Read on Twitter
Let& #39;s talk about this video from @thelindsayellis which posits, in part, the effectiveness (or at least the correctness) in boycotting the works of an author when that author using the financial gains of their works to do active harm. https://youtu.be/NViZYL-U8s0 ">https://youtu.be/NViZYL-U8...
Annie Lowrey writes in an article for The Atlantic that "paper straws put the lie to the belief that we can consume our way out of the problems created by consumerism." The larger question is, "can singling out any one bad thing (or, in this case, person) make a difference?
The short answer to, "will boycotting JK Rowling& #39;s work make a positive difference for trans and NB people" is, "I don& #39;t know, but it& #39;s worth a shot." The longer answer requires understanding how much power JK Rowling wields and what makes it hard to combat that power.
JK Rowling is rich and her wealth comes from the fact that Harry Potter is rooted so deeply in the identities of an entire generation of people, that she can license out those characters and stories into an infinite number of profitable permutations.
When an artist& #39;s work becomes this profitable, it both creates and secures the continuation of lots of jobs. Companies who license and distribute toys, posters, games, et cetera can both keep their doors open and funnel funds from license sales into passion projects.
JK has so much money that, when she puts out a new book or movie, she can pay so many places to promote the work that she can use that as white noise to drown out her critics.
But here& #39;s the thing - that way of doing things is working less and less well. Long before "JK is a TERF" happened, there was Fantastic Beasts. The first film made about $815 million. The second? $654 million. And, yes, a part of the dip in box office is because of backlash.
You may remember, but, just in case you don& #39;t, Rowling defended her casting of Johnny Depp at a time when accusations against him were not great. And, likewise, Crimes of Grindelwald faced fierce criticism for its portrayal of both Black and Jewish characters.
JK& #39;s team behind Fantastic Beasts spent A LOT of money to ensure promotion would outweigh criticism. It& #39;s not that it didn& #39;t work. I mean... $654 million is still a lot of money. But, the headline here is "Rowling can damage her own brand." But can she damage it enough?
The "I don& #39;t know" part of this highly scientific thesis expands to "I don& #39;t know if anyone with that much money can be permanently toppled because there are too many entities financially invested in making sure that does not happen."
The "but it& #39;s a shot" part comes from the fact that, right now, we are seeing semi-powerful people be unseated because of they use power they have to harm others. Remember how powerful Milo Yiannopoulos seemed just a few years ago? Now he has almost nothing.
Rowling is more powerful than Milo by a hundred thousand fold, but with patience and cooperation, might it be possible to topple the giant empire she built and now uses to oppress trans and nonbinary lives? Yeah, I think it could be. But it& #39;s going to take time and work.
Years ago, @JillPantozzi made a call at The Mary Sue that the site would no longer cover Game of Thrones because of its demeaning portrayal of women. At the time, I remember being told, again and again, by people in our industry that Jill was a fool, that nothing would change.
Now you can argue the impact that decision had on Game of Thrones, but, in my view, that call was about much more than one show -- it was about saying, "Yes, a website can take a stand against what it views as harmful media."
The seed @JillPantozzi planted at TMS sprouted. Recently, she announced that @io9 will no longer cover Rowling& #39;s work. The Mary Sue survived the criticism behind their GoT decision and it paved the way for a time when people would see how right and necessary that decision is.
io9 is only one site, but, something I can tell you for a fact is this - if enough people stand up and say "we won& #39;t visit websites that cover Rowling" then it& #39;s gonna take a lot more money to make it worth it for those sites to lose the site traffic.
As for companies who profit from HP merch? If nobody buys it, well then the licensing fees stop looking like their worth it.
How many boycotters does it take to drop someone with $60 million net worth and a franchise that& #39;s worth significantly more? I don& #39;t know. But it& #39;s worth a shot.
Might someone just like Rowling rise and take her place? Maybe. But they& #39;ll face an uphill battle. If Rowling& #39;s harmful takes on trans and NB lives make her lose money, a lot of other people lose money with her. People will be less inclined in the future to back someone similar.
And you know what else is great about not spending your time or money on JK Rowling& #39;s work? It gives you the time and money to spend on trans and NB creators. And there are a lot of those who are telling stories that, frankly, are ore imaginative than anything from ol& #39; Jo Jo.
Paper straws may not do much to reduce climate change, but they do a non-zero amount. Even if boycotting Rowling accomplishes little more than that at first (or even ever), it& #39;s still worth a shot.
