Main Edition
US
FR
January 16, 2024 - 7:00am
It can be satisfying as a writer to take aim at a public figure, to fire a shot at someone more successful and better-known. This is especially true if you believe the subject deserves it: the feeling that one is fighting the good fight by bashing a keyboard is exhilarating. But when the target is held dear to millions of people across the world, as the author J.K. Rowling is, it’s only prudent to make sure the criticism is fair.
Today, The New Statesman published a needlessly vindictive article by Nick Hilton originally titled “JK Rowling, Britain’s nastiest novelist”. A few hours later, after much outcry, the magazine quietly changed the headline to “JK Rowling, Britain’s gloriously nasty novelist”.
The feature-length piece complained that the author’s Cormoran Strike crime series, written using the pen name Robert Galbraith, “portrays a Britain populated by paedophiles, domestic abusers, rapists and terrorists”. There was little appreciation for the fact that any realistic crime novel will by definition include bad people doing bad things. As journalist Hadley Freeman astutely observed, “the main complaint in this piece seems to be that Rowling does not write nice ladylike novels about nice ladylike things”.
With a leap of imagination so fantastical it could be borrowed from Harry Potter fan fiction, Hilton concluded that Rowling’s crime writing revealed her “true heart of darkness”. “In another world,” he wrote, “J.K. Rowling could be a character in a book by Robert Galbraith: brittle, insecure, cruel.”
When considering Rowling’s cruelty, a balanced piece might have mentioned her philanthropy, which is so extensive she fell off the Forbes rich list. The author has founded a number of charities, notably Lumos, to reform care for children around the world and to help alleviate social deprivation. And thanks to Rowling’s generosity, rape victims in Scotland are now guaranteed a women-only service at Beira’s Place. It’s hard to think of many other writers who take charity so seriously.
A generous reading of Hilton’s article might argue that he thought he was providing a useful literary critique, resurrecting the author killed by Roland Barthes. A more realistic one is that he was hoping to elevate himself by throwing stones at a literary giantess. Whatever his motivation, though, such was the negative reaction that Hilton appears to have deactivated his profile on X.
What angered many was Hilton’s apparent inability to separate his disdain for the artist and her views from the work she produces. For him, and seemingly for many others, it’s personal. An organiser of the 2017 “Potter, Past and Present” conference, Hilton is a former superfan who now feels let down by his erstwhile heroine. Indeed, he wrote in his article that “a generation of Potter enthusiasts have been increasingly disillusioned by Rowling’s evolution from saint-like Labour Party-supporting children’s author to polemical political activist”.
Hilton is far from the only “Potterhead” to denounce Rowling over her wholly unremarkable view that women’s rights cannot be defended without a meaningful definition of “woman”. In 2022, no less than the International Quidditch Association cited Rowling’s “anti-trans positions” as a reason for changing the sport’s name to “quadball”. And last year, former fans decided to film themselves burning Harry Potter books on social media.
Hilton’s hit piece, by comparison, may seem relatively tame. But it suffers the same indignity: of being a “brittle, insecure, cruel” act by a character so immersed in fiction that they’re offended by facts — and who ought not to be taken too seriously.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe question this raises is fairly fundamental:
–why is Nick Hilton writing for what used to be an esteemed journal, whatever one’s politics?
The sheer intellectual bankruptcy of first of all publishing this ‘writer’ and then being craven enough to change the heading of the piece under pressure from social media is entirely symptomatic of the rot that’s eating away at our social fabric.
If they had the guts, the entire editorial team at NS should resign out of shame.
And to think we even given journalists Knighthoods these days!
It used to be said that “journalists come down from the hills after the battle is over and BAYONET the wounded”.
They obviously still do!
Immediately SIN BINNED AT 19.20 GMT.
Oh I don’t know. I would be perfectly happy to see Douglas Murray getting knighted.
Yes, good point.
I was a journalist all my career, but I hadn’t heard that quote before now–it’s brilliant.
If they had any shame they wouldn’t be working for the New Statesman in the first place.
“We’ll do anything for money!” That includes catering to every prejudice.
It would be nice to pretend this is something new and has something to do with social media, but I’m not entirely confident that’s true.
Nick Hilton is The Independent’s chief TV critic. What else do you need to know? What’s baffling is not that he wrote the article, or that the New Statesman published it – infantile hit pieces have long been its stock-in-trade (remember the Eaton vomit on Roger Scruton) – but why anyone pays attention.
Does anyone take this hit-piece journalism seriously? I suppose it’s gobbled up by Rowling haters, but it’s a big eye roll for everyone else.
Have you read the piece? There is some moral criticism of Rowling, suggesting she resembles some of her characters, but it can’t really be described as simply a hit piece.
Take the “journalism” seriously? No but the industry mechanism that features such nonsense warrants consideration.
The New Stateman piece should be categorized as creative writing. How on earth does page 1 of Harry Potter book-1 provide evidence of “Rowling’s career as a purveyor of vicious social derision”?
Utter lunacy. Can a financial figure be put on the brand image destruction of the New Statesman? Its is almost an example of corporate self harm in action .
Social Justice Progressives are too smug to process why so many people are rejecting their Narratives. Since they’re absolutely positive they’re on the right side of History, anybody standing in their way must be a bad person. So they ceaselessly smear these people and label them as “intolerant.”
They obviously think the solution to dissent is to ostracize and otherize every Heterodox thinker that they can’t silence into a deplorable category so the opinions are disregarded.
I suspect Nick Hilton resides in the alternate reality where this is not charity, but genocide.
Unfortunately I cannot see the SNP allowing the guarantee for much longer.
All they need to do to dispel Rowling’s heart of darkness is cast Lumos.
Now the blurb on the article on their Facebook page remains, but has no actual link to the article.
Perhaps the lawyers have been in touch.
She is an original who has proven a great enemy of left-liberalism.
Take another children’s/YAF writer like Phillip Pullman whom, in contrast, is a very ordinary storyteller and rather tedious stylist full of the trappings of New Atheism ticking all the boxes of the Left today.
JK is utterly iconic, one of the few liberal centrists left in a cultural landscape that only wants to pay homage to modern Maoism.
Never particularly cared one way or the other about Rowling. Tried reading one of the HP books (long before the movies) and just couldn’t get along with it, gave up after a few chapters. Probably I was too old, was in my 20s at the time so a story about a schoolboy wizard wasn’t for me.
However… Watching her change from “hero of the Left” to “yahtzee” without actually changing (as far as I’ve seen), is fascinating. As far as I can tell, she herself hasn’t altered. The world has altered around her, and the people who used to worship her for creating “the most influential fictional universe of all time” (as I’ve seen it described, I can think of a half dozen other contenders off the top of my head) now disassociate their fandom from its creator, in the same way as a Star Wars fan who will not accept Disney (ofc Disney didn’t create SW, etc, but the “not my HP/SW” outcome is very similar).
Although I don’t agree with a good deal of what Rowling stands for, I have to admire her consistency where most of her contemporaries change with the wind.
I was in my forties – and I loved the books. It is not age that does it.
[Georges Brassens]
Five upticks for the reference to the Sage of Sète. Can’t get the app to accept even one for some reason.
She writes very well…. I’m reading the latest Cormoran Strike novel at the moment. I do have a criticism, but a minor one.
Some of them appear to have taken this a springboard for creating their own. Which they are of course entirely free to do. But now they want the rest of us to accept that it’s real. That’s where the trouble starts.
You don’t agree with the protection of women from predatory men? Not a good look.
While Rowling and HP may have not changed, Disney has 100% destroyed the Star Wars universe and whilst it might not be obvious to a casual watcher of the films, fans of the expanded universe know otherwise. It’s a very different thing and not comparable to Rowling situation.
Maybe someone who writes for a living could answer a question I’ve often pondered:
When a writer like Nick Hilton pens such an obviously bad faith, groundless and poorly researched attempted hatchet job as his New Stateman article, does he or she:
1) Simply not know that they are writing embarrassing garbage
2) Know that they are writing garbage but don’t care because the perceived political ends justify the means
3) Know that they are writing garbage but do it anyway because they need the money/exposure. Then spend the rest of the week curled up in a ball in a dark room unable to bear the shame of how they have demeaned themselves
More power tripping than anything else probably. I expect if you’re a good hitman/woman you get better opportunities. It’s like that Soviet-era wisdom, it’s not about agreeing with a particular idea that the Party supports, it’s about agreeing with what the Party supports.
This is a very valid point and explains why and how the progressives, who first supported women, have now turned against them. Their chosen political party keeps moving the goalposts, and they are willing to go along with whatever cause they choose, even if it contradicts a previous cause.
Impossible to know for sure, of course, but I suspect 2) is the conscious at work, and 3) the unconscious.
It is very easy for faith in an ideology – any ideology – to eclipse the writer’s sense of responsibility for developing a coherent argument based on reason, logic and / or evidence. Hence the expression ‘blind faith’, I suppose.
On JK Rowling herself:
I’m not personally a massive fan of Harry Potter. The books are perfectly pitched to their target audience, though a little derivative, and a couple of the films are really good, especially the Prisoner of Azkaban.
The Strike books are good but not great, I would say. Captain of the B-team of crime writers, perhaps, rather than an A team regular like Val McDermid or James Ellroy.
But I greatly admire her achievements, the way she comports herself in public and uses her success in practical ways to support the causes she believes in. She could never be accused of empty virtue signalling like so many other celebrities these days.
Let’s be honest, though. None of the criticism she gets from people like Nick Hilton is remotely to do with the merit of her work. Its all about her refusal to bow down before the new God of Trans-rights-activism.
And what they hate more than anything is that she has met their hysterical bullying with calm conviction that she is right and gone from strength to strength commercially despite their frantic attempts at “cancellation”.
More power to her, I say.
A trifle de haut en bas?
Very kind of you, but I’ve already had dessert.
Nicely done, BUT:
Shame on you! You weren’t supposed to understand what UR wrote, much less offer a clever riposte! Only the cognoscenti who follow the Great and Near Great are supposed to understand his/her/their (don’t have time to look it up) rapier-like wit (see how I inserted my own tired trope?).
I’m surprised this witling’s parents let him/her/them out unsupervised.
Points for knowing what a witling is without looking it up.
P.S.: I do so hope I spelled cognoscenti right. I didn’t have time to look that up either.
Superb riposte.
‘Hilton is a former superfan who now feels let down by his erstwhile heroine.’
There’s no spleen happier to be vent than that of a convert.
>An organiser of the 2017 “Potter, Past and Present” conference, Hilton is a former superfan who now feels let down by his erstwhile heroine. Indeed, he wrote in his article that “a generation of Potter enthusiasts have been increasingly disillusioned by Rowling’s evolution
Have any of these people thought about getting over it? You know, accepting that Harry Potter was written for children, and that they are no longer children? And that Rowling’s personal beliefs are entirely irrelevant to the stories she crafted? It’s not that hard – just act like actual adults and deal with it.
Sounds easy, even obvious; but unfortunately you are not speaking of people who are, emotionally, adults.
Who is Nick Hilton?
My thoughts too and I will definitely not be renewing my subscription to The New Statesman.
You actually have a subscription to the Staggers??!? In God’s name, why??!?
I cancelled mine this morning it was due to be renewed next month. Bit of a last straw.
[A] Nobody in particular.
The New Statesman is so obviously working backwards from the fact that they do not like JKR’s views on the trans issue. Other novelists, such as Denise Mina and Irving Welsh, set their plots in worlds that are far darker than JKR’s settings. But Mina, Welsh and their ilk know to keep shtum, to take orders from sensitivity readers and to make the right pro-trans lobby noises.
When I read a book that I like, I never put the author on a pedestal. Same with music, or any art form. I always assume that creative people are certainly no better than the rest of us, and a lot of creatives are a pretty rum lot.
Like the author suggested, I don’t take Hilton seriously…at all, in fact.
The outbursts of the neo social liberals have no credence outside the echo chamber of their useful idiot parrots. They have become boring. The New Statesman is no longer worth reading.
Having a famous person such as JKR to attack is a gift to the ‘progressives’. It easily attracts attention, so helps keep their propaganda in the spotlight. Comments countering it serve their cause in the same way. The ideas these activists promote need to be ruthlessly ridiculed from a different point of view and exposed for what they are, but doing that, as they know, takes a lot of trouble. But let’s not give in to them.
Elevating oneself by denigrating another. It’s a dynamic as old as humanity itself.
Signs of a Narcissistic Injury –
Denial. Denial is usually one of the first signs of narcissistic injury. Someone with NPD will automatically deny what happened (biological science) to cover up shame or embarrassment from being held accountable. Narcissists may lie about accusations when they feel slighted or worry that their behaviour will be outed.
Passive-Aggressive Behaviour Many narcissists respond to emotional injury or perceived slight with passive-aggressive behaviours. For instance, they may seek to cancel speech, or otherwise “misplace” their part of a project (such as being a decent democratic citizen). They often do so to create an image of evil around the viewpoints and opinions of others. The hope is that people will eventually stop questioning their behaviour altogether.
Narcissistic Rage Some narcissists, particularly those resembling malignant narcissists, may react to slights by lashing out in narcissistic rage. This could include bullying, taunting, yelling, intimidation, narcissistic smear campaigns, or other forms of narcissistic abuse. Rage, while viewed as an unhealthy reaction, redirects attention away from one’s behaviour, even if only for a moment.
Devaluation Narcissists engage in behaviours such as devaluation when they experience an injury or encounter criticism. These reactions are commonly known as narcissistic discards, which occur when narcissists cut ties with individuals who have “wronged” them. Narcissists may also belittle inflictors by insulting something about their lives, such as their accomplishments or appearance (TERF!).
Projection Projection occurs when unwanted feelings or emotions are cast onto someone else. For example, narcissists may deflect attention from their behaviour by accusing others of committing the same mistakes. In short, narcissistic projection shifts blame from the narcissist onto their accuser.
Playing the Victim Narcissists believe they are the victims in every situation, and this mindset may stem from a victim mentality or cognitive distortions. Regardless, narcissists expect to be pitied when held accountable for their behaviour or their facade is questioned.
Gaslighting Gaslighting distorts the reality of a situation and makes a person question their memory of an event. Narcissists may use phrases such as, “Men can have babies too” or, “You are denying my right to exist.” Narcissistic gaslighting is generally a defence mechanism employed when narcissists feel their ego is threatened or damaged.
Engaging in a Smear Campaign Making up false accusations and lies about a target is a common result of narcissistic injury. This behaviour is called a narcissistic smear campaign and is done to discredit the target and harm their reputation. Common elements of a smear campaign include labelling the target as mentally ill, or a drug addict, or ‘Britain’s Nastiest Novelist” and trying to harm their position as a parent, employer, writer and member of society.
Making Threats Making threats to harm a person or their reputation, such as saying “suck my tranny c**k” are common phrases narcissists say. These are all elements of verbal abuse and should never be tolerated.
Awareness of these tactics can help prepare you for when they happen so you can best protect yourself from their manipulation.
“Hilton is far from the only “Potterhead” to denounce Rowling over her wholly unremarkable view that women’s rights cannot be defended without a meaningful definition of “woman”.” <– It is the purpose of transphobic bigots to have only a definition of woman which is useful to them, not one medically, factually, or logically meaningful.
Please feel free to elaborate on which of these two definitions is the more ‘medically, factually or logically meaningful’.
Sex realists base their definition of “woman” and “man” in phenomenological reality, using physical evidence perceived through the human sense faculties. Gender ideology, by contrast, is noumenal. Noumena do not exist in the physical world.
If you can tell us what that means, then maybe you could have a shot at “woman”.
Immanuel Kant thought otherwise.
What is a woman, Talia?
I’d rather read the Socialist Workers Party magazine than the Spew Hatesmen.
Always keep in mind that the people who are most vicious and irrationally hysterical in their criticism and attempted cancellation of JK Rowling are the Trans community and their enablers.
These are the same people who want to be able to take their clothes off and perform pretend sex acts in front of your children.
These are the same people, who are attempting to rebrand Peadophiles as ‘Minor Attracted’.
These are the same people who want school libraries to issue books promoting homosexual, trans and peadophile positiuve storylines and cartoon imagary.
For sure, that set of people see Rowling as the problem right?
There is a good chance that Nick Hilton falls into the enabler camp, at least.
You have managed to lie about everything you said there.
You have managed to lie about everything you said there.
He must get really upset when he watches Shetland or Morse. Both massively exagerate the murder rate in their fictionalised settings. It’s almost as if they weren’t documentaries or something.
But isn’t this our Society + our Media combined as I’ve observed it all my life. They/We set someone on a pedestal,sing their praises to the skies,then attack and bring them down. But it’s only really satisfying and fun if they are genuinely talented,generous hearted and admirable. It’s the contemporary form of torturing kittens which is what those people would have been doing in the 18th century.Didnt the word “trans” used to mean “transvestite”. That word was always about in my youth in the 1970s/80s. It meant men who dressed in women’s clothes. They did it in secret as a guilty pleasure (why is putting on clothes of any sort “a pleasure” guilty or otherwise).We were told that we had to accept this and let these tortured individuals end the hell of existential angst they suffered by letting them wear women’s clothes out and about and realise that THEY WERE NOT SEXUALLY THREATENING. Then most of them claimed to want to be Girlies and having bits chopped off or sewn on surgery became a profitable field of medicine. So us lot,having ok accepted all that it was now boring and not erotically exciting enough to raise the flag. Now,in the spirit of “accept this and we’re coming for your children” they moved forward. “Trans” is now I’ve heard just a word in its own right,it’s a label. No,it’s the shortened version of “transgressive” and that’s what it’s always been. Men who flaunt the trans label dress like the most grumpy,ugly women you could imagine. They also smell and are repulsive. They don’t “want to be women” the whole point is to provoke you into an adverse reaction so they can,well maybe get you arrested. And the trans movement is promoting “adult attracted minors” that term to justify why some children love to hang out with dirty old men,as they see it.
I loved the HP books through reading them to my children and then on my own. She creates fantastic characters and storylines. With the Cormoran Strike books most of the characters are unlikeable, except the main ones. It could be the genre, as has been said but there isn’t the nuance that we get with HP, the depth of characterisation and storyline.
I have always admired JK. Her single mother years, her philanthropy, her self-effacing way, and now putting herself on the line to help vulnerable women keep their spaces. Love her!