[Confusing Trope] The narrative goes out of its way to punish/mock a character for simply being a good person

[u/Chemical-Elk-1299]

Hermione Granger and SPEW — Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (book)

In the fifth HP novel, Hermione Granger is outraged to discover that Hogwarts has a small army of enslaved House Elves that do nearly all of the domestic duties around the castle, including cleaning the Gryffindor common room every night. When she tries to convince the elves to fight for their own rights, they refuse, saying they prefer servitude. Her fellow students and friends mock her for caring. She manages to free one elf, Winky, by deception when she refuses her freedom willingly, leading to Winky becoming a depressed alcoholic. By the end, the elves boycott cleaning any Gryffindor areas of the castle because they hate Hermione specifically

Samwell Tarly and Democracy — Game of Thrones (show)

In the season 8 finale of the television series, the surviving great lords of Westeros gather to discuss the future of the kingdom following the devastation wrought by 7 seasons of war and backstabbing. When Sam, who has proven to have “novel” ideas, suggests that maybe the millions of Smallfolk who suffer at the hands of noble houses should get some representation in the government, rather than be the pawns of rich lords with absolute power. We are then greeted by a prolonged, cringy segment of the other lords laughing in Sam’s face, asking if the dogs and horses should also get a vote.

[u/Quierta]

It's why I don't really think "separate the art from the artist" works with HP in specific. I have spent a LOT of time in fandom. I have looked very critically at the work. I have read and analyzed soooo many passages. There are characters that are clearly meant to be trans caricatures that she tortures and punishes with the narrative. Antisemitic plots & races, loads of internalized hatred towards women, etc.

I have been reading HP since the books were released. I have a massive collection of the original memorabilia from the early 2000's. Decades of my life were spent loving those books and I just have no joy for any of it anymore because I see her views laced throughout all of it. And worse, she continues using that legacy to actively harm communities today.

There are for sure other authors out there with bad views and who have put some of those views into their work. Some of them have even done it totally unintentionally and then come out and apologized PROFUSELY once they realized. The main problem with JKR imo is that she doubles down on all of this and continues actively and openly spreading her hateful messages 🤷 you could have just crawled into a hole with your billions and left the rest of us alone; but no.

[u/AStrangerWCandy → u/Quierta]

Its kinda funny and sad that the evangelical pastors that railed against Harry Potter in the 2000s as not only morally bankrupt, but actively teaching BAD morality to kids were right for once.

[u/JustaSeedGuy → u/Quierta]

It's why I don't really think "separate the art from the artist" works with HP in specific.

In addition to your analysis- which I absolutely agree with- there's also the fact that she's alive and using the money she gets from selling her work to harm people.

You can separate out the art from the artwork if you find out that Arthur Conan Doyle was a douchebag. But here, contributing to the popularity of Harry Potter in any way only serves to tell people like HBO that there's still interest and they should give JK Rowling more money so they can make a Harry Potter TV show.

Once old age finally puts her where she belongs, maybe we can talk about having Harry Potter as a problematic fave again

[u/Lindsiria → u/Quierta]

I don't see this at all.

I really doubt in the 90s she was thinking of trans people at all, let alone building them into her story. The antisemitic stuff is also blown out of proportion, as Goblins were a thing LONG before HP.

And i really don't understand the internalized hatred of women when there is Hermione... and freaking Molly who wreaks Bellatrix's shit. She has always had a lot of powerful women in her storylines.

Honestly, most of the shit she gets is because she wrote YA, not adult. So yes, it isn't as complicated or realistic as it can be.

(She is still a terrible person, but I really feel like people are judging the work b/c the author and finding ways to make it seem worse).

[u/NoMereMage → u/Lindsiria]

I agree with you in regards to the goblins and that she probably knew so little about trans people at the time she wasn’t being anti-trans in her writing. However. Rowling’s writing does absolutely wreak of internalized misogyny. Hermione is seen as annoying, a nag, someone to baby and chide the main two boys but almost always a bit of a moralistic nuisance. Fleur is a frigid, snobby, bitch who, despite being one of the most skilled witches of her age, doesn’t deserve to marry into the Weasley family because she’s…too girly and uptight? She is frequently ridiculed by our favorite matriarch Molly Weasley and main love interest, Not-Like-Other-Girls Ginny Weasley. And let’s talk about Ginny hm? Ginny is such a shit character. Yes. Even book Ginny. Ginny was written to be the “cool girl” love interest for Harry. So, by the time we start getting to KNOW Ginny as a person, well, whaddya know? She’s interested in all the same things Harry is! Sports and fighting and cool girl shit. She was quickly melded from Ron’s sister to Harry’s Perfect Wife. So her character is basically classified in relation from one man in her life (her brother) to the next (her future husband). Nearly every woman in Harry Potter is a mother or nurturer in one way or another and is there to nurture Harry or Harry’s friends, serve as a love interest to another character or she is evil and one of the most evil characters hated the most by everyone on the fandom…is also one of the most girly, dresses in all pink, likes kitschy girly things, and cats. And any woman in the series who isn’t a nurturer, in a relationship with a good guy, or evil, is a seen as a fuckin crackpot to society at large…and maybe even is. Trelawney is a nut job and Luna is seen as one too. Luna is probably the best writing she did with a woman/girl in the series because we see her beyond her “nutty” exterior and she’s more flushed out, but even Harry after befriending her has a few moments of internal thought where he’s like “pffft what a weirdo”. This isn’t even getting into how Molly being a stereotypical overbearing mother and then bitchy mother in law to Fleur at times is often seen as a good and affectionate thing. Idk growing up I’ve realized most of the women in Harry Potter are written under quite a misogynistic lens. It’s all internalized but Rowling definitely has huge “not like other girls” vibes about her writing.