It's fine to want nothing to do with Harry Potter now that JKR is being regularly and publicly terrible (I'm listing that way myself even though I don't want to because the association is just overpoweringly distasteful), but seeing the shift in how people discuss HP on this website to be like, "It seems obvious to me that this franchise was always poorly constructed, derivative drek littered with red flags anybody would notice with a cursory glance - there's absolutely nothing genuinely appealing about it." ...That's just very funny, sorry. Like yes that is unfortunately not how the relationship between a person's moral character and their skills works, but mostly I was alive and had a developed consciousness between 2000 and 2008, so I cannot take this seriously. It wasn't the biggest literature phenomenon of recent times because it had a uniquely strong marketing strategy, guys.
The books are well written with engaging characters, great worldbuilding, and a story that captured people like no other. There is literally no overestimating the phenom the books were. And no the movies did not make it. They were MASSIVE even before the films. Before the films even came out, the NYT made a separate children's bestseller list because a ton of people complained that 'kid's books' were taking up too many sports on the NYT bestsellers lists. It's honestly ridiculous to argue that HP's popularity was made by the movies. Come on.
And the thing about red flags, is that most things that are legitimately problematic in the books are fantasy staples. JKR didn't invent the anti-semitic portrayal of goblins. It's an old as hell trope that's in countless fantasy stories. The house elves were based on Brownie folklore, even down to the tradition of their freedom coming from a piece of clothing being given to them. People were not talking a lot about the casual transphobia in doing things like describing Rita Skeeter's hands as 'mannish' because casual transphobia was so ubiquitous that it was the norm, and that transphobia was often actively violent. I just don't think it crossed many people's minds that 'wow JKR described Rita Skeeter's hands as mannish once in the year 2000, so I think she's probably a T*RF.' And this doesn't make it okay, and it doesn't mean these aspects of the books aren't problematic! But it does mean that like, no it wasn't 'so obvious' even to MANY progressive minded people. And I also don't think it makes her a terrible person. What makes her a terrible person is what she's doing NOW.
The idea that they've 'always been awful' and we 'should have known' is really and actually just... kind of cowardly? Instead of acknowledging that unfortunately yes, bad people can make good things, people are taking the easy way out and going 'well obviously a bad person makes bad art. it's ALWAYS been bad, and my brain is so huge I know this', because god forbid we have a more nuanced view and don't see the world in the most simplistic terms possible. It sucks when bad people make good art, but you're not special for not ever liking Harry Potter.