She's in WHAT?!

(Warning: the following contains heavy and uncomfortable subject matter. Please read at your own risk.)

I’ve broken my promise to not discuss JK Rowling again several times. It’s not deliberate, but she somehow shoots her credibility in the foot constantly. It doesn’t help that people close to me have said they think the controversy surrounding her is unfounded. If I can’t convince them of her transphobia, then I wonder if I ever will. Especially since the HBO reboot of the Harry Potter series is still happening, with several high-profile actors excusing Rowling because they’re in it. I really don’t know what else to say.

Fortunately, life has presented an opportunity to criticize her again. This one’s worse than all her rhetoric, as it’s been in the news nonstop: JK Rowling’s mentioned in the Epstein files. You know, the ones about pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s friends and colleagues? The ones implicating many wealthy and famous individuals? Those files?

Now, being mentioned in Epstein’s files doesn’t automatically make you an offender. As Jon Stewart pointed out The Daily Show, he’s referenced briefly as a possible comedian to play a character Epstein wanted for a movie. Epstein also had many aspirational individuals in his records, as evidenced by his flight logs. What should be alarming, however, is how Rowling comes up in two instances. Brace yourselves.

The first goes back to the year 2000. Rowling, in the peak of her Harry Potter success, gives a glowing review of Lolita, a novel about an aristocrat romancing and sexually extorting a 12 year-old girl. It’s meant as a cautionary tale about pedophilia and sex slavery, but Rowling, who’s nameless, celebrates it as a “powerful tale of romance”. If you don’t believe me, read her words yourself. She’s quite descriptive.

This is upsetting. Ignoring how Lolita would inspire a sub-genre of pornography, or how Stanley Kubrick’s film adaptation aged up the girl to sand off the “icky” parts, it’s obvious that the reader isn’t meant to endorse the relationship. Even in 1955, when Vladimir Nabokov wrote it, this sort of romance was uncomfortable. And Nabokov was commenting on how aristocrats use influence to extort children. This is something that was lost to Rowling, which reflects poorly on her.

But maybe there’s an argument to be made that this isn’t Rowling. The author isn’t mentioned by name, so there’s some plausible deniability here. However, the second reference to Rowling is more recent. Occurring in 2018, as Epstein’s crimes were being made public, Rowling’s team contacted Epstein to see a showing of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child on Broadway as it premiered. The unofficial sequel to the Harry Potter series, this play, about Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy’s children, was starting to take off at this time. According to the exchange, Rowling’s team tried inviting Epstein.

This is much more damning evidence against Rowling, made worse by her going radio silent for several days before denying all wrongdoing. I get that she must’ve been caught off-guard, as well as that she was probably coached by legal counsel to wait, but this is damning in its own right. Because, like I said, Epstein’s crimes weren’t a secret in 2018. What gives?

Actually, I know what gives. This is JK Rowling using her fame to court a successful financier. Except this is Jeffrey Epstein we’re talking about. Rowling could’ve solicited a dozen other people, but she chose Epstein. And given Epstein’s reputation, that’s troubling.

But it speaks to how dishonest Rowling is in general. She released a picture of her smoking a cigar and drinking champagne after Scotland’s Supreme Court ruled against gender-affirming care. She also got into trouble after claiming an Algerian athlete was a man in 2024, even though being trans is illegal there. Rowling’s no stranger to controversy, so why not be on Epstein’s list too? Is that such a stretch?

I’m frustrated by this. Rowling’s not the only author I respected to shoot her credibility in the foot; Neil Gaiman has sexual assault baggage spanning decades. But Rowling hurts specifically because she’s made a profound impact on millions of youth, and she has influence politically. She also has major control over the IP rights to Harry Potter, which is a beloved series. To be associated with Jeffrey Epstein is upsetting and dangerous, and I wish people recognized that.

I know that many famous authors have questionable political and personal lives. The late-Roald Dahl was an avowed Antisemite, and England refused to honour him after his death. Neil Gaiman, who I respected for decades, has sexual assault allegations. Alice Walker, author of The Colour of Purple, is also an Antisemite, having made frequent statements. However, Rowling surpasses them in stature and influence, so this is a frustrating series of revelations on top of already preexisting ones.

Does this mean Rowling’s a hack? No. Despite all the re-evaluations of her work, I do think she initially earned her reputation fairly. But this doesn’t mean she hasn’t been pissing away her goodwill lately. Her ties to Epstein are another example, and it’s high-time people stopped putting her on an untouchable pedestal. At least, for now. We can reassess everything after her passing.