A New York Times campaign has sparked divided reactions by imagining Harry Potter without its creator, J.K. Rowling. The Harry Potter franchise was born in 1997, when the first of seven fantasy novels by Rowling was published. The books would be adapted into an 8-movie film series, which would star Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Stone, and Rupert Grint in the three leading roles. The sprawling, multimedia Harry Potter franchise continues to live on and grow today in the form of video games, merchandise, theme parks, and the spin-off film series, Fantastic Beasts.
However, as the Harry Potter franchise continues to grow, Rowling's continued involvement has been a point of contention. This is because Rowling has consistently and publicly expressed views that have been perceived as transphobic, due to her insinuation that trans women are not women. While she still remains involved in the Harry Potter franchise, including the upcoming film, Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore, there have been attempts to diminish her prominence in the franchise. For example, the Harry Potter quidditch league sought a name change to shift away from Rowling, and her film credit was exceedingly small in the Fantastic Beasts 3 trailer. However, there is a new campaign that is much more forthright in its removal of Rowling.
As reported by Giant Freakin Robot, a New York Times campaign has caught the attention of Harry Potter fans by imagining the franchise without its creator. The advertisement was shared widely on Twitter by users who had spotted it on subway trains as an electronic billboard. The ad campaign was done in promotion of independent journalism. One image of the advertisement depicted a woman, Lianna, who was "Imagining Harry Potter Without Its Creator." Check out the advertisement below (via T. Greer):
Click Here to View the Original Post
While the advertisement has sparked some debate among Harry Potter fans, the New York Times has not offered any additional information or comments regarding the advertisement. The reactions to the advertisement have been quite mixed on Twitter. On the one hand, Rowling supporters have been quite vocal about their discontent and have threatened to cancel their New York Times subscriptions. On the other hand, some point out that Rowling's reputation will never be same since she has chosen to make her controversial views public. Of course, the advertisement is simply supporting fans of Harry Potter who prefer to remove the creator from the franchise. The campaign has no real influence on Rowling's continued involvement in Harry Potter and the Fantastic Beasts series. It merely illustrates the controversy surrounding Rowling and how fans of Harry Potter struggle to separate their enjoyment of the franchise from its creator's opinions.
The New York Times campaign alone isn't enough to remove Rowling from Harry Potter, but the idea is not lost on viewers. The controversy surrounding Rowling has caused contention among fans, many of whom deeply enjoy the Harry Potter franchise, but staunchly disagree with Rowling's views. Sometimes there is fear that supporting Harry Potter equates to supporting Rowling, thus, making the franchise more enjoyable if one enjoys it without its creator. At the same time, Rowling's credit as the creator of Harry Potter can't be ignored, because without its creator, there would be no Harry Potter. The NY Times campaign that imagines Harry Potter without controversial author, Rowling, simply seeks to illustrate the difficulty in finding a balance between crediting a creator with their work while not showing support for their controversial views.
Source: Giant Freakin Robot, T. Greer