Harry Potter offers magical boost to UK tourism

I totally get going to places where real things happened but not so much places where imagined things never happened.

I fail to understand why JK Rowling gets the boring "transphobic" party line every time her name is mentioned. It completely ignores that she is a genius who has done so much for not only children's literature, and children's literacy, but also women's rights. Her views are not even controversial. If you actually read what she wrote rather than reading slanted interpretations of what she wrote, she is only using common sense and not anti anything.

Fans of the extremely popular franchise also flock to filming destinations in England, including London and surrounding areas, the Cotswolds and York.

Alnwick Castle on the Northumberland coast is Hogwarts in the first two movies.

https://www.alnwickcastle.com/explore/on-screen/harry-potter

quote: It's only gotten busier and busier and crazier and crazier.

Time to put up a few screens! :)

@BertieWooster. The media loves angry activists. Happiness doesn't generate clicks. And JKR certainly made a lot of people happy.

Whenever politicians prioritise STEM subjects over the humanities I always point out the enormous wedge of revenue generated by the Potter books and films. Particularly as tech companies have been offloading staff for a couple of years now. I find it bizarre and a bit weird that people feel unable to enjoy an author's books as much because they don't agree with their politics.

Note that other fantasy novels are available. Including mine.

Can't talk about Harry Potter, but when I was a kid I was a fan of Enid Blyton. Later on I got hooked to Agatha Christie.

Many years later, when I lived in London for a few months I took a weekend trip to Dorset and remember feeling a sense of nostalgia, even though it was my first time to the place.

Harry Potter fans might feel something similar I suppose.

But in recent years, Pottermania has been overshadowed by Rowling's views, including her belief that biological sex is immutable. She denies being transphobic.

So what if she's trans"phobic"? There are plenty of other good people in the world. It's hardly a unique character defining attribute.

Whenever politicians prioritise STEM subjects over the humanities I always point out the enormous wedge of revenue generated by the Potter books and films. 

Fair point.

I still agree with prioritizing STEM though. I remember an old physics lecturer telling us that many great writers came from the sciences and particularly medicine - Vonnegut, Chekhov, Somerset Maugham, Conan Doyle etc. Not sure a degree in gender studies or economics helps you to be a great writer.

 I find it bizarre and a bit weird that people feel unable to enjoy an author's books as much because they don't agree with their politics

Same here.

I suppose there can be extremes - raving Nazis etc. but Rowling certainly isn’t that.

owzer,

“So what if she's trans"phobic"?”

Quite. But labeling her "transphobic" recognises the existence of "trans" and the jury is still very much out on that one. Rowling isn't -phobic as far as I can see. She is a realist. I just wish the propaganda machines would stop churning out this "trans" nonsense. It's getting a bit silly.

controversial author JK Rowling

How? All she said was "trans women" are not women. Nothing controversial about that. That is why the women is prefixed with trans. She didn't say anything offensive unless you are looking for offense in any comment about trans not stating that they are wonderful and we should all be following their lead.

That's a pretty dull photo of Edinburgh. The link below has more photos with a Harry Potter connection. But I think there are more reasons than Harry Potter to visit Edinburgh.

https://thehappydaystravels.com/harry-potter-in-edinburgh-guide/

Can someone provide an actual quote of JK Rowling’s that shows she’s transphobic? Her actual words.

I suppose there can be extremes - raving Nazis etc. but Rowling certainly isn’t that.

At the beginning yes, but lately (and specially this year) her communications put her completely into the company of extremists and she openly accepts that. Unfortunately she followed the descend of twitter into no man's land and now there is very little of that rational attitude she took at the beginning of the controversy. Now she openly supports really despicable people and takes pride on being on their side.

At this point she even entered Nazi denialism in her open war against LGTB+ in general, and fans are understandably disappointed in how her personality had developed. I mean, when even Musk says she is saying too much that is a sure sign of excess.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/j-k-rowling-trans-twitter-elon-musk-1235019620/

NewgirlintownToday  05:00 pm JST

Can someone provide an actual quote of JK Rowling’s that shows she’s transphobic? Her actual words.

Exactly, Newgirlintown. From what I read from her, she was simply saying that sex is real and cannot be changed. I believe she brought this up because of her own experiences with sexual assault and domestic violence, and wants to ensure that women and girls are still provided single-sex spaces as they make up the majority of victims. She did not deny the existence of gender as a separate thing from sex, and even showed support for trans people in being treated with respect and deserving of equal rights. I fear that the more extremists send her death and r*pe threats, the more they push her away from wanting to show support for trans people at all. It's really a shame.

“So what if she's trans"phobic"?”

Quite. But labeling her "transphobic" recognises the existence of "trans" and the jury is still very much out on that one. Rowling isn't -phobic as far as I can see. She is a realist. I just wish the propaganda machines would stop churning out this "trans" nonsense. It's getting a bit silly.

Oh, "trans" exists as a word, but the meaning just means "pretends to be a" and is sometimes used to mean "YOU MUST RECOGNIZE ME AS A", followed by "man" or "woman".

Oh, "trans" exists as a word, but the meaning just means "pretends to be a" and is sometimes used to mean "YOU MUST RECOGNIZE ME AS A", followed by "man" or "woman".

Are you well versed on this topic?

I’d go more for regurgitating rightwing North American podcasts than you having read half of the books written on this topic.

Just a sense I get.

Considering there are people even the most hateful bigot would misidentify visually (look up what actually is a primary sex characteristic), more compassion is needed for people just trying to be in a good state mentally.

All the discussion about trans isn't about Harry Potter and this tour. I read the books to my little girl and she loved them (so did I). It is a tour that I'd like to take (and to take it with my now grown up daughter.) Harry Potter was so popular that you could call him (and JK Rowling) the new Beatles. Politics, social stances, favorite color. . . nothing to do with Potter. JK Rowling invented the fictional character Harry Potter. That's all I care about her.

All the discussion about trans isn't about Harry Potter and this tour. I read the books to my little girl and she loved them (so did I). It is a tour that I'd like to take (and to take it with my now grown up daughter.) Harry Potter was so popular that you could call him (and JK Rowling) the new Beatles. Politics, social stances, favorite color. . . nothing to do with Potter. JK Rowling invented the fictional character Harry Potter. That's all I care about her.

Like how I'll dance to a Michael Jackson song at a wedding, even knowing he was probably a kiddy fiddler.

Sometimes you need to separate the art from the artist.

“So what if she's trans"phobic"?”

Quite. But labeling her "transphobic" recognises the existence of "trans" and the jury is still very much out on that one. Rowling isn't -phobic as far as I can see. She is a realist. I just wish the propaganda machines would stop churning out this "trans" nonsense. It's getting a bit silly.

Agreed. It's rather silly.

Sometimes you need to separate the art from the artist.

That is much easier when the artist is already dead and not really capable to do something negative with the support you are implicitly or explicitly giving.

People can be reasonably reticent from supporting the work of someone that may use the popularity or even money to oppose things you consider positive and progressive. Someone working hard to bring acceptance to sexual and gender minorities would not think lightly about paying a ticket to something related to Harry Potter while knowing that part of that money could be against that purpose.

This may explain why sites like the amusement park in Tokyo is very strongly focused on being about the Harry Potter movies and not the books (even to the point of being a "Warner Bros" park) and Rowling is mentioned only rarely during the tours. The controversy may not be too important in Japan, but the park have a lot of foreign visitors.

This may explain why sites like the amusement park in Tokyo is very strongly focused on being about the Harry Potter movies and not the books (even to the point of being a "Warner Bros" park) and Rowling is mentioned only rarely during the tours.

Separating the art from the artist.

Separating the art from the artist.

Again, that is much easier when enjoying the art does not mean supporting the oppression of discriminated people by the artist. It should not be difficult to imagine a situation where making this separation requires an absolute lack of empathy. Feigning ignorance of the consequences of enjoying art is not something everybody can (or should) do.

Again, that is much easier when enjoying the art does not mean supporting the oppression of discriminated people by the artist

Sure. But Disney still managed:

This may explain why sites like the amusement park in Tokyo is very strongly focused on being about the Harry Potter movies and not the books (even to the point of being a "Warner Bros" park) and Rowling is mentioned only rarely during the tours.

Sure. But Disney still managed

Which is still not enough for a lot of people that put more importance in supporting (or at least not undermining) segregated populations, and their position is perfectly valid and worth defending. For other people, one or two layers of paint are enough to pretend not to know what they are supporting, and companies happily provide that paint and make a profit from it.

The point is again that saying people should be better at feigning ignorance is not as positive as saying people that are honest with themselves are wrong just because they can't morally justify enjoying art when this will be used to oppress a discriminated segment of the population.

Which is still not enough for a lot of people that put more importance in supporting (or at least not undermining) segregated populations, and their position is perfectly valid and worth defending. For other people, one or two layers of paint are enough to pretend not to know what they are supporting, and companies happily provide that paint and make a profit from it.

Sure, but regardless, Harry Potter is still MASSSIVELY popular. Same as Michael Jackson. It seems a lot of people have found a way to separate the art from the artist. I know I have. I don't agree with much of what Rowling says, but I've still watched the movies with my kids. And I dance to MJ at weddings.

Sure, but regardless, Harry Potter is still MASSSIVELY popular.

Same as a sedentary lifestyle or alcoholic excesses, people should be allowed to do with their lives as they see fit, even if their actions have some negative effect in general since a positive effect is also present from that freedom.

The problem is saying people should do this, or that it is more acceptable the more popular it is. Not being able to separate the art from the artist is a perfectly justifiable thing, and looking at how it is becoming more and more necessary for Harry Potter to be separated from Rowling the more unhinged she becomes in her communications it seems the art is still popular in spite of the author and this may change if the trend continues.