Myth, Death of the Author and JK Rowling

So. The author of your beloved favorite childhood book series, a series that helped define you as a person, has outed herself as an unashamed bigot. Not only is she expressing anti-trans views on Twitter, but she is doubling and tripling down on those views to the point of isolating everyone else associated with the franchise. And you, avid reader of the books, with your original copies still in pride of place on your bookshelf, with Harry Potter merch in your wardrobe and all over your home, don’t know what to do.

It sucks. Most of all, it is awful for trans and non-binary fans of the Harry Potter series, who have faced the biggest and most upsetting betrayal, but I think all of us who grew up with the Harry Potter books, believing JK Rowling to be good and charitable and promoting love and acceptance feel some heartbreak that the person behind this thing we loved is not who we thought and frankly not who they ought to be.

And as far as I know, there is no simple answer to this problem. As far as I’m concerned, trans and non-binary fans can react to this betrayal however they damn well please. They can disavow Harry Potter forever, or they can declare that the Harry Potter books are mystical ancient texts discovered in a cave, their authorship completely unknown, and keep loving them for what they are. No one has any right to tell those who have been personally hurt by JK Rowling’s tweets how to react.

But things are more complicated for the rest of us. Is it moral to still read Harry Potter, if we disagree with JK Rowling’s views? Is it moral to wear merch, or visit the theme park, or casually talk about our Hogwarts houses?

And again, well… as far as I can see, there’s no simple answer. If everyone could just disavow all their feelings for the Harry Potter series and move on, that would be fantastic, but that is pretty much impossible. Harry Potter is deeply woven into our culture, especially Millennial culture, and its characters and themes have a place deep in many people’s hearts.

Since JK Rowling started tweeting her views, a lot of people have been talking about “death of the author,” arguing that JK Rowling’s words do not really matter because the world of Harry Potter stands separate from her. But “death of the author” is an approach to literary criticism, not an idea that is designed to apply to life in general.

Death of the author, based on essay by Roland Barthes in 1967, states that an author’s intentions and biological background should not be taken into account when interpreting the text; the text must stand alone. It’s just one theory of literary criticism among many, although it is a popularly cited one. When I was in college, I was a big fan of the idea. Ten years later, I don’t really agree with it. But whether you like the concept in general, I don’t think it really applies here.

When people cite “death of the author” outside of academia, they generally use it to mean “the author said something stupid about canon and I don’t agree with it.” JK Rowling condoned Cursed Child, but people don’t want to take it as canon, so… death of the author. Ben Solo died at the end of Rise of Skywalker, but it would have been better if he lived, so… death of the author. It is much more rarely used to mean “the author said something bigoted, so let’s ignore them,” but perhaps mentioned, for example, in relation to Lovecraft’s extreme racism alongside the popularity of Cthulhu.

But let’s talk about the Lovecraft example. Anyone who is surprised to hear that Lovecraft was extremely racist, even by the standards of his day, either have not read his works or have not read them carefully, because they are full of racist sentiment. The Call of Cthulhu, in particular, is really blatant in its racism. It is pointless and disingenuous to try and talk about death of the author when talking about the short story Call of Cthuhlu, because Lovecraft’s views are everywhere in the story, even without knowing anything about the author separately.

But of course, the majority of people who know what Cthulhu is, who talk about Lovecraftian horror or play a Lovecraft-inspired game or have a cute Cthulhu plushie on their desk, have not read the original story. (To be honest, in my opinion, they’re better off, as, even bigotry aside, it’s not that good). Yes, Lovecraft invented Lovecraftian horror — it’s right there in the name — but the name and concept of Cthulhu has taken on a life of its own and has permeated popular culture far beyond people who have read Lovecraft or even people who know a single thing about who Lovecraft was. Cthulhu has transcended regular fiction to become a modern myth, a concept that seems to belong to society as a whole rather than one particular author. You do not need Lovecraft any more to have Cthulhu. It is just part of our consciousness in the English-speaking world.

But — and this bears repeating — Cthulhu would still not exist at all without Lovecraft and his incredibly racist short story. We cannot forget that.

Very, very few properties can achieve that “myth” status, and honestly, this is a topic I’ve been considering writing about for a while, albeit more from the Star Wars view. Yet I think Lovecraftian horror is one such myth. Star Wars is another — everyone knows about lightsabers and Darth Vaders. And I think Harry Potter is a third. It transcends the book series, transforming the way we talk to one another, putting its characters and its terms — Muggle, Hogwarts, Gryffindor — into common parlance. Harry Potter is so much bigger than its author. It is thousands upon thousands of fanfictions and pieces of fanart, it is movies and a theme park and childhood memories of countless readers.

But, again, none of this would exist without the author, and, unlike with Lovecraft, the author in this case is still very much involved in every aspect of this fictional world and is still very much alive.

We shouldn’t forget Lovecraft’s racism, but people remain unaware of it, because he’s been dead a long time and he’s not shouting his views all over Twitter. And although his works are tainted by his views, he has had no involvement in many Lovecraft-inspired projects, such as the tabletop RPG or recent video games. If you’re curious to read some Lovecraft for literary history reasons, you can get some of it off Gutenberg for free, with the Call of Cthulhu itself due to become public domain in the next couple of years. I’m not arguing that it’s morally right, but there are definitely ways that people can compartmentalise Lovecraft’s views and allow themselves to enjoy the mythos, if not the man and the original works themselves.

Similarly, George Lucas invented Star Wars, but at this point, Star Wars is also the work of JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson and comic book writers and eager fans and a whole host of Disney executives. The conflict between different creators’ perspectives on Star Wars is partly responsible for many of the problems in the sequel trilogy, with part two having a different writer, director, and general ethos about the story it wanted to tell. So again, if George Lucas said some truly awful things on Twitter tomorrow, it would taint Star Wars somewhat, but it exists so wholly outside him now that I don’t think Star Wars would be tied to his opinions, or that seeing someone wearing a Star Wars shirt would immediately bring his comments to mind after the initial furor had died down.

But there is no Harry Potter without JK Rowling. She is deeply integrated with every part of the series. She controls everything. She made it a point of pride to make sure she was involved with the original movies, and that has not changed since. She writes Fantastic Beasts. She still writes and puts out lore about her world. There are no extended universe books or movies without her stamp of approval on them. There is no board of executives that decides what to do with this world and mythos, the way there is with Star Wars, and the way I assume most Lovecraft-related properties are designed and developed today. She has received help from other writers occasionally, as with the play, but Harry Potter is JK Rowling.

In the end, I think the situation is actually the opposite of the situation with Lovecraft. The original Harry Potter series has many, many flaws, sure, but it is unchanged by JK Rowling’s actions now. The text is exactly as it was when so many people first read and loved it. As we grow up and society progresses, we see more flaws in it than many of us did before, but the books are still the books. But the wider context around the books is changed by JK Rowling’s offensive views. When we bring up Cthulhu in conversation, we’re most likely just evoking the concept of Cthulhu. When we bring up Harry Potter in conversation, we are also evoking the idea of JK Rowling and her views. To many people, Harry Potter is now a threat, a reminder of a very powerful woman threatening their very humanity and the rights they are fighting for.

I know people want to say that Harry Potter belongs to fandom, and if that is how you feel, go for it. Be happy. Enjoy your fanfiction and don’t let one bigoted woman kill your vibe. But I personally think an adjustment in attitude is necessary, even if it is somewhat unlikely.

Refusing to ever watch, read or buy anything Harry Potter again is not going to bother JK Rowling. She is very, very rich, and she will not care. But refusing to endorse Harry Potter will make a difference to everyone who feels threatened by JK Rowling’s very public views. I would never, never want another person to see me wearing a Harry Potter tshirt and to feel instinctively unsafe as a result. I would never want to carelessly remind someone of someone whose views are directly harmful to them.

For years, Harry Potter has been a very public love, at least for Millennials. It has been a part of our identities. But in my view, it needs to become a private thing now. Your relationship with those books is your own. Those thoughts and feelings and experiences all belong to you, and you can make of them whatever you like. But if you want to reread the books, maybe don’t tweet about it. Maybe don’t wear a Harry Potter tshirt while out shopping or declare your Hogwart’s House on your Twitter profile.

Just before JK Rowling really outed herself as a bigot, at the very beginning of this year’s resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement, I saw what I think is the perfect example of managing this. One of my favourite Youtube channels announced they were going to do a Hogwarts Sorting themed livestream. Until very recently, this would have been one of the most unremarkable and benign sources of content for a livestream. But someone, encouraged, I think, by the channel’s clear statements and actions about BLM that very same week, commented on Twitter about JK Rowling’s offensive views and how the channel may make viewers feel unwelcome by supporting her, and the channel swiftly changed their plans and did an Animal Crossing livestream instead. No fuss, just a “you’re right” and a change of programming.

With all the will in the world, we cannot erase Harry Potter, and we cannot entirely separate it from its creator and her views. Maybe one day, she will have a change of opinion and begin to make some amends. And if Harry Potter is still around in 2120, the series, like Cthulhu, will have become separated from its author in a way where people saying “well, death of the author” may actually seem to make sense. When the author is literally dead and gone, it is much easier to compartmentalise their offensive views away from their fictional properties. But for now, I think we need an end to the worship of Harry Potter in popular culture and online discourse. Everyone’s personal feelings and reading experiences are their own, but not all of them need to be discussed online or advertised with wearable merchandise. JK Rowling’s views mean that Harry Potter is now best experienced as a private joy only.

And for those whose memories of Harry Potter are tainted by JK Rowling’s views now, as mine certainly have been, I’d like to say this:

A novel is not one concrete thing that exists in isolation. It is partly constructed by the reader, every time they read it, influenced by their own thoughts and beliefs and life experiences. The author only does half of the work; the reader does the rest. And that resulting reading experience belongs to the reader alone. So your own memories of Harry Potter belong to you, and the book you experienced as a child is as valid an interpretation of the book as any you might make now. Nothing JK Rowling says or does can change the truth of that.