Read on Twitter
Well here& #39;s a shitty take. Making this about Rowling& #39;s creative input (or purported lack) is a disingenuous attempt to displace the problem from her ability to accrue money and power and pretend its about how friendly the brand is.
https://www.inverse.com/gaming/hogwarts-legacy-harry-potter-game-jk-rowling">https://www.inverse.com/gaming/ho... via @inversedotcom
https://www.inverse.com/gaming/hogwarts-legacy-harry-potter-game-jk-rowling">https://www.inverse.com/gaming/ho... via @inversedotcom
The only way WB Games can correct this is to do the impossible -- guarantee that JKR will not be making a cent off of this game. But since that can& #39;t happen, then it& #39;s a given that JKR *will* be making money off this.
JKR is one of the most financially successful authors in the history of ever because she signed a very lucrative profit participation deal in exchange for the Hogwarts license. She profits at a scale that no author in the history of lucrative novel IP ever has.
Because of this, we can& #39;t claim to "separate art from the author" the way we can about other IPs and their creators. You can still rent Ender& #39;s Game a thousand times, and Orson Scott Card will never make as much money as Rowling.
And the Herbert family will probably never profit off of Dune the way JKR does off of Wizarding World merchandise and theme park attractions. And we all know that money will simply embolden her with the means to continue to hurt trans folk.
Even from sales numbers alone, JKR benefits because it tells other powerful people that she has influence, who look at things like fame, success, and association with cultural works that have a grip on the global consciousness and see that as "This is a Person of Importance."
Also, take note that while WB posted a FAQ and issued responses to emphasize Rowling& #39;s lack of creative involvement in this game, they provided zero response or comment to any questions e-mailed to them by the press about Rowling& #39;s royalties and profit participation.
That& #39;s a pretty glaring tactic, as it means WB will do everything in its power to correct the optics of the situation in ways that it thinks matters but not in the ways that *actually* matter relevant to the issue at hand.
