I haven't read the Potter books since I was a preteen. I maintain that they're actually pretty good despite some obvious flaws. We can admit that Rowling is a heinous person without denigrating her work.
Well-meaning people can disagree and that's fine. But let me be clear on my personal position: Harry Potter, as a series, sucks. It's bad. It's just bad, completely independent of who wrote it. I've hated Harry Potter for as long as the series has existed and it's only been the last 5-8 years or whatever that Rowling's disgusting beliefs have been of public note.
If people don't agree with me that's okay. I just don't want it thought or said that I think her writing is bad because I think she is bad. But I also don't think they're totally mutually exclusive, because I think her being a shit-garbage person informs certain aspects of why she writes the way she does (in a shit-garbage way).
So while I think Rowling is an awful person who has shit opinions and isn't worth listening to at all - I tend not to think she's being racist as much as she's lazy and unimaginative in generating character names
Like Josh said - it can be both. More specifically, it can be that her total lack of creativity and just lack of talent as a writer put her in a position to write to her racism, possibly without choosing to do it maliciously. It's black characters in early Disney films with giant lips. Was every artist and animator deeply -hateful-, or just stupidly bigoted in ways they didn't even fully grasp or care to grasp?
I'm happy to separate art from artist for the most part, so I personally have no issue watching the new show. I really don't think they're rebooting because of J.K. though. Zaslav and WB (and studios in general) have shown that they'll continue to draw as much blood from their existing IP stones as possible. The morality of the original author only factors in so far as "would bringing up that marketing angle get us more eyeballs?"
I'm not committed to this enough to do the research, but I'm fairly sure it was mentioned way back when this was being talked about that a reboot was only being considered specifically because the original cast refused to have anything to do with more HP as long as Rowling was involved and benefiting from it. And Rowling herself refuses to work with anyone that correctly identified her as a transphobic piece of shit. So the only option was to reboot - which was NOT what WB actually wanted to do, originally.
To, I suppose, bolster my opinion here, I do want to clarify: I have argued against the worth of Harry Potter a lot in my years of talking about fiction and writing. I actually used to talk about books and media as often as I talk about toys and politics. Probably much more, in fact. In pursuit of fair and honest debate, I read almost all of the HP series (I noped out after Phoenix and stopped caring because none of my criticisms really changed over five books, so there was no reason to continue, in my estimation).
I will defend until my death the position that Harry Potter is poorly written (even just within the scope of how YA is usually written, so we're not holding HP to the same level as something far more complex intended for a higher reading level), poorly paced, poorly plotted, and its characters are poorly realized, often one-dimensional, and in fact, quite boring. Moreover, I will posit that either Rowling is a raging racist/bigot against basically everyone that isn't a skinny cis white woman/man, or racism is so deeply ingrained in her being that she pulls from it without intent (which makes her an incredibly stupid, unserious, lazy writer - at best).
Goblins are so Jewish-coded that you can decode it with a ring from a cereal box. Big-nosed, short, greedy bankers. With special fun hats!
House Elves are literal, I'd argue intentional, Colonial slavery apologia; "no ma'am, we love being your HOUSE N....I mean.. elves. House Elves, yes. Thankful enslaved persons working around your house. Sure. Totally normal. She also named a black guy 'SHACKLEBOLT.' Shackle. Bolt. You fucking guys READ this book, right?
Werewolves have expressly been explained by Rowling as being about HIV. Like... period. End of story. She said it's a metaphor for AIDS. And one of the most prominent werewolves is obsessed with spreading it to and specifically attacking... children. In other words; It's the '80s/'90s gay panic "they've all got AIDS and they are coming for the children."
Seamus exists. The only prominent Irish character is basically written the exact way you'd write an Irish 'terrorist' from the IRA.
Cho Chang isn't just a mash-up Asian name so obviously just a thrown together 'good enough - you get it, she's from 'the East' - but also conforms to Asian stereotypes of being small and bookish.
Even JK's olive branch to the gay community (you know, the part that also hates trans people, I guess) of Dumbledore being gay only came non-canonically after the character was dead. She wouldn't even actually commit to anything that actually affected the character. That trope is called 'the zombie gay' - I believe.
Rowling is a trash person, with trash beliefs, and her writing not only sucks, but is absolutely full of her trash beliefs. But to be clear, even without all this stuff, the books still actually suck.
deadline.com
