New Statesman labels Rowling ‘nastiest novelist’
AN article in a Labour-backing magazine labelling JK Rowling as ‘Britain’s nastiest novelist’ has been branded ‘misogynistic’.
The New Statesman piece claims the Harry Potter author has become a ‘liberal pariah’ because of her criticisms of gender-critical views.
But supporters of Ms Rowling, 58, have slammed the article written by podcast producer Nick Hilton, calling it unfounded, sexist and an ‘unhinged rant’.
Ms Rowling has faced a backlash from transgender activists in recent years due to her outspoken defence of women-only spaces and staunch belief in biological sex. Last year, the best-selling author claimed she would rather go to jail than be forced to refer to someone by their self-identified gender.
Originally titled ‘Britain’s nastiest novelist’, the headline of the article on the New Statesman website was later changed to ‘JK Rowling, Britain’s gloriously nasty novelist’.
Mr Hilton – who has now deleted his X account – accused Ms Rowling of being a hypocrite for criticising ‘vicious keyboard warriors’ while engaging in ‘similar behaviour herself’. He described her as ‘brittle, insecure, (and) cruel’ and added she was ‘ taking off a mask – and showing herself in full, nasty glory’.
Philosopher Kathleen Stock told the Mail: ‘ That New Statesman piece on JK Rowling tries to offer a deep reading of an author’s hidden traits, based on textual analysis.
‘In similar vein: author Nick Hilton said he was writing only about the books, but we can all see what his real game was.’
Journalist Hadley Freeman stated: ‘The main complaint in this piece seems to be that Rowling does not write nice ladylike novels about nice ladylike things.’ Mr Hilton – cofounder of Podot, which produced the New Statesman Podcast from 2018 until 2021 – criticised Ricky Gervais in 2022 when he joked about transgenderism in a Netflix show.
A spokesman for the New Statesman said: ‘Our critic wrote a largely positive review of JK Rowling’s Robert Galbraith series of crime novels. Far from expressing misogynistic views, he notes that, sadly, “being celebrated for sheer nastiness is a privilege so often reserved for male authors”. We encourage everyone to read the piece in full.’