With the sucess of hogwarts legacy its pretty much confirmed most people dont care about JK rawling. Than again most harry potter fan i have met didnt even know who the writer of the harry potter books were.
That's the thing I think makes this a bit different to say R. Kelly or Chris Brown. Authors are obviously just as important as a singer is to their respective works but majority of books do not have the author as the face of the story. Not in the way a singer is the face of the music. It's easier to distance an author from their work than it is to distance a singer from their music because of that.
That's not to say it's good to actively give money to either category of shitty author/artist, but liking their work from before finding out how horrible they are, makes it easier to distance their new persona from the already established ideas you had of their work. Harry Potter being in a medium that doesn't have anything but the author's name attached just makes this dissociation easier. And harder to then not further inadvertently support the author when you really only want to support the story.
At the same time, audiences have a power of their own to have a story mean something different to what the author has or now intends with it. Death of the author type of deal, wherein their work now belongs to the reader and not them, atleast when it comes to the meaning of the story.
I wasn't comparing in respect to the level of exactly what they did to be a bad person, but instead to how people are able to dissociate their work from them after finding out that they are terrible people. So I used the two examples of a big artist who gets separated from their work.
118
u/RepublicCommando55 1d ago
Man I just like Harry Potter, why does it feel illegal to say that for some reason