Final Paper

 

Rhetorical Analysis of Hogwarts Legacy, Responsibility, and Guilt

                                                                        Introduction

            The upcoming release of the video game 'Hogwarts Legacy', amidst the controversy surrounding author JK Rowling, has brought to light questions about consumer responsibility, guilt, and ethical consumption within the video game industry. While consumers have a responsibility to practice ethical consumption and support ethical practices, personal enjoyment of media products like 'Hogwarts Legacy' is not inherently unethical. This paper argues that consumers should not feel guilty for wanting to enjoy media products, but rather, should approach their consumption decisions with a critical and reflective mindset that considers the social impact of their choices. In approaching their purchases with a critical mindset and understanding the impact of their purchase, the purchase of Hogwarts Legacy cannot make you a bad person. To support this argument, this paper will define and explore concepts such as Consumer Ethics, Ethical Consumption, and Consumer Wants and Needs. Additionally, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's The New Rhetoric will be used to categorize the rhetorical devices and patterns found within arguments supporting the purchase of 'Hogwarts Legacy', while Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs will further define the concepts of Want and Need.

Literature Review

Ethical Consumerism and Consumer Ethics

            In this analysis, Ethical Consumerism and Consumer Ethics will be defined separately. While there is some overlap and related concepts, it is important to differentiate between the two concepts. Consumer Ethics refers to the idea that the products consumers purchase or consume reflect their values and morals. These reflections of morals and values are separated into three basic categories. Sustainable Consumption involves purchasing products that are environmentally sustainable, for instance, products that are made from recycled materials.  Social Aspects involve being aware of the social impact of consumerism. This also includes being knowledgeable of the impact the companies you’re buying from have. As well as being knowledgeable of their practices. Transparency is the act of seeking knowledge about products and companies to make correct and ethical decisions regarding their purchase.

            Ethical Consumerism refers to making conscious decisions regarding purchases that reflect the consumer's values and morals. For a purchase to reflect the values and morals of the consumer, the consumer must have a good understanding of Consumer Ethics, without this understanding, you could not say that the products or companies are reflecting the morals and values of the consumer.

Want, Need, Luxury, and Maslow

            In this analysis, we will define and differentiate between three concepts: Needs, Wants, and Luxury Needs. Needs are basic products necessary for survival, such as food, water, shelter, shoes, and clothes. Wants are products that are desired but not essential for survival. Wants are also specific, specific car, specific shows, specific type of phone. The specification within these types of products is what allows them to be defined as Wants. Luxury Needs refer to products that, while in their simplest form, are necessary for survival, but consumers are willing to pay more for, given that it allows them to gain a certain level of social status, comfort or feeling. For example, water, in its simplest form is free, but luxury forms of water such as Evian or Fiji are not. Shoes also, don’t need to have a brand attached to them for them to be shoes, but the brand attached to certain shoes can give consumers a since of comfort, social status, or feeling.

            Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a well-known theory that outlines the five essential groups of needs that humans must fulfill to survive. These include physiological needs, such as food and clothing. Safety needs, such as stability within employment, healthcare, and living. Love and Belonging needs, such as socialization but specifically friendship, family, and intimacy. Esteem Needs, such as freedom to express, self-esteem and respect. Finally, Self-Actualization needs, which is the need to grow to our full potential. These concepts are understood to be attainable needs that societies and individuals need to survive (Maslow).

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric

            This text explores the concept of argument, according to Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, in a way that “characterizes the differential argument structures.” They claim that argumentation, unlike the dictionary definition, is not to make a point or explain the truth, argumentation aims to gain adherence, or acceptance, from those listening.

            Argumentation, the basic act of reasoning, according to Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca is not simply to prove the truth of what you are trying to state. Truth, in this case, is not based in logic. The goal is to transfer what you’re trying to state through your audience, it’s to persuade your audience to believe what you’re stating. The truth, as it’s defined in law or science, according to Perelman and Olbrrechts-Tyteca has no space within argumentation because argumentation is psychological. Truth, how it is viewed in The New Rhetoric, is the beliefs, values, and opinions of the speaker and what they’re trying to argue. On the other hand, it is also the beliefs, values, and opinions of the audience, and how they’re understanding. Argumentation, as previously defined, is not a space where agreement is missing, and needs to be made or created, because agreement was already made.

            Persuasion, according to The New Rhetoric, occurs when the arguer, rhetor, or speaker, is utilizing the values of the audience. By being able to commit to the audience, through their values and beliefs the audience is willing to commit to the speakers’ values and beliefs. “To engage in argument, a person must attach some importance to gaining the adherence[commitment] of his interlocutor [listener], to securing his assent [approval or agreement], his mental cooperation.” Meaning that if one wants to argue, commitment to the cause or belief must already be present.

            This is defined as ‘The Premises of Argumentation,’ the foundation of that argument. “When a speaker… puts forward the premises that are to serve as foundation for his argument, he relies on his hearers’ adherence to the propositions.” Premises, allow the rhetor the ability to set up the argument and make it important or interesting to the listener. This mainly happens in the declarations of Facts or Truths, Presumptions, and Values.

Premise Modifiers are devices within argumentation, that occur after the premise, to bring attention back to it, or to add more information about it. This can occur when the premise was already accepted or occur when the premise was not accepted, to hopefully cause acceptance. Premises and premise modifiers can also overlap. This occurs in ways that cause the argument to feel a certain way or feel a certain distance to the listener (Presence). This can also occur in ways that leave the argument up for interpretation by the listener (Interpretation) if it was not already stated. We will use the previous example for Premises and add Premise Modifiers to it.

Arguments Based on the Structure of Reality are arguments that can be both or either based in testimony that is backed by expert opinions or witnesses, such as Law and Science, or arguments that are more Philosophical and Psychological. For instance, Quasi-Logical Arguments use devices that can be defined as Mathematical (Transitivity, if A=B and B=C then A=C), Logical (Contradiction, Logical incompatibility of propositions), and Scientific (Material, Explaining a definitional term) in nature. The Based on the Structure of Reality devices are factors where the reality of the argument, makes the devices more or less helpful to the overall argument. This can be the type of opinion and beliefs the listener has about the situation they themselves or the argument is in.

            Establishing the Structure of Reality can come before or after Arguments Based on the Structure of Reality, these devices work in a similar way to how Premise Modifiers do. These are devices that allow you to connect your argument to other, similar arguments or events to solidify your argument even more, by direct example. It also allows you a space to manipulate the argument through, “…generalization … illustration…encourages imitation.” 

Methodology

Method for YouTube

            To collect data for this paper, four YouTube videos were chosen and transcribed. These videos were found by searching “Why I’m buying Hogwarts Legacy” and “Why it’s okay to buy Hogwarts Legacy.” The selection of these videos was based on two factors: the number of subscribers the creator had and how many views the videos received within eight weeks of being posted.

            The reasoning behind these factors is that the number of views a video receives can indicate how widely accepted the arguments made in the video are, while the number of subscribers a creator has can reflect the overall opinions of their following, in accordance with their own. Videos with high view counts likely contain messages and arguments that are widely accepted, while creators with large followings generally have opinions that matter to their followers and are also accepted by them.

            The first YouTube video that was chosen and analyzed was created by Pirate Canvas. Pirate Canva’s video was titled ‘Why It’s Okay to Purchase Hogwarts Legacy as A Harry Potter Fan’. The creator had two thousand, five hundred ten subscribers and one hundred and forty-six views on his YouTube video, at the time of data collection.

            The second video was created by Nivoleth, whose subscriber count was three thousand, three hundred ninety. The view count on his YouTube video was one hundred sixty-seven thousand, nine hundred ninety-four. His video was titled ‘You’re a BAD PERSON if you buy Hogwarts Legacy.”

            The third video was by Jalyn whose subscriber count was three hundred three thousand. The view count on their video was fifty-five thousand, two hundred eighty-five. Their video was titled ‘Are You Transphobic for Playing This Game?’

            The fourth video was created by Ratatoskr whose subscriber count is one hundred four thousand. The view count on his video was fifty-eight thousand, nine hundred fifteen, at the time of data collection. His video was titled ‘Why I’m Buying Hogwarts Legacy.’ Ratatoskr has since deleted this video from his YouTube page, and it is no longer available to view.

Method for Reddit

            The first post on Reddit that appeared after the search of “Will buying Hogwarts Legacy make me a bad person?” was a Reddit post by pixelkid44 on a subreddit, called ‘r/NoStupidQuestions’ The question being asked by the poster was “Would I be a bad person for buying Hogwarts Legacy.” The individual responses that were chosen to analyze were chosen randomly, throughout the thread.

Rhetorical Analysis

YouTube Video Rhetorical Analysis

            All four YouTube videos have been determined to share one Parental Premise, for their different arguments. The Premise for all four of the videos is ‘Facts/Truth’ meaning, that the already agreed upon argument is considered the Truth.

            The main Parental Premise Modifiers, also, across all four YouTube videos are Space, which is defined in The New Rhetoric as making it feel close. The Child Premise Modifier that is present in addition to the Parent is Emotional Space, which is defined as being emotionally close to the heart of the speaker and of the listener. Emotional Closeness can also be identified as the announcement of strong feelings such as, wants, needs, cravings, dreams, and fantasies, as well as the direct opposite of those feelings such as announcements of hate, loathe, disgust, dislike.

Pirate Canvas

            ‘Why It’s Okay to Purchase Hogwarts Legacy as A Harry Potter Fan’ created and posted to YouTube by Pirate Canvas on January 21st of this year. PC starts off his discussion with reasonings of why it’s okay to buy Hogwarts Legacy as a Harry potter fan. He continues by giving a short summary of the game, stating that he’s “…excited about this [Hogwarts Legacy] because he’s been waiting his entire life for this game.” He also states that he’s played every single Harry Potter game but that he has always wanted a Harry Potter game where he can create his own character and do what he wants in Harry Potters World. These quotes are where we see the Child Premise Modifier, Emotional Close.

            He continues and addresses the “people on Twitter who believe you are an awful person if you go out of your way to enjoy this game,” then states that, according to them, “you’re an awful person because you enjoy Harry Potter, because if you enjoy Harry Potter then you are a supporter of JK Rowling and her transphobic comments.” This type of negative movement between actions is a Slippery Slope. Slippery Slope is defined as an action or idea, which can be good or bad, results in something bad. In this case, if you enjoy Harry Potter (good) then your enjoyment will Slippery Slope into supporting JK Rowling and her transphobic comments (bad).

            The next section of his video he talks about his understanding and sympathy for the trans community, starting with, “I can understand where they’re coming from with how they’re being mistreated, with how they go about being trans which is one of the most difficult processes a human being can go through…” He continues to state that transitioning must be “mental gymnastics” and, how he’s “had friends who were trans that got kicked out of their house… been disgraced from their families...” He continues by mentioning helping how he can by, “donating to the Trevor Project,” Which is a suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization for young LGBTQ people. Then mentioning how he’s “let some of them come to my [his] own home and stay…But” he says, “I’m still going to buy Hogwarts Legacy because here’s the thing people, I can separate art from artist.” Which is our next rhetorical device, Parental Severance.

            Severance is defined as act and essence are totally separate, meaning in this case, the act (Art, creation of Harry Potter and the Harry Potter world by JK Rowling) is separate from the essence (The Artist, JK Rowling). He uses this rhetorical device when he says,” I’m not buying this game to support JK Rowling I’m buying this game because I enjoy Harry Potter…”

Nivoleth

            ‘Youre a BAD PERSON if you buy Hogwarts Legacy’ was a video created and posted to YouTube on January 6th of this year by Nivoleth, at the time of data collection had three thousand, three hundred ninety subscribers.The view count on his YouTube video was one hundred sixty-seven thousand, nine hundred ninety-four.

            He starts off with a sarcastic tone as he reinstates the title of his video, to his viewers. He then goes into depth explaining “the basis” of the game, then continues by praising the developers of the game for how they’ve done a “marvelous job.” He uses a Child Structure; Personal Severance to separate the (bad) actions of a person from their essence. He uses this device to call into account that the actors and actresses in Harry Potter do not agree with JK Rowling’s beliefs. Meaning acting in a movie that is bad (because of its creator) does not make those that participated in the movie bad. He uses a loose from of Severance again further into his video by stating “developers of this game have no connection to JK Rowling.” An almost definition example of, Redundancy is present when he states, “boycotting the game will not make JK Rowling any less rich.” He addresses the Child Premise Modifier, Emotional Closeness again, by stating “…people who have dreamed about this game…I always wanted a Harry Potter game.” Which leads to him using the term “separating art from artist,” which is Parental Severance. Then again ending with another address to the Child Premise Modifier, Emotional Closeness, by stating “…live out that Hogwarts fantasy that so many of us have had since we were children.”

Jalyn

            ‘Are You Transphobic For Playing this Game?’ was a video created and posted on YouTube on January 17th by a creator called Jalyn. On the date of data collection Jalyn had three hundred three thousand followers and fifty-five thousand, two hundred eighty-five views on their video.

            Jalyn was the first to address the Slippery Slope, directly, regarding Rowling’s tweets by saying “…due to her [JK Rowling] tweets a lot of people have since come out and said they don’t like Harry Potter anymore and that Harry Potter is bad…” No other video has addressed that the tweets were the direct cause of the controversy behind Rowling and the call for the cancelation of the game. Jalyn uses a new Child Structure, Ideological Severance, which is defined as separating the acts of the artist from the essence (lessons, values) of their art by saying,” Harry Potter was as popular as it is… core story teaches some good values…”

            Jalyn also mentions instances of Severance, separating art from the artist, that are happening on the internet, in response to the release of Hogwarts Legacy. Their statements of “Buy a chocolate bar… made by kids in Africa… iPhone…made in China by workers who are paid two cents an hour… Buy the latest Call of Duty game… turns out Activision is touching women and drinking their breast milk…”

            Prestige Comparison which is defined as comparing something bad to something worse with the intent to make your bad thing seem less bad. By comparing these instances to JK Rowling Jalyn is disconnecting from the point that Rowling has done and said some awful things and trying to focus anger and outrage else elsewhere. They are also bringing light to the idea that, maybe, consumers don’t have as much control over the things they purchase as they thought.

            Negative Redundancy appears when they state that “… this outrage is not really having much effect on the sales of the game…” Referring to boycotting, or not purchasing, the game in the hopes that in doing so negatively contributes to Rowling. Finally, they go on to talk about Direction, a Parent Structure, defined as doing B(good) will slippery slope to D(bad), when she stays that “...this outrage [Good] is kind of having the opposite effect as its bringing more attention to the game… there are some people buying this game because they want to make people mad [Bad]… don’t like trans people [Bad]…”

Ratatoskr

            ‘Why I’m buying Hogwarts Legacy’ was a video created and posted to YouTube by Ratatoskr on January 9th. At the time of data collection, the creator had one hundred four thousand subscribers. The views his video had were fifty-eight thousand, nine hundred fifteen. The creator of this video has since removed it from public view, and it is no longer available to view as of May 1st.

            Ratatoskr starts off his video by stating that he does not like Harry Potter, and that he has never liked Harry Potter. He preferred Lord of the Rings over Harry Potter as a kid. He came around in his teenage years, reading the Harry Potter books and watching the movies. His point in this video is that, although he wasn’t a big fan of Harry Potter, he was a huge fan of magic, especially a fan of the idea of a magic academy. He states that, this sole concept, is the reason that he will be buying Hogwarts Legacy.

            He uses Emotional Closeness to describe his feelings towards himself and others wanting a game, like this, “…every human secretly craves the magic academy experience…” He continues on this discussion surrounding the human craving for magic academy experiences, coming to a point where he recognizes that there have been other videogames with magic academy themes and storylines but uses Emotional Closeness to distance himself and others from those games, “…lots of video games have magic academies but they’re usually at a distance…’ Meaning that, although there are games that hit this type of ‘magic academy’ criteria, the games are normally not enough to fit that criteria perfectly. He continues by stating that “… I don’t think there’s a comparable experience out there, I don’t think there’s any video game that has a good magic academy…” Implying that, Hogwarts Legacy would give him the experience he wanted, the experience he “craves.” He ends by stating he’s buying the game because,” …this looks like the closest I’ve ever seen to the concept in my brain, it looks the more refined…”

            Based on the structure of the arguments in this video, it did not contribute to the further exploration of the concepts defined in the New Rhetoric, nor did the structure of the argument help persuade listeners of his argument. The video does, however, give us examples of Wants, Needs in regard to consumption.

YouTube Analysis Findings

            The rhetorical structures present were used to support and persuade listeners of the speakers’ argument. All four videos had an agreed upon Premise defined as Fact/Truth, meaning that the argument, the agreed upon reality that you’re not a bad person if you purchase Hogwarts Legacy, was agreed upon by both the speaker and the listener. In addition to that, all videos had the Premise Modifier of Emotional Space, meaning that the purchase of Hogwarts Legacy, was close to both the speaker and the listener. This could be for reasons of personal connection and enjoyment of Harry Potter. This could also be the craving and the need for fantasy that the magic-filled world of Harry Potter could give you. Either way, the purchase of Hogwarts Legacy would satisfy a need.

            Within the first three videos six total instances of Severance appeared. Two of which were Child Structures, Personal and Ideological Severance. These devices were used to separate certain aspects of the videogame, Hogwarts Legacy, from certain aspects of the creator, JK Rowling. This was done to defend and argue that buying the game would not make you a bad person by the of the act of separation. Separating Hogwarts Legacy from the creator of its concepts, JK Rowling, allowed consumers to ignore the assumed responsibility of the beliefs of JK Rowling as well as the support of her. Through separating her concepts and her creations from her belief’s consumers were able to avoid this idea of responsibility, therefore avoiding guilt. Through this type of argumentation, one could purchase Hogwarts Legacy without feeling bad, or guilty because JK Rowling was no longer connected to it.

            Slippery Slope was mentioned three times in this analysis. Slippery Slope is defined as a good or bad action that inevitably leads to or creates a bad ending. One Slippery Slope addressed the slope from Rowling’s transphobic tweets to the cancelation and boycott Hogwarts Legacy. The other two slopes addressed the purchase of Hogwarts Legacy and how the purchaser of it would be considered bad if they did so. Those two instances were not said in a statement of fact, or cause but in a statement of description. All three instances were used to describe how specific actions turned into something bad, over time.

            In the final video analyzed, the rhetorical devices present were Fact/Truth Premises and Child Premise Modifiers such as Emotional Closeness. The speaker took a very personal and close approach to their argument using Emotion Closeness, as their main, and only, relation to their argument. The reason they did this was because the video was made in justification for their own purchase. They were not trying to persuade an audience to adhere to their argument they were only discussing their reasoning behind their purchase. They did, however, touch on many things such as Need and Want regarding the purchase of Hogwarts Legacy. Which allows us to explore Want, Need and Luxury Needs as defined previously in this analysis alongside Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. This will be done to explore why the conversations surrounding the purchase of Hogwarts Legacy, in this instance, were based solely on Want and Need.

            We know that humans need certain products and access to those products to survive, things like oxygen, water, and food. One could also argue that humans also need things that reduce stress, find a way to be creative, and connect with others to also survive. This is where the concept of Luxury Need comes in. Entertainment and social connection as basic forms are things humans have every day. Social connections are needed for humans to survive because humans are inherently social creatures (Young, 2008); we know this because studies have been done on this as well as similar aspects to our social needs. By calling the idea of video game purchasing a Luxury Need we are connecting the idea that humans need social interaction, entertainment, stress reduction and creativity to the idea that videogames, as a source of entertainment and social connection, are needed for human survival.

            Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has similar ideas. His hierarchy states that humans have five groups of needs. Physiological needs, such as food and clothing. Safety needs, such as reliable employment, health care and property. Love and Belonging needs, such as intimacy, friendship, and family. Esteem, respect, self-esteem, and freedom. And finally, Self-Actualization needs which is the ability to grow as a person. These are all needed for survival.

            Love and belonging, the need for intimacy, social connection, and family as well as Esteem, specifically a sense of freedom are things we, as consumers and humans, gain through purchasing Luxury Needs. Purchasing basic needs, for instance, clothing or food, covers our Physiological needs. Being able to purchase those physiological needs without fear covers our Safety Needs. Purchasing products that satisfy our Physiological needs but also our Belonging and Esteem needs gives us positive recognition from society and from our peers, it also makes us feel better.

Reddit Rhetorical Analysis

            The original posted question of “Would I be a bad person for buying Hogwarts Legacy?” by user pixelkid44 was posted on a Subreddit called/rNoStupidQuestions and was accessed on March 21st, 2023. The intent of this Subreddit is to be a resource for people who have unanswered questions or need advice.

            The Premise of all responding posters’ argument is Fact/Truth. The overall Premise Modifier of these responses is Interpretation, which is further defined as Specific Choice, choosing between alternatives. The reasoning behind this will be addressed in the findings of this analysis.

Original Post, pixelkid44

“Would I be a bad person for buying Hogwarts legacy?

I dont like jk rowling , I dont agree with her stances politically. But I started reading harry potter when I was 8 , I've always wanted to be at Hogwarts and be a student and this game may be a chance at that. If i buy it though I will have to explain it to my friends as they could see it on their friend lists on every console I could play it on. Would it be that bad of me to buy this game even though o don't support the creator”

Response #1, Isabella-The-Fox, poster has since deleted their account.

“Nah, not rlly. I don't like her stances either, but if someone likes the games and movies, than they should just enjoy them. If you care though could always look for a pirated version, but it's not like paying the ~60ish dollars that she only gets a percent of, makes a big difference to her. She will still have a lot of money whether you buy it or not. It's like being vegan to save the environment. I could do it, but unless I know others are going to too than I'm not going to do it, because my small contribution won't matter (Except in this case being vegan is pirating the game.)”

            The first present structure, Avoidant Outcome Stages, is a further defined device from Stages, If A -> D seems hard, let’s do B and see if things look different then. Avoidant Outcome Stages is the avoidance of D, completely, through B. For example, A (buying Hogwarts Legacy) -> D (Supports JK Rowling) then B (Pirating the game) would avoid D (Supporting JK Rowling).

            The second structure is Negative Redundancy, the idea that an action or non-action results in their not being an effect because of it. This is seen in the text as, “I could do it, but unless I know others are going to too than I'm not going to do it, because my small contribution won't matter.” The way Negative Redundancy is present in this argument works alongside the idea of propagation, or popularization, to persuade the readers that their support (or lack of) won’t contribute because there’s not enough people involved.

Response #2, Eagle_Pancake

“I've had my own internal struggle about buying this game. I pre-ordered it last night though. I figured that Rowling is getting paid whether I buy the game or not. I shouldn't let her shittiness ruin my hobbies.”

            The rhetorical structure present is Negative Redundancy. This is evident by the posters choice to purchase Hogwarts Legacy, because Rowling is getting paid regardless of if they purchase it or not.

Response #3, SkinHugger55

“No. Absolutely not. You buy what you want, regardless of what people have done. I dont support what shes done either, but ill be damned if someone tries to tell me not to buy Hogwarts Legacy. Iv had this game pre-ordered as soon as i could throw my money at them.

You dont need to explain anything other than "i desperately NEED this game.". Its so annoying how people think that buying something means you support whatever bad decisions the creator has done. Thats not true at all.

Like how Nick Carter is being accused of rape. Should we all just instantly stop listening to his music? It doesnt mean we support him raping someone. It just means we like that song. Thats it. Nothing more, nothing less.”

            Emotional Closeness is present through the “desperate need” for the game. The poster addresses Slippery Slope, the idea that doing something, whether good or bad, causes a bad outcome. In this case it’s the Slipper Slope of purchasing Hogwarts Legacy resulting in the buyer, “supporting the bad decisions of the creator.” The poster then goes on to use Child Structure, Prestige Comparison. Prestige is defined as the quality of a person known by their actions; this can be positive or negative qualities and actions. Prestige Comparison is defined also as the quality of a person known by their actions, but is extended to, the quality of Person A(bad) compared to the quality of Person B (really bad) to make Person A look less bad.

            Prestige Comparison normally occurs with the intent to rally support behind Person A, the less bad individual in the comparison. It also occurs to justify further support of someone. In this case, the comparison of JK Rowling being transphobic to Nick Carter being a rapist, is being made. The poster states, “Should we all just stop listening to his [Nick Carter] music?” by doing this they’re saying that if supporting him is acceptable, even though he raped someone, supporting Rowling should be acceptable too.

Response #4, [deleted]

“Doesn’t mater, J.K. Rowling got her money and ip already. Boycotting one of her many licenses ip products isn’t going to hurt her. She’s got that fuck you money.”

            The present structure here is Negative Redundancy. This is defined in this post as, “Boycotting one of her many licenses ip [intellectual property] products isn’t going to hurt her.”

Response #5, SilverLantern2814

“…Now, this under no circumstances justifies what she said - buuuuuttttt she's already one of the richest women in the world and at one point WAS (maybe still is, IDK) what ever small royalties she's gonna make off this game are nothing comparativly.

Whether or not they're public about it/have been outed for it, or not - I guarantee every massively successful franchise, movie, music artist, TV show... Really entertainment of any form... And even beyond that - every corporation, Has a bigot (or 2, or several) with there hand in the pot... Unfortunately.... The only thing we can do is teach the next generation to do better.

Im just trying to let OP know, no - it does not in fact make them a bad person if they do buy the game. And if OP happens to read this far in there comments, I would let OP know, you can always just wait for a used copy at GameStop so they are the sole profiteers of your dollars, and JKR won't get a penny of your money

Honestly, I think that game is going to suck anyway and Id suggest somthing more like Elder Scrolls or Elden Ring - or one of the dozens of other quality fantasy games where you can play as a wizard.”

            The first structure present is Negative Redundancy, and again is defined by there being no effect that occurs based on the actions of those buying or boycotting the game, “…she's [Rowling] already one of the richest women in the world… what ever small royalties she's gonna make off this game are nothing comparativly.”

            The second structure is Prestige Comparison, specifically  “every massively successful franchise, movie, music artist, TV show…every corporation, Has a bigot...with their hand in the pot.” In this case the poster compares Rowling to every and all of these groups that may or currently have someone bad, like a bigot, working within them.

            The third and fourth structures are both Avoidant Outcome Stages, the first instance is avoidance of supporting JK Rowling by “waiting for a for a used copy at GameStop…JKR wont get a penny of your[their] money.” The second is “[play] something more like Elder Scrolls or Elden Ring… where you can play as a wizard.”

Response #6, SilverLantern2814

“…Its called "separating the art from the artist" - for example, I was raised on Cosby Show and Roseanne re-reruns, What Cosby did was awful, what Roseanne said was stupid, but I'm not going to suddenly think the shows weren't funny or abandon my fond memories of watching them on Nick at Night as a child. House of Cards is a masterpiece of political drama - and was one of Netflix's early MASSIVE hits as far as orginal programing, American Beauty and The Usual Suspects are still classic films - Kevin Spacey, did some fucked up shit (allegedly)

…And guess what, Im still gonna watch Rick and Morty...Harry Potter, while not exactly a literary 'masterwork', set a new bar and essentially defined the modern young adult genre of books and honestly made life long readers out of kids who may have otherwise never picked up a book. HP also certainly defined the path for YA series to get film adaptations…

…JKR is an ignorant bigot. Granted. But she invented somthing much bigger than herself that has taken on a life of its own. You have every right to enjoy whatever art and stories you want to. You just need to find people who are a little bit more open-minded to hang with. If it helps JKR, had absolutely nothing to do with the game.”

            The first rhetorical structure present is Severance, which is act and essence are separate and present here through the act of “separating the art from the artist.” The next structure is Prestige Comparison. The comparison of, “What Cosby did was awful, what Roseanne said was stupid…Kevin Spacey, did some fucked up shit (allegedly)” In this case is again, to draw attention to worse people than Rowling, that still have support.

            The final structure is Prestige. “…Harry Potter, while not exactly a literary 'masterwork', set a new bar and essentially defined the modern young adult genre...” is used to defend Rowling even though “…JKR is an ignorant bigot. Granted. But she invented somthing much bigger than herself that has taken on a life of its own.”

            The way this argument was structured was interesting, there was the idea that you can separate the art [Harry Potter] from the artist [Rowling] but then there was praise to the artist because she “defined the modern young adult genre.” This brings into question the relationship between the separation of art and artist and will be addressed in the conclusion of this analysis.

Response #7, CanyonCyote

“…David Zaslav is a hardcore Republican so basically everything under the WB umbrella has a similar tint.

Walt Disney was a hardcore racist so ditto

It’s fine to avoid something you like for your principles but when it comes to bigger entities it’s just sort of impossible like WB or Disney.

Probably also worth noting while Rowling is transphobic, she is not racist or sexist so far as we know. Her story is mostly about welcoming every different race and being against Nazis so you are ok.”

            Prestige Comparison is present in three ways here, first it is the comparison of Rowling to David Zaslav a hardcore Republican. Then to Walt Disney being a “hardcore racist” and finally that Rowling is not a Nazi. Which are all worse things than being a transphobe, according to the poster, thus you can still buy the game, because you wouldn’t be supporting a Republican, or a racist. “…she[Rowling] is not racist or sexist so far as we know. Her story is mostly about welcoming every different race and being against Nazis, so you are ok.”

Response #8, SilverLantern2814

“Just had a thought, if you feel thaaaaaaat weird about it JUST WAIT FOR A USED COPY AT GAMESTOP that way JKR wont get one penny of your money.”

            Avoidant Outcome Stages is defined as avoiding D entirely, through B. For example, A (Purchasing Hogwarts Legacy) leads to D (Supporting Rowling) then B (Buy a used copy) would avoid D (Supporting Rowling).

Response #9, Sarded

“Why not just pirate it? That way it won't be associated with your online accounts.”

            Avoidant Outcome Stages is a further defined device from Stages, If A -> D(bad) then let’s try B and see if things are different. Avoidant Outcome Stages is the avoidance of D, completely, through B. In this case, A (buying Hogwarts Legacy) -> D (Being judged by friends) then B (Pirating the game) would avoid D (being judged), because the game would not show up on the original posters accounts or profiles.

Response #10, Touchthefuckingfrog

“Buy what you want to buy. For some people Hogwarts was an integral escape from misery that they disappeared into. Rowling doesn’t get to take that away. If it makes you happy then go for it because life is way too short.”

            This argument uses Premises, specifically the Parent Premise Close, defined further into the Child Premise, Emotional Close, which is defined as being close to the heart, “some people Hogwarts was an integral escape from misery that they disappeared into.” This alludes to the idea that Hogwarts gave people an escape at one point, made them happy, and happiness isn’t something to not have because, “life is way too short.” This was done in support of the argument that buying the game would not make you a bad person.

This relates to Wants, Needs, and Luxury Needs, which will be explored further in this analysis.

Response #11, hoodoo_voodude

“I’m not saying no - but I’m also not saying yes. The only information I want to give you is that she has stated multiple times that she sees the support for the game and the money people give her by buying the game as them agreeing with her stance on trans people & proves that she’s doing the right thing. I hope that helps.”

            Two Slippery Slopes regarding the effect of purchasing the game, both on Rowling herself as well as her beliefs.

Supporting Hogwarts Legacy-> Supports Rowling

Money received Hogwarts Legacy sales-> Agreement to Rowling’s transphobic beliefs-> Encourages Rowling to continue being transphobic

Reddit Analysis Findings

            The Premise of the statement ‘you’re not a bad person if you buy Hogwarts Legacy’ is Fact/Truth, meaning all arguments made in support or opposition of that statement would be considered factual and truthful by not only those writing them but also those reading them. The Premise Modifier, the device used to draw attention back to the Premise, is Interpretation, specifically Specific Choice, choosing between alternatives. This means that if someone did not agree with the statement, of ‘you’re not a bad person if you buy Hogwarts Legacy’ that is Premised by Fact/Truth, that they would only have two options, following the rejection of the statement. Those two options would be being a bad person or not being a bad person. Not being a bad person does not mean being a good person.

            Across all Reddit responses, there were four total instances of Avoidant Outcome Stages, which is a Child Structure further defined from Stages, If A to D is hard then let’s try B and maybe things will be different. Avoidant Outcome Stages is defined as the avoidance of D(bad), completely, through B. Within the Reddit posts, this structure was only present to avoid the process behind avoiding support for Rowling. For instance, If A (buying Hogwarts Legacy) leads to D (Supporting Rowling) then trying B (Pirating the game, or purchasing it used) allows us to avoid D (Supporting Rowling). The only variable that changed was B (pirating, buying used).

            There were four instances of Negative Redundancy, which is the Child Structure to Redundancy. Negative Redundancy is defined, still, as action or non-action being followed by a lack of effect. These structures were present in the discussions that addressed Rowling receiving money. For example, “Rowling is getting paid whether I buy the game or not.” All four instances were used to encourage the purchase of Hogwarts Legacy, under the pretense that in doing so, or not, would not affect the amount of money Rowling received, or that Rowling already had.

            The two instances where Premises were used to defend the interest, purchase, and enjoyment of Hogwarts Legacy were both defined as Emotional Closeness. However, one existence of Emotional Closeness also addressed Wants, Needs, and Luxury Needs. This poster stated, “For some people Hogwarts was an integral escape from misery that they disappeared into.” This adds to the idea that humans don’t only have basic needs, such as water, food, clothing, and shelter. They also have basic emotional and psychological needs. The argument in this conclusion is that humans need access to Luxury Needs because they would satisfy Love and Belonging needs, such as intimacy, friendship, family and Esteem Needs, respect, self-esteem, and freedom. The need for survival surrounding these ideas explain why in many instances where the Premise Closeness was present that this Premise had an emotional factor. The relationship between Hogwarts and its readers, according to Response #10, is that Hogwarts was an “integral escape from misery.” Without this escape, this satisfaction of Esteem and Belonging survival wouldn’t be possible.

            Slippery Slope was mentioned four times within these posts and in all instances indicated the Slope that started from a purchase of Hogwarts Legacy and ended in the support of JK Rowling. The slope was not indicated to be a bad thing by the posters, but it was recognized that it could be a bad thing. Especially, when Rowling has announced that she considers support for the game, as support for her as well as her beliefs about trans people.

            Prestige Comparison, previously, was used only to compare other people to JK Rowling and the discussions and comment following those comparisons did not indicate that the comparison was being made to justify support for Rowling or to gain further support for Rowling. The discussions following the four instances of Prestige Comparison in this section, however, indicate that those comparisons were made to gain further support for Rowling. Through comparing Rowling in, Response 3, to Nick Carter, a rapist, then following with, “Should we all just instantly stop listening to his music?” creates this understood idea that ‘if worse people are still supported, we can support JK Rowling because she’s not as bad.’

            Severance, the separation from art and artist, was present once in this portion of the analysis but the questions this specific instance raised need to be explored and defined. Response #6 used Severance, Prestige Comparison, then Prestige to argue that even though Rowling is bad, she did some amazing things. Severance was used to indicate that the poster had separated the art from artist, in relation to JK Rowling and the creation of Hogwarts Legacy. They then followed with Prestige Comparison, comparing Rowling to Bill Cosby or Kevin Spacey. Then Finally, used Prestige to praise the effects of JK Rowling’s’ work, stating that Rowling had,” set a new bar and essentially defined the modern young adult genre of books…” and that Rowling,” invented something much bigger than herself that has taken on a life of its own.”

            Severance, which is used to separate the art from its creator, is normally done so with the understanding that the artist did something wrong, in the eyes of society. If severance was being used on Rowling but then being followed up by Prestige and the celebration and praise of her accomplishments as a writer brings to light the question of, at what point does separating the art from the artist not apply anymore? And are separations of art and artist only done when the artist has acted in a way that is not accepted by society resulting in the cancelation of the artist? If so, why was this poster able to praise Rowling?

            Separating art from artist removes the essence, beliefs, and attachment of the art to that artist, and it is normally done in situations where the art of someone is accepted but the creator and their beliefs are no longer accepted. At what point, how bad, or negative, or wrong does an artist and their beliefs have to be for severance to stick? At what point do the things an artist does that result in severance become wrong enough to cause the creator to become unrecognizable or unmentionable? These are questions that could be explored further in future research.

Conclusion

            This analysis revealed that there are many ways to look at consumer responsibility and consumer guilt, regarding the purchase of Hogwarts Legacy. The rhetorical devices that were defined in this essay allowed us to look deeper into the relationship consumers have with want, need and guilt. In doing so we concluded that a product, when used as a basic tool to satisfy needs, could not be unethical. For a product to be unethical, the practices in which that product was made, and in which it was purchased would also have to be unethical. Hogwarts Legacy, as its own entity, was not created or purchased with malice, in any of the cases in this paper. Hogwarts Legacy was purchased because it satisfied the needs of the consumers whether that be a craving or desire, a Love and Belonging need, or an Esteem need the purchase and play of Hogwarts Legacy was able to satisfy those unsatisfied needs. Hogwarts Legacy was purchased, according to this analysis, with the intent to satisfy, not with the intent to harm. Which means that Hogwarts Legacy is an ethical product, but this also means that Hogwarts Legacy is a Luxury Need. A need that can only be satisfied by appealing to basic needs through products that give us a since of belonging, purpose, or connection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citations

@JadynIsHere. (2023, January 17). Are you transphobic for playing this game? YouTube. Retrieved March 21, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLEN8NWzbqM&t=10s

@Nivoleth. (2023, January 6). You're a bad person if you buy Hogwarts legacy. YouTube. Retrieved March 21, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Feltdy055Hk&t=5s

@PirateCanvas. (2023, January 21). Why it's okay to purchase Hogwarts legacy as a harry potter fan. YouTube. Retrieved March 21, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nnX7TlxpHM&t=198s

@ratatoskr6324. (2023, January 9). Why I'm Buying Hogwarts Legacy. YouTube. Retrieved March 21, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/@ratatoskr6324

CBC/Radio Canada. (2023, February 25). Hogwarts legacy lacks magic - and Rowling's views have tainted series, says critic | CBC Radio. CBCnews. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/hogwarts-legacy-boycott-critic-1.6759702#:~:text=from%20J.K.%20Rowling%3F-,Many%20Harry%20Potter%20fans%20around%20the%20world%20eagerly%20awaited%20the,as%20Rowling's%20anti%2Dtrans%20views.

Ethical Consumerism. The Concise Encyclopedia of Business Ethics. (2018, April 25). Retrieved from https://conciseencyclopedia.org/entries/ethical-consumerism/

Irwin, J. (2015, January 12). Ethical Consumerism Isn't Dead, It Just Needs Better Marketing. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/01/ethical-consumerism-isnt-dead-it-just-needs-better-marketing

Mcleod, S. (2023, March 21). Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs . Simply Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

Nolan, E. (2020, September 16). J.K. Rowling book burning videos are spreading like wildfire across TikTok. Newsweek. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/jk-rowling-books-burned-tiktok-transgender-issues-1532330

u/pixelkid44. (31AD). Would I be a bad person for buying Hogwarts legacy? Reddit. Retrieved March 21, 2023, from https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/10pvy31/would_i_be_a_bad_person_for_buying_hogwarts_legacy/

Vrooman, S. S. (2013, September). Perelman’s Rhetoric of Argument. Retrieved January 23, 2023, from http://faculty.tlu.edu/svrooman/perelman.htm

Young, S. N. (2008, September). The neurobiology of human social behaviour: An important but neglected topic. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527715/