James Kirkup about Hogwarts Legacy

[Igneococcus]

Very short comment on the success of the game in the Times today.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/91677e0a-6a99-4333-9a61-b574a956cd8c?shareToken=eb7a78058d53904a97156933e39f06a2

The vast majority of consumers buy things based on quality and service, not because of someone’s position on pronouns.

Yeah, I'm not sure it works both ways tho. Look at Bud Light, Target, etc.

That was different.

They were using ‘culture wars’ to sell their product. They were trying to push a cultural issue onto their customers.

The customers wanted the beer. They didn’t want the company pushing a cultural political agenda onto that beer.

The Hogwarts game is ignoring the political issue and just selling the game. As it should.

I don't think he's quite right on the pronouns? As far as I recall, JKR is pretty scrupulous about using preferred pronouns, though maybe I'm guilty of confusing her with her characters

I think he is just using ‘position on pronouns’ as a journalistic device to illustrate the general point that the vast majority of people buy products because they are good, not because of a company’s posturing on a current political or cultural issue.

James Kirkup was a tremendous ally. He wrote fantastically written articles in support of women over this issue.

But the I get impression from that article is that he's saying it's not that important in real life.

that for all its real importance, the sex-gender debate isn’t a first-order issue for most people, even younger ones.

It is for women. Whether they realise or not.

Voters likewise elect parties that run things well, not because they pick fights on cultural issues.

• *People like Kemi Badenoch aren't picking a fight. They're defending women's basic rights.

Knowing James Kirkup's past opinions, I suspect he is trying to say that despite the transactivism involved in the attempt to shut down Hogwarts Legacy, it didn't happen, because no one took any notice of them and it's a good game. He's pro J. K. Rowling.

But it comes across that no one takes any notice of the issue, irrespective of which side you're on, because it's 'picking fights' and not that important.

If you didn't know what his actual stance was, or anything about the issues, you might view him as a lot more neutral than he actually is from that article.

He did stop, rather abruptly, writing about the issue. He was doing it regularly, and then stopped.

I wonder if someone in his family has identified as transgender.

Voters likewise elect parties that run things well, not because they pick fights on cultural issues.

This sentence doesn't sit right with me either. I get the impression there is some sort of "wheesht for Labour" happening at the moment.

He doesn’t seem to have taken into account that there were people who bought the game to support Rowling/push back against the boycott. Lots of “OMG I haven’t read/seen HP since I was like 12 & I only bought this to fuck with [rhymes-with-prannys] but NOW I AM A WIZARD!!!” & mums wresting control of family consoles from their offspring to get to play: there was a LOT of glee on Twix about it all 😁

@Datun - do we not see less of him because he's no longer a Telegraph staffer? I believe he's freelance now so might not have the same platform to be heard. (I do think it's sad - and dangerous - that so few publications maintain decent journalists on the pay roll.)

He's been excellent on this- cool, measured, factual.

Yes, but I think he stopped writing about it before. I could be wrong, but I remember him revisiting it saying something like he'd made a decision not to keep writing about it. But I can't remember the reason.

I fail to see how he has come to the conclusion that the public don’t care about the gender debate. There is no evidence for that at all. If anything the success of the game may suggest people DO care about the debate.

What the success of the game shows is that the public do not support gender ideology

How can such an established journalist show such a basic failure of logic?

I was surprised when reading the article that he hadn't considered the possibility that the vast majority of people are actually in support of JK Rowling and her views and therefore happy to buy the game despite what the 'Trans women are women' crowd would have us believe.

It is therefore interesting to read that James is actually more in support of JKR than his article would suggest.

This article seems very much in line with the apparent recent editorial change in POV at The Times i.e. everything’s fine, Labour made some conciliatory noises to women about their concerns, so let’s not cause a fuss that might make our soon to be new overlords look bad.

Disappointingly bland stuff from Kirkup who has written much better and much more well-informed articles in the past.

I think he’s right.

Most people’s views align with GC views. Even those who think they are TWAW, agree with the GC position when they have more information about what TWAW now means in practice.

But there is a question of how much do people care about it? And I suspect that most people don’t care as much as they care about cost of living, housing costs and a general sense of having competent capable government and pm.

I suspect the issue for NS and KS was less that people understood or cared about the women’s rights issues of GI, but more that it made KS look an idiot ( and weak and therefore not a capable potential leader) when he could not say what a woman is, and the more the question was asked, the more voters wondered why this was his focus and not the things that mattered to them. Same with NS, not being able to say the reason why Adam Bryson was moved from the women’s prison was because he was a man, made her look idiotic. It destroyed her plain talking, down to earth image, and made her look like just slippery, dishonest politician.

Maybe I am cynical and jaded, but that’s how I see it.

I just saw a post on Twitter querying whether Keir Starmer has a trans identified child - if he does that could explain his difficulties in discussing the issues.

He referred in a recent interview to having "two boys", whereas previous articles mention a boy and a girl.
https://twitter.com/FamEdTrust/status/1744330831236051059

Watching that interview, I suspect (and hope) he just misspoke.

But whether people care or not, the sales of legacy do not prove it. The sales disprove that people support vilification of JKR.

It is either poor journalism, or it is trying to minimise support for those against gender ideology in order to fulfil some agenda.

Whatever we think of the article the key thing is this.

Hogwarts Legacy had made 1.3 billion dollars by May with some major platforms yet to get the game. It probably around the 2 billion mark now. That is more than any of the individual films.

The huge anti HL publicity drive helped generate word of mouth before it came out and got HL all over the media at the start. It made it trend on the internet for ages and most people's reaction when they heard about the game was they wanted to play. Without this publicity it might have done worse in terms of sales yes some bought it just to prove a point, but it actually is a fun game.

Rowling's royalties are going to be around 10- 15% on each game possibly on the higher end because she was very shrewd in making good deals on marketing, spinoffs and merchandise.

So JKR has made around 200 - 250 million dollars from the game which had no input in directly creating, though obviously it is set in her universe. Millions of that money comes from the fact people hate her for knowing women exist and their attempt to attack her just reminded people how much they love her universe. She will use that money to do all sorts of great things for women and humanity.

Also it has demonstrated to Warner Brothers there are billions to be made simply by remaking the films as a TV series and creating more games. Which means more cash for JKR.

It rather looks as if he dashed off a very quick article without giving it his usual level of careful thought. I think he is partially right, just hasn't given the whole picture.

‘ the sex-gender debate isn’t a first-order issue for most people, even younger ones.’

I think Kirkup could substitute ‘men’ for ‘people’, and he would be nearer the mark. The ‘I am who I say I am’ controversy is just so much more relevant to women. Most men are unaware of TM , and if they are, they are not threatened physically by the intrusion of a trans- identified person into their space. I can’t think many men would feel daunted by meeting Elliott Page , for example, in a male space, whereas we know that many women feel decidedly uncomfortable by the presence of a six foot plus trans woman in a previously female only space. However mistaken and irrational such unease may be, it is still understandable.

And of course there are virtually no positions or shortlists designated for ‘men’ ( or perhaps they are just the default ?). There isn’t as far as I know a UN representative for men, unlike the post for women recently offered to Munroe. It wouldn’t make any difference to a male boxer if a girl went in for his contest ( though the rules would prevent a heavy weight competing in the fly weight division).

So the average man is just unaffected at the personal level, hence it is not such a ‘first order issue’ for them. Of course , it makes GL and Menno even more remarkable.

Those numbers are immense. JKR is shrewd indeed, but none were more shrewd than Beatrix Potter who invented the concept of licensing a fictional character (first licensed character being Peter Rabbit) to rake in money from spinoffs/merchandise. She was Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Richard Branson long before any of then were born.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrix_Potter#Legacy

Good article on this:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/how-beatrix-potter-invented-character-merchandising-180961979/

I didn’t make any formal decision to stop writing - I just concluded that the benefits of my writing were diminishing as the issue received increasing levels of political and media attention.

One of my concerns was that political and policymaking processes were ignoring real and important concerns about the impact of policy and practice on women’s rights and standing. I don’t think those concerns are being ignored now that politicians including prime ministers are routinely addressing this issue.

That’s not to say that I think this is all settled now, or that I’m happy with the way that the issue is being discussed. It just means I see less need for my own contributions to this conversation. Put another way: I don’t think I have many useful things to say on the topic these days, so I write much less often.

Another factor is that I’m not a full-time journalist - I haven’t been employed as a journalist since 2017 - so this has always been something I do in my “spare” time alongside my full-time job, meaning my scope for writing is sometimes quite limited. My overall journalistic output has been reducing gradually for a couple of years as other things take priority.

As for my point in that article about the salience of the sex/gender issue to the wider electorate, I stand by it. There is abundant evidence using multiple opinion research methods that the majority of voters (female and male) do not rank this among their most important policy issues. I’m aware that there are many commenters here who say it will indeed decide their voting behaviour but the overwhelming weight of opinion research evidence suggests that this is a minority position.

Making that observation about public opinion doesn’t mean that I personally consider the sex-gender issue to lack importance. I hope that my history of writing demonstrates how seriously I take this subject.

By the same token, I hope that the fact that I’ve broken a years-long MN silence to write her will serve as sign of how much I admire and respect this forum and its users, @Datun especially.

best wishes,

JK

I don't rate it in my list of top five issues to be bothered about to be honest. Maybe not even my top ten.... personally more worried about cost of living, health, climate change, etc, etc.
A lot of people won't worry unless/until the issues affect them personally.

(For completeness, I may be biased... I bought and play the game regularly. It is a lot of fun.)

Hi James, thanks for the explanation about the backstory. And the compliment (screen shotted for posterity, obvs).

I know polls don't show this issue as a high-ranking as we'd like, so thanks also for the clarity over your opinion of that 😊

What I, and I think a lot of women, are hoping is that, as the electioneering heats up, questions will get asked, which will raise the entire profile of the issue.

It's a gift for any journalists and interviewers who enjoy making politicians squirm.

And, as absolutely everyone knows by now, that particular sunlight can be spectacularly illuminating.

I genuinely think we might all need to buy some new shades.

😎

@JamesKirkup Thanks for coming on the thread to explain - and huge thanks for all you've done to raise the issue.

I agree about how little this concerns "ordinary people". I'd say I move in circles more switched on than most, but the gender ideology debate is still under the radar. Those that are vaguely aware of it think of lovely, harmless Hayley in Corrie .

I don't think the GC movement has done much to promote sales of the game. People just love Harry Potter and aren't that bothered about JKR's beliefs - I guess that highlights what a small vocal minority her critics are.

The Isla Bryson case did wake a lot of people up, and the argument about the fairness of men competing in women's sport seems to be gaining momentum. We still have a long way to go.