named”, “10 points for Gryffindor”, etc) and help keep everyone else buying.
The only answer is to treat people talking about Harry Potter as you would someone who keeps talking about the greatness of R Kelly’s music or Bill Cosby’s comedy.
Thank you! It’s been super disheartening to see people get excited about Harry Potter all over again, just as it was to see friends buy the video game a few years back. Many people who want to ostensibly call themselves allies are more than happy to engage in Nostalgia over Solidarity.
I read the Harry Potter books as a child. I enjoyed them a normal amount. I think I dressed up as HP for Halloween one year. But then I grew older and I “graduated” to other fantasy, as I would generally expect someone to do.
Now when I think about Harry Potter, I always think of Ursula K Le Guin’s comments:
Ursula K Le Guin is a great author! And as far as I understand, a pretty good person, too.
I’ve been reading across her catalogue, interspersed with books from Isaac Asimov. I like both but the style is so different and Le Guin is just amazing at the cultural world building parts. Her books on the Ekumen and all the challenges at contacting a different culture, aside from language, are a fantastic read.
I actually got bored at the later Foundation books from Asimov where the main characters are so above everyone else in their abilities, its almost like a teenager wrote it. The first ones are really great though, up to the Gaia revelation.
She was a philosopher who specialized in Daoism, and I like how she incorporated that into her worldbuilding
It feels like that’s not really a big ask…
Yeah but this is 2026. People don’t read books anymore. So all they have is nostalgia for the one series they read as a kid.
Removed by mod
What makes you think they’re not holding the author accountable?
And the fans should be held accountable. Without the money and the cultural clout you give her, she would be nothing. She would be unable to act upon her genocidal fantasies against trans people. You enable her not only with every cent you spend on her franchise, but with every comment like this you post
That’s really not what they’re saying at all; I get the feeling that you may be taking this too personaly. It’s a reasonable argument that engaging with the cultural phenomenon, even if not financially supporting it directly, still signals support or at least tolerance of the controversies so closely associated with it these days. You may disagree of course but I think calling it “a demonization of everyone who ever enjoyed the series as a child” is a gross misrepresentation of their position. It is, at most, a condemnation of those who would continue engaging with it since then. (And, ironically, likening them to Dolores Umbridge is engaging in the very type of cultural normalization that they were arguing against. Although if you disagree with them I don’t suppose you’d feel that matters anyway.) Anyhow, that’s enough arguing on someone else’s behalf for me today. I just can’t stand seeing arguments misrepresented like that.
lol