New Statesman article written by Nick Hilton has recently described bestselling author JK Rowling as “Britain’s Nastiest Novelist”. While Rowling is most famous for penning the Harry Potter series, the article largely focuses on Rowling’s work under her pen name Robert Galbraith in the Cormoran Strike crime series. He argues that ever since she has become outspoken with her views on transgender women in particular, “the nastiness of her fiction [...] has bubbled up to the surface like lava.”
Hilton describes the setting of Galbraith’s Britain as “a landscape populated by paedophiles and domestic abusers, rapists and farright terrorists”, who often don’t turn out to be the murderers in the novel. Hilton also suggests that while Rowling condemns the tabloid media and keyboard warriors in the series, she engages in similar reactionary behaviour online. He asserts: “In another world, JK Rowling could be a character in a book by Robert Galbraith: brittle, insecure, cruel.”
The essay generated so much controversy online that the headline was changed, within hours, from “Britain’s Nastiest Novelist” to “Britain’s Gloriously Nasty Novelist,” and the writer has deactivated his account on X. In particular, Hilton has been accused of misogyny. Users on Mumsnet have objected with the use of the word “nasty”, arguing that this would not be used about a man in this context. Journalist Hadley Freeman also commented on Hilton’s essay on X, stating: “The main complaint in this piece seems to be that Rowling does not write nice ladylike novels about nice ladylike things.”
The New Statesman’s piece purports to have dubbed Rowling as “Britain’s nastiest novelist” due to the content of her crime series, with Hilton sharing his essay on X (while he was still active) with the caption “I’m only interested in the books...” Her supporters, however, have taken this article as an attack on Rowling for her gendercritical feminism. For a number of years, Rowling has been called transphobic and faced calls to apologise, including from Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe, for her comments on gender identity and whether trans women should be allowed into women-only spaces.
Many writers and commentators who agree with Rowling’s previous comments on gender have come to her defence. For example, Brendan O’Neill, Chief Political Writer at Spiked, has said that it is not Rowling’s “temerity to write about dark things” that is the issue: “Her sin is to know biology.” A common criticism Rowling faces is that she is a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), which O’Neill describes as “PC-speak for witch.”
This in turn has created a discusson about whether it is possible to separate the art from the artist. This issue is becoming an increasingly common debate with social media and its easy access to information making it easier to learn about the vices of our favourite writers, actors, and musicians. O’Neill accuses Hilton of attacking Rowling for her personal views “under the cover of literary critique.”
JK Rowling seems unlikely to back down on her views, and has even gone as far as to say that she would happily spend time in prison rather than be silenced for her views. Therefore, it is likely that arguments about the morality, and perhaps ‘nastiness’ of her fiction will continue to emerge.