This thread is specifically for people who think JK Rowling is awful so..

So what are you doing about it? What campaigns have you started? How many people have you written to besides JKR about this issue?

Do you mean she stands up to men instead of meekly saying yes dear and holding her tongue , then has the cheek to argue rationally, not back down when threatened with rape, burning or hanging , call out people who make ridiculous statements about sex and gender and use humour and sarcasm to highlight the shallow misinformation that often passes for truth and debate from the trans camp ? Is that what counts as bullying these days?

I have to say if that’s the case for the prosecution it’s a pretty low bar.

I would say that's a very narrow way of thinking. JK Rowling is in the movie industry, and change has to start from within. You will always get naive or money-grabbing parents pushing their kids into the limelight, but huge production companies have a responsibility to set best practice.

I'd say that's on their parents, not JK Rowling, though.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/mar/19/jk-rowling-appears-to-criticise-harry-potter-three-main-actors-amid-ongoing-feud-daniel-radcliffe-emma-watson-rupert-grint-trans-rights

I can only imagine the press outrage if Daniel, Rupert or Emma turned around and said "Yes, I regret signing onto Harry Potter, looking back now as an adult." Do you think it probably isn't worth the headache for them to do so?

Can you provide quotes of her 'pot shots'?

As far as I remember she wrote a very balanced essay outlining her position, and some of the main cast condemned her, but from their responses hadn't even read what she wrote. At this point the child cast were at least 30 and had made millions out of their roles.

I don't know whether it is ever a good idea to become a child actor, but I don't think any of the main cast have expressed regret about taking the roles.

It absolutely is a matter of debate. I am debating it right now. I don't believe financially benefiting from exploitative child labour can ever make one a philanthropist, no matter how many charities she funds in return.

As I said, I know she doesn't control the IP licensing. But she has a vast platform to speak out on this stuff, and she doesn't, she remains focused on a very narrow cause. She also receives royalties for this type of licensing, which she at least in part uses to sit her on private super yacht taking pictures of herself puffing on a cigar. Like I said, it's not really giving "philanthropy" to me.

And yes, the HP actors benefited financially from being in the film, but the point remains that for a large part of the project they were children, who initially had no idea what they were signing up for, and who could not easily walk away given how popular they were in the roles. Daniel Radcliffe went on to battle addiction issues as a direct result of his fame. JK Rowling absolutely financially benefited from them in return, just as she will the new set of actors.

She is a philanthropist though. That's not really a matter of debate. She set up and funds at least three charities and has donated money to countless other worthy causes.

Nobody is perfect but I'd say she's done a hell of a lot more good than bad.

As I said, I know she doesn't control the IP licensing. But she has a vast platform to speak out on this stuff, and she doesn't, she remains focused on a very narrow cause. She also receives royalties for this type of licensing, which she at least in part uses to sit her on private super yacht taking pictures of herself puffing on a cigar. Like I said, it's not really giving "philanthropy" to me.

And yes, the HP actors benefited financially from being in the film, but the point remains that for a large part of the project they were children, who initially had no idea what they were signing up for, and who could not easily walk away given how popular they were in the roles. Daniel Radcliffe went on to battle addiction issues as a direct result of his fame. JK Rowling absolutely financially benefited from them in return, just as she will the new set of actors.

It's not as simple than that if she doesn't actually control the relevant IP.

I know that for the adaptations of the Harry Potter books she made sure the contract gave her a lot of artistic control over the production, but I'm not sure she actually has the power to prevent Warner Bros from licensing the brand for merchandise.

I'm not sure she benefited as much from the child actors as they did from her. They are mediocre actors who didn't really do justice to her work but got rich beyond their wildest dreams and then stabbed her in the back. People like Emma Watson have enjoyed untold wealth and privilege due to that lucky break, so I'm not sure we should be shedding too many tears for them.

They absolutely do use Harry Potter licensing. I know JK Rowling doesn't reach brand deals herself, but she could use her influence to speak out against WB licensing out to these sorts of companies, and she doesn't.

As I said in my original post, I think very short term projects for child actors is fine. But they're literally building a school on set for the new HP show, which seems pretty horrific to me. And JK Rowling must know about the press attention any HP project is going to bring the child actors, but instead of advocating for fairer coverage she's still taking pot shots at the last set of former child actors she benefited from at an extremely young age.

Yes, I do think any IP owner willing to financially benefit from brands who engage in child labour and exploitative factory conditions are equally bad. But not all of these IP owners are being described on here and other places as philanthropists.

It's not as simple than that if she doesn't actually control the relevant IP.

I know that for the adaptations of the Harry Potter books she made sure the contract gave her a lot of artistic control over the production, but I'm not sure she actually has the power to prevent Warner Bros from licensing the brand for merchandise.

I'm not sure she benefited as much from the child actors as they did from her. They are mediocre actors who didn't really do justice to her work but got rich beyond their wildest dreams and then stabbed her in the back. People like Emma Watson have enjoyed untold wealth and privilege due to that lucky break, so I'm not sure we should be shedding too many tears for them.

They absolutely do use Harry Potter licensing. I know JK Rowling doesn't reach brand deals herself, but she could use her influence to speak out against WB licensing out to these sorts of companies, and she doesn't.

As I said in my original post, I think very short term projects for child actors is fine. But they're literally building a school on set for the new HP show, which seems pretty horrific to me. And JK Rowling must know about the press attention any HP project is going to bring the child actors, but instead of advocating for fairer coverage she's still taking pot shots at the last set of former child actors she benefited from at an extremely young age.

Do you think every person who owns the intellectual property in a brand and allows it to be used by businesses like that is equally bad? Because that's a lot of people. Disney would be a far worse offender, or Marvel, for example.

Do you think every person who owns the intellectual property in a brand and allows it to be used by businesses like that is equally bad? Because that's a lot of people. Disney would be a far worse offender, or Marvel, for example.

Yes, TRA arguments can often be unhelpful and reactionary (and I say that as someone much more on the side of trans acceptance than gender criticism.) But this thread was asking for examples of why we think JK Rowling is awful, and this is mine. I think her valid points and acts of charity that her supporters on here are quick to point out are heavily negated by the fact that she is happy to profit off of this sort of stuff.

@SingingintheRadiator this thread has certainly enlightened me that TRAs are very, very busy people all the time. It's amazing that they have a second to spare to post on here.

She's shown herself to be a bully & is vile to people for no reason other than she has discovered their views may not align perfectly with hers.

Not entirely surprised, there were clues before all this.

It's an interesting point, and not one I'd considered before.

I don't buy from places like Primark and Shein so honestly have no idea whether they produce Harry Potter merchandise or not.

As for the films, I don't know. The Harry Potter actors are hardly the first or only kids to achieve global fame at a young age. Would you ban child actors full stop (in which case how do you represent children in live action films?) or just from doing projects like Harry Potter?

You would think that if true, such a ground breaking scientific discovery would have been widely announced, and the scientists involved have become famous!

Yes, TRA arguments can often be unhelpful and reactionary (and I say that as someone much more on the side of trans acceptance than gender criticism.) But this thread was asking for examples of why we think JK Rowling is awful, and this is mine. I think her valid points and acts of charity that her supporters on here are quick to point out are heavily negated by the fact that she is happy to profit off of this sort of stuff.